The opening story is actually implicitly a fantastically wonderful account of the victory & success & miracle of how greatly an open democratic society is flourishing across the world, how different things are today.
The big old bad power-mad losers managed to overturn justice & democracy illegemately, yes, and that's what this article is about. But it is a somewhat narrow thing that a real genuine common person is not now in power.
Living the United States, this kind of come out of nowhere story feels much more rare. Folks like AOC feel ultra noteable and rare. Although I guess the Tea Party is another semi-recent larger-scale example of a lot of semi-from-nowhere's being surged into high office, although under the wing of some not at all from-nowheres.
Yes, but just below it is a good account of transactional autocracy. Written from the US, what’s notable is that they fail to mention Manafort in the context of transactional autocracy. That’s the kind of omission that happens when there are consequences to printing it.
Is this so different from the experience of popular opposition movements across Central and South America in the 40s-70s? You'd make some headway gathering popular support, and then the US would bankroll your opponents, demonize you in media campaigns, and arm some thugs to hunt down you and your supporters. This 21st century Russian playbook is closely based on the 20th century American playbook, isn't it?
"The future of democracy", we can clearly see by now that the "good guys" don't care about democracy everything is a front, and countries like Australia are already in full authoritarian mode. So the "bad guys" don't need to do anything, we are lost either way
And with the degeneration of western culture and society, I am not even sure of anything anymore
Don't "the bad guys" also presume they're "the good guys" too? This article presumes the Western America hegemony is "the good guys" and that neat, absolutist dichotomies exist in reality. It's quite sophomoric and arrogant reasoning.
Also, that was Maduro included when he was elected and targeted by American meddling to foment a coup for commercial Western interests over the needs of the Venezuelan people is dubious at best. Max Blumenthal's interview was quite enlightening as it appears Maduro is resourceful and cares about providing for the people.
17 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 44.9 ms ] threadThe big old bad power-mad losers managed to overturn justice & democracy illegemately, yes, and that's what this article is about. But it is a somewhat narrow thing that a real genuine common person is not now in power.
Living the United States, this kind of come out of nowhere story feels much more rare. Folks like AOC feel ultra noteable and rare. Although I guess the Tea Party is another semi-recent larger-scale example of a lot of semi-from-nowhere's being surged into high office, although under the wing of some not at all from-nowheres.
And with the degeneration of western culture and society, I am not even sure of anything anymore
Also, that was Maduro included when he was elected and targeted by American meddling to foment a coup for commercial Western interests over the needs of the Venezuelan people is dubious at best. Max Blumenthal's interview was quite enlightening as it appears Maduro is resourceful and cares about providing for the people.