Skip to content

Larry King’s Dictator Trilogy – The Malignant Narcissism of Hugo Chavez

October 5, 2009

hugo-chavez

HUGO CHAVEZ

Artsy profile 23 a
By Karen Northon

In Hollywood, it all comes down to how well you can deliver a line, which is perhaps why so many in the land of make-believe adore the dictatorial drama queen Hugo Chavez. The whole world truly is a stage. The man is a compelling orator to those whose ideological cataracts prevent them from seeing through Chavez’s persuasive rhetoric to the underlying persecution complex that directs his every move.

Hollywood is flooded with such visually-impaired, self-proclaimed foreign policy experts who believe Chavez just wants to hold hands with everyone and sing We Are the World.  Socialist-dictator groupie Sean Penn spent some quality time with Chavez in 2007 and again in 2008, calling him “a fascinating guy.” In Penn’s defense, I will admit I find documentaries about serial killers fascinating – though I don’t think I’d care to spend time cozying up with one and waxing intellectual about the politics of their brutality.

Then we have everyone’s favorite conspiracy-theory movie director, Oliver Stone, who undoubtedly steps up the controversial aspect of his projects as he feels the limelight fading on him. (By the way, Oliver – Girl Scout cookie sales funding coup to oust Castro? Could be.)

Stone recently premiered his poor-misunderstood-dictator commumentary about Chavez, remarking of the Venezuelan dictator, “[he] is an extremely dynamic and charismatic figure. He’s open and warmhearted and big, and a fascinating character.”

Yes. Fascinating. Got that.

It gets better/worse. Rumor has it former rocker and former(?) drug addict Courtney Love has a crush on the big, cuddly socialist dictator. She thinks he’s a “sexy dawg.” Now THAT is your brain on drugs.

Beyond the bizarro adoration of the Hollywood subculture, Chavez made an appearance on Larry King Live while in New York City for last month’s meeting of the U.N. General Assembly – kicking off King’s dictator trifecta that included interviews with Chavez’s BSFs (Best Socialist Friends) Muammar Qadhafi and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Once again, Chavez performed his dictator Two-Step, answering every question with a jab at U.S. foreign policy. He accuses the United States of backing a coup d’état to oust him, apparently having forgotten that he had organized and attempted a military coup to overthrow the Venezuelan government in 1992.

Why can’t we be friends? Why can’t we be friends?

There is no doubt – Chavez is a shrewd strategist. He understands that more power and influence are gained by appealing to the poor, restless masses and celebrities. And he knows just how to manipulate them into unquestioning devotion to him. As for world leaders, Chavez has extended his unwavering loyalty and support to every dictator and despot who presents any sort of threat to the United States.

And to the rest of the world, the peace-loving Chavez slings insults, openly calling George W. Bush a “donkey” and “the devil,” Condoleezza Rice an “illiterate,” former Mexican President Vicente Fox a “lapdog of imperialism,” Peruvian President Alan Garcia a “rotten thief” and a “crybaby.” More recently, he called President Obama an “ignoramus” and said Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is “just lost.” My six-year-old could explain to him why he’s not making many friends.

Of his frequent verbal attacks against the United States, Jerrold M. Post, Director of the Political Psychology Program at George Washington University, says “his [Chavez’s] outrageous and confrontational rhetoric” increases in frequency and rancor “during times of internal instability” in his home country, and when he feels he’s put on the defensive.

Post wrote of Chavez in a 2007 analytical report for the U.S. Air Force Counterproliferation Center:

“Chavez is an authoritarian narcissistic leader who has dreams of glory, and can be overly sensitive to criticism. The arrogant certainty conveyed in his public pronouncements is very appealing to his followers. But under this grandiose facade, as is typical with narcissistic personalities, is extreme insecurity. When under stress, his defiance becomes more pronounced, as does his tendency to blame others for his own shortcomings.”

Chavez is like the boyfriend/girlfriend/spouse you just couldn’t confront, because as soon as you questioned or expressed negative feelings about something they did or said, they turned it back on you – questioning, in that defensive, incredulous tone, something you did x number of years ago that they didn’t like.

Despite his appeal to the impoverished of Venezuela, his fiscal policy has had a devastating effect on his country’s economy – though he finds ways to blame the United States for that as well, citing the North American Free Trade Agreement or some other policy of which he was not key in devising.

If failing economic policy doesn’t bring about his fall from power, his attempts to squash dissent may. Chavez recently ordered the permanent closing of 29 more radio stations that have been critical of his administration. And in response to a student protest/hunger strike, Chavez ordered the imprisonment of a 22-year-old college student for “attempting to incite civil war.”

In an editorial last month for The Huffington Post, Robert Amsterdam (an international Lawyer on emerging markets, politics of business, and rule of law) wrote:

“…the existence of more than 50 hunger striking students on the steps of the OAS [Organization of American States] headquarters [in Caracas] blows the smoke off the myth that Chávez is still some sort of social democrat who cares about his people.”

The question is, how long will it take for his base supporters to see Hugo Chavez for what he is – a malignant narcissist clinging to power?

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to FurlAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements
11 Comments
  1. Sam Deakins permalink
    October 6, 2009 1:16 am

    Amazing, the descriptions of Chavez in this article could very well be said of our dear leader Obama. Just substitute Obama each time you see Chavez and there would be no apparent diferrence.

  2. jbtrevor permalink
    October 6, 2009 5:47 am

    “The question is, how long will it take for his base supporters to see Hugo Chavez for what he is – a malignant narcissist clinging to power?”

    Which base in which country?
    Julie
    ps – you forgot to mention Sen. Bernie Sanders…

    • In the know permalink
      October 6, 2009 7:07 am

      The answer is when the money runs out. When the enforcers realize they were lied to and they haven’t been payed in months, they will stop enforcing. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a textbook economic victory for the US. Who will the econimic collapse of the US be a victory for?

    • Swemson permalink
      October 6, 2009 11:22 am

      Julie;

      Virtually all of the educated people in Venezuela know the truth about this pig….

  3. Judy permalink
    October 6, 2009 12:36 pm

    Swemson,
    I agree, but, many are still chasing that illusive, ideological dream of everything for everyone.The socialist ideology is slowly winding down in that country, but it is also at a great cost. A greater tragedy is on the horizon.

    • Swemson permalink
      October 6, 2009 1:10 pm

      You’re right…

      However I can’t get away from one question:

      How many times does the world have to go through this collectivist madness before everyone realizes that it just doesn’t work.. ?

      • In the know permalink
        October 6, 2009 2:18 pm

        As many times as the watchdogs allow them to erase history and repaint it to fit their agenda.

  4. Judy permalink
    October 6, 2009 4:34 pm

    Swemson,
    I don’t know . It certainly meets the definition of insanity. Repeating the same behavior over and over again expecting a different outcome. I guess that there will always be a segment of this world’s population that believes that they have the absolute true and perfect solution for us. You would think that through the study of world history and of the failures, we would learn. But,as In The Know said, there are always revisionists, which is prevalent today among those that would seek to change this countries history. This is why we should never give up on correcting those that seek to change the history of this country and substitute a model of America as a corrupt and destructive empire.

    • Swemson permalink
      October 6, 2009 6:10 pm

      Judy:

      I go one step further…

      I say that as great as our Constitution is, the founding fathers didn’t get it 100% right, as the last 50 years has amply demonstrated, so we simply MUST change the rules a bit…

      Throughout history, there has always been a steady stream of megalomaniacs who were driven to seek complete power over everyone…

      Genghis Kahn, Alexander, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin, and now Obama.. to name but a few….

      We now KNOW what their tools are and how they use them, and the only chance we have of stopping this vicious cycle is to permanently make those tools unavailable to them. I say the only way to do that here and now is to hold another constitutional convention to make some changes to our Constitution in order to adjust to these times..

      The first thing we must do, is insure that this permanent ruling class, that our founding fathers justifiably feared, can never be reinstated, and that involves some pretty serious term limits, as well as a broader definition of the meaning of impeachable offenses.

      The second thing we need to do, is take the money out of their hands. We must permanently stop them from ever being able to use public funds to buy votes. To do this, we need some kind of a “Fairness in Taxation Amendment”.

      This amendment would simply place fair and rational limitations on what our lawmakers can raise taxes for. Its primary purpose would be as said above, to prevent politicians from using, or promising to use public funds to buy votes.

      The list of specific limitations on what the government could raise taxes for might look something like this.

      1: It cannot be allowed to raise taxes for the purposes of income redistribution (welfare) of any kind.

      2: It cannot be allowed to raise taxes to support social engineering programs such as the “Community Reinvestment Act” which is the direct cause of the Sub Prime debacle that led to our current economic crisis.

      3: Both federal and state governments cannot be allowed to raise taxes to fund any kind of aid other than for FEMA or other such emergency disaster relief services that no individual state could afford to pay for on its own, and when used, the funds would need to be repaid.

      4: All corporate and business income taxes must be abolished. They are by far the most destructive form of taxation. The stockholders and owners of all businesses pay income taxes on the dividends and profits they receive from their companies. Why should they pay double the taxes on that income as opposed to any other form of income ? There is no better way to stimulate growth in business and the economy than to eliminate all taxes levied against profits earned by American business. Every penny of their profits that business can save will go right back into the pursuit of more profits. that’s how a free economy works. Business creates wealth. All Governments can do is spend it.

      5: It would restrict existing “paid in” entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare from disbursing funds to anyone who has not paid into that specific program, and insure that the capital reserves of such funds would be kept segregated from the government’s “general operating funds”.

      6: It would guarantee that when tax refunds or reductions are made, that they must be returned to or accrue to the benefit of the tax payers in the same proportion to the amount that said taxpayers paid in the first place. The people who pay the most taxes, get the most benefit from tax reductions or refunds. Individuals who didn’t pay any taxes cannot receive any benefit from tax reductions or refunds on those specific taxes. That’s not a tax reduction, that’s income redistribution, aka: welfare.

      Contrary to many who share the widespread common misconception, the “have-nots” wouldn’t all just starve and die if such an amendment were passed. What would happen, is that the vast majority of them would figure out how to make a living in order to survive. The truly helpless ones will be taken care of by private charities and the church’s.

      The American people have always been very charitable. Americans give an average of 1.67% of our gross national product to charitable causes, unlike people in countries like The Netherlands, which give less than 0.5% of their GDP. In 2007, Americans set a record for charitable giving by donating a record $300 Billion. You can rest assured that if our taxes went down dramatically, our charitable giving will go right through the roof.. If I want to give some of my hard earned money to charity, I’ll choose which charity I give it to. I’m more likely to support music scholarships for minority groups at schools like Julliard, than to the rebuilding fund for New Orleans. That’s my right simply because I EARNED THE MONEY ! The helpless will still get the help they need to survive. As Dennis Miller said, I want to help the helpless, bit I don’t give a damn about the clueless.

      I feel no guilt or shame when people accuse me of being cold hearted and greedy about my ideas, because I know something that they don’t.. and thats the FACT that a pure free market economy is the best, indeed the ONLY way to achieve widespread prosperity for all.

      So let them continue their lame attempts to denigrate capitalists as those fat little Monopoly men in black suits & top hats holding large bags of cash that we see in their cartoons… They’re too damn blind to understand that those guys, the prime movers & leaders in a free market system, are NOT out to grab ALL THE WEALTH for themselves so that all the have-nots would starve and perish.. It’s not in their self interest to do so… because if that were to happen, there would be nobody left to buy all of the products that they make and sell !

      • Judy permalink
        October 6, 2009 9:48 pm

        Swemson,
        Count me in. An acquaintance that attended Pelosi’s wing-ding at her winery last month told me that Pelosi, Waxman,Reid and other supporters of strict gun control had been discussing a CC for the past two years. In effect they could modify the 2nd amendment a favorite target. Apparently Pelosi was strutting her stuff and proud of her accomplishments and no stranger to shooting off at the mouth. Glenn Beck touched on this briefly last year just after Obama won the presidency. Currently, we are in deep trouble with these people at the helm.Every day that goes by, I see our Constitution fading from sight. We must make demands with the next election and elect people that will serve, not subvert.I do agree with your analysis of the modifications.

        • Swemson permalink
          October 6, 2009 9:55 pm

          And if we’re to have ANY chance at success, we have to start a full court press with every asset at our disposal right now..

          Remember: The left is going to engage in the most massive amount of voter fraud of all times in the next two elections… they’ve got hundreds of BILLIONS of our dollars to spend, and 90% of the lawyers and the judiciary under their thumb.

          I hate to be a downer here, but I think out chances of success are slim, and that the inevitable conclusion of this will involve an armed rebellion.. I HOPE I’m wrong, but doubt that I am…

Comments are closed.