Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Anti-Chavez Left winger wins Perus Election

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
BayCityProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:00 PM
Original message
Anti-Chavez Left winger wins Perus Election
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 10:01 PM by BayCityProgressive
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060605/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/peru_the_chavez_factor

I have to admit I am somewhat happy that this happened. While I prefer Chavez to a US backed right wing dictator, which Venezuela would have if he hadn't been elected; I'm not sure I trust him. He has made comments about Zionism I find alarming, and his recent praises of "the Jackal" a vile piece of shit terrorist...I am not sure I trust him to remain democratic. I also didn't like how he threatened to cut ties with Peru if they didn't elect who he wanted. This new president is to the left of any Democrat in this country and more level headed then his adversary. The only reason he was backed by moderates is because they think it is a little less likely he will nationalize certain industries, although it is almost inevitable that he will heavily regulate them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:08 PM
Response to Original message
1. Chavez was talking about ROMAN EMPIRE killing Christ, not Jews.
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 10:13 PM by 1932
He didn't praise Carlos "the Jackal" -- he said that EVEN THE JACKAL told him not to visit Iraq in 2000 on his tour of Opec nations.

He has been President for 6.5 years, and has remained Democratic even after a coup. What more do you think could happen that would break his faith in Democracy???

Chavez hasn't nationalized a single company since becoming president. He is keeping the central command of PDVSA nationalized, as it has been for decades. The previous gov't tried to privatize it on their way out. The new constitution now forbids that. It's the only company that rule applies to.

Peru's new president is pro-globalization free-trader (and odds are that Peruvians are not going to like where that path leads).


Do those facts change your thinking?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BayCityProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. well they could
I had seen news articles claiming the contrary though. I thought Venezuelan oil had been nationalized?? I am not against nationalization in all circumstances..I just thought that was the case. I had also heard he had nationalized some small factories and such. Communists used nationalization as a tool of oprresion to silence all of their private sector critics. As I said in my post I am in favor of Chavez over a US backed president but I am weary of all of Latin America being bullied by him. I don't want some rabid anti-American block right on our doorstep. I think this is an understandable concern??
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. PDVSA has always been a staterun company. It's just...
that the senior management was so corrupt that they catered more to the interests of private corporations rather than run the firm like any state-run firm should be run: For the benefit of the people. Chavez had them sacked.

Just because all these countries like Brazil, Venezuela, Uruguay, and Bolivia elect leftist governments and denounce American-style corporatism, it doesn't mean they are necessarily Anti-American, just anti-current pro-corporate US government.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. The government sacked the management after a management-led
strike that locked out workers at a time when the government was deeply in the red thanks to the neoliberal economic policies of the previous government. It was timed perfectly to destoy the economy and the government. Nice guys, eh? Thinking about their country, that way. Willing to cause missery for the millions so they could increase their private fortunes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Care to site any of those articles?
My sources are Gott's book on Chavez and Aleida Guevara's books, and you can confirm any of this by googling at venezuelanalyis.com.

By the way, the fields haven't been nationalized. If you'd been paying attention you'd know that recent debates are about Venezuela hiking the taxes oil companies pay on the fields they work. Now, if the government owned the fields, they wouldn't be taxing themselves, would they?

The old tax rates were the lowest in the world, and they were negotiated by a corrupt government decades ago. The new rates (in the 30% range, IIRC) are in line with the rest of the world and are even lower than in many countries.

Chavez hasn't nationalized any private factories. They've purchased defunct businesses and assets out of bankruptcy (IIRC) and are entering into public-private partnerships to get those businesses going again and the long-term goal is to sell those businesses to the partners, who are, in most cases, workers (so they will eventually be worker-owned businesses, which, thanks to a tax loophole in the US, is the ultimate end to many small businesses in America).

Chavez also is not anti-American. He's committed to helping poor Americans. He offered Chicago fuel oil for their rapid transit system, provided they would provide subsidized fairs for poor people. The city declined. Other non-govermental groups and Indian nations have accepted his offer of discounted fuel, including Joe Kennedy's Citizen's Energy in Mass.

Chavez obviously has problems with neoliberalism, but he doesn't have a problem with the nation of MLK, as he has said many times. And he and Clinton got along well.

Once again, knowing the facts, does this change your mind?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RagingInMiami Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
14. My issue with Chavez is his ego and his insistance on trying to bully
his neighboring countries. Obviously, not every country down there shares his vision of a unified South America.

The Peruvian election wasn't about the two candidates. That went down as an anti-Chavez vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Ego? Please. What politician doesn't have an ego, and how is ego even
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 10:42 PM by 1932
relevant to his capacity for serving the interests of the majority of his people?

And bullying? The biggest RW'er in the neighborhood is Colombia and they're cooperating on a pipeline deal to the Pacific (which the US, which controls the Panama Canal, probably detests).

And don't try to tell me Peru doesn't like that he spoke up about their politics. They guy who won the election LOVES that he could make the election about Chavez and not about helping the poor. If Chavez hadn't said a thing about Peru, they would have lied and said he did.

Did you read about this: http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news.php?newsno=1980 ? Pay close attention to this part:

Some Peruvian officials have also expressed skepticism about Boyer’s identity. “If really is Venezuelan, he has lived in Trujillo for more than three years. He works as a bellhop in a restaurant called Al carbon, owned by a militant , named Jorge Olivera. What’s more, in the last electoral campaign he worked as a bodyguard for a congressional candidate of Congreso de Alianza por el Futuro,” said Alberto Escudero, Congressman Elect for Unión por el Perú , according to Peru’s El Comercio.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:12 PM
Response to Original message
2. I Don't Trust Chavez Either,
But I also don't know nearly enough about the guy who just won in Peru to determine whether or not I would or wouldn't trust him as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Mind if I ask why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. Based On His Statements, Demeanor And Presence.
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 10:19 PM by OPERATIONMINDCRIME
The vibe I get from him is that I do not trust him. He may not be nearly as bad as shrubby but I'm not going to glorify him like a lot of DU'ers do either. To me he's as powerhungry and untrustworthy as every other political leader I currently know. Just don't trust him and don't give a rat's ass about him to be quite honest with you.

And no, I'm not going to provide word for word quotes of his that I take as distrustful or have to find a hundred instances that helped bolster my opinion or anything else. I just simply don't care for him based on my exposure to him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:27 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. We must be reading completely differnt things, because the 'vibe' I get
is of a guy who's really committed to helping poor people and who's really effective at surving despite an onslaught of RW bullshit.

I'm more than willing to post evidence supporting my 'vibe' -- but I'm kind of busy tonight, so links to follow later...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #10
11. I Don't Need You To. You Have A Right To Your Opinion, As I Have A Right
to mine.

Just that wanting to lead for 25 years thing kinda bolsters my powerhungry argument, but there are many other things I've forged my opinion on that that. But I really don't have the energy nor desire to have to prove why I have the opinion I do. I just simply don't trust him or like him. You do. That's lovely. To each their own.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. Informed Opinion vs "Feelings". The real value at DU is getting the facts
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 11:08 PM by 1932
out there so that everyone can have an INFORMED opinion.

Look at the OP above. Every one of the reasons the person cites to support his opinion is totally false. Should people rely on that opinion if it's based on things that aren't even true? What is the value of that post?

Don't you think an informed opinion is much more valuable than an uninformed opinion???

I want to recommend one book for you: The Pinochet File. An early chapter in that book lists the propanda that was spread to undermine Salvadore Allende. Granted, it didn't work -- they actually had to assassinate him to get him out of office. However, you have to ask yourself if politics works better if everybody believes lies or if people know the truth about the people who are trying to make their lives better.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Chavez is at a disadvantage inside the US anyway
The corporate news networks control most of the flow of information. Only those who go out of their way to investigate Venezuela are more likely to see what's happening for what it is. Most aren't that committed, and if somebody like Lou Dobbs or whoever else gets ratings says Chavez is a murdering communist dictator, they wouldn't question the assertion too much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Anyone who wants to see the US media report on Venezuela at a time when
the truth really mattered should watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised

Want to get angry at CNN and SoS C. Powell, watch this video. Make sure you've taken your blood pressure medication first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mogster Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
24. Woohoo, thanks for that link!
I've been waiting for an online version ;-)
I watched it on telly here some years back, but didn't know the full scale of anti-Chavez propaganda then.

I'd like to propose an Chavez rumours debunking site. The flames about this guy is going high, and it would be nice to have a (more or less) neutral site to take some of the points you've posted in this thread into consideration.
There's a Propaganda debunking group here at the DU - maybe we could collect some data there for starters?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topics&forum=284
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 08:34 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. A DU'er did have a propapanda-debunking post with about ten
different things in it that he or she would post in response to lies about any one of those ten items. However, I haven't seen it in a few months.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:48 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. What On Earth Are You Talking About?
First off, your lead cliche is ineffective and overused.

As far as your self righteous type preaching trying to present your opinion as being more valid than mine, well sorry bud, it isn't. I have based my opinions on the facts I've seen as well, and am informed just fine on Mr. Chavez. From the information I've had at my disposal I've chosen to forge the opinion I hold which is one of dislike and distrust. I could care less that it doesn't line up with your opinion, but that doesn't give you the right to deem my opinion to be uninformed. See, the real value of DU is the ability to hold different opinions without having to be attacked for them. Unfortunately there are those here that do not hold those values.

You have a different opinion of chavez. Yay for you. But you have no standing to say that those disagreeing with you are uninformed, as that sentiment on its face is ignorant. People are going to have different opinions on things, especially here. You would do well to respect that.

As far as the facts in the OP goes, I have no idea why you're preaching to me about them. I didn't claim credence to any of those things whatsoever, and in fact stated that I know nothing about him and therefore could not cast an opinion. You know why? Cause I don't cast opinions on things I'm uninformed about.

So preach on if you must, but it will fall on deaf ears to me. I don't like or trust chavez, you do, so be it. But your opinion is no more valid than mine.

Goodnight.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #18
20. I'm not asking anyone to trust my "vibe"
I'm trying to build arguments based on facts. I'm trying to engage other arguments that are based on fact. If that's not why you're here, fine. But it seems like such a waste of time if nobody is interested in being informed or providing information.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BayCityProgressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Well
Apparently the guy who won really ran the economy into the ground a few years back...so I guess time will tell...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OPERATIONMINDCRIME Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Oh Well That's Promising LOL
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Grebrook Donating Member (479 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:50 PM
Response to Original message
19. I don't particularly trust Chavez either
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 10:51 PM by Grebrook
Chavez is simply unstable, in my opinion. Being an enemy of Bush doesn't necessarily make you a good guy anymore than it makes Bin Laden a good guy for opposing Bush or Stalin a good guy for opposing Hitler. I'm not making a direct comparison to Chavez in saying this, since I'm not sure (yet) if I believe accounts of human rights abuses in Venezuela or protestors shot by police. I doubt his election was rigged, he generally seemed to be the favorite, which isn't a surprise in a nation that is so overwhelmingly poor. The guy simply unnerves me in some ways, ways I can't explain. He has a real Robert Mugabe, revolutionary on the cliche path toward tyranny, feel to him, like you can look at and agree with some of the things he's saying, if not most, and then picture yourself the next day seeing it all as a nightmare and how you were lulled into it. There seems to be some evidence that he's supporting FARC units operating in Colombia, and I have a bad feeling Venezuela and Colombia may end up in a full-scale war one day in South America and if a Republican is in power we're going to end up fighting Venezuelan guerrillas in the jungles of Colombia.

I don't know. Guy makes me nervous.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. 6.5 years in office. All indicators pointing up -- low inflation, more
employment, less poverty, less hunger, more literacy. What is unstable about that?

What human rights abuses are you citing? The ones that took place before Chavez was president in 1999? As for police shooting protesters, you should watch this: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5832390545689805144&q=the+revolution+will+not+be+televised. What evidence of supporting FARC units are you talking about?

The key sentence in that post might be "I don't know."

It's amazing to me that there are so many Chavez critics out there who base their opinions on hearsay that ultimately proves to be false and/or incredibly irrelevant, and ultimately rely on "I don't know" or "it's just a feeling."

You would think that there would at least be some body of readily-citable facts which they could point to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
arcos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-05-06 11:56 PM
Response to Original message
22. Alan García is as leftist as Joe Lieberman...
Edited on Mon Jun-05-06 11:59 PM by arcos
I personally have my issues with Chávez also, I don't like his heated rhetoric because it is totally unnecessary. I don't like how he actively pushed Ollanta Humala's candidacy because that actually harmed him among Peruvian voters. That said, Alan García is pretty much the traditional politician from a supposedly socialdemocratic party in Latin America... there are lots of similar cases of leftists-in-name-only throughout Latin America. He was known for his inept and corrupt government, and he campaigned to the right in this election in order to win the votes of the people in large urban centers, especially Lima.

He will not "heavily regulate" anything. He will sign the free trade agreement with the US, and open up the country even more to business interests.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 08:02 AM
Response to Original message
23. I can't believe how vulnerable we all are to concerted efforts of the war
profiteering corporate news monopoly to demonize Hugo Chavez. They all use the same phrases like "self-styled leftist," "self-styled populist," "Increasingly authoritarian," "increasingly dictatorial," and "allied with Castro's Cuba," over and over and over and over and over and over again, to create a smeary, bleary, impressionistic negative image associated with gun-toting leftist revolutionaries. The New York Times, the London Times, AP, WaPo--all of them--over and over and over and over and over again. They then create negative little flurries in the "news"--like his supposed anti-Jewish remark--and NEVER CORRECT THE BLATANTLY WRONG INFORMATION that has been added to the negative picture they are trying to create.

We--the US Left--really, really need to understand what is being done to us (and to others) by this news MONOPOLY. But let's start with us. We, the smart. We, the well informed. We, who think we know what's going on. WE. Are. Being. Brainwashed.

In order to expel the brainwashing from our brains, we need to become much more alert and much more analytical about what we read, hear and see from the war profiteering corporate news monopolies. We also need to LEARN FROM EXPERIENCE. The leadup to the Iraq War should be a blatant enough example of concerted, scheming, conspiratorial, pervasive LYING by all of the corporate "news" organizations, acting in concert, to ALERT us to their methods, and to the danger of accepting--not just their words, not just their lies--but their "MATRIX," their ILLUSION, their FALSE REALITY--that we would never be fooled again. But we really don't get the insidiousness of the "news" MONOPOLY.

Here's another example: the corporate news monopolies acted as one and hired ONE exit pollster for the 2004 election. First, they BLACK-HOLED all information about WHO had gained control of the 'counting' of all of the nation's votes, during the 2002-2004 period, and HOW the votes would be 'counted.' (WHO: Two brethren corporations--Diebold and ES&S--with very close ties to the Bush junta and far rightwing causes. HOW: With 'TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code, and virtually no audit/recount controls, in the new and extremely insecure, unreliable and hackable electronic voting machines and central tabulators, forced upon the states by a $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle, engineered by the two biggest crooks in Congress, Tom Delay and Bob Ney.) Then, when the corporate news monopoly exit polls showed a Kerry win, they shut down the reporting system on election night, and DOCTORED the exit polls to make them FIT the results of Diebold/ES&S's SECRET vote tabulation formulae.

Exit polls are used worldwide to verify elections and check for fraud. They are the standard tool for keeping elections clean and aboveboard. Not here. Here, instead of COMPARING the different results, and crying foul, they FORCED their exit polls to FIT the "official results" of an entirely NON-TRANSPARENT voting counting system.

The FRAUDULENCE of what they did is mind-boggling. But most of us DON'T SEE IT. We think there is still SOME TRUTH in the reality that they create.

That truth is gone. It's GONE! When they want to accomplish something in the interest of major profits, they LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH.

Chavez is president of a country that is sitting on one of the biggest oil "pots of gold" on earth. Our war profiteering corporations want to move against his country NEXT. It drives them bonkers that he won't play their game. He is HONEST. He is a genuine--NOT a "self-styled," a GENUINE--populist, repeatedly endorsed by his countrymen in TRANSPARENT elections. They can't manipulate him. They can't buy him. They can't bully him. So they are trying to plant the seeds of his destruction, and destruction of the GENUINE populist movement that supports him, by convincing Americans that he is somehow BAD, so that when the Bush junta moves against him (openly or by stealth), WE, you and me--the smart, the well informed, the U.S. Left (i.e., the true U.S. mainstream)--will be confused enough about who he is, about what Venezuelans and other South Americans want, and about the facts of the situation, that we WILL BUY THEIR BULLSHIT NARRATIVE of events.

I am not going to refute "self-styled leftist," "self-styled populist," "Increasingly authoritarian," "increasingly dictatorial," and "allied with Castro's Cuba," nor explain just how inaccurate or propagandistic these phrases are. I am just going to ask you to think about it for yourselves--how this "bad impression" of Chavez that you have, may have been formed in your brain by unavoidable exposure to our war profiteering corporate news monopoly "matrix" (their false reality).

They are also telling a false story about Ollanta Humala and the presidential race that Garcia just won. The truth is that Humala came out of nowhere--a 100% indigenous Indian, representative of the resurgent true Left (as opposed to the very corrupt Garcia "free trade" Left), and won an amazing 30% of the votes in the preliminary election round, bumping the rightwing candidate out of the race. Humala surprised everybody. He zoomed from 0% to 30% over a very short period (a few months), winning a runoff with the "free trade" candidate Garcia, and then went on the win 45% of the vote in the runoff election, to Garcia's 55%, against overwhelming odds (all corporate money and Bush junta support in favor of Garcia). Humala is the FUTURE. He will be back after Garcia destroys Peru's economy like similar politicians destroyed the economy of Argentina. South America is undergoing an amazing peaceful, democratic, Leftist revolution that is sweeping the continent--with Leftist governments in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Venezuela and Bolivia, and Leftist candidates and voters coming forward even in Columbia! (They didn't win in that extremely corrupt and brutal state, but they are getting organized). The "free trade" model is DEAD. South Americans have overwhelmingly rejected it, as not in their interests, and are creating mixed socialist/capitalist economies based on self-determination. Chavez is the most visible and colorful spokesman of this movement, but the movement itself is huge, supported by billions of South Americans. It is not going to go away--and one of the primary reasons for its profound impact is that it is based on TRANSPARENT elections--the election of true representatives of the people (the result of long hard work by the OAS, the Carter Center, EU election monitoring groups, and local civic groups throughout Latin America.). This movement is coming north as well--Mexico City's Leftist mayor is running about 50/50 in the pre-election polls for president (against a "free tradist," i.e., suckup to big U.S. financial interests and the super-rich).

The Bush junta LOVES corrupt Leftists. (Just look at OUR country--and the complicity of the Democrats!). But think about the irony of the Bush junta celebrating the victory of Leftist Garcia! Humala bumped off the fascist! That's what happened. And the Bush junta had to SETTLE FOR a corrupt Leftist, who will let global corporate predators and the super-rich continue to loot Peru's economy until it collapses (just as they are doing HERE in the U.S.) Chavez and Humala--and Evo Morales in Bolivia--represent the non-corrupt Left. That's why they hate Chavez. And that's why Humala and the indigenous/Leftist movement will be back. It is part of a much larger movement that represents the future for South America--a future of self-determination, regional cooperation (the Bolivarian dream), and equity and justice, after decades and centuries of oppression.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
1932 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. One thing that is so discouraging about the US media is that the Gov't
merely needs to use a misleading descriptor once and the media picks it up and echoes it over and over again without ever questioning whether those descriptors make any sense.

Also, I remember in the run-up to the Iraq invasion, I thought the media would at least go through the motions of asking "WHY?" once the Gov't established "WHAT" they'd like to do to Iraq. Instead the media jumped straight to the "WHEN?" question. I guess that's just another example of the media immediately accepting all the government's descriptive terms without ever asking whether the descriptions are accurate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-06-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #26
27. Yeah, that was a good one--not "WHAT" but "WHEN"! (--or rather, a BAD
one!). I remember feeling so helpless in the face of it. How could there be no debate on "WHAT"?! Let alone no debate on 'WHY." Especially given the opposition by UN weapons inspectors, by major allies, France and Germany, by China, by Russia, and by our own CIA!

We went from "WHAT?" and "WHY?", to "WHEN?", in the blink of an eye, as the war profiteering corporate news monopoly narrative rushed us toward Colin Powell's 100% lies to the UN, with all the TV corporate news monopoly subsidiaries already having created their WAR LOGOS for the "WAR PRESIDENT" on his GREAT CRUSADING ADVENTURE TO THE HOLY LAND.

They might as well have been the Vatican in the Middle Ages, sending those gangs of rapists, plunderers and marauders off to Jerusalem--with canned sermons from every pulpit in Europe.

And we all held our breaths--hoping against hope that the unthinkable would not happen, that America would not, could not, "shock and awe" a civilian population for no good reason.

Ah, me! These news monopoly execs have much to answer for. They are as guilty as Bush & Co.

But I want to tell you something very interesting that I will never ever forget, and it is this. Despite relentless 24/7 war propaganda, nearly 60% of the American people opposed the war on Iraq in Feb. 2003, after Powell's speech, before the invasion. They DIDN'T BUY IT. They didn't trust Bush THEN. About half of those opposed war, period. The other half would only agree to a UN police action (i.e., international consensus that action was needed). (That number--nearly 60%--dropped for a brief period, during the weeks of the invasion, when US troops were at max risk, then went right back up to nearly 60% where it stayed throughout the 2004 election. It's 70% to 80% today.)

That is remarkable, and bears thinking about. Here's my thought about it: The war profiteering corporate news monopoly delusion (the "MATRIX" of false narrative that they spin inside our brains) is NOT really intended to CONVINCE us, but rather to CONFUSE, ISOLATE and DEMORALIZE us. What they do is provide a PLAUSIBLE plot line, with a whole series of invented facts, to explain what are pre-ordained events (pre-ordained by the fascist cabalists who have seized our government). First, the pre-ordained invasion of Iraq, to seize US corporate control of the Mideast oil fields. Then, the pre-ordained "re-election" of the Bush junta, with 'TRADE SECRET,' PROPRIETARY vote tabulation software--the plausible plot line being fear of terrorists and "gay marriage."

Remember all those phony "terrorist alerts" seeded into the newsstream just before the election? They were designed to make us feel that OTHER Americans are afraid and STUPID. And the anti-gay marriage initiatives were designed to make us think that it was THOSE INITIATIVES which brought sufficient rightwing nuts out of the woodwork to defeat what was, in truth, a Kerry landslide. There is NO EVIDENCE that any more people voted for Bush in 2004 than in 2000 (percentage-wise). None! Zero, zilch. All the evidence show exactly the opposite (for instance, the Democrats' blowout success in new voter registration in 2004, nearly 60/40!). But their false narrative gives us pause. We think of the one righwing nut we have known, and multiply it in our minds into ten thousand. It is a PLAUSIBLE narrative. And if we stay in the realm of the plausible--and leave the realm of facts--yeah, it COULD BE true.

And, of course, you don't hear any facts about the 2004 election in this corporate news 'Matrix'--not since 11/3/04 and the 'facts' they gave you from Diebold and ES&S. They TOLD you who won. They told you it was about terrorists and gays. Now shut up and forget about it!

Even when their own polls (not to mention voluminous facts) contradict everything they say!

Now Americans are supposed to be hating brown people ("illegal immigrants"), and gays again, and no doubt we'll soon be hearing about new "terrorist threats"--all aimed at a plausible narrative for the '06 Congressional elections and the Bushites' "remarkable comeback." Still not a word--or hardly any--in the corporate news monopoly "Matrix" about Bushite electronic voting corporations and the fascists' biggest coup--'TRADE SECRET, ' PROPRIETARY vote tabulation. They can tell any story they want to. They can make shit up. All plausible-sounding. Reality--and facts--are OUTSIDE OF THE MATRIX. (That movie sure created a great metaphor for current American national culture.)

They pulled off another great coup, recently, getting all the Democrats and Leftists talking about "immigration." It went on for weeks here at DU. And only the savviest--and most alert--DUers could see what was really happening: 'talking point' #1 of the plausible corporate news monopoly post-'election' narrative for Nov. '06.





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 03:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC