Wednesday, June 13, 2018

Response to "Evil Brad"

This is a continuation of a conversation taking place in the comments here. ("Blogger" limitations won't let me post it as a comment.)

"Exactly" like a Trump supporter? Given everything that I said I hardly think that's likely. What's semi-interesting is that elements of your tone had me thinking you were a right-wing, Trumpian critic of Bolivarian Venezuela, a few of whom I've been contending with in 3-d life. Supposedly you're a "liberal" critic then? If so, I have to tell you I'm not sure which is more nauseating: The insect-level intelligence and laughable pomposity of a Trumpian or the unacknowledged hypocrisy and empty rhetoric of a liberal.

So much for your criticisms.

Now; do we have death squads in Venezuela? As I said, I honestly didn't think so given that coverage of Venezuela has been so shamelessly slanted that I thought I would have heard something before I wrote that post. But now, thanks to you, We have allegations from the unreliable propaganda outlet called the New York Times. But what are these allegations? That there are unofficial bands of violent people trying to intimidate the Venezuela opposition. Who are the Venezuelan opposition?

They are the more economically privileged groups who are furious that they have lost total control over the country and are enraged that some of the country's resources have gone to their poorer fellow citizens rather than into their own foreign bank accounts. And so, they engage in actions that if they were carried out here in Canada, the government would have no problem with characterizing them as terrorism.

This was the political-economic order they used to benefit from:

"The Caracazo of February-March 1989 was just the tip of an iceberg. A peaceful protest against a government betrayal, just the latest since “democracy” came to Venezuela in 1958, met with violent crackdown. As the social order disintegrated, looters stormed shops, carrying off whatever they could. And no wonder: The sudden devaluation of the Venezuelan bolivar, the disastrous neoliberal “package” pushed by then-president Carlos Andrés Pérez, and the resultant unaffordability of basic goods (which shopkeepers hoarded in backrooms so they could jack up the price on grounds of false scarcity), made robbery a necessity. Officially, the death toll was in the hundreds; in fact, it is in the thousands. And Venezuela has not had a full reckoning of that massacre, or the many others that preceded it, until now."

Further reading of the Caracazo Massacre

Please try to follow: A regime which failed to meet the material needs of its people and resorted to massive violence to maintain control. Considered as being un-noteworthy and not deserving of sanctions by Washington at the time.

The anti-Bolivar opposition made a failed coup attempt to bring back this era of misery but were happily thwarted. Instead of their being lined-up and executed (as would have happened without comment from the USA were they socialists being executed in Colombia) they were allowed to roam free and continue to organize.

Subsequently, as their failures in the electoral sphere added-up, they've engaged in violent protests, sabotaging the economy, murdering government officials, and treason.

If the bullshit artists at the New York Times aren't lying, then it appears that this "collectivo" are not death squads, roaming the countryside massacring unarmed peasants. They appear to be a response to domestic terrorists financed by foreign sources. Symmetrical warfare, rather than asymmetrical warfare. Tit-for-tat. Totally unlike the situation in Colombia, Mexico and Honduras today. (Or Guatemala, Peru, Chile, Somoza's Nicaragua, Haiti, and El Salvador before them.)

But suppose I concede to your idiotic charge of "whataboutism"? Suppose I commit this grievous sin against decency? I ask you; If we're going to impose sanctions on Venezuela for government violence against violent protesters, WHAT ABOUT the state violence and economic mismanagement in Colombia and Honduras?

When it comes to the positive action of imposing sanctions on a country, why is Venezuela being singled out?

4 comments:

Evil Brad said...

*Exhibits hostility towards mainstream media? Check
*Stubbornly clings to a non-falsifiable conspiracy narrative? Check
*Eager to downplay or minimise brutality if it's on the right side? Check
*Disdainful of Western conceptions of freedom and the rule of law? Check
*Demonstrates a fondness for strong-man populism? Check
*Takes a clearly zero-sum approach to questions of economics? Check
*Fetishises the nation-state and/or The Will of the People? Check
*Offers over-the-top emotional responses to criticism? Check

Congratulations, thwap, you made the grade! Your MAGA hat is on its way!

thwap said...

Hah! I knew you were stupid!

"*Exhibits hostility towards mainstream media? Check"

So not being 100% devoted to the corporate media is now a character flaw? You stupid fucking tool! Yes! I'm sure we'll find those WMD's any day now! The "New York Times" would NEVER sacrifice its credibility for anything!

"*Stubbornly clings to a non-falsifiable conspiracy narrative? Check"

See, here's the thing: I understand that you think you're intelligent. Okay? I get it. But in order for OTHERS to also think that you're intelligent, you need to do the work to demonstrate it. For instance; what the hell are you babbling about with that? What "conspiracy theory" am I clinging to? That Washington and its puppets are opposed to the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela? That's easily proven or disproven. Aside from that, ... well, it's obvious you've heard an expression and you were itching to employ it because it sounded brilliant even though you've not the slightest idea what it means.

"*Eager to downplay or minimise brutality if it's on the right side? Check"

Sigh. No stupid. I think you should stop and re-examine your bankrupt liberal values. All the information has been presented to you but you're a hopeless hypocrite, so you can't process it.

"*Disdainful of Western conceptions of freedom and the rule of law? Check"

Hahahahaha! You really have no clue. Do you?

"*Demonstrates a fondness for strong-man populism? Check"

You fucking imbecile. I challenge you to show me ONE GODDAMNED THING that proves that in our little exchange here.

"*Takes a clearly zero-sum approach to questions of economics? Check"

You're just babbling here. Throwing shit at the wall hoping something sticks.

"*Fetishises the nation-state and/or The Will of the People? Check"

You're looking more and more like a monkey with every word you type.

"*Offers over-the-top emotional responses to criticism? Check"

Ding-ding-ding! Finally! Something valid! Hah! Well champ, that's kinda my style. Congratulations! One out of eight!

You are clearly a liberal hypocrite. A pompous, deluded asshole. Large sectors of Latin America has rebelled against a political-economic system that has kept them in miserable, grinding poverty and subjection for decades. The USA had kept them in check for decades, using extreme violence and criminality. Oil-rich Venezuela managed to democratically elect a government under Hugo Chavez [this is a FACT btw. you can look it up!] who implemented sweeping political-economic reforms. And Chavez and his revolution have been attacked and targeted from day-one by the imperialist tools in Washington.

...

You know, if being a leftist makes me akin to a Trump fan in your stupid liberal eyes, then it's pretty clear you're hopeless. Just the same sort of mewling, liberal, hypocritical fuck-face I've always said you were. And making the effort to lay-out simple facts in simple language to you is a wast of time. You're a moral and intellectual degenerate with delusions of relevance. I notice you didn't even attempt to answer my last question in that post.

The jibes of scum like you cause me no pain.

Evil Brad said...

There is no real difference between Donald Trump and Hugo Chavez, other than the robustness of the institutions either one set about to destroy.

thwap said...

As I tried to explain to the Trump supporter: Merely asserting something doesn't make it true.

Please reflect upon this. Perhaps you won't embarrass yourself so much in the future!