Second page III

Resentment is something very tight to our society over these years. The kind I'm bringing it up is the immigrant kind. Those who left the country are in its majority resentful on anything related somehow to the government and, based on what it's missing in them, they do have point. We’re here because we lost something. I just wonder if there might be a chance that some of such resentment may have been taken from the media's deconstruction, and I wonder about it because it is a bit hard for me to be convinced that a huge group of people can have the same opinion over the same thing embracing the same feeling. I mean, a way for that, it occurs to me, such a thing get to happen; is through indoctrination, but the point is that most people feel it is spontaneous, and with that inside your head, it is hard to break it down. Every argument that is swallowed entirely leads to a conviction that takes you to a fanatic state. I was thinking about those famous "two minutes of hate". I see  this resentment of ours  to a certain point, that way. I mean, media brought these thesis to, let's say, justify, in a way, that what took the country to the crisis, and what forced so many people to leave, might hold several people accountable. Media needs to sell a narrative convincing enough to their consumers, that they can understand it as a political problem, and, very important,  that it could have been prevented by choosing different when it came to vote. Politicians need believers and, a way to preserve them, is through blame. Whatever happened must be someone’s fault. Social media brought up these theories then: one of those was, that people then got tired of the political establishment before Chavez's era; and therefore pushed for this change that ended up in a disaster, phrasing it in a way, that those who once believed in the dictator, couldn't see what was coming with such political turn. The other one was more like a segregate type. The other one went on stating that ignorant people,  and by ignorant they meant the poor and the uneducated; and by uneducated they mean those who did not go to college; blinded by their alleged resentment (not the same resentment from the present days, and that is interesting too) instead of keeping up with the political establishment,  went and voted for Chávez. Both theories shows a reality where regular people had some power, indeed, of setting the path for the future of the country, and by choosing wrong (understanding wrong as Chavez's movement) such a promising future allegedly heading with the former political crew, lost its chance of achievement.
 
Many people bought those theories at their own  convenience.  Those who once believed in Chávez support this argument in which they were promised something it did not become true. It is more like they were scammed. If we think about it, it is so interesting and intriguing realizing that there are in fact people out there convinced that they could have done it otherwise but they were fooled by the political power, or worse; by a politician. I suppose that those are the same people who think that taking basic English classes will make recruiters consider them for high position roles. Now the others are something else. First, we can't know that for sure, but assuming they stand from a position of truth,  these ones have always claimed they never voted for Chávez; and that they never believed in him, which is something that, judging by how everything ended up, they were right from their angle,  so they have been taking pride ever since to a point that they see themselves elevated, or distinguished, from the ignorant kind (which means everyone else) and of course; those were mostly who started leaving the country. That sort of dichotomy was well sold. Some people feel regret from what I think it is an induced guilt, and some others stick with their anger as pride.
 
As time went by those arguments became pretty much the only logical explanation for understanding the disaster.  The deconstruction was total. But what if we take a few more glances, I mean. We can allow ourselves to wonder, for instance, who paid for Chávez appearances on national TV? Who paid for all those trips to Cuba? He started campaigning not so long after he was discharged from prison. All the media who interviewed him when he was in jail, I mean. Do you guys really think that voting had something to do with it? Do you think it ever mattered whether you believed in him or not?  Chávez held meetings with almost every single important ruler of his time: from Bill Clinton to Saddam Hussein. From the Queen of England to Fidel Castro and so on. Was it there any important protest from the media, or those who didn't believe in him then, when he reformed the constitution? Chávez arose because Real Power wanted him there. Wherever such real power comes from, which is not my intention to talk about. Power is power, Cercei would say. The thing is that these arguments won't cover all the doubts but people agreed with them only because of the social media rephrase, and while one group points out at the other for their self glorification, the obvious consensus should be that we're all to blame but not for any choosing, but for thinking that it has been an actual cause of it. It seems only a minority is willing to accept it. In the meantime,  every new immigrant must adapt his story to one of these thesis. Every immigrant who might have agreed with any project of Chávez, regardless how quickly that person stopped it,  or came around, must, either deny it like he never did it, or carry with such a burden and acknowledge his regret. We are going to hear a lot about it until the deconstruction turns these conceptions into a new gate of perception. Just like they've been doing within the music business.