Worldwide Nightmare Theatre, Empire of Chaos Enhanced and Expanded

[kladner]

Just asking.....

If Russia, China and North Korea decided to recognize Nancy Pelosi as the president of the United States, would Americans go along with that?

I mean, the ones who don't like Trump, think he is a real threat to the country, and even not a legitimately elected president? I don't think so. But Trump, his Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and National Security Adviser John Bolton all think that the United States should be able to choose a new president for Venezuela.

So does "ouster in chief" – as the New York Times recently described him – Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.). And this sordid bunch has just recruited Elliot Abrams, who many believe should have been convicted as a war criminal in the 1980s, to help make their dream come true.

How could this go wrong? Well we do have some 21st century experience with U.S.-sponsored "regime change" and it has ranged from murderous to horrific.
Iraq, Syria, Libya, Honduras – all have led to a lot of killing and suffering, mostly of civilians including children.

[ewmayer]

The Making of Juan Guaidó: US Regime-Change Laboratory Created Venezuela’s Coup Leader | Consortium News

Predictably, the usual establishment propaganda outlets are fully on board (as long as the regime-changing effort proceeds with the proper 'decorum' on the part of the democracy-loving neocons pushing it, mind you), the NYT with a "dangerous socialist dystopia!" tack (note I found the author's notion of Obama and his alleged promotion of "gentle regulation" gag-worthy, since the US was busily waging economic warfare on VZ during the whole of O's term, but that is a relatively minor blemish in an otherwise fine piece):

Bret Stephens, the ‘Times,’ and Fearmongering Over Venezuela | The Nation

As Glenn Greenwald notes, at least the neocons leading this latest imperial adventure are being honest about their motives!

None of this is to say that the authoritarian Maduro is some kind of swell guy - but the empire has a history of supporting much worse actors when they are "on our side" ... again, supporting democracy is just a convenient pretext in this by-now-well-worn playbook.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

You don't need to cite them specifically. You are singing their song.

Which "widely broadcast" sources are you citing. NYT? WaPo? WSJ? Some other mainstream propaganda organs?

I'll leave you to rationalize interventionism and illegal sanctions to your heart's content.

Seriously? I never said anything that can reasonably be viewed as "rationalizing interventionism." I merely recounted the dire situation in Venezuela. And I stand by those statements.

If you're claiming that

• Venezuela is not in the throes of a hyperinflationary economic crisis
  
• People are not leaving the country in droves
  
• Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro did not blame the US for Chavez's cancer
  
• The US has not been conducting "economic warfare" against Cuba since Our Friend Fidel took over
  
• Cuba is not in less-bad shape than Venezuela
  
• The Venezuelan regime bears no responsibility for its stewardship
  
• Maduro's re-election was perfectly free and fair

you might as well also claim that Maduro's actions following major electoral losses in the legislature haven't put the actions of the Republicans in Wisconsin after losing the governorship to shame.

I don't know from what place the sun don't shine you drew your insinuation that I recited the real-world facts regarding the above "because" John Bolton and Eliot Abrams said them. Your subsequent assertion that you doan need no steenkin' evidence to back it up because "you're singing their song," and then dismissing out of hand all news reports supporting my statements, is pure Alice in Wonderland. I don't even know what "song" you're referring to. Evidently, your association with Bolton and Abrams is closer than my own.

I stand by the factuality of my statements about the situation in Venezuela. And if you really believe that the decision by Caribbean nations to back Maduro really had nothing -- nothing at all --- to do with their dependence on Venezuelan oil, I've got a bridge in New York to sell you. And if you think Maduro wouldn't cut off their oil if they backed his opposition, I'll sell it to you twice.

Does any of this justify the US sending in the troops? Of course not! I'm merely saying that the real crisis in Venezuela is the sorry mess that country is in, and that I hold its government primarily responsible.

Besides, viewed from a purely pragmatic standpoint, the US associating itself with the opposition is harming the opposition and is therefore helpful to Maduro. As I indicated before, whether he stays or goes isn't up to anyone but the Venezuelan military. Any kind of foreign military adventure would put the kibosh on any inclination they might have to give Maduro the boot.

I don't think the current head of the Venezuelan legislature is a "coup leader." Venezuela did have a coup -- back in 2002. If memory serves, it was not entirely successful.

Under the Venezuelan Constitution of 1999, the head of the legislature has 30 days to call an election after declaring the Presidency vacant. Good luck with that.

BTW, under the US Constitution, if Il Duce were deemed not to be President (say by reason of inability to serve), the first person in the line of succession is the Vice-President. The Speaker of the House is second.

Since you brought up Eliot Abrams, I will mention that February 3 is the anniversary of what must have been a very bad day for him. On February 3, 1988, the US House of Representative voted against additional aid for the Contras. Reminiscing on that vote still makes me smile.

[kladner]

This sort of phrasing really precludes discussion.
Just so you know, the tune I am hearing is Them Good Old CIA-Driven Color Coup and Regime Change Blues.

• Venezuela is not in the throes of a hyperinflationary economic crisis
• People are not leaving the country in droves
• Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro did not blame the US for Chavez's cancer
• The US has not been conducting "economic warfare" against Cuba since Our Friend Fidel took over
• Cuba is not in less-bad shape than Venezuela
• The Venezuelan regime bears no responsibility for its stewardship

[kladner]

This story come down to, "Same as it ever was." The shameful history of the US in Latin America continues.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...t-be-resisted/

Venezuela has elections. Juan Guaido has never even been a Presidential candidate. Despite massive CIA opposition funding and interference over years as Big Oil tries to regain control of the World’s largest oil reserves, Nicolas Maduro was democratically re-elected in 2018 as President of Venezuela.

The coup now under way is illegitimate. I opposed Maduro’s move to replace the elected National Assembly. Sometimes I read back things I wrote in the past and decide I was wrong. Sometimes I think the article was right, but a bit of a potboiler. Occasionally I am proud, and I am proud of my analysis on Venezuela written on 3 August 2017. I believe it is still valid.

Hugo Chavez’ revolutionary politics were founded on two very simple tenets:
1) People ought not to be starving in dreadful slums in the world’s most oil rich state
2) The CIA ought not to control Venezuela
Over the years, Chavez racked up real achievements in improving living standards for the poor and in providing health and education facilities. He was widely popular and both he and his successor, Nicolas Maduro, also racked up very genuine election victories. Maduro remains the democratically elected President.

But the dream went sour. In particular it fell foul of the tendency of centrally planned economies to fail to get the commodities people want onto shop shelves, and to the corruption that goes with centralisation. The latter was certainly not worse than the right wing corruption it replaced, but that does not diminish its existence.

Every revolution will always displace an existing elite who are by definition the best educated and most articulate section of the population, with most access to resources including media – and to CIA secret backing, which has continued throughout at an increasing rate. Chavez did not solve this problem in the way Robespierre, Stalin, Trotsky or Mao would have done. He embraced democracy, let them be – and largely left their private offshore billions, and thus their power, untouched.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

Just so you know, the tune I am hearing is Them Good Old CIA-Driven Color Coup and Regime Change Blues.

I hadn't heard that Abrams and Bolton were calling for "regime change" in Venezuela, but it absolutely does not surprise me. Especially Abrams. I just thought John "We begin with large mushrooms" Bolton was too busy planning nuclear strikes on Iran and North Korea.

I don't think Maduro's re-election was "democratic." And I also hold his (and Chavez' before him) regime primarily responsible for the sad state of affairs in Venezuela. One major contributing factor is the steep decline in oil prices in recent years. I reject the notion that the US even has the ability to cause something like that to happen, but WRT Venezuela it's beside the point. The point is, the crash in oil prices has for some years been, and still is, a fact. It was, and is, the job of the Venezuelan government, whose whole economic plan depends on oil revenues, to make policy decisions to deal with the change in circumstances. They haven't. That's inexcusable. H. L. Mencken's description of the US House of Representatives as "inept, corrupt, and disgusting" applies, in my estimation, a fortiori to the current regime in Caracas. That said...

Just as I don't think the US is primarily responsible for Venezuela's current woes, I also don't think the US has the ability to remedy the situation. It would be disastrous -- for US interests -- if any organ of our government tried to install a new regime in Venezuela. As to the citizens of Venezuela, the situation is already a disaster. And it's affecting other countries much more acutely than it is the US. Colombia, for example, has a million Venezuelan refugees on its hands. I'm sure the Colombians would be thrilled if they could go home. I'm sure the refugees themselves would be even more thrilled.

If your blood pressure is too low, I've got a sure cure. On the February 5, 2019 edition of Communist National Public Radio's "Morning Edition," there's an interview with Marco Rubio. As of this posting, the transcript isn't available yet, but the MP3 file is there to download (7.1 MB, almost 8 minutes). Yessirree Bob, the good ol' USA has the right to send in the troops whenever our "national security interests" are affected

[kladner]

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01...he-full-story/
Any claim of a "Full Story" in such a fraught situation is a bit of a stretch. Still, this article covers a lot of ground and competing interests.

The US-sponsored coup in Venezuela, still ongoing as I write, is the latest chapter in the long and bloody history of US imperialism in Latin America. This basic fact, understood by most across the left of the political spectrum – including even the chattering liberal class which acknowledges this truth only with the passage of time and never in the moment – must undergird any analysis of the situation in Venezuela today. That is to say, the country is being targeted by the Yanqui Empire.

This point is, or at least should be, indisputable irrespective of one’s opinions of Venezuelan President Maduro, the Socialist Party (PSUV), or the progress of the Bolivarian Revolution. Imperialism, and its neocolonial manifestation in the 21st Century, is there to pick clean the bones of the Bolivarian dream and return Venezuela to the role of subservient asset, an oil-soaked proxy state ruled by a right-wing satrap eager to please the colonial lords of capital.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/01...he-full-story/
Any claim of a "Full Story" in such a fraught situation is a bit of a stretch. Still, this article covers a lot of ground and competing interests.

In other words, "According to Socialist Realism..."

<snip>This point is, or at least should be, indisputable <snip>

Talk about "This sort of phrasing really precludes discussion"...

[kladner]

https://www.thenation.com/article/ve...chile-allende/
Chile’s dead president has some advice from beyond the grave.
By Ariel Dorfman

The Chilean experiment—we were trying to build socialism through peaceful means, rejecting the sort of armed struggle that had prevailed in all previous revolutions—was in trouble, and undergoing considerable economic difficulties, albeit nothing like the extraordinary humanitarian disaster plaguing Venezuela at this moment. And just as Nixon and Kissinger and American multinational companies conspired against Chile in 1973, Trump, Pence, and Pompeo (not to mention the redoubtable Elliott Abrams, of Iran/Contra infamy) are leading the effort to oust you, the constitutional president of Venezuela, through the force of arms.

Despite these resemblances between Chile in 1973 and Venezuela in 2019, I feel that you do a disservice to history and to the cause of revolutionary change by comparing yourself to me. I was, throughout my life, and until the moment of my death, a defender of democracy in all its forms. Never, during my three years in office, did I restrict the freedom of assembly of my opponents (even when some of them engaged in virulent tactics and terrorist acts), nor did I curb in any way the freedom of the press (even when papers, radios, and TV stations owned by the Chilean oligarchy were calling for my removal and spreading lies about my person and my tenure). Not one person was jailed for expressing his or her opinion, nor, heaven forbid, was anyone tortured while I was president. If anything, my opponents were given free rein, which they grievously abused, helped by millions of dollars expended by the CIA. And I scrupulously respected the result of all manner of elections during my time in office, especially when they were unfavorable to me. One other disparity: You have enormous support from Russia and China, whereas I asked what was then the Soviet Union for help and received not a penny in aid (maybe as payback for my having condemned the Soviet interventions in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968). As for China, it had reservations about our libertarian revolution, and later refused to break relations with the Pinochet regime.

[ewmayer]

Did someone mention the US regime change manual?

Leaked Wikileaks Doc Reveals US Military Use of IMF, World Bank as “Unconventional” Weapons | Mint Press

WASHINGTON – In a leaked military manual on “unconventional warfare” recently highlighted by WikiLeaks, the U.S. Army states that major global financial institutions — such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) — are used as unconventional, financial “weapons in times of conflict up to and including large-scale general war,” as well as in leveraging “the policies and cooperation of state governments.”

The document, officially titled “Field Manual (FM) 3-05.130, Army Special Operations Forces Unconventional Warfare” and originally written in September 2008, was recently highlighted by WikiLeaks on Twitter in light of recent events in Venezuela as well as the years-long, U.S.-led economic siege of that country through sanctions and other means of economic warfare. Though the document has generated new interest in recent days, it had originally been released by WikiLeaks in December 2008 and has been described as the military’s “regime change handbook.”

WikiLeaks’ recent tweets on the subject drew attention to a single section of the 248-page-long document, titled “Financial Instrument of U.S. National Power and Unconventional Warfare.” This section in particular notes that the U.S. government applies “unilateral and indirect financial power through persuasive influence to international and domestic financial institutions regarding availability and terms of loans, grants, or other financial assistance to foreign state and nonstate actors,” and specifically names the World Bank, IMF and The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as well as the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), as “U.S. diplomatic-financial venues to accomplish” such goals.
...
Though the unconventional warfare manual is notable for stating so openly that “independent” financial institutions like the World Bank and the IMF are essentially extensions of U.S. government power, analysts have noted for decades that these institutions have consistently pushed U.S. geopolitical goals abroad.

Indeed, the myth of World Bank and IMF “independence” is quickly eroded by merely looking at the structure and funding of each institution. In the case of the World Bank, the institution is located in Washington and the organization’s president has always been a U.S. citizen chosen directly by the president of the United States. In the World Bank’s entire history, the institution’s Board of Governors has never rejected Washington’s pick.

This past Monday, it was reported that President Donald Trump nominated former Bear Stearns economist David Malpass to lead the World Bank. Malpass had famously failed to foresee the destruction of his former employer during the 2008 financial crisis and is likely to limit World Bank loans to China and to countries allied or allying with China, given his well-established reputation as a China hawk.

In addition to choosing its president, the U.S. is also the bank’s largest shareholder, making it the only member nation to have veto rights. Indeed, as the leaked unconventional warfare manual notes, “As major decisions require an 85% supermajority, the United States can block any major changes” to World Bank policy or the services it offers. Furthermore, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs banker and “foreclosure king,” Steve Mnuchin, functions as the World Bank’s governor.

Though the IMF is different from the World Bank in several respects, such as its stated mission and focus, it too is largely dominated by U.S. government influence and funding. For instance, the IMF is also based in Washington and the U.S. is the company’s largest shareholder — the largest by far, owning 17.46 percent of the institution – and also pays the largest quota for the institution’s maintenance, paying $164 billion in IMF financial commitments annually. Though the U.S. does not choose the IMF’s top executive, it uses its privileged position as the institution’s largest funder to control IMF policy by threatening to withhold its IMF funding if the institution does not abide by Washington’s demands.

As a consequence of the lopsided influence of the U.S. on these institutions’ behavior, these organizations have used their loans and grants to “trap” nations in debt and have imposed “structural adjustment” programs on these debt-saddled governments that result in the mass privatization of state assets, deregulation, and austerity that routinely benefit foreign corporations over local economies. Frequently, these very institutions – by pressuring countries to deregulate their financial sector and through corrupt dealings with state actors – bring about the very economic problems that they then swoop in to “fix.”

Let's have a look at the most recent efforts along these lines in Latin America, including one appalling tactic that appears to have been sponsored by global infant-formula profiteer Nestle:

Guaidó hits up IMF

Given the close relationship between the U.S. government and these international financial institutions, it should come as little surprise that – in Venezuela – the U.S.-backed “interim president” Juan Guaidó – has already requested IMF funds, and thus IMF-controlled debt, to fund his parallel government.

This is highly significant because it shows that top among Guaidó’s objectives, in addition to privatizing Venezuela’s massive oil reserves, is to again shackle the country to the U.S.-controlled debt machine.
...
However, Venezuela is far from the only country in Latin America being targeted by these financial weapons masquerading as “independent” financial institutions. For instance, Ecuador – whose current president has sought to bring the country back into Washington’s good graces – has gone so far as to conduct an “audit” of its asylum of journalist and WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange in order to win a $10 billion bailout from the IMF. Ecuador granted Assange asylum in 2012 and the U.S. has fervently sought his extradition for still sealed charges ever since.

In addition, last July, the U.S. threatened Ecuador with “punishing trade measures” if it introduced a measure at the UN to support breastfeeding over infant formula, in a move that stunned the international community but laid bare the willingness of the U.S. government to use “economic weapons” against Latin American nations.

To paraphrase and slightly update ('debt' in place of 'currency') the famous dictum by one of the Messrs. Rothschild, "Give me control of a nation's debt and I care not who makes its laws."

[Dr Sardonicus]

In a triumph for Socialist Realism, as described in PRESS RELEASES 69TH BERLINALE (February 4)

Programme Change Generation 14plus:

Shao nian de ni (Better Days) by Derek Kwok-cheung Tsang
Hong Kong / People's Republic of China
Unfortunately all four screenings of Shao nian de ni (Better Days) by Derek Kwok-cheung Tsang in the Generation 14plus programme on February 11, 14, 16 and 17 have had to be cancelled.

and PRESS RELEASES 69TH BERLINALE (February 11),

FEB 11, 2019:
PROGRAMME CHANGE IN COMPETITION 2019
Due to technical difficulties encountered during post-production, Yi miao zhong (One Second) by Zhang Yimou unfortunately cannot be presented on February 15 in the scope of the Competition section of the Berlinale. The competition will thus feature a total of 16 films vying for the coveted Bear awards.

The kind of "technical difficulties" might be as described in So Far, a Tough Year for the Berlinale:

Variety's Patrick Frater has been looking into the "technical reasons" for the cancellation of One Second, the story of a prisoner who escapes from a labor camp during the Cultural Revolution with a reel of film he’s convinced will determine his destiny. Frater seems fairly sure that Zhang Yimou and his producers would have secured the "Dragon Seal" that every film in China must obtain as a sign that it's cleared the censors. "Once that is granted, the film’s length and dialogue cannot be changed, and additional producers and investors cannot come on board," explains Frater. Since 2017, China's Film Industry Promotion Law has required that every Chinese film screened outside of the country must also obtain an exit permit. "It's not clear that One Second had completed that extra step," writes Frater.

The Cultural Revolution is still a touchy subject, over 40 years after it ended. I remember hearing about it on the news when I was quite young. I heard more about it in documentary programs. And I heard a different sort of story about it, in a very unexpected way.

Once upon a time, long long ago, a University colleague and I learned that a new math professor and his wife -- a Chinese couple -- were arriving in town. We helped them unload their rental truck so they could return it in a timely fashion.

After they'd gotten settled in, they had us over for dinner. Chinese home cooking! The food was put in the middle of the table, and we helped ourselves.

As we ate, we talked. They mentioned being to social functions at which Chen Jingrun was the guest of honor. It seems that he had grown up in poverty, and this had made its mark. As he went through the buffet line, they said, he would stuff rolls into his coat pockets. They described him as "very special."

At one point, one of us asked, "How did you guys meet?" And they told us, in a very matter-of-fact way, that, during the Cultural Revolution, they had both been taken out of school and sent to work on the same collective farm.