It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Celebrities and Hugo Chavez

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:46 PM
So we all know about Hollywoods allure with socialism. Steven Spielberg described his one hour meeting with Fidel Castro as the most "important hour in his life". Yet.....Fidel Castro, Enforcer of the most extreme form of state socialism - communism - supports a system that takes from the rich to give to the poor. Now, ponder this: Steven Spielberg has a net worth of 3 billion dollars. In the perfect society, i.e the society he advocates by regarding Fidel Castro as such a powerful leader, would REQUIRE (if Spielberg is honest) for himself to give up his billions in order to live more modestly, perhaps with a million or so.

Same with Sean Penn. Following the death of socialist leader Hugo Chavez, Sean Penn extolled Chavez as a truly good and honest leader (ignoring of course all political corruption he has to engage in if he was to maintain power). Sean Penn has a net worth of 150 million dollars. Susan Sarandon and Oliver Stone, both big-time supporters of Chavez, each have a net worth of 50 million. These sums are inordinately large for people who support state socialism to have. If they truly cared about what they claim, their money would be pouring into institutions that support their political interests, and not in buying massive houses (far bigger then their comrades homes), yachts, vacationing in exotic places, buying lavish dresses, etc etc, etc.

This is nothing other than the routine snobbish ignominious populist tripe that makes hollywood hollywood. If hollywood excels at anything, it's self pretention and sanctimony. In short, Hollywoood and it's luminaries are completely ignorant of their own moral pitfalls. Susan Sarandon for example, a woman who supports Chavez and socialism because of its "noble intentions", can yet find nothing wrong in naming her first born son after the murderer Jack Henry Abbot. Bizarre? Abso-freaking-lutely! Both psychologically and morally speaking, there isn't any rhyme or reason to her moral reasoning - rather, it seems to be something she merely "feels" is right. In hollywood, someone like Roman Polansky, unrepentant pedophile who feels more compelled to defend his ghastly predation on children rather than acknowledge his moral weakness - finds more supporters than opponents because he's a "great artist". Art trumps morality in hollywood. In Hollywood, morality is understood quite differently from how it's usually understood by real thinkers. Somehow, to abuse a child is negated, or suppressed, because the value and power of art simply transcends the banality of "mere" morality. The trauma that will occur to that child later on in life after it comes to realize how it was sexually violated??? Who cares! That's unnecessary inconvenient consequentialist type thinking! Sarandon followed this inane logic by subordinating Jack Henry Abbots murder of two human beings (on two different occasions, the second one coming after his unpopular release from prison) to his prowess as a literary artist. Similarly, Chavez' Hollywood minions don't seem to find any contradiction between their own exorbitant personal wealth and their support for a political system that would force such people to lose that wealth. Yet, I suppose they think "until then" we should live it up.

I personally find nothing wrong with the dynamics of capitalism. In fact, it's a positive-sum game, in that all parties benefit, employer and employee. Whereas in communism, as Churchill pointed out, everyone gets to share poverty (except the ruling establishment, of course).

posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:58 AM
You don't understand communism or socialism!

Communism (from Latin communis - common, universal) is a revolutionary socialist movement to create a classless, moneyless[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production, as well as a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of this social order.

There is nothing in it that says "take away the MONEY from the rich" - nope, it's "take away the ownership of industry and production". Which is no problem for Spielberg or any other man not owning an industry, right?


log in