The New York Times’ editorial board has always been a masterclass in imperialism dressed as journalism, but advising Trump to intensify Venezuela’s suffering by starving its people through sanctions is peak moral bankruptcy. They’ve perfected the art of humanitarian concern as a Trojan horse for regime change, ignoring how economic warfare kills civilians far more efficiently than bullets.
Venezuela’s crime? Electing leaders who don’t kneel to Washington. The Times’ “expert” opinions align seamlessly with CIA playbooks—manufacturing consent for destabilization while feigning neutrality. Imagine believing corporate media’s crocodile tears after decades of cheerleading coups and bombings.
Democracy dies when propaganda outlets decide which nations deserve collapse. But hey, at least the editorialists get to feel righteous while sipping lattes in Brooklyn.
Clearly the vast majority of propaganda against Venezuela is for being one of the largest producers of oil in the world and among the very few that US/UK/NL based oil companies do not absolutely control, or control the sale of. About human suffering, poverty, hunger, “inequality”, even the most conservative of Americans are not buying this pseudo-concern. The US along with its W.Euro puppets has spread nothing but misery to the rest of the world in the past 75 years, or should I say 100s.
On the other hand, trying to be objective on Venezuela apart from its electoral politics, after decades the impotent brainless militarists leading the government should have lost their illusion of being able to freely sell oil in the global market in exchange for food and other industrial supplies. At least for food, and it is not hard, to have developed mechanisms of autonomy, to have an abundance of food for export as well. For this, and this autistic relevance to oil exchange economy, they are inexcusable.
For sure during Chavez the gaps of the class differences between the very poor and the very rich or affluent have been narrowed, even anti-Chavez/Maduro advocates will admit to this. Shelter, working conditions, health care, salaries for the poorest of Venezuelans have been dramatically improved, the mid-upper-mid class is having issues, they are not as happy as they were being servants of US/UK/NL oil companies. Now they have to work for a living … irrelevant what they want.
This blend of socialized everything free-market of food and supplies has made Vz into a static problem unwilling to adopt. The excuse that the US mandated blockade of markets and resources is the cause of all evil is admission that their hybrid ideology is bankrupt. With such abundance in power, with plenty of water and rich soil, a sea full of fish, and with abundance of technological/scientific aptitude Vz should have been an aspiration model for the poor world. Instead and by comparing power deficits all they are is an aversion to escape dependence to capitalist markets. If Venezuela can not do it, nobody can.
The New York Times’ editorial board has always been a masterclass in imperialism dressed as journalism, but advising Trump to intensify Venezuela’s suffering by starving its people through sanctions is peak moral bankruptcy. They’ve perfected the art of humanitarian concern as a Trojan horse for regime change, ignoring how economic warfare kills civilians far more efficiently than bullets.
Venezuela’s crime? Electing leaders who don’t kneel to Washington. The Times’ “expert” opinions align seamlessly with CIA playbooks—manufacturing consent for destabilization while feigning neutrality. Imagine believing corporate media’s crocodile tears after decades of cheerleading coups and bombings.
Democracy dies when propaganda outlets decide which nations deserve collapse. But hey, at least the editorialists get to feel righteous while sipping lattes in Brooklyn.
Clearly the vast majority of propaganda against Venezuela is for being one of the largest producers of oil in the world and among the very few that US/UK/NL based oil companies do not absolutely control, or control the sale of. About human suffering, poverty, hunger, “inequality”, even the most conservative of Americans are not buying this pseudo-concern. The US along with its W.Euro puppets has spread nothing but misery to the rest of the world in the past 75 years, or should I say 100s.
On the other hand, trying to be objective on Venezuela apart from its electoral politics, after decades the impotent brainless militarists leading the government should have lost their illusion of being able to freely sell oil in the global market in exchange for food and other industrial supplies. At least for food, and it is not hard, to have developed mechanisms of autonomy, to have an abundance of food for export as well. For this, and this autistic relevance to oil exchange economy, they are inexcusable.
For sure during Chavez the gaps of the class differences between the very poor and the very rich or affluent have been narrowed, even anti-Chavez/Maduro advocates will admit to this. Shelter, working conditions, health care, salaries for the poorest of Venezuelans have been dramatically improved, the mid-upper-mid class is having issues, they are not as happy as they were being servants of US/UK/NL oil companies. Now they have to work for a living … irrelevant what they want.
This blend of socialized everything free-market of food and supplies has made Vz into a static problem unwilling to adopt. The excuse that the US mandated blockade of markets and resources is the cause of all evil is admission that their hybrid ideology is bankrupt. With such abundance in power, with plenty of water and rich soil, a sea full of fish, and with abundance of technological/scientific aptitude Vz should have been an aspiration model for the poor world. Instead and by comparing power deficits all they are is an aversion to escape dependence to capitalist markets. If Venezuela can not do it, nobody can.