"Ian Rankin once explained to an interviewer (the head of the Indian Communist Party!) that crime fiction is a way of talking about social inequality. Ron Jacobs applies that same maxim to the Sixties... in his wonderfully noir trilogy of those exhilarating and troubled times. And what Rankin does for Edinburgh, Jacobs amply illuminates for the Movement. Much much more than ripping yarns (though they are that too), from a master who's been there, done that, and lived to tell a tale or two."

--Ramsey Kanaan, Publisher PM Press/noir enthusiast
Showing posts with label Venezuela. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Venezuela. Show all posts

Sunday, February 22, 2026

The Demented Empire

 

Photo by Edward Michael Keating Sr.Public Domain

Washington is out of control.  It sanctions nations and people, ultimately intimidating the governments of most non-sanctioned nations afraid to raise its anger by ignoring those sanctions.  These governments know US sanctions have no legal standing and that they are merely pronouncements by the US government that it doesn’t agree with another government’s existence or policies.  Yet, they fear the economic repercussions from the United States should they break them. The fact that the western media makes it a point to mention that Washington has sanctioned this person, this oil tanker or this government when action is taken against them only means the media is providing cover—a cover that has no actual meaning outside of the Empire’s imagined reach.

People who ask how the US could have attacked Venezuela and kidnapped Maduro and his wife without someone on the inside forget that they were asking only a few months ago how Israel killed people with pagers. Of course, we don’t know the details of how the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores went, but it’s likely that Washington’s technology shut down early warning systems Venezuela had in place.  Both the pager operation and potentially the kidnapping in Caracas reveal a technofascism that plants its electronics in every government, every shop, every corporation and everyone's pocket. The installation of these instruments is usually a standard commercial transaction. However, every manufacturer of tech hardware and software seems more than willing to share (usually at a price) the info it collects and manipulates with governments and their militaries. Like the Israeli slaughter in Gaza, the kidnapping was a high-tech version of plain old imperialism. In order to fight back, resistance must be asymmetrical and not dependent on the master's tools. Of course, the only dictatorship in Venezuela was/is the dictatorship of US capital and imperialism and, in case one forgets, Trump isn't the only US president who has cozied up to dictators. Every single one of them has throughout history.  That being said, the current situation in Venezuela is difficult to gauge from here in the restive belly of the beast.  Its revolutionary course is caught between a need to survive and provide for its people and a desire to dramatically reject US impositions, thereby risking a vicious and bloody occupation by the US military.

        During the recent protests in Iran, Israeli Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu revealed that Israeli agents were active in the country. In an interview with Israel’s army radio, Eliyahu discussed Israeli operations in Iran over the past year and claimed that activities are ongoing, according to Israel Hayom newspaper.  As has been the case for a while, many of the folks provoking the situation in Iran are Mossad and CIA assets/agents. Historically speaking, Israel and Washington have never ever hidden the fact that they are intimately involved in trying to make Iran a US puppet government again. The Iranian revolution was short-circuited in 1980-1982 when the US and Israel traded arms for hostages and quietly lent their support to the Khomeinists and the bazaar class during the struggle for power after the Shah was kicked out of the country. At the time, the revolutionary government was a coalition dominated by democratic socialists, some Islamic Marxists and various leftist workers councils. The socially reactionary Khomeinists made a power grab and killed and jailed thousands of people on the left. Then they started a war with Iraq, which provided the Khomeini government with the excuse they needed to clamp down even further on the Left. The current opposition supported (and partially funded by) the US includes those who want to bring the monarchy back under the Shah's son, the MEK (a one-time Islamic Marxist guerrilla organization that now gets much of fits funding from neocons, the CIA and Mossad, and a number of separatist groups who get funding from those sources and other governments. It is these outside funded groups that are most likely responsible for killing many cops and military during the recent protests.

As for any potential attack by Tel Aviv and/or Washington, if Iran learned anything from the last couple of years, they will not be sitting ducks and will not show much mercy to those who attack them. Barring the installment of a client regime in Iran, the aftermath will be a civil war, somewhat like after Washington attacked Iraq in 2003. This is the second choice of the imperial powers in the twenty-first century--if they can't take over a nation, then they'll help destroy it as a nation. The process is often called Balkanization, an approach that breaks larger societies into smaller and often conflicting groups—tribes if you will.  Yugoslavia experienced this in the 1990s, with the various groups opposing the Yugoslav nation as constructed during socialism supported by outside governments; Washington supported those against Serbia while Russia (and others) lent their support to the Serbian government in Belgrade despite its weakened situation after the end of the USSR. Syria experienced a similar situation after the so-called Arab Spring protests broke out in civil war, with Washington, Tel Aviv, Ankara, the Saudis, and other Arab monarchies providing support to various mercenary and religious forces opposing the Damascus government of Assad.

In Europe, most NATO governments are talking about providing the martial law regime in Kyiv with fifteen billion dollars to help in its war with Russia. Meanwhile, Denmark is buying Hellfire missiles to protect Greenland. The US corporation Lockheed-Martin makes those missiles.  As for that fifteen billion to Kyiv, one wonders where the weapons they’ll mostly be used for are coming from.  Given that most of their systems are of US manufacture, it seems safe to assume that they will be US weapons and ammunition.  According to the website of Ukraine’s Ministry of Defense, the system works like so:

“PURL (Prioritized Ukraine Requirements List) is an initiative launched by the United States and NATO to supply Ukraine with critically needed weapons by funding the delivery of U.S.-manufactured arms and equipment through NATO member states. The mechanism allows partner countries to finance the procurement of such weapons according to a prioritized list of requirements defined by Ukraine and agreed with the United States and NATO.”

 

The current expenses of this program run about one billion dollars a month. That’s around thirty-three million dollars a day, a considerable amount for WMD even after the merchants and government officials take their cuts (legal and otherwise).  Meanwhile, the European nations funding these purchases are, in varying degrees, enforcing austerity measure on their populations. 

            Regarding Europe, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told its rulers at the Munich Security Conference—a meeting of most European rulers that’s sponsored primarily by the war industry—that it’s time to return to the days of colonialism and imperialism that existed before the end of World War Two.  It was a speech that Mark Twain would have lampooned in an anti-imperialist tract if he were alive today; all of the ingredients were there—racism, the superiority of this thing called western civilization and a threat of force.  Of course, he told his audience that it would be the United States that would lead the way in this endeavor.  As the British leftist newspaper Morningstar UK wrote in a February 14, 2026 editorial:

“The United States is the enemy of freedom, sovereignty and people power worldwide. It is public enemy number one….”

            This is where we are now.

 

 

 

             

 

Friday, August 29, 2008

Bad Guys to the Left, Evildoers to the Right--What's a Godfearing Country to Do?

It's a classic antiauthoritarian trope that enemies don't really exist, therefore governments need to create them. The primary reason they must be created is so that governments can justify their existence. Whether or not governments would exist without the threat of a perceived enemy is up to challenge, but an argument that national militaries exist precisely because of perceived threats requires very little imagination. After all, what sane people would bankrupt their national treasury to maintain the world's largest warmaking capability unless they felt they were threatened? Of course, that perceived threat may or may not be real so, just in case, the role of the rest of the political wing and its media is to provide the perception that the threat is genuine. Which means it is worth bankrupting our treasury and our future. In fact, it is even worth sending our children off to kill and die.

Russia As Enemy

All that being said, the question arises: is Russia really an enemy? Or are the recent machinations by the US military and diplomatic corps merely the result of a desire by Washington's to have a really big enemy to justify its bloated military budget? After all, it seems that the occupation of Iraq has failed to maintain the support of the people in the the US and that the battle for Afghanistan will never be on a grand enough scale to continue justifying the massive expenditures the war industry demands. Russia, however, is not only a very big country that likes to use its military, it also has the historical role as an enemy of Washington. It doesn't matter that the previous Russian enemy was a vastly different government that not only opposed Washington's moves around the world but also claimed to be Washington's ideological opposite. No, the fact that the Russian government that sent its military into Georgia and warned Poland not to allow US missiles on its soil is not about ideology, it's about territory. Territory that Washington has been trying to make part of its sphere of influence since at least the end of World War Two. Stalin and his successors repelled Washington's designs for almost fifty years.

However, as soon as the government they built disintegrated after decades of cold war pressures, the politicians and generals inside the Beltway saw their moment and attacked. Global capitalist institutions demanded payments and starvation while their diplomatic and military protectors demanded territory and allegiance from Moscow's former states. NATO became a weapon in this crusade to remove Moscow's former allies from its enforced protection. Yugoslavia was plucked and deboned under NATO's warplanes. The US dollar and the Euro were waved in front of the new governments that accepted the demands of Wall Street and the European bourses. The former Stalinist leaders of the Soviet provinces were now venture capitalists beholden to the West and the occasional international gangster. Russia did its best to hold on to those regions it considered necessary for trade, launching a bloody war in Chechnya and creating havoc inside Georgia and other former republics whose ports and resources Russia wanted to keep out of the West's hands. Then energy costs went through the roof. Moscow began to see riches it could only have hoped for back in those dreadful days after Gorbachev. Europe needed oil and natural gas and Moscow was able to provide it. Washington was none too happy because this created a wild card that got in the way of its plans for a US/ Europe alliance under the NATO banner against Moscow and any hopes it might have for a new empire. Simultaneously, Moscow began to flex its new economic power, challenging the encroachment of NATO, opposing Washington's desire to isolate Iran, and ultimately responding militarily to the attack on South Ossetia and Abkhazia. If Washington was surprised by this move, they should not have been. It was as predictable as the gratuitous violence in a Dirty Harry movie.

Terrorism-The Other Enemy

The rising possibility of a Russian enemy does not preclude the fact of the existing enemy we are told Washington's military is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course, as long as the United States keeps up its killing and occupation of those countries, the elusive enemy known as "the terrorists" will exist. Despite the obvious semantic complications arising from doing battle with a strategy (terrorism), Washington has done an exceedingly good job convincing the world that the best way to deal with religiously inspired groups hoping to install a system of governance they consider to be more just than the planet's current regimes is to kill as many members of those groups and the people they live amongst. Naturally, this strategy convinced many of those who have lost loved ones to join the groups whose name their loved ones died in (even if their loved ones had nothing to do with said group). Furthermore, the ideology of such groups is now seen by many as an ideology of national liberation and anti-imperialism.

The convenience of a battle against "terrorism" is that one can make any group or nation part of the enemy. This is what George Bush knew when he told the world in 2001 that "you are either with us or you are against us." There is no room for neutrality in the eyes of this empire. Consequently, one is an enemy even if one has no opinion for or against. Indeed, sometimes one is an enemy even if one opposes the "terrorists." A recent example of this latter reality can be found in an August 28, 2008 news report from the Los Angeles Times about Venezuela and Hezbollah. Although Hezbollah is seen as a legitimate entity and not considered a "terrorist" group by many around the world, Washington and Tel Aviv (who seem to be the final arbiters of such things) differ with that opinion. Consequently, it is one as far as Washington and some other capitals are concerned.

Anyhow, back to the article. Its essence is that because of Venezuela's relations with Tehran, US and Israeli intelligence "worry that Venezuela is emerging as a base for anti-US militant groups and spy services." In what can only be described as a very poor attempt to link together a number of suppositions, rumors and statements by Tel Aviv, the article draws the conclusion that some Hezbollah supporters may be living in Venezuela. Since they may be living there, they may also be conducting fundraising and other operations from their residences there. Furthermore, the article continues, even though the Venezuelan government has tightened up its oversight of any possible fundraising activities by Hezbollah, the fact that there are various Iranian-Venezuelan joint business enterprises opens the possibility that Venezuela is still being used as a fundraising base.

Given that the United States is also the site of fundraising by various groups Washington considers enemies, this article can serve only one purpose--to create a link between "terrorists" and Hugo Chavez. It is a link that of course does not exist but, like the nonexistent link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda, if it is repeated enough there will be many people who accept it as fact. In addition, it may even be used as a basis for policy, much like nonexistent Hussein-Al-Queda link was. Despite the fact that Chavez's Bolivarian revolution has been proven to have no connection to terrorism of any kind, the intention of stories like this is to insinuate that it does. Furthermore, the intention of those insinuations is to isolate governments like Venezuela's that oppose the imperial designs of Washington by linking them to groups that no government would publicly claim as allies. By creating this imaginary link, an enemy of Washington is enhanced. By enhancing that enemy, the war industry enhances the perception that it is needed to protect us from those enemies our government has created. In turn, the war industry's profits are enhanced at our expense.