The War on Democracy
August 22, 2007
John Pilger’s superb new film. A must see. (Thanks Dave)
The Fanonite
“…for the last forty years, our thought has been trapped in hollow structures of language, a stale, dead but immensely successful rhetoric. This has represented, in my view, a defeat of the intelligence and of the will.” — Harold Pinter
-
Recent Comments
Farmville on Manu Chao: The World Beat… MAHBOOB AHMAD KHAN on Fatima Bhutto Criticizes … eve brew on About Saffo on Israel’s Military-Indust… Noonan on Messing with Zohan Visitors
August 23, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Pilger’s film was a triumph.It brought home for a mainstream audience the ruthless economic and strategic self-interest that is at the heart of US covert intervention and conquest.
One only has to look at the history of US policy in its own “backyard” in Latin America to see in the image reflected not just the ugly face of US imperialism writ large but the deep political underpinnings of the corporate fascist state which is the US.
As the film made clear it was the economic theories of Milton Friedman that justified the aggressive corporate fascism that motivated US regional intervention from the seventies on.But this corporate fascism has a far longer pedigree in the US.
The Bush family engaged with some of the other big US business families(DuPont,Remington,Morgan-Stanley)in a 1934 plot to assassinate FDR and set up a corporate fascist state just like the one they’d just helped bankroll to power(along with the good old Bank of England)in Nazi Germany.
Such families continued their breaches of the Trading with the Enemy Act regardless of the asset confiscation they were subject to at the hands of the Federal government during the war years.The corporate fascist business links with German mega-indusrialist Franz Thyssen included the Silesian -American Bank
which did business with IG Farben who had a notorious stake in providing chemicals and machinery to keep the Auschwitz death camp,where slave labour was used,running.
The connection with Latin America,touched on in the famous Gregory Peck Boys From Brazil film,continued with US families like the Bush circle helping Thyssen smuggle obscenely large Nazi assets across Europe into S.America after the war.
The CIA involvement with the US form of corporate fascism that outlived the Nazi one began with its founding by one Reinhardt Gehlen who had been a Nazi general but who recruited Nazi war criminals after the war to the agency in which he played an active role until 1956.It was the structural framework of the Nazi Abwehr that Gehlen took as the model for the CIA.
The MIC drew post-war strength from the influx of weapons specialists and lobbyists who came to the US. One example is the Dutch Prince Bernhardt who was originally hired as a German spy involved in industrial espionage in the US.He went on to work at Lockheed!
The CIA/MIC complex augmented by the United Fruit Co., Cuban dictator,Samoza,and the US Italian Mafia secured the ouster of Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954.John Martino the mafioso working for the CIA at that time was case officer for a major partipant in the coup called Mario Sandoval who by the 1980s was known as The Godfather of all the deathsquads in Central America and was an early patron of the Nicaraguan Contras.
The picture depicted of US-sponsored brutality in Latin America by Pilger is accurate but wider recognition needs to be given to the more sordid meshing of US/Nazi corporate interests after the WW2 and the involvement of the security agencies reponsible for much of the carnage with organised crime,the narcotic traffic,and big business families based in Dallas and Miami in particular.
August 23, 2007 at 5:11 pm
thanks a lot for the heads up, I’ve been waiting for this to be uploaded.
August 23, 2007 at 7:39 pm
A brilliant film. It makes the connections between imperialism, corporatism and torture perfectly. I recommend that everybody send this to all their contacts. The mor people who see it the better.
August 23, 2007 at 10:09 pm
Got one of my non-political friends to watch it and he said he was “gobsmacked” and couldn’t believe the US was “so evil.” Having forced him to watch the forth world war and the corporation before, I know this is the first time its really clicked. Perhaps its a more powerful film than I thought.
Anyone interested in the history of US corporate links to Hitlers fascism, which also provides a reason as to why they would support fascists in their “backyard,” should have a look at this.
Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=PAU20070127&articleId=4607
August 23, 2007 at 10:12 pm
The film is very good in that it shows the degree to which the USA has intervened in Latin America. However, it is also very inaccurate in showing what is actually happening in places such as Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez gave a very evasive answer when John Pilger asked why there is still so much poverty after almost 10 years of revolution. I also found it very misleading to highlight the situation of poverty in Chile, which by all indicators is far less accentuated than in Venezuela. Just because some one calls himself a socialist, doesn’t mean that he is one. Chile has had a socialist in power almost as long as Venezuela (Ricardo Lagos 2000-2006 and Michelle Bachelet 2006-Present), who without the extraordinary US$ 280 billion from oil revenue has achieved far more than Chavez in almost the same period.
August 23, 2007 at 11:45 pm
However, it is also very inaccurate in showing what is actually happening in places such as Venezuela. President Hugo Chavez gave a very evasive answer when John Pilger asked why there is still so much poverty after almost 10 years of revolution. I also found it very misleading to highlight the situation of poverty in Chile, which by all indicators is far less accentuated than in Venezuela.
As is obvious from the title, the film is about a war on democracy waged by the United States against Latin America, not about venezuela. Chile’s case was highlighted not as a study in comparative economic models but as a case study of the consequences of the kind of intervention with which Venezuela is now threatened. Sure Chavez’s answer was evasive, but the very fact that he is being asked about it (and the preceding highlight on extant poverty) contradicts your assertion that the film was ‘inaccurate’. What both cases have in common however is that the great income divide is a legacy of their respective neoliberal pasts from which one is trying to recover and the other isn’t.
Just because some one calls himself a socialist, doesn’t mean that he is one. Chile has had a socialist in power almost as long as Venezuela (Ricardo Lagos 2000-2006 and Michelle Bachelet 2006-Present)
You are contradicting yourself here. If Michelle Bachelet is socialist, then so is Tony Blair.
August 24, 2007 at 12:54 pm
The film is about Venezuela, despite being presented as about the whole of Latin America. As far as I understood it, the main theme was the US participation in the 2002 coup in Venezuela and how it has tried to undermined Chavez administration from the start. In so doing, and only in the beginning and after half of the film, it makes historical reference to the US participation in other countries in Latin America such as Guatemala and Chile. The film is about how the US imposes by force its own economic model of exploitation and dominance upon other countries; therefore, it is about “comparative economic models”. The film is indeed inaccurate, since dismisses a series of events historical events to avoid undermining its own argument (i.e. in the ‘socialist’ movement of 1945 overthrew the nationalist government of Medina Angarita in Venezuela, but Pilger jumps this fact as a historical continuum). It also says that the economic elite in Venezuela has lost political power, this is not only misleading, but a tremendous misrepresentation of the past and present of that country.
On the second point, yes it was my mistake… I was trying to be sarcastic. It should have read:
Just because some one calls himself a socialist, doesn’t mean that he is one. Chile has had a ‘socialist’ in power almost as long as Venezuela (Ricardo Lagos 2000-2006 and Michelle Bachelet 2006-Present)
What I was trying to say is that Chiles ‘socialists’ are as ‘socialists’ as Venezuela’s ones. But they are far more effective in reducing poverty. Pilger veryd doubiously goes to a shanty town in Chile and shows a man and a couple in absulte poverty. I can show you the same scene in Venezuela and the US. However, the fact remains that Chile in the same period has reduce far more poverty than Venezuela with far less resources. For all his socialist discourse, in the Chavez administration the main beneficiaries has been the big banks and corporations. Companies such as Shell and Chevron and banks such as Santander had not made as much profit as in the past 10 years in Venezuela. Although I do endorese what the film say about US intervention in Latin America, I am afraid that in terms of its description of the current situation, the film is a caricature of reality, a bad one I must say.
August 24, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The film is about Venezuela, despite being presented as about the whole of Latin America. As far as I understood it, the main theme was the US participation in the 2002 coup in Venezuela and how it has tried to undermined Chavez administration from the start. In so doing, and only in the beginning and after half of the film, it makes historical reference to the US participation in other countries in Latin America such as Guatemala and Chile.
Sure. That doesn’t make the film about Venezuela. It merely makes it the focus, merely because Venezuela is the focus of the latest phase of US war on democracy.
The film is about how the US imposes by force its own economic model of exploitation and dominance upon other countries; therefore, it is about “comparative economic models”.
Opening up other’s economies for its benefit is not an economic model, it is a function of political power.
The film is indeed inaccurate, since dismisses a series of events historical events to avoid undermining its own argument (i.e. in the ‘socialist’ movement of 1945 overthrew the nationalist government of Medina Angarita in Venezuela, but Pilger jumps this fact as a historical continuum).
And how is that relevant to the point Pilger is making?
It also says that the economic elite in Venezuela has lost political power, this is not only misleading, but a tremendous misrepresentation of the past and present of that country.
Have they not? It is a fact that power has shifted from traditional elites; it is a different matter altogether that the system has created space for the development of a new elite.
What I was trying to say is that Chiles ‘socialists’ are as ‘socialists’ as Venezuela’s ones. But they are far more effective in reducing poverty.
This I’ll believe only when I see the statement backed by some relevant facts. But the more important question is: has Chile experienced the kind of intervention and subversion faced by Venezuela in recent years?
Pilger veryd doubiously goes to a shanty town in Chile and shows a man and a couple in absulte poverty. I can show you the same scene in Venezuela and the US.
Except the difference will be that unlike in Chile and US, the couple’s material conditions will not preclude access to healthcare or education. As regards poverty, Pilger didn’t deny it exists.
However, the fact remains that Chile in the same period has reduce far more poverty than Venezuela with far less resources.
I’d be interested in seeing some stats.
For all his socialist discourse, in the Chavez administration the main beneficiaries has been the big banks and corporations. Companies such as Shell and Chevron and banks such as Santander had not made as much profit as in the past 10 years in Venezuela.
That has more to do with circumstances than design. It is the war that has driven up prices, and depositing PDVSAs revenues in local banks has no doubt benefited local financial elites.
August 25, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Sure. That doesn’t make the film about Venezuela. It merely makes it the focus, merely because Venezuela is the focus of the latest phase of US war on democracy.
- Excuse me, but I though that the main focus of a film defines what the film is about. Am I wrong?
Opening up other’s economies for its benefit is not an economic model, it is a function of political power.
- Plainly wrong. Firstly, military (as an extension of political) power is always used to impose an economic model and not the other way round. Secondly, there is no distinction between political-economy.
And how is that relevant to the point Pilger is making?
- Because, this is not the first socialist or nacionalist experiment in Latin America, nor all nacionalist experiments have ended because of US interventions. The history is far more complex than what is described in the film. I recommend to read two old classic books, “Venezuela, Politica y Petroleo”, by Romulo Bethancourt and “The Devil’s Excrement” by Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso. In fact, the land reform of 1961 was far more socialist, extensive and comprehensive that what is done now. It still failed. It is neither truth that Chavez comes from a poor background (Pilger let him get away without challanging that). In fact, both parents were professionals (as he says himself in the film). Besides, anyone in Venezuela will tell you that you need a middle class income to be able to go to the military academy. The former president Jaime Lusinchi, for example, was really from apoor background, his mother sold food in the streets to pay for him to go to medical school. This did not stop him from being one of the most insensitive and corrupt presidents of Venezuela’s history. I can make very similar remarks in the cases of Peru, Bolivia and other cases carefully “selected” by Pilger.
Have they not? It is a fact that power has shifted from traditional elites; it is a different matter altogether that the system has created space for the development of a new elite.
- You are right. The new elite is a “nomenklatura” that includes businessmen such as Guido Antonini Wilson who was recently caught in Argentina with US$ 800.000 in cash in a plane of PDVSA and then vanish in the air. That is in my opinion the problem.
This I’ll believe only when I see the statement backed by some relevant facts. But the more important question is: has Chile experienced the kind of intervention and subversion faced by Venezuela in recent years?
- The statistics of the WHO and UNICEF that I refer to are the same that are often used to proclaim the achievements of Cuba. They are available in their website to visit and check (by the way you can see there also that Costa Rica does better than Cuba in health and education despite not receiving the 4.8 billion US$ dollars in subsides from Venezuela ). On the other point, no Chile has not experimented intervention and subversion from Venezuela, but the economic impact of the 2002 coup and general strike has been greatly overcome by extraodinary income from oil prices. That last, Chile has had not.
Except the difference will be that unlike in Chile and US, the couple’s material conditions will not preclude access to healthcare or education. As regards poverty, Pilger didn’t deny it exists.
- If that is the case, why then the childe mortality rate, life expetancy and consumption of calories per day in Chile are better than Venezuela? Why is it then that the number of students in education is greater in Chile than in Venezuela?
However, the fact remains that Chile in the same period has reduce far more poverty than Venezuela with far less resources. I’d be interested in seeing some stats.
- This is pointed out by all of the reports from the CEPAL (read Panorama Social de América Latina 2006, CEPAL). What is often misleading is that these reports have highlighted that Argentina and Venezuela have been the countries that had managed to reduce more poverty in Latin America. But the ratio of poor people in Chile in relative terms to its own population is still smaller than in Venezuela after the same period of time.
That has more to do with circumstances than design. It is the war that has driven up prices, and depositing PDVSAs revenues in local banks has no doubt benefited local financial elites.
- I am afraid not. In fact, it is direct result of government policies such as the creation of the Bonos Cero Cupon, the liberalisation of interest rates that has affected mainly the middle class and a expansive monetary policy. I can debate with you this in detail, but let me assure you that is not an “acccident” that the banks have got richer during this period. On the other hand, the migration contracts were accepted gladly by 90% of the Oil Companies who will now do not need to risk in exploratory capital. I recomedn to read Christina Fernandez (Krishner’s wife) critics to Chavez published a month ago.
Let me restate my original point: the film is very good in showing the degree of US intervention but highly innacurate in describing the current situation of affairs.
Best
Von Hayek
September 20, 2007 at 4:46 pm
[...] removed Chavez from power in 2002.[1] More recently though, a central prong of the US governments War on Democracy has been to criticise Chavez’s domestic media policies, which have been widely reported in the [...]
June 30, 2008 at 4:08 pm
What a lot of hogwash!!!
A typical truth-bending from a bleeding-heart liberal. Guatemala has nothing to do with Chile or Venezuela. Why is there no mention of the economic disaster Allende and his Communist policies brought about in Chile and how he handed the country over to Castro? What about Venezuela? Why is there no mention of ten years of electoral fraud? Reduction of poverty? No, tons of whitewash and fooling around with statistics. Come look at the hospitals, the schools, the country, (but not as chavez’ guest – as an independent tourist – but beware!! there is very high probability of getting killed!!)
June 30, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Before we continue this debate please tell if you consider the Monroe doctrine to be active today or not?
And if it is , whether that makes it link the destinies of Guatemala ; Chile and Venezuela as binding to its orbit of influence, contrary to your thesis.