|
Edited on Tue Aug-14-07 03:18 PM by Peace Patriot
"...as he advances what he's labeled his 'Bolivarian Revolution.' That's a nationalist movement named after South American independence hero Simon Bolivar."
I am an AP watcher. And one of the things I watch particularly closely is their use of language. For instance, they ran a "talking point" on Chavez for a long time that used the phrase "increasingly authoritarian" (or "increasingly dictatorial"), accompanied by the identifier "according to his critics". I tracked it to a far rightwing Venezuelan Catholic prelate who had spent his career in the Vatican finance office.
What strikes me about the current AP article is, number one, that they bother to identify or describe the "Bolivarian Revolution," and, two, their use of apostrophes. You don't often find this use of apostrophes in corporate news articles. Items like "what he's labeled his...," and "That's a nationalist movement...". It betrays haste, sloppiness, and/or very bad journalistic training, and--something at the edge of my consciousness right now, can't pin in down. Something else. Ass-covering? Mid-sentence re-write? Changing or evolving "talking points"? Possibly shift in attitude? SOMETHING.
The Bolivarian Revolution is NOT a "nationalist" movement. It is a regional DEMOCRACY movement, including Bolivia, Ecuador and Argentina, as well as Venezuela (all with elected presidents), with strong support also in Paraguay and Peru (but the big leftist movements there haven't yet won control of the governments). Chavez is one of the more well-known spokesman of this movement. But it is as accurate to say that this movement was born in Bolivia (which was named after Simon Bolivar) as it is to say that it was born in Venezuela. The leftist democracy movement in Bolivia has paralleled the one in Venezuela, and was just a bit slower to get a president elected (Evo Morales). The movement consists of the indigenous (who have no particular allegiance to colonial-era borders), the brown (mixed race), the black (Hugo Chavez is part black, as well as part indigenous, and part Spanish; Evo Morales is 100% indigenous) and leftists of all kinds (union leaders, community organizers, writers, artists, teachers, intellectuals, environmental activists, human rights groups, etc.).
AP's inept attempt to describe this movement--and its obvious effort to nail it to the cross of their media campaign against Chavez as a "dictator"--is exposed by the use of apostrophes. Somebody is trying to sketch in the "talking points"--to add them in, as they evolve in some rightwing think tank (the Vatican?). It's now not just Chavez who is "bad" (a "dictator"), it's the entire movement that he represents, the "Bolivarian Revolution" (which is "nationalistic"; read, militaristic, predatory, Nazi-like).
The region-wide Bolivarian Revolution advocates self-determination for Latin American countries through regional cooperation--including creation of the Bank of the South (to free debtor countries from the ruinous policies of the World Bank/IMF), Mercosur (South American trade group--counter to US-backed "free trade"), creation of a South American "Common Market" and common currency--all elements of Simon Bolivar's dream of a "United States of South America." And many countries are interested in this idea, not just Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador, but also Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Nicaragua, Cuba and even Colombia. Paraguay (not yet with a true leftist government, but may get one this year) joined the Bank of the South, for its obvious advantages to a Latin American country.
The last paragraph of this short AP article states: "Ramirez said the new company would also offer services in other Latin American nations such as Colombia, Nicaragua and Ecuador." Even Colombia (currently under the Bushite/US thumb) is interested in Latin American SOVEREIGNTY.
So I gather the latest corporate news monopoly strategy against this enormous and powerful movement in Latin America is to stop ignoring it--as they have been--but instead try to tie it "Chavez, dictator." "HIS 'Bolivarian Revolution..." ("...as HE advances what HE's labeled HIS "Bolivarian Revolution."--emphasis added).
HIS. As if one man could control billions of people. As if one man could elect Evo Morales in Bolivia, Rafael Correa in Ecuador and Nestor Kirchner in Argentina, or elect HIMSELF, repeatedly, in Venezuela. As if one man could run a government. As if one man could run half the governments in South America. HIS 'Bolivarian Revolution.'
Well, maybe it's an advance that the phrase "Bolivarian Revolution" even gets mentioned. People can draw their own conclusions (google it and find out). Or maybe not. It could be early warning of, say, what Rumsfeld and Rove will be concentrating on, in the coming months. Now that they've overruled the U.S. majority, and gotten us onto a war footing for invasions of countries that have oil deposits, they want to overrule South America's majority and topple some governments down there. The Bushites have been up to no good in South America, as it is, but they've had a a much harder time of it, than in the Middle East, because the South Americans have meanwhile been strengthening their democratic institutions, and have started to band together. Military action (using US "war on drugs" money, official and mercenary forces, and military installations, in collusion with local rightwing paramilitaries) staged from Colombia or Paraguay will not be easy, and a couple of plots have already been exposed and stopped. So it will more likely be Rove's specialty--election fraud, "divide and conquer," stirring up hatred, staging phony protests and riots (a la Florida), creating phony issues and movements (like the rightwing "movement" in Bolivia to split the oil-rich provinces off from the central government), corporate media lies and disinformation, etc. Some of this has been tried in Venezuela, and failed. But a longer term campaign to restore fascist rule in South America could be in the offing.
I'm reading a lot into a few apostrophes, I know. But you've got to get good at "reading entrails" in BushWorld, to figure out what's really going on. Our war profiteering corporate news monopolies are certainly not going to tell us. I think there is a shifting of gears from war on Chavez to war on South Americans in general (political war or military war, or both combined). They've realized that they have to defeat the PEOPLE of South America, to attain their nefarious goals--something they realized here with the passage of the so-called "Help America Vote Act" (e-voting with "trade secret" code) in October 2002, in the same month as the Iraq War Resolution.
Expect more of this kind of interference--messing with the voting system (as the Bushites did in Mexico, where a leftist government came within a hairsbreadth--0.05%--of winning last year), and working with tiny fascist minorities to "divide and conquer." But we may also see more military repression of the poor (the majority) in some places. Both Mexico and Colombia (also Peru) are getting BILLIONS OF DOLLARS in Bush/US "war on drugs" military aid. Nothing to do with the "war on drugs." Believe me.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
