|
Comment on this article |
Email this Article
|
|
Presstitutes, Media Whores |
Current rating: 0 |
by Josh AKA DAN Disinfo
(No verified email address) |
18 Jun 2003
Modified: 11:31:36 PM |
|
The usual culprits were involved, including of course Big Oil, and their Presstitutes. The pen really is mightier than the sword, and the great majority of the people will believe what the press tells them to, which would be a very powerful tool in the wrong hands. |
|
For example, in the early hours of a coup, the press would continue to echo the idea that the president had fled in fear of his life, which was not true but of course no one would dare question the press. The president was well aware of his situation. But he had a few tricks left up his sleeve, and he had had time to formulate a plan. Now he could only pray, and wait for it to happen.
It is April 11th 2002, not September 11th 2001, and the president is Hugo Chavez, not Bush, and the country is Venezuela, not the US. You should recognize the tremendous position Venezuela has and what a benefit it would be to the US-oil Inc for a "friendly regime" be in power. And the major players that you may not have thought of before.
You see, most people assume that OPEC is located entirely in the middle east, but that is not true. Though the top oil producing states are in the middle east, a significant amount of OPEC oil is located elsewhere, in Central/South America and in Africa. Venezuela, for instance, which is the 4th largest oil producer in the world and 6th largest proven reserves of oil in the world. They supply 8% of the US's oil imports, a not insignificant amount market-wise. (Unfortunately they also sell oil to Cuba, that beleaguered "regime" that has been under total US
embargo-Attack for 40 some odd years maybe cause Fidel wouldnt give the mob back the shit that the mob had stolen from the cubans in the first place, Not because he's communist, because China is also communist and we gave them Most Favored Nation trading status days after 9-11 cause their leaders sold out their people In 1973 when the mostly Arab OPEC leaders implemented an oil embargo on the US to protest it's support of Israeli theft and aggression against Arabs, it was Venezuela who broke the embargo and provided the US with badly needed oil. And with another Arab-Israeli conflict possibly on the horizon, Venezuela could once again figure prominently into the US strategic energy plan.
Despite the tremendous natural resource that it possessed, 80% of Venezuelans are still plagued by the sort of grinding poverty that is the general rule in most of Latin America. Part of the problem is the sweetheart deals that oil barrons got many years ago backed by US military might. Venezuela, for instance, receives only a 1% royalty from foreign (mostly US) oil companies. Last year I paid federal taxes at 15% of my income, and state taxes (before moving to oil-rich Texas) of a little over 4%. Everything that I buy locally is subject to an 8% sales tax. There is a popular anti-IRS slogan that says "If 10% is good enough for God, then it should be enough for the IRS" and I happen to agree. I'm not sure of the percentages but gasoline and tobacco are two of the most heavily taxed commodities you are ever to likely buy in the US. And yet rich and powerful oil companies paid the people that they get their oil from in Venezuela a mere 1%!!!! And so the only major natural resource that Venezuelans had was being taken from them, literally from under their feet, with almost nothing to show for it.
So it would seem that when president Chavez, the popularly-elected "man of the people" (and for all you Ft Bragg-ers past and present, ex-paratrooper) announced that he would double the royalties on oil from foreign oil companies, he had chosen a very sensible and modest way to help alleviate his country's problems and help the people enjoy the fruits of their own natural resource. Of course, that only angered Big Oil, who seem to feel that it is their oil to start with. So on April 7th when Iran and Libya announced that they would call for another oil embargo against the US (placing themselves in the crosshairs on the wishlist for "regime change" I assure you), Chavez reassured a nervous US that Venezuela would not join any such embargo. That should have been enough to save him, but an OPEC insider warned Chavez that the dogs of war were afoot, and his presidency, and his life, was in danger.
It has been reported that in the weeks leading up to the coup, military advisor section at the US Embassy in Caracas was greatly enlarged. The aircraft carrier George Washington violated Venezuela's territorial waters to "possible rescue Americans trapped in the fighting" which is classic cover for an outright invasion, and gives clear indication of foreknowledge by the Bush government.
This situation is very reminiscent of the Cuban "revolution" that became known as the Spanish-American war. During a time of aggressive US expansion, there erupted some sort of rebellion by the local Cuban population against their Spanish rulers. After the battleship US Main blew up while at dock in Havana (which was dispatched to "show support for the revolution") the press flatly blamed it on the Spanish, though the Navy's own enquiry failed to turn up any proof of hostile action. (A recent History Channel documentary concluded that the accident was a result of a fire in the coal bins, located next to the ammunition, a fact long suspected by many experts.) The true extent of the rebellion itself is in question. Facts were few and far between. But that was enough for muckraking journalists in America to scream about "Cuban death camps" and "Spanish cannibalism." Publishing tycoon William Randolph Hearst led the way with a series of political cartoons featuring "the yellow kid" who dressed in a yellow dress and screamed for American involvement. This lead to the term "yellow journalism" to describe the sort of war-mongering that certain papers were aggressively engaging in at the time. When illustrator Frederick Remington was sent to Cuba to dig up some dirt, he reported back disappointingly that "There is no war. Request to be recalled." To which Hearst famously replied, "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, and I'll furnish the war." The famous "Remember the Main" cartoon began making the rounds of all the major newspapers. I vividly remember it from my middle school history book, with dead bodies flying up from the devastated hull. Papers began devoting 8 pages a day to the 'story.' Eventually the US declared war on Spain, but attached Cuba, Puerto Rico, and the Philippines, and was able to greatly expand it's empire, thanks largely to the yellow journalists of the day. *
The local press hammered away at Chavez, linking this populist leader of a Catholic country with Hezbollah. They began to compare him with Mussolini and Hitler (and when the media starts calling you Hitler, then you are through) They began openly running editorials called for revolution. Just hours into the failed coup, Vice-Admiral Victor RamĂrez PĂ©rez congratulated journalist IbĂ©yiste Pacheco live on Venevision television - "We had a deadly weapon: the media. And now that I have the opportunity, let me congratulate you." *
Chavez was overthrown by a group of oilmen led by Pedro Carmona and Carlos Ortega. The whole mess began when the state owned oil company, PDVSA, decided to call a general strike throughout the country. Showing complete support for the strike was the Confederation of Venezuelan Workers, a sort of Venezuelan oil industry's labor union, headed by Carlos Ortega. Also supporting the general strike was the employers' association (Fedecámaras) headed by Pedro Carmona. Now think about the significance of that. A general strike called by the bigwigs of the country's official oil company, supported by the employer's association AND the oil labor union. Imagine Major League Baseball's Player's Association going on strike in full cooperation with the MLB Owner's association. When is the last time Labor and Management agreed on anything, let alone went on strike together for a common cause??? But they were not alone apparently.
Apparently it was considered a priority in Washington that the whole business not look anything like a coup, but must have at least a glossy sheen of popular support, thus giving the administration 'plausible deniability' (those who are old enough to remember Iran-Contra will no doubt remember that infamous phrase). "Our message has been consistent," White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters. "The political situation in Venezuela is one for the Venezuelans to resolve peacefully, democratically and constitutionally, and we explicitly told opposition leaders that the United States would not support a coup." * But how do you make something as brutally obvious as naked aggression appear to be anything other? That's where the Presstitutes come in.
The French Daily La Monde reports that on April 9th, "the BPV (the Venezuelan Press Block), which had just been visited by the new US ambassador, Charles Shapiro, decided to back the strike. From then on the television companies broadcast live from the headquarters of the PDVSA-Chuao, the designated assembly point for opposition demonstrations." Thereafter all Venezuelan news outlets began broadcasting hourly pleas for the citizens to get out and join the general strike/protests. Then things get a little more murky and sinister.
The strike and huge rally that suddenly changed course and headed for the presidential palace was met by pro-Chavez supporters and fighting broke out. Someone began firing shots, and then all hell broke loose. The news media would universally report that the shooting was entirely coming from the pro-Chavez crowd, but a listing of those killed and injured has never been published, which would reveal who the intended targets were.
It was later learned that Chavez was arrested by treasonous Army troops loyal to Carmona, but at the time it was reported universally in the Venezuelan press that president Chavez had resigned from guilt and disgrace over the event and had fled the country, despite his wife's fervent denial that he had not resigned. For 2 days this was the official party line, even in the international press. (I find this remarkably similar to the attempted Russian coup against Gorbachev in which he was taken to a remote location and the exact circumstances of the "transition of power" were kept clouded in mystery for several days while violent events unfolded in the capital.) Left unasked among the many unanswered questions surrounding the strange turn of events is "If the president has resigned, why was the vice president not rightfully considered the new president, as opposed to the oil-man Carmona?"
After his swearing in ceremony, Carmona's first official act was to dissolve Parliament and the supreme court. The news outlets began running round the clock segments showing the pictures of the leading members of parliament, as well as live breathtaking coverage of violent captures of each wanted member.
Then the facade of popular support for the coup began to dissolve: "In the late afternoon of 13 April, crowds gathered in front of RCTV (then VenevisiĂłn, GlobovisiĂłn, Televen and CMT, as well as the offices of El Universal and El Nacional), throwing stones and compelling journalists to broadcast a message calling for "their" president to be restored"
It would appear that all this media support for the coup did not seem spontaneous, but well-orchestrated. It is reported that on the night of the 11th when the coup began, coup-leader Carmona met not only with Otto Reich, US assistant secretary of state for Interamerican affairs, but also Gustavo Cisneros, media mogul. Cisneros owns a media empire with 70 outlets in 39 countries. He is also on the record as being for the privatization of the FVDSA.
Now ultimately I don't really care what happens in some far-off God-forsaken part of the world, but if you've read all my essays up to now I want you to seriously think about this idea:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the US mass media, with it's almost total monopoly on "the truth", can make it appear as though EVERYONE likes Milli Vanilli, or some other flavor of the month, and can generate such events as "Potter-mania", how hard would it be for the Venezuelan press, also a monopoly owned by the elite few, to conjure up a "popular uprising", making it appear that a man of the people, elected by a landslide, was in fact ousted by a human tidal wave of dissent, and not a backroom coup by oilmen?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I want you to think about the fact that not only did the US not strongly condemn the coup attempt by the oilmen in Venezuela, it has already been alleged that the US diplomat Otto Reich actually met with the coup plotters several times in the weeks leading up to the coup. Furthermore it was revealed that "On his first full day as 'pResident,' Carmona shared breakfast in the presidential palace at about 9 a.m. with U.S. Ambassador Charles Shapiro... It’s the first few hours of his presidency. He hadn’t even been sworn in yet.”* Even though you will never get a straight answer from him or the Bush administration (ie Fleisher) about what was going on, the very fact that we met with them is de facto "recognition" of an illegal government, in violation of the democratic will of the people - is further evidence that we supported it all along.
Now when I say recognized, I don't mean it in the ordinary sense. In geopolitical terms, to officially "recognize" a country/government or not is a tremendously important event. It adds a legitimacy to a government if it is officially recognized, especially by the US, or isolates it politically if not.
I don't know how politically correct our history textbooks have become, but those of you from at least Gen-X and before may remember a brief explanation of the history of the Panama Canal that goes something like this: America at the turn of the century was fast becoming a far-flung empire, having reached the Pacific shore of the continent and having recently acquired the Philippines and several other smaller islands in the Pacific, as well as having claimed the once independent nation of Hawaii. It was soon realized that in to keep together such an empire would require a shorter route for naval access from the east coast centers of military, economic, and political power. It was determined that the narrow isthmus, only 26 miles at it's narrowest, through what is today Panama would be the easiest place to put a canal, which would still require one of the larger engineering feats in history to realize. Worse, the government of Columbia, which ruled what is now Panama, didn't want to play ball. President Theodore Roosevelt sent the battleship Nashville (are you seeing the pattern yet?) just offshore in Panama as a 'show of support' for the Panamanian revolution against Columbia, coincidentally happening right when we wanted to buy the rights to the Canal zone. The US immediately "recognized" the government of Panama, preventing the Columbians from re-taking it. The resulting government of Panama was very quick to sell the rights to the canal zone to the Americans.
A similar situation exists in Taiwan, where America's official recognition of that tiny island's independence, and the implicit threat of armed intervention to protect that independence, has kept communist China from re-taking what is essentially a breakaway province to which the defeated Chang Kai-Check retreated during the Chinese revolution.
And of course our involvement in Vietnam began when a Washington-friendly coup in 1963 brought to power people who invited American military "advisors" to help out with some problems they were having... Kind of like when a coup in Afghanistan brought to power people who invited the Soviets in to "help out" with some troubles they were having... who said anything about an invasion???
The first Gulf War was fought when Iraq retook what they considered to be a breakaway province of Kuwait, which the US officially recognized as an independent (and Washington-friendly) nation.
And of course there is the upstanding citizens of the KLA, officially recognized at one time by our own State Department as terrorists. Bombing police stations and such. You know, freedom fighters. When the press started to pick up on the story of how poor little Kosovar Albanians didn't have a country of their own (besides Albania of course, from which they largely illegally immigrated after WWII), the then-politically-embattled Klinton chose to recognize their struggle for freedom and bomb future EU applicant Yugoslavia into the stone age. An independent Kosovo was the fruit of that insanity, followed by large-scale ethnic cleansing of Serbs from Kosovo, while UN soldiers watched helplessly, unable or unwilling to stop what they had just fought a war to prevent.
The latest use of official recognition to redraw maps is taking place as I write this in Jerusalem. A quick look at old maps shows that the modern creation of Israel by largely British and US forces left Jerusalem outside of Jewish hegemony. Indeed I remember being taught in school that Jerusalem was an international city, home to the world's 3 largest religions, and like post-war Berlin, a sort of international city owned by no one. This position has been backed by 14 UN Security Council resolutions condemning Israel for illegally occupying first Western and then Eastern Jerusalem. However, a recent immigration law passed by the US completely without discussion or media exposure, reverses that 50 year position by granting the entire city of Jerusalem to Israel. The peace loving Americans have recently declared that "For purposes of the registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a United States citizen born in the city of Jerusalem, the Secretary shall, upon the request of the citizen or the citizen's legal guardian, record the place of birth as Israel." And so with the stroke of a pen, the US has officially transferred control of this multi-ethnic city to Israel. Don't think otherwise simply because CNN didn't make a big deal out of it. This ruling had the official backing of Congressional Roll Call 385, which declares that Jerusalem is "recognized" as the capital of Israel. Of course since it is officially recognized by the US, it is a done deal. End of discussion. Game over. (Personal prediction - within 5 years time, maybe 10 years at the latest, there will be a major 'resettlement' (paging Mr Milosovic?) of Muslims out of Jerusalem. But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.)
On the other hand, by not condemning a coup the US implicitly condones the overthrow of a government by Washington-friendly forces. On October 12, 1999, the popularly and democratically elected Prime Minister of (nuclear-armed) Pakistan, Nawaz Sharif, was overthrown in a 'bloodless coup' by General Pervez Musharaf. The US has officially recognized Musharaf's government, making any hopes of a return to democracy and the return of Sharif a moot point. Washington has spoken, and Herr General is our kind of man. So much for supporting democracy in the middle east/south Asia. Lucky for us that the Washington-friendly general was willing to allow us to use Pakistan as a staging area for attacks on Afghanistan only 2 years later... Another brick in the wall?
Quick, what's the definition of a regime? Don't bother looking it up, because the only definition you need to worry about is this - "any government we don't like and will soon bomb." Period. End of discussion. The Milosovic regime. The Iraqi regime. There is the implied notion that any government referred to as a regime is evil, very very evil, and undemocratic. Who cares if we bomb Saddam? He's head an evil regime. So he must be bad. That's why the Bush administration (not regime) has been pounding away at the notion of "regime change" because it is a perfect piece of propaganda. They don't even have to prove their case, really. The word regime implies all that you need to know about why. And who decided what government is a regime, and which are governments or administrations? The Presstitutes of course. You'll never hear the phrase "American regime" uttered in the press. If they ever do, you know the winds of change are blowing, but it ain't very likely any time soon.
A similar situation exists with the word compound. Again the only definition you need to be concerned with is "a scary place (not unlike a lair) where really really really bad people live and scheme to do all sorts of evil thing." And what pieces of property have been labeled compounds by the presstitutes? The Branch Davidian Compound. Arafat's presidential compound. It seems to refer to any group of buildings that we would love to go storm with overwhelming force and kill all inside. Of course it would be ok because, after all, they had the gall to live in a compound. We all know who are the only types of people living in a compound. Evil-doers. Our government has an amazing number of facilities that are highly guarded and have several buildings located closely together. When's the last time you heard any of them referred to as a compound? Never. Camp David can be thought of as a 'compound', but you'll never hear the presstitutes refer to it as such. Only evil supervillains live in compounds. By definition no good guy can live in a compound, no matter how compound-like it it. So the next time the presstitutes play up the fact that public enemy #1 has been cornered in a compound, and then the government 'storms the compound', you'll know that nobody will question it, because after all, it was an evil compound. An interesting side note: John F Kennedy was a populist president who many say had crossed the real powers that be, specifically the mob, but also the military defense-industrial-complex, and perhaps even the "fed" or that private for-profit bank masquerading as a government entity. There are many today who believe that the assassination by a 'lone nut' was actually part of a larger conspiracy. A 'regime change' perhaps? And what do they refer to the Kennedy family property in Kennebunkport Massachusetts even today? The Kennedy Compound. Think about that one for a second. When's the last time you've heard the Bush ranch in Crawford, Texas referred to as the Bush Compound? Never. Even though it is highly guarded and has numerous buildings on the property, which would superficially at least meet all the criteria. Except that the presstitutes still like him.
Another phrase which has become villainized is weapons of mass destruction, which by the new definition refers to any weapon owned by somebody we don't like, even if it is the same weapon we have ten times more of. Nukes for instance. When's the last time you've heard OUR nukes referred to as such? Or those Israel has? (Oops did I say that out loud? Never mind) Or chemical weapons. Saddam has chemical weapons of mass destruction. So do we. And all our allies. You'll never hear them referred to as such. He has biological weapons of mass destruction. We officially didn't, until of course the anthrax 'terrorist' attacks were revealed to have come from clandestine government stocks at Ft Detrick. Of course, you'll never hear our anthrax referred to as a weapon of mass destruction. Then again, a B-52 strike can be thought of as a weapon of mass destruction. So can a 'daisy cutter' bomb. Daisies. How pleasant. Not a scary word at all. They should have called them 'cute little puppy' bombs. Then nobody would hate or fear them. Of course, killing everything in a radius of several hundred feet qualifies as 'mass destruction' in my mind, but you'll never hear them referred to as such. Only evil-doers have weapons of mass destruction. Period. End of discussion.
So it would seem that the Presstitutes, with their awesome power to imply that certain people, weapons, compounds, regimes, etc. are evil and dangerous, could make the world attack, bomb, or invade anyone they want. Of course we always say the the press takes their cues from our government, so the official declaration of who lives on a compound, is head of a regime, or has weapons of mass destruction is really up to the propaganda wing of the white house. Like say General Musharaf of Pakistan, who took power in a coup, was never elected, and has nukes, but doesn't live in a compound, isn't head of a regime, and doesn't have weapons of mass destruction. That honor is reserved for people we are going to bomb/invade, and look what's happening. He's letting us attack fellow Muslims from his property. He's cool. He's not an evil-doer. Even though he allegedly helped arm Korea, one of the axis of evil™. So who's to say the press is always right? What if an evil-doer™ took over them? Could they start biasing the news against someone they don't like? Like a democratically elected populist president? Perhaps the president of our own country? You know, like Klinton, only for no reason other than they don't like him, or he crossed powerful people that actually own the press? (Or the Mob, in the case of Bobby Kennedy.)
Now I know it may sound like I'm arguing semantics, playing with words. Yes, yes I am. But I only want you to notice the subtle ways in which the press treats different people, places and things that are very much alike, but are described in very different terms. Why? Well words are often very imprecise, failing to convey more than a vague meaning. But some words imply a whole lot more than they say. And if you look at the clear pattern of word usage by our lockstep mass media, it becomes very clear that there is a clear, organized agenda other than telling the 'truth.' We are being fed a party line, a bag full of pregnant words and innuendo, a propaganda snowjob worthy of Goebbels, or Reifenstall, or Eisenstein. Propaganda - it's not just for Nazis and Communists anymore! Could a non-government entity, say an elite cabal of billionaire coup plotters for instance, influence a country (Venezuela, or, gasp, America?) to the point of changing the political landscape forever? Isn't Pravda credited with doing just that and bringing about the rise of Communism in Russia and the eventual Russian Revolution? Wasn't the "samizdat" underground press in Eastern Europe (partly financed by the CIA?) in the late 80's partly responsible for doing the same thing, helping to bring about the collapse of the Soviet empire? (Although to be fair the latter was more decentralized, much like the modern alternative media web sites that counter the official state propaganda.) Sticks and Stones indeed.
In the 1997 James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies, there is a very information-technology type scenario and supervillain. I stole this from a web review - "In the hopes of starting a devastating world war, media mogul Elliot Carver (Jonathan Pryce) uses incredible technology to spark a dispute between the British and the Chinese." Now think about that statement very carefully. Go back to the Who Owns What article I referenced before. Realize that although no one person/company owns everything you see and hear, that awesome power is held by a very small group of powerful billionaires with presumably similar economic/geopolitical interests. Also realize that many of these are multi-national corporations, international octopi that span the globe and are potentially loyal to no one and no country. Would they have qualms about starting a coup here in the good ol' US of A if a major portion of their ownership and/or financial interests lie elsewhere? Remember that "American" corporations (including Enron and Haliburton and Harken Energy) were recently outed for cheating the US government (and shareholders) in billions of tax dollars in offshore accounts, thus revealing their true loyalty not to baseball and apple pie but the almighty dollar. Now imagine if the sitting president threatened a major shakeup somewhere that tens or hundreds of billions of dollars were at stake. Would you kill someone for $100 Billion? Perhaps try to oust a president? (Or, say, lure him into Dealy Plaza?) Or send a few "peacekeepers" off on a 'snipe hunt' to defend said assets? What's "a few hundred ordinary lives" in the grand scheme of things anyway? Remember, stick and stones can break your bones.., but the words of the press can topple governments.
Click here for an almost 13 minute realvideo exposé on the intrigue surrounding the failed Venezuelan coup by BBC's NewsNight program. I wonder why such an in depth report comes from the UK, but you haven't heard about it even though you have at least 5 24-hr news channels on your cable or satellite TV? I thought they specialized in digging up every little morsel of news, from a hockey dad beating, to every little WASP girl who went missing over the summer, to the sex lives of every star/pro sport athlete in America?
Latest: (06Dec02)
Three Shot Dead in Venezuela as Strike Chokes Oil
Several very important points are brought up by the article which seems eerily like the failed April coup. Both events happened after shots were fired during a strike/protest, in this instance an "executive-led revolt at state-owned oil giant PDVSA" (in a country where 80% live in poverty, this telling statement once again reveals the lie of any sort of populist uprising), which was ultimately the cover story used for the resignation/coup story now just as before. "This is a crime by Chavez against the people" claims Gen Nestor Gonzalez. Gen Enrique Medina called on the armed forces to rise up against Chavez. I wonder if Chavez will "resign and flee" like last time? Or will he be Arkancided this time, to prevent the truth from coming out? I think it is interesting that this news breaks in the US very late on a Friday night, when almost nobody watches the news?
|
|
