Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Cancer conspiracy speculation: It goes way beyond Hugo Chavez

Was Hugo Chavez poisoned? Because his death occurred quite recently, we don't yet have anything like a full-fledged theory. Consider this post a preliminary data-dump featuring fact and speculation, and it's up to you to determine which is which. Here's what we have so far:

Venezuelan Vice President Nicolás Maduro has claimed that American secret agents have succeeded in a plot to murder the South American president. Fox, surprisingly, gives this story relatively straightforward coverage.
The vice president compared Chávez’s cancer to that of the former Palestinian Liberation Organization’s leader Yasser Arafat.

“We have no doubt that Commandant Chávez was attacked with this illness, we have not a single doubt,” Maduro said. “The established enemies of our land specifically tried to harm the health of our leader.”

Maduro said he will order the creation of a “scientific commission” to look at this alleged conspiracy that Chávez was sickened through medical means.

“We already have leads, which will be further explored with a scientific investigation,” Maduro said.

Arafat died in 2004, less than a month after coming down with “flu-like” symptoms. Conspiracy theorists and some Palestinian leaders suggest that Arafat was poisoned medically by Israeli operatives.
Maduro has already expelled two U.S. diplomats whom he apparently considers linked to this alleged plot.

Global Research compares the death of Chavez -- he was 58 -- to the attempted poisoning assassination of Fidel Castro as well as the speculation surrounding Arafat, whose personal effects were found to contain polonium-210.

The ANSWER coalition has filed an FOIA request to the CIA asking for more information on the death of Chavez. I don't expect much to come from that request, but it's worth a try.

That said, the CIA may be the wrong people to ask. Some of you may recall an earlier Cannonfire story about the great Stratfor document dump.
Stratfor had developed an Israeli source who was relaying information about the health of Hugo Chavez. In an email, Friedman discusses how to handle a source:
"[Y]ou have to take control of him. Control means financial, sexual or psychological control... "
Lovely attitude, eh wot? The source, I suspect, is someone who works with Chavez' doctor. Chavez may want to check into that.
The relevant Stratfor document was written on December 6, 2011. Earlier that year, Chavez had been diagnosed with cancer and had undergone an operation in Cuba. Let's not go overboard, here: This story indicates that the Israeli was an informant, not an agent -- an important distinction. Moreover, the informant was obviously difficult to control. Whoever this fellow was, he probably was not responsible for "dosing" Hugo Chavez.

So what, then, does the Stratfor document prove? Simply this: The Israelis have been taking a very close interest in Chavez' health. An unhealthy interest, you might say.

More recently, Stratfor has promoted the idea that Chavez actually died some time ago -- a death that the Venezuelans have covered up, for God-knows-what reason. Those wishing to explore this claim further may want to visit the festival of disinformation here. And pretty obvious disinformation it is. Note that the writer of that piece pointedly refers to the late president as "Commander Chavez," in an attempt to paint him as a typical Latin American military strongman, as opposed to the popularly elected leader he actually was.

For a slightly less odious disinfo exercise, see this piece published in (I am sorry to report) the Atlantic.

Speaking of disinfo, Think Progress wants to make sure that we don't mourn for Chavez because he was such a harsh persecutor of Jews. What TP doesn't tell you is that, back during the days of Reagan's covert wars, the U.S. media blared the exact same claims against Nicaragua's Sandinista leadership. The charges turned out to be bullshit then, and I'm sure that they are bullshit now.

These pieces in the Atlantic and TP should remind us of a general principle: Whenever a covert op goes down, the intelligence agencies always try to wedge a few disinfo pieces into liberal-ish or even left-wing journals. Sure, Fox News broadcasts propaganda all day long, and sure, much of the nation pays attention -- but an even greater number of people will dismiss everything the Ailes crew has to offer. So to insure the widest penetration, the spooks search for ways to slip a carefully-written version of their message into places like the NYT (think Judy Miller), the Nation, the Guardian, or Think Progress.

Pravda, for what it's worth, blames the Chavez death on the CIA. That's pretty much a reflexive reaction and I'm not sure many people will pay much heed to the charge. Pravda also brings Stratfor into the mix, thanks, once again, to the great Stratfor data dump made available via Wikileaks.

Now let's get to the really juicy stuff.

If you don't mind visiting one of the wackier sites on the internet, this comment thread notes a strange pattern: Quite a few independent leaders in Latin America have contracted fast-acting cancers in recent times.
Lula - Former President of Brazil - Cancer of the larynx

Dilma - Current president - reversing cancer in the lymphatic system

Cristina Kirchner - Argentina's current president - Thyroid Cancer

Nestor Kirchner - Former president of Argentina - died of colon cancer.

Hugo Chavez - Venezuela's President - Prostate Cancer

Evo Morales - Cancer in the nasal cavities

Fernando Lugo - the Paraguayan President - lymph cancer

Ollanta Humala - President of Peru - Cancer in the gut
Evo Morales is the President of Bolivia. He is of Indian descent, and is an avowed socialist.

Before his death, Hugo Chavez himself noted the pattern. The following comes from a Spanish-language source, the reliability of which is beyond my ability to gauge. Google did the translation, with a little "clean up" help from yours truly (and please feel free to correct any errors, if you know Spanish):
"It is very strange that cancer has given to Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Dilma Rousseff, and then I come in a few days later, Lula, and now Cristina," Chavez said to the Armed Forces during the greeting ceremonies. "It would not be surprising to learn that they have already developed a technology to create cancer in us," he said, speaking of the United States.

The Venezuelan head of state backed his suspicions by citing evidence of clandestine chemical weaponry used by the U.S. military in Guatemala in the 1950s.
An English-language source offers a toned-down version:
It was a typically controversial statement by Venezuela’s socialist leader, who underwent surgery in June to remove a tumor from his pelvis. But he stressed that he was not making any accusations, just thinking aloud.

“It would not be strange if they had developed the technology to induce cancer and nobody knew about it until now … I don’t know. I’m just reflecting,” he said in a televised speech to troops at a military base.

“But this is very, very, very strange … it’s a bit difficult to explain this, to reason it, including using the law of probabilities.”

Chavez, Fernandez, Paraguay’s Fernando Lugo, Brazil’s Dilma Rousseff and former Brazilian leader Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva have all been diagnosed recently with cancer. All of them are leftists.
In Chavez' case, the motive for assassination should be obvious. He has claimed that Venezuela will be the world's largest oil exporter within a decade. Although Chavez probably overstated the case, no-one can deny that the country has become a huge player in the world of oil, and that its role will only grow larger.

Meanwhile, the right-wing press -- which usually wallows in conspiracy theories -- either ignores or applauds the strange death of Hugo Chavez, and the even stranger cancer epidemic besetting all of the Latin American leaders who have managed to get onto Washington's shit list.  In WingnutWorld, it's perfectly acceptable to claim that Obama was born in Kenya and that no children died in the Sandy Hook massacre. But if you suggest that the CIA might know how to induce cancer in an overly-independent leader of an oil-rich nation...

...why, that idea is just crazy.
Regardless of how Hugo Chavez passed on, I'm sure Obama has directed the CIA to go into maximum mischief mode in order to secure Venezuela's oil for his Wall Street cronies.
If I were Correa, I would be very careful of what I ingested. Leftists in Latin America have had a target of one variety, or another for some time now. CANAL and CIA have been busy. Liberation Theology priests, beware.


The benefit of not being a military strongman is that he has sidekicks, Cabinet ministers and the like, to take over the reins and continue the programme. Lets hope they do so.

Private Eye, not exactly a leftist paper, but more of a scandal sheet/satire mag, was used by MI5 back in the day to spread nonsense about the Prime Minister beind a Soviet agent, back when there were still Soviets.

You know, people have actually been convicted of murdering by using cancer. I'm constantly surprised by the ignorance and naivety of people.
Some additional insight/context via Greg Palast, which, coincidentally, I just read today:

2008 - the ADL write thuggishly to Chavez to invite him to consider that his condemnation of Israeli crimes might have an effect on Venezuela.

Same year - Venezuelan ambassador to Moscow says Israeli agents holding Venezuelan passports were involved in the failed 2002 attempt.

2009 - Gaza massacre; Chavez expels Israeli ambassador in response

Same year: Zionists advance their propaganda reach in other countries' legislatures and 'education' systems, by means of the 'London Declaration on Combating Anti-Semitism'.

Abbas, Peres, and Ahmadinejad visit Latin America. Employing the Stalinist 'amalgam method', Peres declares that "the people" will soon make leaders such as Chavez and Ahmadinejad "disappear". Clearly the Zionists don't understand the Latin American street. (Sadly, they do understand the Arab street, and the Swiss and French streets too. I'm not sure about the Iranian street - probably not.)

In particular, at that time, they don't appear to have learned the lessons of the failed 2002 coup, which was defeated by a popular uprising. I'm italicising that, because as far as I know, the events were unprecedented in the history of the world. This wasn't Moscow 1991 - this was a genuine popular rising.

Venezuela does not appear to be at risk from Twitterised and 'colour' pseudo-'revolutions', which have led to various civil wars. The CIA, MI6 and Israelis can try, but that doesn't mean the fuckers will succeed.

What makes Chavez stand out is that he tore up the rulebook on 'dual power'. 'Dual power can't last' has been the conventional wisdom for a long time. But in Venezuela, where the progressive government is extremely popular, the rightists control most of the media. Have you ever heard such a thing?

This isn't just the traditional dollar-millionaire lawyers and medics from posh suburbs, usually sons of the same, who itch to see a fascistic Pinochet solution and a reversal of the social reforms in the country, while their own sons travel back and forth between Caracas and Harvard. This is the fucking media!

Clearly 'the people' in Venezuela do have some real power. Chavez has avoided civil war, and 'gone round' the enemy. The combination of structural social reform with a readiness of the exploited majority to rise up spontaneously in the streets is extremely strong. There is a very very big lesson there.

And whether or not it fits in with anyone's ideology, these risings in various Latin American cities have been spontaneous. Importantly, they are not aimed at civil war. Only the rightists want civil war.

Attempts at structural reform would have failed if people weren't willing to rise up to defend them. But risings would be useless without structural social reform. While totally pessimistic about the near future in North America and Europe, I remain optimistic about Venezuela, Bolivia, and some other places in Latin America, and have no doubt that Maduro will win the presidential election in Venezuela.

But back to the Israeli connection.

Also in 2009 - Zionist propagandists, Ledeen-like, accuse Venezuela of being an "Iran base".

2010 - Chavez accuses Israel of funding the Venezuelan 'opposition', and of aiming to kill him.

2012 - cancer returns.

It does very much look as though the method of the coup was eventually realised not to work; ditto a Twittered-up 'Latin spring', ditto oppositional election campaigns, so...just take the leaders out...

What needs to be looked at it is the timings here. Lugo (president of Paraguay), Rousseff (president of Brazil), and then, according to Chavez, "I come in a few days later", followed by Lula (former president, Brazil)and then Kirchner (president of Argentina).
Chavez will have the biggest funeral ever held in the Americas.

It will be bigger than Eva Peron's. She got 3 million people. Chavez could easily get 5 million.

One reason this is important is because of the everyone-go-and-block-the-streets thing I mentioned, which has changed the face of Latin America.

These are not 'flash mobs'. This isn't Twitterised and Facebookised. This is popular power.

Nonetheless, observers from agencies which have successfully run 'colour revolutions' and 'springs' will be present in Caracas to see what weaknesses they can find, and more generally what they can learn, for future vile use in 'people's power' mindfuck operations.

Expect leading scumbag journalists to give quite considered advice on this score.

But as I said, this is not that. This is the real thing.

In many of the countries in the region, it will be very hard for anyone to impose widespread austerity measures, at least for a long time.

There will be no Uncle-Sam-backed Ayn-Rand-and-Twitter-themed 'colour revolution' - oops, sorry, I mean 'springtime' - in Caracas, in Buenos Aires, in La Paz, etc. People are too strong to allow it.

(Has anyone else noticed the quasi-Randroid theme in the contemporary version of so-called 'Marxist' so-called 'Autonomism'? All that stuff about intellectuals being producers. I don't ask rhetorically. I don't think I've ever seen that obvious observation made.)

How are the mass-market western media going to report Chavez's funeral? Are they going to tell their markets that the huge popular involvement is only because people have been forced at gunpoint to attend, for fear of being locked up in labour camps or chopped up by some analogues of the Tonton Macoutes?

Expect some kind of discourse on religion too.

Is the idea that God is the poor in struggle, which goes way beyond most 'liberation theology', even recuperable?

Those who think everything and everyone has a price may think everything is recuperable. Those bastards may be wrong.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?