Cesar Chavez–the Saint Unmasked

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, June 27, 2014

A new, critical biography tells all.

Miriam Pawel, The Crusades of Cesar Chavez, Bloomsbury Press, 2014, 548 pp., $35.00.

Cesar Chavez is the closest thing Hispanics have to Martin Luther King. There are countless streets, schools, and student centers named after him, and his birthday is a state holiday in California, Texas, and Colorado. In 1994, President Bill Clinton posthumously awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom, and in 2003 the Postal Service issued a stamp in his honor. The Navy named a cargo ship for him. Barack Obama shamelessly stole his slogan Si, se puede “Yes, we can” to use as a campaign slogan, and added the Cesar E. Chavez National Monument to the national park system in 2012.

Official adulation can only grow, as the number of Hispanics grows. All that’s left to do is declare a national holiday on the great man’s birthday, and it’s hard to imagine anything that could stop that–except perhaps this new biography by Miriam Pawel.

Miss Pawel, a Pulitzer Prize-winning author and editor, is the ideal biographer. She has researched her subject exhaustively. She writes well. She presents her findings objectively and does not pass judgment–so I will: Anyone who reads this book can only conclude that Cesar Chavez was a deceitful, foul-mouthed, philandering, sociopathic egomaniac who pretended to be a saint. And, yes, he had an unusual capacity to attract and inspire people, and worked very hard to start a farm workers union. Only a unique combination of circumstances could have made a hero out of this gifted but odious man: America’s compulsion to throw itself at the feet of non-white figureheads and the relentless liberalism of the 1960, ’70s, and ’80s.

Illegal immigrants

On both sides of his family, Chavez was descended from what would today be called illegal immigrants. His grandparents on his father’s side crossed the border from Mexico in 1898 and settled in Arizona. His mother was brought over as a six-month old in 1892.

Chavez was born in 1927 and grew up in Yuma, Arizona, on land that belonged to his grandfather, who was a moderately successful businessman. The Chavezes were not wealthy, but they kept a cow and a horse, and had so many chickens they gave away eggs. Cesar grew up with a younger brother, Richard, who would be a close collaborator his whole life.

Chavez’s father, Librado, piddled away the family businesses and fell behind on property taxes. In 1930, the state of Arizona gave him seven years to pay up. Nine years later, when Chavez was 12, the taxes were still in arrears, and the state auctioned the property. The buyer kindly let the family stay in the house for several months until the end of the school year. Later, when Chavez was fashioning himself as a doughty Latino fighting for justice, he claimed that arrogant Anglos had cheated his father and driven him off his land.

The family moved to California, but Librado was lazy, and Cesar’s parents scraped by as farm hands. Miss Pawel writes that at that time workers had to stoop to use an 18-inch hoe called el cortito. Foremen looked down the lines of workers, and if anyone stood up to rest his back he was immediately ordered back to work. There were no privies; women used their skirts to protect each other’s privacy.

Cesar was a mediocre student, and in 1942 he graduated from junior high and went to work in the fields. Miss Pawel says that he had attended about a dozen schools, but later claimed to have attended 57. In 1946, Chavez joined the Navy and spent two years repairing ships that had been damaged during the war. Later, he claimed to have joined in 1944 so he could tell people he had gone to war.

Chavez in the Navy.

Chavez in the Navy.

In 1948, at age 21, he was back in the fields with his brother Richard. That year, he married his five-months-pregnant girlfriend, Helen. He and Richard later got jobs as stock handlers in a lumber yard, which was a step up from farm work. By 1953, Chavez was living in a small, wood-frame house in a poor, Hispanic ghetto in San Jose, California. He was 26 years old and had five small children.

The activist

In 1952, Chavez met a man who changed his life, a white community organizer named Fred Ross. Ross, who was funded and supported by the famous Saul Alinsky, had started something called the Community Service Organization (CSO), based in Los Angeles. Its purpose was to increase the power of poor Hispanics, mainly by registering them to vote.

Ross started a CSO branch in San Jose, where he set up a series of “house meetings,” in which he persuaded someone to invite all his friends for an organizing session. Cesar and Richard were skeptical of any gringo who claimed to want to help Mexicans, but Cesar agreed to host a meeting. Ross was impressed by Cesar’s intensity and apparent drive, and Cesar was immediately hooked on organizing.

Later, Chavez would claim he was recruited right out of the fields to become an organizer. He kept his job with the lumber company, but spent nights and weekends registering Hispanic voters. Ross introduced him to activist Catholic priests–Anglos who explained to him the importance of unionizing farm workers, and persuaded him that the church could be an important ally. Chavez had never been an active Catholic, but for the rest of his career he used churchmen, both Catholic and Protestant, very effectively to promote his causes.

Chavez was laid off from the lumberyard and collected unemployment while he worked full-time for the CSO. Ross eventually got money from Alinsky to pay Chavez a small salary to run a “problem clinic,” where he registered Hispanics to vote, fought deportation orders, filled out immigration forms, and tracked down citizenship papers. He started setting up new CSO chapters, and wherever he went he took letters of introduction to local priests.

Chavez was a short man, physically unimpressive, and did not speak well either in English or Spanish, but he had a single-minded intensity that impressed people. Ross–who referred to Mexico as his “spiritual home”–realized he had a star pupil, and tutored him on all aspects of community organizing. Chavez inspired people with his sacrifice and dedication, and began to attract volunteers. He always had work for them, even if he had to make it up.

Chavez and the CSO regarded illegal immigrants with disdain, and did not complain when Operation Wetback rounded up and deported hundreds of thousands of Mexicans in 1954. The bracero program, which brought in immigrants at harvest time, was still operating, but growers were supposed to hire braceros only if no Americans were available. Many growers preferred to hire docile Mexicans over legal residents, and one of Chavez’s early farm jobs was to call in federal agents to chase away the braceros.

In 1959, Chavez become a national director for the CSO, and continued to run problem clinics. About that time he met Dolores Huerta, his most famous sidekick, who stuck with him to the end, and continues to promote him as a saint. She was the one exception to his rule that women are good only for secretarial and drudge work. As he explained, women were “made for this kind . . . [of] tedious work.”

In 1962, after 10 years, Chavez left the CSO. Miss Pawel writes that years later, he claimed he left because the CSO ignored farm workers. In fact, the CSO board had just voted to make organizing farm workers one of its priorities.

Miss Pawel explains the real reasons Chavez left the CSO. One was a personality kink he appears to have had all his life: a contempt for the middle class and for poor Hispanics who wanted to join it. In his CSO work, he was disgusted by members who got what they wanted–be it citizenship, better wages, or a pension–and then dropped out of the organization. He claimed to despise materialism–he seems to have had no desire for personal wealth–and this was part of his appeal. Yet, in a riddle that Miss Pawel does not explain, he saw no irony in working endless hours to advance the most materialistic concerns: higher wages and better working conditions. Later, he would say repeatedly that he wanted to run a movement, not a union, and though he was never sure just what that movement would be, in his mind it always had strong elements of sacrifice and self-denial.

The other reason is that Chavez was fascinated by power and wanted to be the boss. He read Machiavelli, and studied how Hitler and Mao had used power. He admired Gandhi’s ability to exercise non-political power. “Everything you deal with in the movement is about power,” he once explained.

It was at this point, when Chavez left the CSO, that he accomplished something genuinely remarkable. Essentially single-handedly, he built a union for people who had never had one. Others were doing the same thing, but he achieved a lot more with a lot less.

Farm workers

In 1962, Chavez left the CSO and moved to Delano, California. He was 35 years old, had eight children, no job, and $1,200 in savings. However, he knew he would not starve, since two of his wife’s sisters lived in Delano, as did his brother Richard, who was a successful carpenter. He filed for unemployment and made sure he never got a job offer.

At that time, the AFL-CIO was also trying to start a farm union, and had set up the Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee (AWOC) as a first step. Chavez was afraid to compete openly with AWOC, so he travelled the San Joaquin Valley, claiming to be taking a census of farm workers. Often, when he told people he was not being paid, they gave him food and gas money. Ross also sent money, and he got support from a protestant organization called the California Migrant Ministry. Its head, Chris Hartmire, gave Chavez crucial early support and stuck by him for many years.

In 1962, Chavez held the first convention of what he called the Farm Workers Association, later the United Farm Workers Association (UFW). This was when he introduced the union symbol: a black Aztec eagle on a red and white background. Chavez chose that color scheme because he admired the visual impact of the Nazi swastika.

The first meeting attracted about 150 workers, who agreed to pay $3.50 a month in dues. In return, they got small life insurance policies, and loans from a simple credit union for which Richard Chavez raised capital by mortgaging his house.

Modeled on a famous color scheme.

Modeled on a famous color scheme.

In the press release announcing the union, Chavez shaded the truth, as usual, claiming that he supported his family by working in the fields from 6 am to 2 pm. “The rest of the day and half the night Cesar devotes to organizing.” In fact, he rarely did farm work, the union had voted him a modest salary, and he had plans for other income.

Miss Pawel points out that by the 1960s, farm workers had already attracted national attention. Many people watched Edward R. Murrow’s 1960 television program, Harvest of Shame, and exploitation of field hands was being compared to the oppression of blacks. Congress responded by killing the bracero program in 1964; this reduced the labor supply and put upward pressure on wages.

In April 1965, Chavez was still peddling life insurance and running a “problem clinic” when rival AWOC called a strike that forced him to follow suit. AWOC, whose members were almost all Filipinos, was striking table-grape growers, and UFW workers went on strike in sympathy. Chavez played hard ball from the start. Union members set up picket lines in the fields and shouted abuse at strike breakers. They picketed the houses of strikebreakers.

Hartmire’s Migrant Ministry put its staff of 12 to work for the strike, and its ministers wrote Chavez’s speeches and pamphlets. Three months into the strike, the AFL-CIO decided to give the UFW $5,000 a month as long as the strike lasted, and Walter Reuther brought the press corps to Delano to publicize the strike. A talented playwright named Luis Valdez started Teatro Campesino (Peasant Theater), which performed pro-union skits on a flat-bed truck that could be driven into the fields. Senator Robert Kennedy toured the fields with Chavez.

Farm workers had become the new liberal pets, and Chavez began to attract idealistic young whites. As the strike wore on, workers stopped picketing and went on to other jobs, so hippies from Berkeley took their place. A white volunteer edited the AFW newspaper. Chavez liked to claim that “none of our staff is salaried but we provide a floor to sleep on and three meals a day,” even though he and a number of key personnel got modest salaries.

The growers–second- and third-generation Italian, Sicilian, and Slav immigrants rather than haughty “Anglo” exploiters–found replacement workers, and managed to keep their businesses going. Chavez needed new tactics to break the growers, and decided to send volunteers to cities all over the country to persuade consumers to boycott California grapes. He got Hispanics who worked for the growers to smuggle out company strategy. He also had volunteers follow the trucks from the farms, so they could set up pickets to prevent unloading the grapes. Women who packed the grapes pricked them with needles so they would rot before they got to market.

Chavez preened himself on Gandhi-like civil disobedience, but looked the other way while his cousin Manual Chavez organized teams to burn down grape storage sheds, destroy irrigation pumps, and hack down mature vines. They smashed the refrigeration units on the train cars that kept grapes cool on their way to market. Publicly, Chavez condemned violence, but years later, he said of his cousin Manual: “He’s done all the dirty work for the union. There’s a lot of fucking dirty work, and he did it all.”

During the strike, Chavez imitated the black civil rights movement by staging a march. He led followers the 245 miles from Delano to the state capitol in Sacramento, carrying images of the Virgin of Guadeloupe, Mexico’s patron saint. Catholic priests blessed the marchers, and the media obliged with sympathetic coverage.

Chavez was already showing his colors. The AFW had officially become an AFL-CIO union by merging–theoretically as equals–with the larger AWOC, but Chavez kept control and shouldered out the Filipinos. He also set up non-profits to provide services for poor workers, but in a pattern that Miss Pawel says persisted throughout his career, he illegally diverted money from non-profits to the union. He also began to kick out rivals for center stage. In 1967, Teatro Campesino was gaining national attention, and its leader, Luis Valdes, had ideas of his own, so the troupe had to go.

In 1968, Chavez tried a new tactic: a hunger strike. A grower had finally got enough evidence of union violence to get a contempt citation against Chavez, and he began to fast several weeks before he had to appear in court. He claimed it was a fast against violence, an act of prayer, an expression of love. The site of the fast became a carnival, and sprouted an impromptu village of 200 tents. Every day there was singing, every evening there was mass. Admirers waited hours for an audience with Chavez, lying in bed in his pajamas, with a rosary and a mezuzah strung up over his head. It was all great propaganda.

Chavez was still fasting when he showed up in court, leaning for support on his lawyer, and pretended to stumble as he went by the television cameras. Hundreds of farm workers crammed into the courthouse; the judge put off the hearing. On the 25th day of the fast, Robert Kennedy came as the guest of honor to help break the fast–another huge carnival and media event. The UFW put up a 30-foot cross to memorialize Chavez’s sacrifice, and even Dolores Huerta admitted that “a lot of people thought Cesar was trying to play God.”

Kennedy was assassinated only a few days later, and an increasingly high-profile Chavez flew to New York to be one of the pallbearers. National publications wrote fawning stories. Peter Matthiessen wrote an adoring, two-part profile of Chavez in the New Yorker in 1969 that gave the UFW enormous credibility–and donated his $1,500 fee to one of Chavez’s organizations.

National stature meant a more effective boycott. Priests prayed over grapes in supermarket aisles, volunteers held candle light vigils outside the homes of food company executives, and picketers stalled cars to block supermarket parking lots. Boycott volunteers filled grocery carts to the brim, went to the checkout, and asked if the store sold grapes. When cashiers said yes, they walked out in protest. College students voted to ban grapes from dining halls, as Chavez traveled the country raising money.

The growers buckled. Catholic bishops posed as arbitrators between growers and the UFW, but the growers rightly doubted their neutrality. In one high-profile case when workers took a vote on whether to join the UFW or a Teamster farm union, Monsignor George Higgins stepped in to count the ballots. Later he admitted he deliberately miscounted to give the UFW a victory.

Soon, the UFW had tens of thousands of members and hundreds of contracts, but union operations were in shambles. No one knew how many members there were, whose dues were up to date, or how many hours they had worked. Chavez made rules that frustrated everyone. Members had to pay dues year-round, whether they were working or not, so when the growing season came around, they might be several hundred dollars in arrears. The union would not send them on jobs, and frustrated growers sometimes leant them money for dues. The UFW also gave job preference according to seniority within the union. This meant that if a husband and wife joined at different times they might not be able to work together. It also meant that people who had worked at the same farm year after year might not be able to go back because they lacked UFW seniority.

Chavez had no time for workers who complained. He never cared about the details of running a union, and refused to delegate power to anyone who did. But he still attracted white volunteers. The early ones had come because they believed in farm worker rights. Now, they came because they thought he was a hero, and were even less likely to question him or talk back.

Chavez adopted a new image. He had always been a smoking, drinking, meat-eating Mexican, but now he lived on carrot juice and vegetables. He complained of chronic back pain, which gave him an excuse not to see people. He started giving interviews from his bed, as he had during his fast. He wanted everyone to know that he was working through his pain and doing penance for the good of mankind. The Filipinos were not fooled. They complained that they were second-class citizens in a Mexican-dominated union, and told him he should stop trying to be a saint and run the union.

La Paz

In 1970, a rich Hollywood movie producer who had come under Chavez’s spell bought a retreat for him: a remote, abandoned tuberculosis sanatorium in the hills of Kern County. It was an hour away from union headquarters in Delano, and even farther from the action in the fields. His advisors thought the union should stay close to the workers, but Chavez wanted to get away from them. He preached communal living, and insisted that his staff live there with their families. At its height, 150 people were living at the compound Chavez named La Paz.

The union continued to be badly run, but Chavez dismissed complaints, claiming they were grower propaganda. Idealistic white volunteers tried hard to make the union work, and often saw what was going wrong. Miss Pawel writes that some of them drew up careful plans for how to solve problems, and were invited to La Paz to explain them. Chavez accused them of being traitors and fired them. Some were so shocked they left in tears.

Chavez continued to call strikes and burnish his image. He led groups of celebrities to defy judges’ orders not to interfere with strikebreakers, and went to jail with them, while supporters gathered outside to sing and say mass. Admirers took turns going on 24-hour fasts. His union lost contracts to the Teamsters–and to angry workers who wanted to decertify the union–but his national stature grew.

Chavez would not delegate authority. In 1973, he was opening every single piece of mail that came to La Paz. His brother Richard complained that he had to report to the boss on every spark plug the union bought for a car. Chavez also became more dictatorial than ever, forcing out anyone who disagreed with him. As he explained, “I got to be the fucking king, or I leave.” When the leader of another union criticized UFW tactics, Chavez sent a messaging saying he could “go fuck himself.”

Outside of La Paz, people admired Chavez, sent him money, boycotted grapes, and felt smug about it. In 1974 Chavez got an audience with the Pope, and at the 1976 Democratic national convention he gave the nomination speech for California Governor Jerry Brown (Jimmy Carter won the nomination).

Hispanics now keep this quiet, but Chavez never saw illegal immigrants as anything but scabs, claiming that the CIA was deliberately letting them in to break his strikes. He had volunteers scout the fields and call Border Patrol if they found illegal workers.

In 1974, Chavez’s cousin Manual used union money to bribe Mexican authorities to prevent illegals from crossing into Arizona to break a strike against lemon growers. Manuel also set up a “wet[back] line” of thugs to beat up and rob illegals who got through. The violence was so bad illegals complained to the Border Patrol.

There is no question that Chavez knew about this. He was obsessive about recording conversations–Miss Pawel listened to more than 1,500 hours of tapes–and he talked with Manuel about how to run the wet line. However, when rumors of violence began to seep out–and when Manuel was arrested–Chavez managed to keep his reputation for saintly non-violence.

Farm workers began to attract the attention of the California legislature, and several bills were introduced to establish a legal framework for unionization. In public, Chavez supported legislation, but in private he hated anything that would formalize the relationship between workers and growers and leave no room for his grandstanding. He wanted to be the only reason conditions improved for workers. He tried to load bills up with impossible demands and was mortified when they passed anyway. “Legislation wasn’t what we were after,” he said. “Legislation could screw us.”

In 1977, Chavez started purging people before audiences. He studied the humiliation techniques of Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and liked to call targets before a group for scripted accusations: “You’re a fucking agent, and we want you out right now.” For Chavez, there was no such thing as disagreement, mistakes, or incompetence. If anything went wrong, it was always the work of traitors and saboteurs, whom he referred to as “assholes.” Most of the victims were white, but some of Chavez’s Mexican comrades got the same treatment. When others in the organization were shocked at the expulsion of people they thought were loyal supporters, Chavez told them whatever lies he thought they might believe.

Chavez always liked a big celebration on his birthday, March 31, and in 1977, he gave it an official name, “Founder’s Day.” This was based on yet another lie: that he had resigned from the CSO to start a farm union on his birthday. The day became an official union holiday, and staff were to set aside at least one hour on Founder’s Day for religious services and for studying the heroic, early days of the union.

Chavez started using the royal “we.” In his newsletters and reports to donors he would write, “We spent two days in San Jose for a physical examination,” or “We had a good visit with our mother.” Detractors began to call La Paz “The Magic Mountain.”

In 1977, Chavez became friendly with a con-man named Charles Dederich. Dederich had started something called Synanon, which started out as a way to get people off drugs but became a cult in which members turned over their assets to Dederich. He and his black wife presided over group weddings of members, ordered them to swap wives, and at one point insisted that all his followers shave their heads.

One of the trademarks of Synanon was something called the Game, in which people gathered in groups to shout abuse at each other in the vilest possible language. This was supposed to build trust, but gave Dederich a way to humiliate and control members. He demonstrated the Game to Chavez, who took to it immediately, and introduced it to La Paz. Many employees were appalled by the Game, but thought they had no choice but to play. Chavez’s wife Helen and his brother Richard were among the few who refused to play but were not turfed out as traitors.

Chavez was dazzled by Dederich, whom he considered a genius at group psychology. During one of Chavez’s visits to a Synanon compound, Dederich told him: “All these young punks that you see around here have one mission in life: that’s to wait on me and make me feel wonderful. . . . I’m going to put you in a position like that in about 15 years.”

“I like it,” replied Chavez.

La Paz became a cult. When Chavez gave orders that everyone had to work in the vegetable and flower gardens on Saturday, everyone obeyed. A priest who visited complained that La Paz was a place “where people walk around in fear and act like zombies or robots.” In 1978, Chavez took a six-day mind control course and started claiming he could cure people by laying on hands.

Chavez was having affairs. Many people knew it, but kept quiet to spare his wife and to protect his image as a saintly Catholic family man. When Helen found a love letter from a teen-aged girlfriend, Chavez claimed growers had forged the letter to discredit him. In an unusual act of independence, Helen moved out of La Paz. “He wants to make the babies, but he doesn’t want to take care of them,” Helen once complained. Volunteers offered to teach Helen to drive, but Chavez wanted her at home. Chavez’s brother Richard married one of Helen’s close friends, but he started having children with Dolores Huerta. Helen swallowed her fury. She also let Chavez coax her back to La Paz.

Meanwhile, union dues started to dry up as workers decertified the UFW or signed up with the Teamsters. Chavez started pushing for contracts at any price, accepting deals he would earlier have rejected.

Chavez had always scorned the idea of taking government money, because it meant giving up independence. Now, he actively sought grants from the US Department of Labor because he no longer had to pay attention to workers: “With government money you don’t even have to talk to them [workers].” Chavez had always claimed his movement was going to be run by farm workers for farm workers; instead, he staffed the union with family members, old cronies, and white professionals–so long as they toadied to him.

In 1978, the police raided Synanon and found evidence of tax fraud and of an attempt to murder a lawyer who represented ex-cult members who wanted their assets back. Four days after the raid, another cult was in the news after 900 members of the Jim Jones cult committed suicide in Guyana. A Democratic state legislator put out a press release comparing La Paz to the Guyana cult, and UFW staff started joking about Kool Aid. Chavez stopped playing the Game.

Miss Pawel does not say this specifically, but she makes it clear that Chavez cared much more about being a star than helping workers, and that he probably stopped caring about them at all. It thrilled him to humiliate “Anglo” growers and drag them to the negotiating table, but he had no patience for enforcing contracts. He hated legislation that might help farm workers but would put him out of business. He criticized “selfish” workers who cared about higher wages and didn’t understand the need for “sacrifice.” He claimed workers were running the UFW, but lived at La Paz, where he never saw any.

But the clearest of proof of his indifference to the welfare of workers was how he treated competitor unions. It was clear that Chavez would never delegate enough authority for someone to establish the UFW outside of California, so former colleagues started organizing in Arizona on their own–and had some success with illegals as well as legal workers. Chavez was furious. He accused the union leader of being a communist agent, threatened to have the members deported, and got his lawyers to sue in state and federal court to try to nullify the union’s contracts. Shortly after he criticized a clothing bank the union was running, someone burned it down. Chavez even tried to persuade a Phoenix bishop to take back a $100,000 grant he had made to a group affiliated with the union.

“The two Jews”

Purges became more vicious. When his activist white lawyers, who were working for starvation wages, asked for a raise, Chavez fired them, along with the UFW’s general counsel, Jerry Cohen, who had helped engineer the union’s greatest successes. Chavez claimed he could do without greedy “Anglos.” At about the same time, he fired another long-time and highly capable collaborator, Marshall Ganz. Cohen and Ganz were Jews, and at the 1981 UFW convention, Chavez put down an insurgent vote by distributing pamphlets claiming that his opponents were being manipulated by “the two Jews,” who thought they were superior to Mexicans and wanted to take over the union.

By the end of the 1980s, Chavez was spending most of his time making money, often with openly commercial ventures. In 1988, he controlled no fewer than 18 non-profit and commercial entities in addition to the UFW. One was a business that bought scores of houses in foreclosure, fixed them up, and flipped them for big profits.

Where did the money come from? When Chavez signed his very first contract in 1970, he set up something called the Martin Luther King Jr. fund into which members paid 2 cents (later 5 cents) for every hour they worked. This was supposed to pay for health and pension plans for migrant workers, but most of it was never spent, and sat in the bank earning interests. By 1983, Chavez was spending millions from this fund flipping houses. In 1989, the fund had $8 million in the bank, accountable only to Cesar Chavez.

Miss Pawel notes that union labor got almost none of the work fixing up the houses. Union leaders, who had given the UFW strike money in its glory days, were livid; they recalled that Chavez always had his hand out to other unions, but never gave them a dime.

Chavez lost credibility as a labor organizer, but away from the fields, his star continued to shine. In 1990 alone, he spoke at 64 events, and was paid an average of $3,800 per appearance. He was a rock-star hero on college campuses, where volunteers who put on his speeches got a detailed list of requirements: how many cars to have in his cortege, how to set up the podium, exactly what foods to have on hand for his macrobiotic diet. He always appeared in his trade-mark flannel shirt and work boots, and got a standing ovation no matter what he said.

Violence and corner cutting finally caught up with him. In 1987, the union had to pay $1.7 million in damages to a grower because of violence. The government audited some of the Chavez organizations and demanded repayment of hundreds of thousands in misspent grant money. Miss Pawel notes that in one lawsuit Chavez clearly perjured himself, but the judge let him off, noting only that Chavez was mistaken. Baby boomers who had grown up boycotting grapes were now the establishment, and a saint could hardly go to jail for perjury.

In the 1980s, Chavez found a new enemy: pesticides. He spent huge sums on TV ads, and called for boycotts. “Our workers and their children are being poisoned in the killing fields of California’s table grape industry,” he railed, but the boycott failed. He raised $100,000 for a pesticide lab and got thousands of dollars in donated equipment. The lab never opened.

In 1988, he raised the stakes against pesticides with another media-circus fast. Jesse Jackson and Ethel Kennedy were on hand to salaam when he broke his fast–with a communion wafer. The growers and the public ignored him, so Chavez sniffed out traitors to blame for this failure, and ordered another round of purges. This time, Chris Hartmire, who had started with the Migrant Ministries and had been loyal for more than 20 years, was the scapegoat. He wrote in his diary: “In a way, I got what was coming to me. I went along with a lot of rotten stuff . . . . I not only went along, I interpreted these events so that Cesar would be protected.”

So many people cleared out or were purged that La Paz became a ghost town. As one long-termer put it after he had finally packed up in disgust, “how far he [Chavez] is in reality from the image so many good people have of him.”

Chavez struggled on into the 1990s as a phony union man but still a media hero. In 1993, he was ordered to testify in a case alleging illegal activity in connection with a failed lettuce boycott. Opposing counsel was well prepared, and Chavez’s testimony went badly. He had been fasting, but ate dinner that night and went to bed early. The next morning he was found dead in bed. He was 66 years old.

Chavez went off in a blaze of glory. Tens of thousands of fans filed by his casket. Cardinal Roger Mahoney delivered the eulogy before 40,000 mourners, and 120 pall bearers took turns carrying the casket. No Hispanic hero could have asked for more.

What did Chavez want?

Today, Chavez is a racial hero to Hispanics, but at least from this biography, ethnic solidarity does not seem to have been his main preoccupation. He certainly used race if he thought it would be useful. When the UFW was competing with the Teamsters to sign up farm labor, he argued that “these workers are all brown and black workers and they want our union. They don’t want to be led by white men who don’t understand their needs.”

Sometimes, he presented himself as a Hispanic leader. In 1984, when he spoke to the Commonwealth Club, a bastion of the San Francisco elite, he had a message that went far beyond labor organizing:

We [Hispanics] have looked into the future, and the future is ours. History and inevitability are on our side. . . . The consciousness and pride that were raised by our union are alive and thriving inside millions of young Hispanics who will never work on a farm.

And yet, Chavez never had much to do with the National Council of La Raza, the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), or radical groups like MEChA. He chewed through white supporters and volunteers, but he also kept a few whites in important positions for years. He played no role in getting amnesty for illegals in 1986, and made no special effort to unionize the newly legal Hispanics.

The man who now looks down benignly from countless campus and neighborhood murals is clearly supposed to be a leader of la raza, but this book suggests that Cesar Chavez had only one consuming preoccupation: Cesar Chavez.

Topics: , , , , , ,

Share This

Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is the editor of American Renaissance and the author of White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • When Cesar Chavez’s birthday does become a national holiday, it won’t be good news for us, but it will be good news for me.

    My birthday will be a national holiday and I’ll have it off every year, assuming my particular employer at the time recognizes it.

    • Oil Can Harry

      And yet this insanely overrated, power-mad egomaniac opposed illegal aliens, making him more of an immigration patriot than many of Conservatism Inc.’s leading loudmouths.

      • John R

        Yeah. The Irony!

      • propagandaoftruth

        Yep. Like many non-White saints, if one looks behind the image, one finds unsavoriness. Heck, not unlike many White “saints”.

        If you’re White, however, the skeletons are the first thing they look for. Non-White – keep those skeletons in the closet. Does not fit the narrative.

        • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

          Very true. Herr Hitler was a good example. An STD infected sexual degenerate behind the scenes, just like Chavez and MLK. All three craved: “living in the limelight, the universal dream”-Geddy Lee of Rush- Philosophers and ploughmen are just UnderMenschen to be kept in their place for such egotistical [email protected] Working Whites again need someone to represent us. We need a Merlin Miller to at least be elected governor of a state like West Virginia or Montana.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Hitler was a genius at gaining and holding power, nothing else. He and his coterie of failed artistes did more damage to our Folk than all the commies and liblefties combined.

            Before I rant along further, just curious. Ohio Deutsche Klezmer Rebel, eh? That’s an interesting handle. Not intending to pry, but what’s the backstory to that? I’ve always enjoyed your comments and upvotes (lol).

            Merlin Miller, eh? Thanks for that reference – never heard of him before. Looks pretty solid.

            He seems to hold potential to bring together an American “National Front” from my brief perusal.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Glad you enjoy my posts! I guess I’m an AmRen regular now. Merlin Miller was only on the ballot in New Jersey, Tennessee, and Colorado for the 2012 Presidential election, running as candidate for A3P, American Third Position party. He had a true White Nationalist platform, the kind of third party we need. You asked about my screen name. Deutsche is for my pride in my German descent, Rebel refers to my sympathy for the former Confederate States of America. I’d like to see the rural/red counties in Northern states secede from their parent states, to get away from the liberal policies that are being foisted upon us. Klezmer I included as I enjoy listening to Klezmer folk music. I enjoy polkas as well. I surely don’t like the anti-White ideations of Jewish Libtards. My enjoyment of Klezmer is fueled by my enjoyment of good music, and my respect for real musical talent.

          • propagandaoftruth

            I’d like to see Appalaichia form a new state and then secede, lol…

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Most definitely!! Think I’ll sip a glass of good ole Kentucky Whiskey to that! Appalachian Ohio needs to bid the folks in Columbus “Au Revoir”, like our Appalachian Brethren in Western Maryland are attempting to do with their Libtard oppressors in Annapolis.

          • propagandaoftruth

            Micro-secession movements seem to hold hope if for no other reason than to provide folks with a common cause.

          • bilderbuster

            Hitler was an STD infected sexual degenerate?
            And you reached this conclusion how?

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            History books my friend. It is not proven, but he most likely had a good dose of Ashkenazim in his ancestry as well. This would explain the irrational desire to murder Slavic Europeans, and the UnderMenschen hooey with regards to Slavs. Slavic Europe was groaning under the weight of Jewish usurious bankers, and was not happy about it. Remember, Herr Hitler’s advisors told him to play the anti-Semitism card to win the hearts and minds of the German people. Before receiving this advice, he was not strongly anti-Semitic. The man was a narcissist who was interested in being idolized, not in preserving the White race.

          • propagandaoftruth

            His extreme solution may also have driven Franco off. Two Spanish doctors visited Nazi Germany, were shown “the real deal” by an SS fellow who thought they would approve. When they went home and informed Franco, it appears to have bothered the man. When Hitler tried to get Spain to join the cause right after the fall of France, Franco set an absurdly high price to enter.

            Hitler was a genius at gaining and holding power – not at its use. Imagine if Spain had entered the war with millions of battle hardened veterans and…GIBRALTER for the taking. Med an Axis lake? War OVER.

            But Hitler was a hubritic strategic buffoon, and his nasty side did him in.

  • Dave4088

    Chavez sounds like a classic sociopath who was also mestizo racial chauvinist when it suited his aims. The rapid demographic changes in this country ensures that he will soon be inducted into the pantheon of multicultural tin gods and as one of the post 1965 “founding fathers” of the new, hip, diverse and anti-racist (virulently anti-white) America along with MLK, Rosa Parks and others.

    • Wirbelwind1

      “Pantheon of multi-cultural tin gods”


    • Einsatzgrenadier

      The induction of Cesar Chavez into “the pantheon of multicultural tin gods” ensures that his image will be cast to the ground when the US federal government is brought to its knees. Immigration patriots and nationalists will smash his image into a million pieces when the American totalitarian order finally disintegrates into bloodshed and war.

      • Never happen. We’ve be lulled into such a state of comfort, we’ll thank our brown overlords when the hoar us into cattle cars.

    • John R

      Of course: From Montezuma to Chavez, not much changed.

      • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

        Exactly. AmerIndians are a violent race. The Aztecs and Mayans were total barbarians. It is their descendants who are currently flowing across our border, and who will be the dominant race in 20 years in America. I’ll take a Chavez in the White House over Bathhouse Barry, but that will just be a case of lesser of evils for Whites.

        • John R

          And the stupid Negroes. At least Whites will probably survive in a mestizo dominated society, by doing useful work that mestizos are not good at. (e.g. all the auto technicians in my neighborhood are White guys.) But the blacks, where is all their “gubmint” money and “formative ashion” jobs going to come from? You think the Mexicans and Central Americans will have a feeling of guilt over the heritage of “slavery and segregation”?

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            I agree. The Mestizoes will most likely put the Negroes back in their place once in power. This will be good for us, as the White Lefties are certainly not going to do this. The White Lefties/mudshark types will side with the Blacks, but will be silenced by the Hispanics in power. If the Blacks keep the current level of sociopathy going, Hispanics may actually appreciate Whites like us, who want to maintain our culture, and work hard every day.

    • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

      Exactly. I think I’ll name my driveway George Wallace lane. He was also a philanderer, but at least he defended the interests of working Whites. Wallace is our Cesar Chavez. He at least tried to defend our rights. He also gained almost universal support from White Southerners and White working people in a couple of Northern cities. I wish he had had a better personal life, but good old George was squeaky clean compared to MLK or Chavez.

  • JohnEngelman

    Migrant farm workers perform work that is necessary to all of us. They have always lived hard lives. Have their lives gotten better since Cesar Chavez began his work? Does he deserve at least part of the credit?

    Miriam Pawel ought to have answered those questions. She does not seem to have.

    • LHathaway

      Well, to go more extreme than Chavez himself. .and take a truly conspiracy theory stance on thing. . . the whole thing was likely a giant conspiracy with the growers in on it. The ultimate purpose being to get more work done with the least amount of violence and discord committed by the workers doing it. This being accomplished by convincing workers ‘something is being done’ and ‘we have a voice’ now, and a ‘Hispanic representation of us’ is a big wig helping call the shots. Everything is a conspiracy.

    • Tarczan

      Most of the grapes I buy now are from Central America, instead of California, so yeah he had a big effect. Help people? Not so much.

    • Usually Much Calmer

      Mr. Taylor’s review may have it’s own focus.

      I would not hazard that the book treats this topic or doesn’t, based on the above.

      • JohnEngelman

        The book and the review seem like hit pieces on a man who is neither flawless nor evil, but demonized because of his politics.

        • Usually Much Calmer

          Oh, If that’s what you intended to subtly suggest in your first post, I did not pick up on it. I’ll return to reading your comments a little more carefully.

        • SentryattheGate

          Sounds like Chavez was a very flawed individual! (I had already known that he was active against illegal immigration.) He comes from the macho Hispanic culture that glorifies power over others, especially women, as the book points out; his big ego overrode all else! He is an example of one of the main problems with that culture; the Latino culture of most of the Western Hemisphere, which seems to go nowhere; no inventors, no Nobel Prize winners, no great universities, no manufactured goods that are in demand, no rule of law, few civil/citizen rights, and a history of dictators! Rather than look in the mirror and be self-critical and try to change what is holding them back, they blame someone else, usually the white man, whom they flood to for a better life!

          • Jeff T

            Excellent, concise summary of the “Latino” subculture. And to think we are allowing them to colonize and soon rule over us. What does it portend for the future of whites? When you bring up such discussions with whites, most often, they look at you with a blank stare. Pathetic “Eloi” waiting for their destruction.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Excellent description of the nature of “Latino” culture. AmerIndian is the dominant racial strain, not the Caucasian racial genes of the Spanish Conquistadores. “Latino” is a culture resulting from miscegenation. The behavioral traits of the AmerIndian race predominate, thus the violent, non-White nature of the society.

        • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

          Not an evil man?? He hated Whites!!! “Anglo” is a racist term Hispanics use for all Whites. They are not thinking in proper intellectual terms, thinking of only Whites of Anglo-Saxon descent. “Anglo”, to them, is all Whites.

          • JohnEngelman

            Not an evil man?? He hated Whites!

            – OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            The charge of hating whites is leveled too frequently on this website, as is the charge of being a racist in other environments.

            I do not think that the word “Anglo” is any more racist than the name of the football team at Washington, DC.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            I see the naming of teams, such as Washington Redskins/Cleveland Indians/Atlanta Braves as complimentary to American Indians. It reflects a warrior spirit. When Latinos use the word “Anglo”, though, they are usually expressing some sentiment involving being held down by Whites.

        • Bossman

          I did not bother to read the whole article but the man appears to have been a simple, humble Indian of the Mezzo-American type trying to better the conditions of his people in the USA.

          • JohnEngelman

            Thank you for your post.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            I think most of us on AmRen expected you to reflect a favorable bias towards Chavez. What were your thoughts on the savage and disgusting beating of Catherine Ferreira in Salem, NJ, at the hands of a sadistic Negress? Her small boy was kicking the Negress in the foot trying to stop her from beating his Mom. My heart goes out to Ms. Ferreira and her boy. What they were subjected to was beyond wrong, another example of the sadistic sociopathy that is so prevalent in the Negro mind.

      • SoulInvictus

        The other thread we were chatting on got locked, so I found your post on this one. I didn’t see the article you mentioned, but I happened upon one (no idea how since I did a search on Monuments Men of all things) that brought our discussion to mind.

        If you want something that’ll bring the bile to the back of your throat and paint a vivid picture of one aspect of the problem at hand, here you go.
        (admittedly, I didn’t make it far past the first paragraph).

        • Usually Much Calmer

          That was unexpected!

          It provided a nice insight for me into her motives, but I do hope it is not widely read.

          I have some musings on it that I will not set down here. Thank you for sharing it.

          Hope Disney was fun.

          • SoulInvictus

            Yeah, I bet that provokes all sorts of musings that would need to be ….heavily redacted in order to stay posted.

            I just posted it because that is a Grade A example of

            A. Media Propaganda that gets fed to white women.
            B. (If it’s a real accounting) The mental illness on full display of a white (well, jewish I think) woman hating her own kind and fetishizing blacks.

            Disney was great. The girls had a phenomenal time.:)

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Gee, I thought we were just talking, why so hostile? 😉

            The reason I was not going to share was not because my language would be inappropriate, but because the content might be (not gauche but too far afield).

            I have been thinking lately about how many men (realist and otherwise) don’t seem to like women at all, above and beyond the biological imperative. For younger men, I can understand this; so many young women act like girls and expect to be treated either like men or like girls according to their fancy, but never like women.

            But for older men, I can’t grant the same grace. Women are different from men but awesome in their own right. . . I just don’t see that sentiment in many men. And I don’t see appreciation for particular (such as the ones we will all need if things get tough) virtues in women among men. I see a lot of bitterness (eg:some unspeakable crime is posted on AmRen and comments following the syllogism a. she’s female-> b. if she’s female she’s liberal->c.she’s liberal->d. if she’s liberal she imposed this fate on others with her agency->e. she imposed this fate on others->f. what goes around comes around->g. she deserved this, all is right in the world). This is bad.

            And I do see plenty of charming feminine women who still like men as men. So I thought I could understand somewhat where the author was coming from.

            But then I saw a photo of her and . . . now I can’t even take the piece seriously (google at your own risk).

            You are a very pleasant conversation partner, thanks for taking this up. The piece I steered you toward bolstered your position not mine, btw. But you knew that already, considering the source.

          • SoulInvictus

            Whew, you weren’t kidding about googling at your own risk.
            She fits every preconceived stereotype I had envisioned.
            Old, fat, and ugly. Trifecta!
            That explains so, so much.

            “I have been thinking lately about how many men (realist and otherwise) don’t seem to like women at all”

            That goes back into what I covered in the lengthy post before. Sure, when you have women radically depart from what almost all men value in a mate, then men aren’t going to like them very much beyond appearance (and in the land of obesity, even that is at issue). That’s more of a “I didn’t leave the party, the party left me” scenario than it is some inherent hostility.

            “I see a lot of bitterness”

            If the vast majority of men turned into (trying to find an equivalent)…say, spineless pansies that thought it tiresome to keep up physical appearance, or develop any useful or lustworthy manly skills, or held fatherhood as the lowest possible priority in their lives, then I’d be completely understanding of widespread feminine bitterness. But as I’d said previously, from my perspective, men are little changed from 50 years ago, women however…

            “so many young women act like girls…” but never like women.”
            And that phenomena now extends into 30,35+ ladies.

            ” b. if she’s female she’s liberal”
            Largely true and backed up by statistics as well as voting trends.

            “d. if she’s liberal she imposed this fate on others with her agency”
            Individually, not so much. As a whole, yes, very much.

            “g. she deserved this, all is right in the world”
            I will say, there is a certain amount of schadenfreude enjoyed when people meet the results of their philosophy.
            Rabidly anti-gun, anti-racist, anti-male, anti-etc gets introduced to brutal reality=warm, dark, remorseless smile.
            Same way people here discuss the slight upside of delighting in what would inevitably occur should our unsustainable government and society capsize. The very people that helped bring it about would be among the first cannibalized by their beloved pet causes.

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Thank you for another reasonable discussion.

            “I fail to see the problem with taking pleasure in folks getting their just desserts.” You and I just disagree here, particularly when the victim in question has only implied desserts by virtue of being a member of a group with a dominant profile.

            Have a great week!

          • MBlanc46

            Women could have just asked to renegotiate the sexual division of labor (as men did renegotiate it with hardly a whimper, it’s clear that they’d have gotten what they wanted, or say they wanted). But that’s not the tack that women took. They claimed that men oppressed them. That their condition was little better than slavery. That men were pigs. That men were perverts. That men were creeps. Than men were rapists. And they didn’t hesitate to make up fantastic lies (the wage gap, “Don’t stay home alone with him on game day”, campuses are rampant with rape) to bolster their claims. This is a race realist site, but since you bring up the question, thosre are some reasons why older men (men who’ve watched relationships between men and women go sour for forty or fifty years) sometimes have a rather jaundiced view of the distaff side.

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Thank you for your input, MBlanc.

            I think you may be right and to your point, I might also add that the trend in co-education during the developing years has been to, rather than simply allow for differences between males and females, frame the two groups as in conflict (rambunctious boys threaten girls’ space to learn, funding for boys sports comes at the expense of funding for girls sports, etc.). This is a formative experience it does take effort to undo if it sticks, which may explain why SoulInvictus finds ‘young’ and ‘reasonable’ exclusive qualities, and why I find disdain and/or distrust for women so common among men. Men may have less incentive to undo it (presented with fewer assumption questioning crises) than women, so I see the trend persist in older men.

            But, as Courtney so well points out, we are not individually responsible for this, it was a culture into which people are raised.

            Needing acculturation, we are all susceptible to this kind of perversion. Many race realists become so as a result of experience, despite having been raised with the egalitarian dogma, just as many more will. I do not fault these converts for the egalitarianism they have rejected and I do not write off those who have yet to reject it.

            A proper discussion of the effects of feminism is outside the scope of this site (you are right) and outside the scope of my background, frankly. When it fractures the unity of purpose among (too few) realists, my goal was to prevent infighting through understanding. I try, anyway. Perhaps it is futile and the battle of the sexes and its partisans will persist as much as that and those of ‘the jewish question’. Hm. I think I just let go of some responsibility, I feel better already!

            Thanks again.

          • MBlanc46

            And thank you for your rational response.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            If I may contribute to the conversation, I’m a man who has been happily married for many years. I love my wife more than anything except for Jesus Christ. I agree that Men and Women generally have different qualities and strengths. Ladies, I think, are more oriented to keeping things nice in a spatial sense, while us guys are more practical in this manner. We also are more forceful in our ideations, by and large, which is natural. Testosterone has this effect on the brain. Most ladies I know, White ladies that is, are awesome individuals. The only White ladies that I find stressful to be around are these types I call Femi-Nazis. They are the types who are always portraying men as clueless, and try to prove everything a man says to be drivel. A lady who thinks that men are stupid just because we are men is just not being sensible. As far as Lesbians, I don’t agree with their lifestyle, but have no problem treating them with respect, provided they treat me with respect.

          • Usually Much Calmer

            Congratulations on your happy union, ODKR. I think the most active participants in this discussion would love to be so paired.

            I find many people both men and women stressful to be around, you must have more patience than I do!

            Your mentioning lesbians reminds me that I once found myself pondering the increasing (or so it seems, I don’t have data) numbers of homosexuals. One of the coolest women I know is a lesbian but she is older, not angry, and very well rounded. The younger homosexuals that I have met and worked with were lost souls, they quite literally seem to not have a clue about how to live in the world and I started to wonder if they were gay. . . simply because they cannot deal with the opposite sex (or well enough to negotiate a caring relationship or even pleasant ‘acts of congress’ if I can put it like that and be understood). This, I conjectured, might be due to the antipathy I noted earlier between sexes and the overwhelming confusion that suppressing recognition of the real differences creates.

            Mr. Taylor sure picked a great quote as a header, no? I visit this site and support its content and debate because lies never serve well. And I’ve participated in these discussions because I’ve suspected an anti-female sentiment based on untruths, too. But I don’t really have a firm POV on it yet.

            Thank you again for sharing your experience, I trust it.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Before recent years, most mudsharks were Jewish or Irish. These days, though, Mudsharking has reached disturbing levels amongst the younger generation. Recently, I’ve seen a couple Lesbian mudshark couples, with the White female appearing to be the man in the relationship. Homosexual miscegenation. At the rate things are going, we will eventually see open person/dog couples, and will not be allowed to publicly decry this.

        • Sick of it

          She says she prefers black men because white men are too resentful. Apparently, she has not ever met a black man. Or woman. Or child.

          • SoulInvictus

            Perfectly said.

          • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

            Exactly. She must live in Vermont, where She never sees Blacks, and just had a bad break-up.

        • KevinPhillipsBong

          Have you seen what that old bag looks like? They can have her.

          • SoulInvictus

            Unfortunately yes… yes I have.

    • KevinPhillipsBong

      Ahh, so do the ends justify the man?

    • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

      We don’t need them at all. If farm owners in the West were racial realists, they would focus on recruiting certain groups to the farm labor that will be assets to America. They could start with Arabic Christian immigrants. They are racially Caucasian, and need a place to go to escape Islamic abusers. They are accustomed to hot weather and hot sun. If America was truly humanitarian, we would aid our our fellow Caucasians, and fellow Christians from the Levant in settling in America. If Arab Christians were the backbone of the farming industry in California, we would be maintaining and strengthening the Pan-European, racially homogenous America than became the greatest country on earth, not acting as a Mecca for degenerate, White hating AmerIndians/Mestizoes from South America.

      • Martel

        Arabs and Europeans have nothing in common with each other. I lived among Arab immigrants my entire life, I don’t know where you got this idea.

  • Mike Lane

    Do as they do. Read Alinsky’s Rules For Radicals.

  • LHathaway

    The narrative sounds a lot like what would likely happen if one of us AmRen posters were to find success in some kind defense of whiteness coalition or even harvesting the big tamale, a white ethnostate.
    Mr. Taylor’s piece fails here as a soft deconstruction because, to my mind, there could be good reasons behind many of the questionable actions taken by

    • John R

      Mr. Taylor tries not to go to extremes, even when exposing our enemies. That is why I like this site and support it. Let the Left distort the truth when it suits them. We are better than that.

  • Tarczan

    Man, this guy was worse than St. Martin!

  • Epiminondas

    Ironic that this prick was more patriotic than Conservatism, Inc. He opposed the introduction of illegal immigrants. But I’m guessing that had he lived, he would have quickly aligned himself with today’s treason lobby.

    • We know today’s treason lobby allies itself with him and his “legacy.”

      This is why I don’t attach anything special to Chavez’s anti-illegal alien activism.

  • saul7

    Almost every progressive/communist saint is a sanctimonious whore , some are even mass murderers, they don’t care…the only thing that matters about cesar…and it should be shouted from the rooftops…he was emphatically, unapologetic , against illegal immigration…

  • jayvbellis

    Anybody that effectively opposes mass brown immigration is infinitely bad than open border Conservative loons like Ron and Rand Paul,Rupert Murdoch, the Wall Street Journal.

  • Just about all American agricultural stoop labor would have been mechanized by now, but what’s holding it back is the factor of “necessity is the mother of invention,” i.e. the constant steady stream of people available to pour across the southern border, and that the good ole Jimmy Carter administration cut off R&D funding for this because they wanted the flood across the border to become new voters for their party eventually.

  • MBlanc46

    Saint MLK starts to look almost honorable compared with this guy.

  • Demo P. Seal; PouponMarks

    I retired as Chief Engineer on Merchant Marine ships on oceans. I’ve fired a number of people, making them get off at the first US port. In over 30 years I put one guy off in a foreign port. Chavez seems to be that kind of person. In a dangerous environment, lying and dishonesty are disqualifies. I’ve seen dozens like him over the years; common, ordinary, low life gutter trash, parasites.

  • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

    No surprise that Chavez was such an a&s. A Latino MLK, sociopathic, hedonistic, power hungry megalomaniac. No surprise that Obongo admires him so much. Bathhouse Barry, pot smoking product of miscegenation, raised by White Grandparents but completely ungrateful to them. Ironic how Obongo takes a photo opp to ostensibly idolize Chavez yet, when a Mestizo man defended himself against attempted murder, at the hands of a 15 year old Negro, everything was about race for Bathhouse Barry. The Negro race. A Mestizo victim who became a poster child for self defense, to thinking people, magically became an evil White guy hunting Negroes in the Liberal narrative. Most folks know he is Mestizo, though, and White Libtards jumped Barry’s bandwagon, throwing Whites and Hispanics under the bus in one swift motion.

  • OHDeutscheKlezmerRebel

    Chavez hated “Anglos”. That is the key issue for Whites when looking at Chavez. He represented an enemy. For him, LaRaza was AmerIndians/Mestizoes, not Whites of Spanish extraction. When he said “Anglo”, he really meant “Caucasian”.

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    It sounds like this book would make a great movie. It wouldn’t even have to show Chavez as a villain, it could just show him as a complex and deeply flawed individual, and it would certainly make a much more interesting film than one that portrayed him as a saint. Unfortunately, if it risks ticking off a large, perpetually-aggrieved class such as Hispanics, you can be sure Hollyweird won’t do it.

  • NoMosqueHere

    Leaders of all races are vulnerable to meglomania. The President of my Coop Board, a white man, is a bit power mad but we put up with him because he’s smart and dedicated to the fiscal health of the building.

    Anyway, the boycott is an underused tactic on the right. Chavez used it (i.e., grapes, lettuce) to further his goals. But what about whites? If we don’t want our nation flooded with illegal alien laborers, why not boycott the products they work with or help cultivate?

    During World War 2, a significant part of the US food supply went overseas to feed the troops. So, many americans created victory gardens so they could have fresh vegetables. Whites are much more self sufficient than they realize but many have become indolent and apathetic.

  • ZB01

    Cesar Chavez: Troublesome little fellow, wasn’t he?

  • Conrad

    It’s disheartening to see how many white people are stupid enough to keep falling for these cultists & cooks.

  • gemjunior

    Filthy lowlife. Truth is lies. I almost barfed this morning when I saw Google. It has to all fall apart sooner or later – even people with the wool over their eyes have to start wondering why so much energy is put into lionizing all these liberal figures.

  • gemjunior

    I hate the new renaming of old streets etc., and nobody even knows who made the decision to change them. Like the old Triboro Bridge is now the “RFK bridge”, the Interboro Parkway is now the “Jackie Robinson” Parkway. Everyone I know insists on continuing to call them the old names because nobody ever wanted them changed in the first place. Next is the BQE or the Belt?

  • dd121

    I predict that the above facts will not affect his sainthood.

  • Adolf Verloc

    An excellent review of what sounds like an excellent book! It is certainly on my Barnes & Noble wish list.

  • TotallyPeeved

    chavez, che, mlk, mandela, all trash.

  • LiveInReality

    This article reminds me that probably the best way to draw a conclusion about the quality of a book and the veracity of what it presents about its subject is to just read the book for oneself instead of depending on others to provide a synopsis or critique.
    Yes, the power of reading and thinking for oneself–never underestimate it.

  • eremus

    Wow, is this ever a racist and ignorant piece of propaganda.