Chavez Launches New Venezuela TV Station

[Galaxia2002]

I live in Venezuela. It is difficult to me to write in English. I belong to the Spanish forum of cassiopaea since it was created and I am on the ball about the information of cassiopaea from the year 2001. In Venezuela there seem to be two parallel realities, the reality of the government and the reality of the opposition, irreconcilable amongst themselves, and unfortunately I can see this polarization in the news of the another countries including some information of SOTT in this regard, and I understand that it happened in this way because the Venezuelan situation is extremely complex and difficult to elucidate even for me that I can see the events in development and I have more information about the Venezuelan reality.

Trying to see the forest and not the trees, I am going to give you my personal opinion.
The Venezuelan opposition and the Chávez government are in appearance fiercely opposite, but in the bottom are very similar, are equally cheating, corrupt, manipulative, and I have base to say it because I have an aunt who was employed at the government as attendee of a councilman belonging to the party MVR, and what she tells me about is done there brings me really sick. There are too many things which one finds out here, but that are little known abroad.
With regard to the RCTV affair, I disagree with the following commentary in the article:

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/articles/show/133084-Chavez+Launches+New+Venezuela+TV+Station

“Millions of people live in Venezuela and only a few hundred protest the station's change of direction... and somehow that indicates that Chavez is losing the respect of Venezuelans?��

That’s not true. This station of Television is the second most popular in the whole country. To any home that you go you will find them seeing, following its programmes, especially the lower classes. And the end of its transmissions get annoyed many people, independently of the "rebellious" behavior of this station, because is principally an entertainment channel.

This TV channel was closed (or whatever) simply for political reasons, because it keep a critical line with the government and didn’t change its publishing line as precisely was done by Venevisión (the most seen channel) recently, which also took part in the coup d'état, and which license also was expiring and also it should have been closed. Or not?

For example, I show you a video of lowliness areas, traditionally chavists, in the hours near to the shutdown of the tv channel RCTV (midnight 12:00 pm 5/27/07), and the day before, striking pots and making sound sirens as a sign of claim, which agrees with the surveys that affirm a rejection of 70 -80 %

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_TPxtN0LB0&mode=related&search=

this is the “barrio 23 de Enero��
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmfjUyA3lgw&mode=related&search=

Here in Venezuela there is a war of mass media of both sides using like as arms the manipulation of the conscience through the distortion of facts and ideology, and this is alone one aspect. It's a distraction because the real problems: a frightful delinquency, a grotesque corruption, the lack of housing and segregation amongst other things
deteriorate every day and the government is not really interested in these topics, they are focused principally in political topics. The opposition obviously takes advantage of these faults to gain ground. On the other hand the current government is absolutely deaf to all kinds of critiques and when the society expresses any class of disagreement by means of any manifestation that become important immediately they classifies the demonstrators as "rebels", "imperialists" "assasins", "mentally ill" etc. It's good to clarify that the majority of people in the opposition (I refer to common people, not politicians) don´t support neither George Bush nor Chávez, this last due to his incompetence to solve the principal problems of the country and he got the perfect excuse: George Bush. In this country all the problems are due to George Bush or yankee imperialism.
Ultimately the only real beneficiary as usual is the system of control, dividing, creating conflict, misery, pain and finally the illusion which by means of individuals with power it is possible to improve the life of everybody.

Enough to believe in politicians!

 

[Art]

Hi Galaxia. I post (when I do) on the Spanish Forum (it is not a forum like the such, but a mail list known as casschat spanish, and I think it would be great to have a Forum in spanish), as aean, and this your post reminded me of a TV commercial aired here in México some months ago, during 4-6 weeks, regarding this issue: It would say the mexicans were “all contrariated" because of Chávez actions on closing that TV channel.
Well, I was not. Not that I support Chávez closing a TV channel. That is, as you mention it, a political movement from his part, aimed to silence, and get rid of, opposition to his regime. This is not to say as well that the opposition acts as if were to have ethical conscience, at least for Venezuela –it is only for their interests, which comes from abroad, by the way. You have correctly decribed a fight for the power. And that is what it is. Being such, is not like things will change when and if opposition takes the seat.
The TV commercial aired here, hold and represent precisely this fight for power: Mexican interests were damaged. That is: The penetration of the message was injured. Televisa (main TV chain in México) had stocks on Venezuelan TV channel, so Televisa aired an indignation supposedly suffered by all the Mexicans. But it also works as a mean to introduce the North American plan.
Mainly the latter, I dare to say.
Like the closed channel, Televisa has idiotic programing up to levels rather difficult to belive or understand. Hard to miss Televisa if it ever were to close its transmissions (unless one is part of the gang of ignorant psychos “working" there, along with the brain washed masses assisting to Church on the day of Guadalupe to beg for mercy). It would actually be a very healthy step. For what you recon of Venezuelan TV channel, it was not in a better situation.
When Televisa included on its commercial “all the mexicans", it stated the only valid mexicans are those idiotized to it’s interests and programing and “style" of living, thinking, having fun and relating. Like there, here too the diametric distance between the pary in power and the opposition is an abyss –yet, they are so similar one would think it is all just a escenification aimed to cover what is really happening in the authentic society (I am thinking on Ernestina’s history, for instance).
The wave of the North is pushing, and many have fall to its power. México the first of them all.
I have never thought of Chávez as the flag-man of the libetry of the Americas, or the last corner of “the resistance". He is a militar man. And a militar man on the seat of power. He is a pathocrat. I was not agree when it was decided to contact him and extend for him a Lobaczewski’s (but that’s just me). Tho, on the other hand, it does not seem Chávez has been showing his militar fist –with the exception of his arrival to power (and why to show the militar fist when it is all under control?). At least not yet. Unless one reads precisely that on this event against a TV channel.
For a change, I happen to read it like that. And it does not surprizes me.
If Chávez is bad, the opposition is worst and it happens the same all over the Globe… then it most be a Duck indeed.
Where to look? What to do? I read your indignation on your post, shared by many. And I think the solution is on the individual, on the particular person. Not on the “venezuelan, mexican, cambodian, of the street", no. Not the “every day man" –this are the ones targeted as “public". But on the particular human, s/he who has a concern about its very own self before a concern for its particular Nation.
And a concern that would ultimatelly liberate his person from the enemy, aka Yanquis, Gringos, Germans, Chinesses, Jewes or any identification like the such, other than a human.
Do you think this ought to be the authentic “change of paradigm" to come?
Enough to believe in politicians!
Lets belive in Humans!

 

[Gaby]

I think that it is difficult not to favor the opposition of Chávez when one is being the victim of the Chavez system, but it is self-identification that makes it difficult to think out of the box and in global terms. That doesn't mean that Chávez is an 'angel', but he and his system is definetely not that bad as the Axis of Evil (US-Israel).

If Chávez is bad, the opposition is worst and it happens the same all over the Globe… then it most be a Duck indeed.

There is an interesting article about the subject: The freedom of speech as an excuse: Shoot to Chávez (in Spanish), where its being discussed how the pathocrats of the Axis of Evil, which are definetely worse, have being working with paramoralisms to win the favor of the people in Latin America, in order to push their own agendas. These agendas don't have the best interests of the world in mind, it is a selfish, psychopathic agenda.

I'm too fed up of all politicians and although one should not identify, if we are in this world, it is because we belong here.

 

[Art]

Navegante, the original of the article you quote by Zibechi appears on the ALAI web site. I rescue 2 paragraphs from it:

http://alainet.org/active/17847&lang=es

El plato fuerte son los gobiernos más duros con Washington y con los organismos financieros internacionales. Según el diario argentino Chávez abrió el camino del "cerrojo a la libertad de expresión" que tanto Evo Morales como Rafael Correa están comenzando a recorrer. La tesis que sustenta estas afirmaciones es interesante: como los partidos políticos se han vaciado y ya no son representativos, los medios asumen el papel de encabezar la crítica y por ese motivo son castigados por esos gobiernos. La conclusión viene casi al comienzo del artículo: "Desconfiados y suspicaces, los gobiernos regionales adoptan, cada vez más, la confrontación como estrategia respecto a la prensa". Dicho de otro modo: ahora que los neoliberales no controlan los estados ni cuentan con partidos con apoyo de masas a su disposición, no tienen otra salida que apoyarse en los medios de comunicación para hacer prevalecer sus intereses.
(…)
El contraste entre los sucesos de 1994 en Uruguay y las actitudes actuales de la derecha respecto a RCTV, ponen en blanco sobre negro que la tan mentada libertad de expresión es apenas una excusa para atacar y derribar gobiernos que buscan salir del modelo neoliberal. Y que, huérfanos de apoyo popular, sólo pueden hacerlo provocando situaciones de gran inestabilidad que crean las condiciones para golpes de Estado. Es la estrategia diseñada por Aznar, fiel amigo de Bush, Blair y Sarkozy.

Translation:

The main dish are those gobernments who are the hardest towards Washington and the International Financial Organisms. According with the Argentinian diary [La Nación, right wing] Chávez did open the way for the "lock-up on the freedom of speech" that Evo Morales [President of Bolivia] as well as Rafael Correa [President of Ecuador] are starting to walk. The thesis sustaining this afirmations is interesting: Because the political parties have become empty and are no longer representatives, the media takes the rol to lead the critic and for this motive they are punished by this gobernments. The conclussion comes almost to the beguining of the article [published in Sunday the 27th; Zibechi holds the name of the author]: "Distrustful and suspicious, the regional gobernments are increasingly taking confrontation as strategy with respect to the press". In other words: now that the neoliberals are not under control of the states nor have parties with mass support at their disposition, they have no other way out that to lean on the mass media for their interests to take root.
(…)
The contrast between the events of Uruguay in 1994 and the courrent actitudes of the right with respect to RCTV [the closed venezuelan TV channel], did set on white over black the fact that the so-talked-about freedom of expression is but a excuse to attack and bring down gobernments looking to get out of the neoliberal model. And that, orphans of popular support, can only do it by provoking situations of great inestability creating the conditions for cups. This is the strategy designed by Aznar, faithful friend of Bush, Blair and Sarkozy.

La Nación says Chávez, like Morales and Correa, have no popular support, and this is why "the media takes the rol to lead the critic and for this motive they are punished by this gobernments". Yet, Zibechi explains, those gobernments have to "lean on the mass media for their interests to take root".
First, since it is explained the lack of representation of the polical parties leaves an empty spot for the critic, one wonders what critic was it the one that was in place, for the media to come to satisfy this necesity? –in Chávez case, it was a critic to the media and to the neoliberalism (RCTV was a voice of neoliberalism). Is this the critic the media takes up? No. The media contra attacks Chávez, and Morales, and Correa, as was the plan since day one, and Zibechi agrees to call this "critic", missing the point and confussing cause with effect: "the so-talked-about freedom of expression is but a excuse to attack and bring down gobernments looking to get out of the neoliberal model." An excuse… for who? Because, given the rest of Zibechi's article, it reads Chávez, and not neolioberalism.
Second, I think that a critic to the "critical role" the media takes when the polical parties loose popular support, should be in order: To invite to embrace neoliberalism can hardly be called "critic". And they do that with their programs, their news agencies a la "Primer Impacto", their "stars" and the general philosophy they transmit, of a supposed "freedom" that, according to them, is absent –ye, they manage to explote a free market situation.
La Nación's conclussion is quite absurd. The problem is way deeper and more complex than a "vendetta" from this gobernments on those who dare to take-up the critic –Zibechi seems to ignore this!

I'm too fed up of all politicians and although one should not identify, if we are in this world, it is because we belong here.

You are also in your own contry. Do you belong to it?
I am sorry to point an understandable conformism on your words, but you see, it is PRECISELY there where the REAL battle takes place: In YOU.
Is not that what they want us to think, that we, after all, belong here –and therefore, we have what we deserve?

 

[Beau]

I'm too fed up of all politicians and although one should not identify, if we are in this world, it is because we belong here.

You are also in your own contry. Do you belong to it?
I am sorry to point an understandable conformism on your words, but you see, it is PRECISELY there where the REAL battle takes place: In YOU.
Is not that what they want us to think, that we, after all, belong here –and therefore, we have what we deserve?

I think you misinterpreted what Navigante was trying to say. By stating that we are in this world because we belong here, Navigante was not saying that we have what we deserve. The statement that 'we are here because we belong here' is more of an existential idea given by the C's to Laura about our STS nature, and until we graduate - that is, learn the appropriate lessons of our reality - we will continue within this existance. Within the context of the discussion, this does not mean that we should conform. It's not an idea perpetrated by the pathocrats in control.

 

[Gaby]

Translation: The main dish are those gobernments who are the hardest towards Washington and the International Financial Organisms. According with the Argentinian diary [La Nación, right wing] Chávez did open the way for the “lock-up on the freedom of speech� that Evo Morales [President of Bolivia] as well as Rafael Correa [President of Ecuador] are starting to walk. The thesis sustaining this afirmations is interesting: Because the political parties have become empty and are no longer representatives, the media takes the rol to lead the critic and for this motive they are punished by this gobernments. The conclussion comes almost to the beguining of the article [published in Sunday the 27th; Zibechi holds the name of the author]: “Distrustful and suspicious, the regional gobernments are increasingly taking confrontation as strategy with respect to the press� . In other words: now that the neoliberals are not under control of the states nor have parties with mass support at their disposition, they have no other way out that to lean on the mass media for their interests to take root.
(…)
The contrast between the events of Uruguay in 1994 and the courrent actitudes of the right with respect to RCTV [the closed venezuelan TV channel], did set on white over black the fact that the so-talked-about freedom of expression is but a excuse to attack and bring down gobernments looking to get out of the neoliberal model. And that, orphans of popular support, can only do it by provoking situations of great inestability creating the conditions for cups. This is the strategy designed by Aznar, faithful friend of Bush, Blair and Sarkozy.

Or it could have a much simpler explanation: if there are no pathocratic influences (US-Israel) in the Chávez government and if they decide to take down the media that was the tool for the US/Isreal pathocratic influence, those pathocratic rulers have to rely on paramoralistic statements as that one of “what about our right of free speech�" to infiltrate their own psychopathic agendas in the people's mind. The ones more susceptible to be taken in, into this agenda, will be more likely the "victims of the Chavez system".

People exist everywhere in the world with specifically susceptible personalities; even a faraway pathocracy evokes a resonating response in them, working on their underlying feeling that “there is a place for people like us there" . Uncritical, frustrated, and abused people also exist everywhere, and they can be reached by appropriately elaborated propaganda. The future of a [psychopathic] nation is greatly dependent on how many such people it contains. Thanks to its specific [deviant] psychological knowledge and its conviction that normal people are naive, a pathocracy is able to improve its “anti-psychotherapeutic" techniques, and pathologically egotistical as usual, to insinuate its deviant world of concepts to others. The most frequently used methods include paralogistic and conversion methods such as the projection of one’s own qualities and intention onto other persons, social groups, or nations, paramoral indignation, and reverse blocking. This last method is a pathocratic favorite used on the mass scale, driving the minds of average people into a dead end because, as a result, it causes them to search for the truth in the “golden mean" between the reality and its opposite.

 

[Joe]

I think the major problem here is that ordinary people do not understand the nature of the world in which they live and the people who currently control it - psychopaths.

The simple fact is that, in today's world, with the grip that psychopaths have over almost every area of normal life on planet earth, there is no way for everyone to "live together in peace and happiness". There is no way to have an egalitarian society where everyone's view is respected. Tell me, how can the world have ANY future if a psychopathic world view were to be given equal time and opportunity of expression? The psychopathic world view is inherently DESTRUCTIVE! If you allow it room for expression it will spread like a virus and DESTROY the planet and everyone on it.

Chavez may be no angel, but he is nowhere near as bad as the regime that ruled Venezuela before him in my opinion (which of course is based on what I observed over the past 5 years. Is it not true that Chavez won by a significant majority in the last two general elections? Does that count for nothing?

Is it not true that US-backed oil interests and opposition attempted to stage a military coup to remove him in 2002? Does that count for nothing? Would that have been better??

Imagine yourself in Chavez's position. There is a wolf at the door of the house, and it wants to get in and do what wolves do. What do you do? In the name of "freedom and democracy" do you open the door because you want to allow the wolf freedom of expression? To devour all those in the house? Of course, the wolf, as wolves are, is wily and cunning, he makes loud noises about "authoritarian chavez" and his refusal to allow freedom of speech and expresson to the wolf. The wolf smiles at those inside the house and says: look at me, I am no threat, I just want my democratic right to express myself to you all. What is wrong with that? Is Chavez not thwarting my democratic rights? What does that say about Chavez? Is he not somewhat evil?

Again, the problem is the lack of understanding on the part of the ordinary people about wolves in sheeps clothing. Ordinary people are easily fooled by nice words and sad faces crying: "I am being oppressed by your leader! How can live with such a man! You too are in danger from him because if he will do this to me will he not do it to you too?!"

People do not understand "by way of deception" and as a result they will repeatedly invite the wolf into their house because they all want to just "live together" to "get along". And they will be repeatedly devoured.

Again, there is NO SCOPE on a nation state level for everyone to "get along", ESPECIALLY in the case of a nation state that sits on large reserves of oil. If Chavez is being authoritarian, I suggest that to a significant degree he is being FORCED to act in this way to "keep the wolf from the door". It is a catch 22 situation, and it FAVORS the psychopath. Either the wolf is in the house devouring or the master is in the house and acting "undemocratically" to keep the wolf outside and of course the wolf outside the door is crying "poor me! I am being oppressed"

Joe

 

[Gaby]

I'm too fed up of all politicians and although one should not identify, if we are in this world, it is because we belong here.

You are also in your own contry. Do you belong to it?
I am sorry to point an understandable conformism on your words, but you see, it is PRECISELY there where the REAL battle takes place: In YOU.
Is not that what they want us to think, that we, after all, belong here –and therefore, we have what we deserve?

I think you misinterpreted what Navigante was trying to say. By stating that we are in this world because we belong here, Navigante was not saying that we have what we deserve. The statement that 'we are here because we belong here' is more of an existential idea given by the C's to Laura about our STS nature, and until we graduate - that is, learn the appropriate lessons of our reality - we will continue within this existance. Within the context of the discussion, this does not mean that we should conform. It's not an idea perpetrated by the pathocrats in control.

If we are here in this world, it is that we belong here, not that I'm conforming, but perhaps it is learning how to be immune to pathocratic manipulations and lies is the real reason of my statement in this discussion. If we are "victims of the system", it could be quite difficult to think in global terms or out of the box because one has an emotional investment of “Chavez was bad with me" , so to speak. Although my feelings might be justified because I was “wronged by the system" , I should be aware also of far more sinister people with elaborated propaganda.

Uncritical, frustrated, and abused people also exist everywhere, and they can be reached by appropriately elaborated propaganda. The future of a [psychopathic] nation is greatly dependent on how many such people it contains. Thanks to its specific [deviant] psychological knowledge and its conviction that normal people are naive, a pathocracy is able to improve its “anti-psychotherapeutic" techniques, and pathologically egotistical as usual, to insinuate its deviant world of concepts to others. The most frequently used methods include paralogistic and conversion methods such as the projection of one’s own qualities and intention onto other persons, social groups, or nations, paramoral indignation, and reverse blocking. This last method is a pathocratic favorite used on the mass scale, driving the minds of average people into a dead end because, as a result, it causes them to search for the truth in the “golden mean" between the reality and its opposite.

I'm a world traveler so to say and the scope of my travels were learning opportunities. After several years abroad my hometown in Costa Rica, a relatively friendly and peaceful country, and after living in several countries, I learned not to identify with a specific country or system, but to be more open and adaptive :)

 

[Art]

If Chavez is being authoritarian, I suggest that to a significant degree he is being FORCED to act in this way to "keep the wolf from the door". It is a catch 22 situation, and it FAVORS the psychopath. Either the wolf is in the house devouring or the master is in the house and acting "undemocratically" to keep the wolf outside and of course the wolf outside the door is crying "poor me! I am being oppressed"

Quite alright, but it does not seem the wolf is “at the door". It is at the very core of the most influential and efficient way to reach the entire population: RCTV.
In Venezuela, as in many other parts of the world where there are no open militar activities, there is most definetelly a War in progress. It is vicious and intence. If somebody comes to try to alleviate this fact, this person is either an agent, or one who is slleping beyond any posibility to realize the Sun is up there.
We call this War “politics". And within it, things are hot. This version of politics, the essentialy evil one, gives no, and asks for no hiding place.
It seems Chávez is on the other side of politics, I mean, on the normal or authentic use of politics: To bring all into progress.
Most evidently, the elements trying to subvert this progress are the enemies of Humanity. In Chávez case, the enemies of Venezuela.
Chávez is not a baby sucking his tumb, watching at the world in a joyful manner. He knows the North will kill him, and he knows it is not “him", but what he represents. And he represents the bolivarian socialism: This is the movements targeted by Bush, Aznar and Blair and all the members of the axe.
I suport Chávez movement to close RCTV. That was to kick out of the house “the wolf" –or an attempt to do so, because the wolf is still quite in there. I would suport nationalizations (oil, banks) and a ever expanding orchestration of Chávez, Morales and Correa. They are against the enemy of humanity. Against the enemy of their people. Ecuador has never had a President like Morales, for instance.
Strategies that would not cost population, are difficult since the Control System at large makes it impossible to perform any relevant action without ponerology, particulary on the political stage. Any ruler with the best interests at heart of the population it represents, has to face this situation. And has to be careful. And brave. And clever.
The article publishd in La Nación aims to weaken this, and apparently without intention, Zibechi colaborates by using the article’s arguments to say the same thing.
Chávez is alone. But as times goes by, he is increasingly a little bit less alone.
RCTV would spread the message: “Your ruler lyes. Our freedom is better." Is this not an idea perpetrated by the pathocrats in control? The vectors within politics are many, and are in tension, and one needs a dirty mind to recognize them and to actually respond to them as to modify the scene. That’s Chávez office. They shure know who they are against. The attacks ARE perpetrated by the pathocrats in control, and their best tool, is a TV station.
But shit, it is closed now!
And they did spread the word in an alarming, histerical fashion: Chávez is utterly evil!!! Chávez is against the freedom of speech!!! –yeah right.
The thing is, this is not an opposition to Chávez’s regime. To recognize them as opposition, that is as far as Zibechi would go. But is not opposition. It is the hand of destruction -and not only of Venezuela. Any opposition to Chávez regime, most be against the enemies of Venezuela. And this is the scenario that is not happening.
And not that Chávez would be very happy by having opposition tho.

 

[Galaxia2002]

Thank you for giving me an external perspective.