Monday, July 17, 2017


You don't see much coverage of Venezuela in the corporation owned "mainstream media" but what is there universally supports the illicit efforts by the US government at regime and therefore is necessarily inaccurate.

The US via state department departments like USAID has spent millions of our money organizing and training the Venezuelan "opposition," i.e. the old oligarchy and it's upper middle class beneficiaries and hangers on. This is never mentioned by our mainstream media which often cites the number of people killed during the latest round of violent, US backed opposition street protests but never once mentions that most of them are being killed by opposition protestors, who have made it part of their strategy to destabilizethe country to set supporters of the government on fire and string wire across roads to behead government supporters on motorcycles. Although the oligarchy owns almost all the media in Venezuela and uses it daily to trash the Maduro government, the US media claims that Maduro has cracked down on and controls the media. And on and on.

I can't think of one area in which the US media is so blatantly dishonest, even as regards Russia and before that Cuba and before that the USSR and the pre-Capitalist Commuist China but I can't really explain it. Our media, owned and controlled by corporations, traditionally has seen its role as boosterism for US foreign policy -- a different ethic pertains there versus its domestic coverage -- but in Venezuela it goes far beyond that. If you're interested in knowing what's going on in Venezuela, the web site Venezuela Analysis is good. It supports Venezuela's efforts to implement Socialism but pulls no punches in pointing out the errors of the government. I decided to write this post after seeing an article there about a reliable poll that shows an overwhelming number of Venezuelans, 71 percent, still support the Maduro government. To read the US media you'd think the entire population was in revolt against it.

Trump Chokes On Skittles

The Democratic Party's policy nowadays is that Donald Trump is evil. That's it. They occasionally toss out buzzwords like "income inequality" but never offer any ideas or legislation to address it. Never. It's not that their wall Street funders wouldn't like it, which they wouldn't, it's that Democrats don't believe in addressing income inequality, or those other things they never mention like declining working class living standards, stagnant wages, health care that's slipping toward third world levels, and so on.

Even more ominously the party of war is also realigning itself with the infamous Neocon movement, which actually originated in the Democratic Party as told by Glenn Greenwald in writing about a new think tank that will push anti Russia and anti Iran policies by bringing together some of the main Neocon figures with some of the top Democrats from the Obama Administration and Hillary Clinton campaign.

The Neocon's basic premise is that the US should use its military might to cement US world hegemony and spread US Capitalism through imperialism. They were anti Trump and pro Hillary during the campaign because Trump wasn't a warmonger and Hillary was. I shudder to think where the world would be if Hillary had won. Likely at war with Iran or Russia or both. It might might have started out as the intervention Clinton promised in Syria, or in Crimea and Ukraine which she also promoted, and we might be buying fallout shelters again.

And if Hillary had won Democrats would be trying to stem the rising tide of discontent among its base by re-introducing a bill to raise the minimum wage a token amount, and you can bet your final dollar that there'd be absolutely no effort by Democrats to redistribute wealth back to the millions of people whose labor crated it in the first place but are hurting for lack of it. Democrats don't believe in that any more, especially Democrats from New Mexico.

1 comment:

  1. Yes, the Neocon/Neolib malaise that still grips the Democratic Party was jump-started in the immediate aftermath of World War II, when American capitalism had just whipped the butt of national "socialism" (which actually was national fascism with a few quasi-socialist trimmings like the Autobahn and the Volkswagen thrown on there to show the Volks that "See? We care about you!" -- and never mind the role that the Soviet Union played in destroying Hitler). It began back when Democrats were determined to stop the spread of communism in the months, years, and decades after Berlin fell -- and it has gotten millions of people killed and millions more impoverished.

    But when you say that Democrats embrace Neoliberalism, I think that's mostly just the Democratic elite who embrace it and who then try to sell it to the Democratic grassroots -- the folks who are still out there working in the factories, driving the trucks, and overseeing those automated check-out counters which are replacing more and more of the human checkout clerks at Walmart. These are the people who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012 but voted -- some of them -- for Donald Trump in 2016 while others stayed home in droves. They're not embracing it, so much.

    And that's the elite Democrats' dilemma right now. You see a lot of of them still trying to sell Neoliberalism to their base as if it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, even as their base continues to erode largely because of Neoliberalism. The base can see the closed factories, the rusting blast furnaces, the newest generation of robots being uncrated, and the lack of good-paying UNION jobs as they scramble to be one of those last two remaining human checkout clerks. They're confused, dispirited, and many are both dreading and itching for The Revolution.