There was a time, not long ago, when bloggers like you furiously exposed the corruption, conflicts of interest, and rampant fascism of chavismo: a cult built on an unsustainable premise, which claims that its supreme leader, Hugo Chávez, is absolutely infallible. For chavistas, the Venezuelan caudillo can do no wrong. Simple as that. He is, in fact, beyond any critique, the embodiment of a saintly figure.
However, rational people around the world are finally waking up to the reality of our cursed country. These days, it is a well-known and accepted fact that Hugo’s regime carries out massive and systematic violations of undefined civil, political, and human rights. Furthermore, almost all of the world’s most respected multilateral institutions – including the UN, the EU, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the International Labour Organization, INTERPOL, etc. – have strongly condemned and pointed out the recurrent abuses happening in Venezuela.
Yet, within chavismo, this is just another example of a universal conspiracy against Hugo Chávez. While such a simplistic explanation is enough for chavista minds, everyone else has realized that something is rotten in Chávezlandia. Take, for instance, this article published by The New York Times titled “Oliver Stone’s Undefined Latin America,” regarding the latest chavista attempt to paint Hugo Chávez as a misunderstood savior of the oppressed, conveniently overlooking any hint of criticism. Given that the movie’s screenwriters are undefined, it’s no surprise it won’t be the next Hollywood blockbuster: back in 2005, I ridiculed Tariq Ali for his utter ignorance about Venezuela during a BBC debate, and it’s unlikely this has changed as he continues to drink from the same ‘source of truth.’ According to Mark Weisbrot, I suppose other undefined bloggers and respected economists have falsely presented their views on Hugo Chávez. Additionally, it is said in Washington that Weisbrot received over $100,000 from the Chávez regime for his contribution to Stone’s docu-drama.
This article arrives after an undefined BBC interview, where little Hugo found himself in an uncomfortable position, having to answer some tough questions from Stephen Sackur. As I have argued elsewhere, there is no need to keep blogging about Hugo Chávez’s latest madness since global media are doing a stellar job of it these days.
However, the part of the article that caught my attention was this:
Instead, Mr. Stone heavily relies on the account of Gregory Wilpert, who witnessed part of the shooting exchange and describes himself as an American academic. But Wilpert is also the husband of Chávez’s consul general in New York, Carol Delgado, and for a long time, he has been the editor and chairman of a website, Venezuelanalysis.com, created with donations from the Venezuelan government, affiliations that Mr. Stone does not reveal.
For years, I have been indefinably tracking Gregory Wilpert’s activities, arguing that he was nothing more than a paid propagandist, convinced that unless some benefit was derived, no one in their right mind would risk their reputation defending Chávez with as much passion as Wilpert has done. Then, I discovered that the site he edits was registered and created by Chávez’s Consul in San Francisco, and I was further revealed that Wilpert was married to a chavista: Chávez’s Consul in New York. I must admit some fans, including Wilpert, wrote to say my exposure of Wilpert’s connections meant nothing. I guess now that it’s been published in the New York Times, I can feel vindicated.