The circumstances were interesting--an international forum in which Chavez was accusing the current socialist government of Spain (PM Zapatero) of covering up the former government (PM Aznar--Bush Jr. pal)'s complicity in the 2002 coup attempt against Chavez in Venezuela. Aznar was also a 'bought and paid for' participant in the slaughter in Iraq. Chavez wanted Zapatero (who was speaking at the time) to, at the least, apologize for Spain's complicity in the coup. The "king" of Spain--whose forebears, of course, mercilessly looted the Americas--and who was in the conference room at the time, blurted out his "Shut up!" to Chavez, and that, of course, went "viral" among Chavez-haters on the internet.
Chavez's instincts were right on about Zapatero. Look what the so-called socialists have done to Spain, following the looting and plundering by the 1% under Aznar! "Austerity" for the poor to pay for the looting and plundering of the rich--just like here.
I remember posters here defending the "king" of Spain and saying what a wonderful, liberal, charity-supporting fellow he was.
I'm sorry but "kings" are not "liberal." They believe that their DNA entitles them to be among the 1%. A truly liberal man would renounce his title, but "kings" almost never do, because of the entitlement their DNA gives them among the 1%. They get pulled into the board rooms and other counsels of the very, very rich, to front for the Looting Class. And that is what this "king" was doing in Latin America--trying to maintain Spain's "empire" by means other than direct rule--through the banksters and other exploiters.
Of course he didn't want Chavez--the pioneer of the new independence movement in Latin America (independence from European and U.S. banksters and transglobal corporations!) to point out Zapatero's hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is the name of the game for "liberal" looting of the poor on behalf of the 1%. Our Democratic leaders are masters at it. So are the so-called Labor leaders in England. And so are some of the so-called socialists in Europe.
These "liberals" are NOT liberal. They would advocate "New Deal" economics if they were. Instead they serve "organized money," of whom FDR said, "Organized money hates me--and I welcome their hatred." Real liberals would FIGHT FOR the poor majority AGAINST the 1%. They wouldn't pander to the 1% and BECOME the 1%.
Anyway, the "king" of Spain is likely as corrupt as those he works for, and it surprises me not at all that his daughter --a so-called "princess"--has been charged with high-level graft--fraud, tax evasion, falsifying documents and embezzlement of 6 million euros in public funds of a charitable foundation.
I DO know why the "king" of Spain was restored to his "throne" post-Franco. He was considered a unifying figure for the transition from fascist rule to democracy, after the bloody and terrible Spanish civil war and the long horror of Franco's rule. That war was also about the poor majority vs. the 1%, transformed these days into a financial war, at least within the western alleged democracies. The "king" was someone whom the fascists could accept as they plotted how to retain and expand their wealth in a Europe that required a veneer of democracy.
MAYBE restoring the monarchy that had plundered Latin America, in one of the bloodiest imperial projects of them all, was needed at the time to guarantee peace in Spain. But the "king" of Spain telling a democratically elected president of a Latin American country to "shut up!" tells us what it has all come to. Spain's 1%--its rich people, its fascists--so opposed democracy, independence and a "New Deal" in Latin America, in a country they wanted to plunder, that they colluded on the plot to overthrow that democracy, and the fake socialists in Spain (just like the Democrats here and Bush Junta crimes) stifled any investigation of it. Chavez was calling Zapatero on that hypocrisy. And the "king" injected himself in defense of it!
I wondered, at the time, just how corrupt "king" Carlos was. We may be on the verge of finding out. It will not surprise me at all if he is implicated in his daughter's looting binge or other looting schemes.
"Charity," my ass. Virtually all "charities" (the so-called NGOs) are now "of, by and for" the rich, in one way or another, including being outright cash cows. Infiltration and control of NGOs, and creation of fake NGOs, is probably a whole division of the CIA, who of course serve corporate-imperial interests. No reason to think it's any different in Europe, whether it has monarchical roots or corpo-fascist roots. It's a big CIA industry in Latin America (with visible--USAID, IRI, NDI, et al--faces, and invisible faces, funded by U.S. taxpayers and the favored drug lords).
= new reply since forum marked as read
