Franz J.T. Lee, December, 2004
Venezuela: The Truth beats Censorship
Following the discussion that has been unfolding with regard to the diatribal utterances of Aleksander Boyd, who calls for violence against a democratically elected, perfectly constitutional and legitimate government, we find it important to note, that not only the Venezuelan President is being attacked and threatened in an absolutely unacceptable way, but also the vast majority of Venezuelans who have repeatedly and overwhelmingly reconfirmed their confidence in their government led by Hugo Chavez Frias.
Carlos Herrera is right to ask, whether we can or should accept this sort of terrorism on the Internet, and whether the use of the internet for such ends is legal under British law.
The answers are straightforward: We can not ... nor should we ... accept any terrorism of whatever caliber, be it incitement of violence on the internet, be it the continuous diatribe being spit out daily by Venezuela's private media on whatever occasion, which has done so much damage by poisoning and brainwashing many a formerly sane mind.
Neither the British, nor the French, nor the German, or any other European government for that matter (let alone the US), would or could have legally accepted the vile diatribes of the kind the Venezuelan government has endured for the past couple of years, from the internal as well as external "media front-line," including the internet.
However, one thing is what is written in a constitution, in statutes and laws, and another thing is what capitalist, imperialist governments do.
For example, the US Bill of Rights and the US Constitution forbid slavery, terrorism and diatribal practices ... but, in reality and as practiced in its foreign policy from the very beginning, what did the Cold War propaganda disseminate across the world about the Soviet Union, by the "Voice of America," and how many millions in the "Third World" did the CIA terrorize and assassinate in the name of "fighting communism" and defending "Western style democracy"?
Also, what did the British gentlemen effectively do with their colonial "subjects," with their "pack animals"?
What about the racist terrorism of the Apartheid kind, which was a direct product of British divide and rule in India, in South Africa, and elsewhere?
Definitely, today's Aleksander Boyds are still living in the colonial master-slave era and also suffer from the "Cold War mentality," tuning in with the Venezuelan oligarchs into the "Castro-communism" cry, calling Venezuelan voters "tin-collectors" and their legitimate, legal President a "pariah," dreaming of "kicking pariahs such as Chavez out of office."
As Richard Smith correctly points out, such diatribal statements, inciting others to commit violent crimes and to assassinate political figures, have nothing to do with "freedom of expression" on the internet.
Now, what is the bottom line?
In the same way as there exist "good terrorists" and "bad terrorists" ... South Korea and North Korea ... the one gets WMDs from Washington D.C. as Christmas gifts and the other one, as part of the "axis of evil," is threatened with being bombed to pieces like Fallujah.
In a similar manner, people like Donald Rumsfeld can openly incite to assassinate the enemies of the USA, placing millions on their heads and opening the global man-hunt game on the Bin Ladens, Husseins or Arafats, once they don't serve their interests anymore ... at the same time it is strictly forbidden to even think about scorching a single hair of Bush, let alone wearing a T-Shirt that reads "Bush Terrorist."
Needless to mention, that Cuban President Fidel Castro has been on the man-hunt list for decades, with hundreds of failed assassination attempts aborted.
This is the "legal" framework within which Boyd is moving, the unwritten law of the jungle, of the Department of Dirty Tricks, of counterinsurgency training in Miami or elsewhere, of "anti-terrorism measures" against the unwanted "pariahs" in Venezuela.
Boyd has identified himself as a loyal pawn of the worldwide "anti-terrorism" forces of the kind that impose their "democracy" with bullets and bombs onto others.
What more is there to say?
However, what concerns us here is who decides what is to be allowed on Internet or not. If the World Wide Web actually "belonged" to us ... if we had actually created it and were able to reasonably control it, then we would have no problem whatsoever. Yet we should not forget, that it is not us, who control and determine the course of the internet, but "Mother Echelon" and "Father Pentagon."
The Internet has become another "war operations theater" already, just as the global mass media. Boyd is a virtual bullet, directed against VHeadline.com and all those sites and people on the web who are defending, in this specific war operations theater, the ideas and values of Venezuela's participative democracy as outlined and promoted by the Bolivarian Revolution.
If Boyd, so comfortably and openly racist and fascist, has over-stepped and falls out of the game, others will continue in his place, because there is a strategy in operation.
Maybe those of us who have been witnessing this kind of diatribal message on a daily basis on the private Venezuelan TV channels ... and who have witnessed its 'Boomerang effect' with the damage being done to the messenger ... tend to predict the fate of the Boyds in a similar way.
Sites and people like VHeadline.com, its reporters and contributing writers can considerably accelerate this 'Boomerang effect' by simply spreading the truth.
And this is how we defend existing and conquer new cyber-spaces without having to call for censorship.
Times are really changing very fast. On his latest visit to Moscow, President Chavez bought Leon Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution" and is studying it very carefully.
Trotsky's famous, encouraging statement at the eve of the 20th century, has reached Venezuela a century later:
Dum spiro spero!
As long as I breathe, I hope!