The mainstream media are claiming food is in short supply in Venezuela, so journalist Max Blumenthal visited a supermarket in Caracas to learn the truth.
There is not an ounce of integrity anywhere in the Western print and TV media. “Grocery shelves lie empty as food becomes increasingly scarce” in Venezuela, the UK Independent weeps. The country’s shops remain open but “sparsely stocked,” The Guardian laments. Even “basic commodities” such as toothbrushes aren’t available for purchase, CNN bemoans. “Hungry” Venezuelans must choose between “torture or starvation,” Bloomberg grimly concludes.
Mainstream media coverage of Venezuela gives the impression that President Nicolas Maduro is slowly starving his own people – a narrative which, as journalist Max Blumenthal found after surveying a massive supermarket in Caracas, is wildly deceptive.
Read the story and watch the video of Blumenthal in the Caracas supermarket jammed with all the allegedly unobtainable foods and products.
The reason Washington wants to shut down the English language Russian news organizations is that, unlike the US, UK, and European media, the Russian news organizations report truthfully, thus undermining Washington’s attempt to control all explanations.
The dumbshit Westerners who rely on the Western presstitutes are brainwashed to the point that they are useless for the cause of freedom and democracy. Indeed, they are dangerous to freedom and democracy.
This article was originally published at PaulCraigRoberts.org and has been used here with permission.
‘The first casualty of war is truth’ – a statement attributed to Senator Harim Warren Johnson.
Another truth about war is the motivation. Power (manifested as interest) has been present in every conflict of the past – no exception. It is the underlying motivation for war. Other cultural factors might change, but not power. We unite with the enemies of our principles because that is what serves our interest. The war against Maduro is not about principle, because of his ideology. If ideological compatibility was the only criterion for judging someone suitable Washington would treat President Ngunyen Phu Trong of Vietnam or YPG commander General Sipan Hemo in exactly the same vein. It is always about power: one state dominating others or preventing domination by others. Historically the result has always been the same. Because of its pursuit of power every civilization/nation eventually gets the war it is trying to avoid: utter defeat. But leaders and decision-makers delude themselves into thinking they can avoid this fate. History always proves them wrong. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Washington risks unleashing a Latin American Spring on its own doorstep. The Arab one was a complete disaster for the Middle East – and Europe. There are already enough flashpoints where world war three can start, there’s no need to add another.
This guy goes to one grocery store in the capital and that is proof that there is no shortage of food in Venezuela? This has to be the least rigorous article I’ve ever read. Pyongyang also has full grocery stores, therefore all is well in North Korea also? The bias of these left wing sites is so conspiratorial it is essentially propaganda.
To point out that grocery stores are full in a country is not to say that “all is well” in a country; it is only to say that claims that grocery stores are empty are untrue. Blumenthal does not claim that “all is well”, but, on the contrary, explains that the problem in Venezuela isn’t lack of food, but the high prices of food, caused in part by the US’s economic warfare intended to collectively punish the civilian population for the crime of living under a government Washington doesn’t like.
Yes, that’s true. My point was more that just because some grocery store in the capital has food does not somehow imply that areas outside the capital do. A recurring problem in this type of coverage is the reactionary anti-US claims. Of course the sanctions are exacerbating the problem, but never is there mention of the deep corruption of the former Chavez regime; never is there mention that Maduro gave fatherland cards only to those who supported him and had the voting record to show it; and never is there mention that the Venezualan economy was in deep trouble long before the application of American sanctions.
One could just as well say in the type of reactionary anti-Venezuela coverage that Blumenthal is responding to, never is there mention of how the US has helped cause the very problems it blames entirely on the Venezuelan government. One can hardly read a report in the mainstream media that doesn’t mention how Maduro has mishandled the economy. Blumenthal is simply pointing out the hypocrisy of the US government and mainstream media.
There’s a couple problems with your statement regarding the “mainstream media”. The first is the obvious dishonesty that comes with lumping a bunch of different new organizations and journalists all together and giving it a label. It would be like me referring to Socialists and Anarcho-Syndicalists just as “Leftists” and then leaving it at that. Obviously there may be a bit of overlap but there can be a large amount of disagreement between different sections of the “Left” and different sections of the “Right”. So the problem with the “mainstream media” trope is that lumping The New York times, Fox News, CNN, The Economist, etc. or whichever media outlets are being referred to (the problem of ambiguity with the term seems almost intentional) allows for media outlets, that actually differ quite a bit, to be rejected without much intellectual rigor. Here’s a NYT article pointing out that sanctions aren’t helping, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/30/world/americas/venezuelan-economy-maduro.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FVenezuela&action=click&contentCollection=world®ion=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=6&pgtype=collection.
The second problem is that I would agree, the main problem is that Maduro HAS mishandled the economy, as Chavez did before him. Chavez declaring “economic war” due to shortages in 2010 and contractions in the economy beginning in 2013. The U.S. was still buying Venezuelan oil at this point and only put sanctions on Venezuela in 2015. I think we agree sanctions are adding insult to injury and I think we both probably agree if anything is to be done it should be by Venezuelans without foreign intervention.
You seem to be overlooking the fact that my statement beginning “One could just as well say…” was in response to your statement characterizing any articles critical of the US has never acknowledging the responsibility of the Venezuelan government in its own economic woes. In other words, you might as well be pointing that accusatory finger at the mirror.
Yes, we agree on those points.
“…was in response to your statement characterizing ANY [emphasis mine] articles critical of the US has NEVER [emphasis mine] acknowledging the responsibility…”
I most certainly did not do this. My statement very clearly points out “A recurring problem in this type of coverage is the reactionary anti-US claims.”
I fail to see how this could be interpreted as ALL articles critical of the US. It is very, very clearly pointing out that many articles of this nature are reactionary and their anti-US bias precludes them from being critical of the Venezuelan government and so then “never mentioning…” and so on. Obviously if an article mentioned these points it would buck the “recurring problem” I mention and would therefore not be part of my critique.
It is in precisely that context that I am observing that you did do that, i.e., that you characterized any articles from an “reactionary anti-US” perspective as failing to acknowledge the Venezuelan government’s share of responsibility for its own economic woes.
So you’re comment from earlier says “…response to your statement characterizing any articles critical of the US has never acknowledging the responsibility of the Venezuelan government…” clearly accusing me of lumping together any article “critical of the US”.
In this comment you are now saying “…that you characterized any articles from an “reactionary anti-US” perspective as failing to acknowledge the Venezuelan…”.
So first, which is it? Am I lumping in all articles critical of the US? Or all articles from “an reaction anti-US perspective”?
Second, please point to where I specifically say, “any articles from an reactionary anti-US perspective fail to acknowledge the Venezuelan government’s share of responsibility.”
I think what you will instead find is that I very clearly state, “A recurring problem in this type of coverage is the reactionary anti-US claims.”. Which very clearly refers to a “recurring problem”, certainly not “ALL” as you keep insisting.
Your description “reactionary anti-US” is wide open to interpretation. You’ve conceded this above, acknowledging ‘I admit though that implying all “reactionary anti-US” is a generalization.’ I thought you meant articles that are strongly critical of the US. But since you’ve since clarified your meaning, I’ll concede the point.
Saying that it’s a “recurring problem” is also open to interpretation. I thought you meant the it recurs in the sense that among the body of reporting are “anti-US” articles refusing to acknowledge the Venezuelan government’s role. If you meant “it’s a problem with SOME articles that are critical of the US”, you could have just said so. Since you’e clarified, I’ll concede the point.
My own point remains, i.e.: one could just as well say that it’s a recurring problem that reactionary pro-US/anti-Venezuela coverage that Blumenthal is responding to, never is there mention of how the US has helped cause the very problems it blames entirely on the Venezuelan government.
Alright, going forward I will try to write more clearly. Glad to have sorted that part out.
“My own point remains, i.e.: one could just as well say that it’s a recurring problem that reactionary pro-US/anti-Venezuela coverage that Blumenthal is responding to, never is there mention of how the US has helped cause the very problems it blames entirely on the Venezuelan government.”
But I’m not sure how your point is a rebuttal of what I first said. I tend to view reactionary politics as being poorly thought out, since the definition of being “reactionary” implies that one is making hasty unnuanced points. If Blumenthal is just responding to other reactionaries who’s points are only half correct, and he does this by also saying things that are just half correct, we just have to sides engaging is disingenuous arguments. There’s nothing intellectually honest about providing half a story just because there are other people who do the same thing but for the other half.
The other part that we keep dancing around is that there is somehow equal blame. The Pro-US side ignores US involvement, the Pro-Venezuelan side ignores Venezuelan involvement. But these are not equal, yes I have conceded that US sanctions are going to hurt ordinary Venezuelans. But that does not mean the US is somehow responsible for the economic crisis. The reason for the economic crisis in Venezuela is very firmly rooted in the deep corruption that started during the Chavez years. The US still invested heavily in Venezuela even after the economy starting a major downturn. This was largely due to a combination of intense corruption and massive spending while oil prices were high and a failure to stop spending when oil prices were low. This on the back of an undiversified economy will of course lead to the economic problems we see today. Then the US put on sanctions and this added insult to injury. But saying the two sides are equal is absurd.
What half of the story are you suggesting Blumenthal’s video doesn’t provide?
But it does mean, as Blumenthal points out, that the US has helped to exacerbate it.
I realized I had misunderstood a part of this. You’re right, my statement is accusatory that all reactionary anti-US claims do fail to address any flaws of the Venezuelan government. Now I do stand by what I said before that I wasn’t claiming all articles critical of the US ignore the Venezuelan governments role in the crisis, which is what your prior comment had accused me of. I admit though that implying all “reactionary anti-US” is a generalization. I would slightly argue though that being “reactionary” is usually viewed as not making a reasoned case and by definition is rather reacting hastily. Though, painting with a broad brush is wrong and I will admit that.