'Softening up for attack on Venezuela well under way'

John Pilger analyses US activities in Latin America in his latest article - which describes covert activities aimed at undermining the new popular democracies like Venezuela.

He also describes the crucial and largely ignorant and unquestioning western journalism that follows the US line and which is now an axiomatic precursor to US backed or led invasions and coups.

This article focuses particularly on what the US is doing in Columbia via the vicious regime that runs that country and who are, naturally, favoured friends of the Bush administration.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19795.htm

This piece is an expansion on Pilgers film 'War on Democracy', released in 2007, which ought to be required viewing for anyone who wants to understand exactly what motivates the US and how its devastating activities in Latin America have been used as a 'laboratory experiment'* for how to take on the rest of the world.

*The exact expression used by one CIA officer to describe what had been done to Chile was that it had been 'the perfect laboratory experiment'.

old news, these white elites trying to gain more autonomy so their wealth doesn't get spread around and they don't have to deal with the natives etc is most worrying thing at the mo.

An imminent attack on Venezuela is not old news, though I'd be sceptical myself. Not sure this belongs in 'Media'.

Aragon, you sound like someone who might be in the know, were there doubts cast on Uribe's various electoral successes? If not, 'regime' is a bit strong.

It's hard to see an attack but a cultural infiltration using propaganda or patsies or straw men (?) might be one way the Americans could do it. America has made far too many enemies already and generated far too much disgust by invading Iraq to attempt something like that . It would be equivalent to Iraq invading Kuwait - no, it would be worse.

Off topic: I have this film in a queue next to The West Wing, Syriana, Blood Diamond, Gandhi. Not that The West Wing is in the same category but I wouldn't mind some feedback on the idea of 'Firebrand Cinema' as either a sub-forum of Media or a recurring thread topic within Media. There's also Rendition which could have been a lot more explosive and I wonder is such cinema purposely muted sometimes to avoid massive fallout if the notion of it got out at all..

Just reading the film reviews today, there's a new war-film out called Stop-Loss. Four stars in the IT, only two in the Indo. Far from being muted, Hollwood has been pumping out these films for a while now, generally to very bad reviews. Syriana, Kingdom of Heaven, Rendition, Lions for Lambs etc. I can't say why they haven't had a bigger impact, but I suspect it's because the public already know about these issues and don't like being talked down to by the higher beings in Tinseltown.

Rendition was muted if you've seen it.

Here is a teaser of War on Democracy before I watch it (it's all available on youTube for a lot less than I paid for it)

Auditor #9 wrote:

Rendition was muted if you've seen it.

Could you clarify what you mean there? It was muted in that it didn't really deal with the issue or it was censored by some higher authority?

It was like the subject was being spoken about under the breath. I don't know how they achieved that perception of it being dull but I can't disagree with Empire


Verdict
Disappointingly dull given the explosive subject matter, this at least attempts to get a message into the mainstream. An extra star for effort rather than execution.


Reviewer: Angie Errigo


http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=134020

Well I had a look at most of the War on Democracy last night but was distracted half-way by the revelation (to me) of the American influence in the coup d'etat in Guatemala in 1954. It appeared to have been a peaceful regime that was getting installed there but the Americans saw it as 'a soviet beachhead in the Western Hemisphere' according to Allen Dulles, CIA Chief so they infiltrated it culturally and sowed the seeds of its eventual downfall.

Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán began to introduce modest agricultural reform there according to Pilger in the War on Democracy but was seen as Stalinist and eventually the democratically elected Arbenz was forcefully deposed and treated like a war criminal. Something similar later happens to democratically elected representatives in Chile. Thus the War on Democracy.

Does so much of this still have its origins in the utter paranoia left over after WWII when the Allies had their bitter division again over Poland or was it not paranoia but instead the result of a power buzz that the Americans were on big style and were ready to do all sorts of crazy asian war things as well as very anti-democratic things nearer home in central america in 1954, all in the name of 'National Security' and American interests?

One other CIA man in that documentary says: 'American interests are YOUR interests' - which translates as: deposing Chaves (again) will have some benefical effect on the price of oil here in Europe or in Pilger's Australia. Because there is no longer a Red Scare to cry out in the name of, is there?

Reading the account in today's Irish Times of the shooting of 3 priests and 2 seminarians from the Pallotine order in their parish church in Argentina 1976. Two of the priests of this Irish founded order were of Irish descent - Alfredo Kelly and Alfredo Leaden. It was recognised as an assassination by a government death squad. A minority of the parish carried on trying to get justice and a showing of a film by Juan Pablo Young (also of Irish descent) is being shown at 6.30 p.m. on Monday at Lecture Theatre 2, the John Hume Building, Maynooth.

The US strategy seems to be the same the world over, get hold of the resources, drive down the living standards and set up a base.

Auditor, I think you put your finger on it when you suggest it comes from WW2 paranoia. It's hard to read the bizarre and usually counterproductive actions of successive US administrations in any other way. That, I guess, and the reality of a US sociopolitical culture shifted centre right whereby it wasn't merely communism, but even fairly wishy washy leftist nationalism which was suspect. Consider too that Fidel was originally (and in many respects subsequently) fired by nationalism over Marxism. Another great missed opportunity for the US...

but the 'america is the greatest country on earth' and 'owns the world' attitude came before the second world war, does it not have to do more with the revolutionary idealists mixing with capitalist when founding america.

lostexpectation wrote:

but the 'america is the greatest country on earth' and 'owns the world' attitude came before the second world war, does it not have to do more with the revolutionary idealists mixing with capitalist when founding america.

I think that self-image was catapulted into the atmosphere after the 'success' of WWII. America gained a lot of English territory as payment for their aid and equiptment. And even though the english language was strong internationally I think WWII was also a watershed for that too.

This is from my readings of Churchill's WWII accounts and his views on America at that point - as a sleeping giant. I have yet to read his accounts of WWI and it would be interesting to see what his opinion of America is there.

But maybe opinion other than Churchill's would support you that America saw itself as the pre-eminent world power before WWII (I feel it was altered rapidly and dramatically though by the invention of the nuclear bomb in 1945 in the deserts of Nevada. And America had it for a spell after WWII before the Russians got it themselves so for a short time America was the only world superpower and could have commanded all sorts of things from the Russians - time for another look at General Patton...)

The US is doing what the US has always done - taking by force that which belongs to other people. From long before it was the 'united states' as such even the first of the wealthy European elites that migrated there took the same approach. Howard Zinn describes it on page 1 of his book 'A People's History of the United States':

"Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, mereged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at teh strange big boat. When Columbus and his sailors came ashore, carrying swords, speaking oddly, the Arawaks ran to greet them, brought them food, water, gifts. He later wrote of this in his log:

'They...brought us parrots and balls of cotton and spears and many other things, which they exchanged for the glass beads and hawks' bells. They willingly traded everything they owned...They do not bear arms, and do not know them, for I showed them a sword, they took it by the edge and cut themselves out of ignorance. They have no iron. Their spears are made of cane...They would make fine servants...With fifty men we could subjugate them all and make them do whatever we want.'

These Arawaks of the Bahama Islands were much like Indians on the mainland, who were remarkable (European observers were to say again and again) for their hospitality, their belief in sharing. These traints did not stand out in the Europe of the Renaissance, dominated as it was by the religion of popes, the government of kings, the frenzy for money that marked Western civilizaiton and its first messenger to the Americas, Christopher Columbus."

Having vitually annihilated the indiginous populations of the Americas over the succeeding centuries, the European-spawned US elites turned their attention outward to the rest of the world at the beginning of the last century - and before that. The US is basically asset stripping the rest of the world at the point of the gun and bomb. Other wealthy elites in the West and elsewhere stand to benefit from this and together with the support of their bought and paid for media all this murder and plunder is described as briging democracy.

Can we identify a network of media vehicles which is not 'bought and paid for' ?

Good question - there are a lot, the most wide-reaching are internet based. I'd recommend the Real News Network which is based in Toronoto and New York - they rely on subscribers - no commercial owners or advertisers are involved. Excellent reporting from around the world.

I'm going to see if I can find a comprehensive listing anywhere.

i like democarcy now which broadcast on pacifica radio? i know there only one show i don't know that much about pacifica

what about npr, and pbs? there subcriptions too, not always perfect though, and they both depend on gov subisidies don't they,

i think theres a lot like that radio station air america that depends too much on few 'liberal' wealthy backers and are prone to collapse so subscriptions from many small donors is the way to avoid being a tool of few people.

the village is another example of that.

and of course for south america news go to narconews