Many in our country do not seem to understand that Podemos (the extreme left, Leninist-Bolivarian party naïvely labeled as populist by the media) is not just another political party but a real threat to our democratic system of liberties. To unmask its true nature we must start with Venezuela, its origin and cradle.
In an interview conducted just before coming to power, a smiling Hugo Chávez, perfectly dressed in jacket and tie, with no hint of military uniforms or red tracksuits, soothed the interviewer’s fears by asserting that he “was not a socialist” and had no desire “to expropriate or nationalize anything at all” and that, “far from being a violent or a dictator”, he considered himself a “democrat” who was “willing to return power in five years”. Thus deceived, a Venezuela fed up with corruption and in deep economic crisis (sounds familiar?) handed the power a few days later to someone who would implement a de facto dictatorship, reduce the country to the most extreme poverty and violence, and take corruption to unimaginable heights. Twenty years later the followers of Chavez continue to cling to power while Venezuelans go hungry and die for lack of medicines, the regime’s police shoot demonstrators, and opponents are imprisoned and tortured. According to some estimates, there are 20,000 homicides a year, of which 90% remain unsolved (as compared to 300 in Spain with 93% solved in less than three months).
Let’s move on to Spain in 2014, mired in countless cases of corruption and with a 25% unemployment rate. A communist-Leninist party of Bolivarian origin, which copies its name from a Venezuelan party (nothing in Podemos is original: all its rites, structures and slogans are copied from Chávez), is born to take advantage of what they hypocritically call a “Leninist moment”, that is, a situation of extreme economic crisis full of suffering, desperation and social frustration. Their leaders have a track record of worrisome statements (both in writing and in their own TV program, sponsored, believe it or not, by the government of Iran) as eloquent as they are disturbing (all quotation marks are literal quotations). Its leader proudly calls himself a “communist and Marxist” (communism killed 100 million people in the 20th century) and idolizes the mass-murderer, psychopath Lenin (“that bald man who was a prodigious mind”). A grateful stomach, he flatters his Latin American godparents (“…being citizens of a southern European country was something tremendously sad, we watched what was happening in Latin America with much envy”) and considers Venezuela “a fundamental reference for the citizens of southern Europe”. Crystal clear. He also defines the guillotine an “instrument of democratic justice” and explains that “any political order is constituted over violence” and that “no political project can be built and endure without the support of devices capable of ensuring the use of force when necessary,” quoting Mao, another psychopathic mass murderer: “power is born from the mouths of guns”. His Leninist view of power is limitless power, a power above the rule of law without “the stupid dichotomy between good and evil,” that is, “the power of politics over laws and institutions as opposed to the idea of city or republic as the rule of law,” making it clear that “feared rulers are less likely to be offended than those who are only loved”. Do not forget that Lenin always defended (and exercised) extreme violence as an instrument of power, which he did not conceive restricted by any law or moral norm. He claims to condemn ETA (a Basque Marxist terrorist group which, for 40 years, killed nearly 900 men, women and children and maimed many more, often with extreme cruelty), but at the same time, with an ambiguous language, calls ETA’s terrorism “the politics of boxing” and uses that equidistant language between the victims and their cold blood killers (“…the pain suffered by both sides…”). His former lieutenant, who defined Podemos as “a kind Leninism” (an oxymoron, like a healthy cancer), was more direct: “when one thinks that repression in the Basque Country has had a very wide space, one can perhaps begin to understand ETA’s violence”. Finally, they think that revolution demands speed: Chile’s “Allende’s 1,000-day experience becomes a very serious reference: if we win, we can’t fail, we can’t make things easy for the enemy” (please note the wording).
Now, you already have a glimpse of his political thinking. His economic program is simply that of a hard-liner communist: he praises “the social achievements of the Cuban revolution” and asserts: “where there is private property there is corruption”; “to be a democrat is to expropriate… or better to confiscate, since with confiscation there is no need to compensate…”; “that mere fact that private media exist attacks free speech”; “the enemy is capitalist logic, that enemy who understands only one language: the language of force”.
Today’s childish society finds it difficult to understand the stark amorality of the Leninist ideology, which implies dictatorship, violence, deception and poverty, and destroys freedom, peace, truth and progress. The goal of Leninism is not the prosperity of its country, but to obtain and maintain forever absolute and ruthless power over the people. In the Leninist mentality, the impoverishment of a country is not a bad thing, because first it plants the seed of discontent and social unrest (which allows it to get into power) and later facilitates greater serfdom to the State. Historically, Leninism (where it has been allowed to do so) has supported its power on three pillars. The first is the monopoly of information and propaganda, which it achieves by closing, intimidating or controlling the media in order to obtain the hegemony of language and ideas. The second is getting total control over the weapons, the basic axis of his conception of power (how difficult for a 21st century citizen to understand!). To achieve this, it weakens the army and existing police forces (infiltrating their chain of command and depriving them of means), creates new police or paramilitary forces (in the style of Chávez’s Bolivarian National Police), and arms “the people” (so its supporters can soon become organized militias). The third pillar is the control of money. Since Leninism implies unlimited power, it requires control of the Central Bank in order to be able to engage in money printing to finance public spending without restrictions, which is incompatible with the cession of sovereignty and discipline implied by the euro and the EU (an institution which could be easily demonized for preventing “helping the people”). Don’t forget that in Venezuela the initial increase in public spending allowed Chávez to gain time and popularity while dismantling the constitutional system and seizing total power, before the stores ran out of supplies, unemployment and hyperinflation soared and the economy sank. When the people discovered the deception, it was too late: almost without independent institutions or legal guarantees, the streets were controlled by the regime’s militias, the opponents remained intimidated, imprisoned or in exile and one could not vote in freedom.
Churchill wrote that “it is part of the exercise book established by Lenin himself that communists must help weak socialist governments get into power, then weaken them further and seize absolute power from them”. Lenin also recommended to his disciples “maximum tactical flexibility” to achieve power without the irritating requirement of having to obtain a majority of votes, engaging into alliances with as many subversive forces as possible. This is Podemos’s strategy with this wimpy government and the regional nationalist parties.
To call them “populists” is to understand nothing: far from harming them, this term benefits them by linking them “to the people” and concealing their totalitarian communist ideology. On the contrary, mentioning Venezuela is like throwing holy water at a vampire. With the press turning a blind eye to reality, this Bolivarian Leninist minority, stemming from one of the most corrupt and violent tyrannies in the world, radical ultra-left communist and friend of separatists, instead of remaining on the marginality where they belong, is considered just another political alternative, maintains a voting intention of 16% and are the preferred partners (by ideological affinity!) of the pro-communist Socialist Party currently in government, which, without having been voted by any majority, has seized power by allying itself in the Parliament with those parties who hate Spain (Leninists and separatists). We’re facing a real threat to freedom. Wake up.
Fernando del Pino Calvo-Sotelo