It’s hard to do justice to Nick Cohen’s absolutal brutal mauling of the PSF (pendejos sin fronteras) set in The Guardian (of all places) in just a quote or two. The phrase “read the whole thing” might as well have been invented for this piece.

But this gives you a taste:

For years, the top radical tourist destination, the political equivalent of the Pattaya Beach brothel, has been Chavista Venezuela. Hollywood stars, the leaders of the British Labour party and Spanish “popular resistance”, and every half-baked pseudo-left intellectual from Noam Chomsky to John Pilger has engaged in a left orientalism as they wallowed in “the other’s” exotic delights.

Venezuela stroked all their erogenous zones. Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro were anti-American and “anti-imperialist”. That both allied with imperial powers, most notably Russia, did not appear to concern them in the slightest. Venezuela, cried Seumas Milne in the Guardian, has “redistributed wealth and power, rejected western neoliberal orthodoxy, and challenged imperial domination”. What more could a breathless Western punter ask for?

Never underestimate the power worship of those who claim to speak for the powerless, or the credulity of the supposedly wised-up critical theorist. For those who yearn in their dark hearts for strong men, who can crush all enemies, Chavismo reeked of machismo, and provided the great leaders they could adore.

Time was, five, ten years ago, when we did quite a lot of PSF-whacking on Caracas Chronicles. We’ve stepped away from that because, frankly, the intellectual ferment long ago drained out of the exercise.

It’s been years since there was a serious argument to be had about the Bolivarian Revolution. The symbolic bookend to the debate, for me, came when Noam Chomsky broke with Chávez over his treatment of judge Afiuni.

That was almost five years ago. It’s been half a decade without a real debate on offer. The only people left to argue with are either plainly on the payroll or or just way, way off in ideological cloud-cuckoo land (or both.) Honestly, it doesn’t seem worth the trouble.

And yet, Nick Cohen column is still needed because the two-bit intellectuals who’ve spent the last 15 years aggrandizing the Venezuelan dictatorship have, by and large, never really come clean.

Where exactly is David Sirota’s letter of apology for praising Chávez’s economic miracle? Who can point me to the place where Mark Weisbrot owns up that he’s spent 17 years providing intellectual cover to a government that’s blighted 30 million lives? What’s it going to take, exactly, to get Jeremy Bigwood to apologize for his role in lending credence to this absurd charade? Tariq AliGreg GrandinSeumas Milne? Oliver Stone? Hell, Jeremy Corbyn?

These people never come clean…they just walk away from the crime scene, whistling, hoping no one will notice, and start writing about something else. Not for them the long, arduous process of reassessing exactly how they got duped by people who, in retrospect, gave every imaginable signal of being hucksters. Not for them the reckoning with their historical responsibility as intellectuals who provided real material assistance to a criminal regime.

The sheer failure to come to terms honestly with their role in bolstering this catastrophe should blight their careers for yeas to come. And Nick Cohen deserves real praise for helping make sure it does.

Caracas Chronicles is 100% reader-supported. Support independent Venezuelan journalism by making a donation.


  1. Apologies are not possible. To do so would forsake the great moral imperative of socialism. Better to blame the weather, the imperialists or the price of oil and leave unconsidered the devastation and decay of redistribution.

  2. Amen!

    Although the truth is that in europe many in the left still don’t want to see what is happening in the country.

    You have to look no further than Podemos in spain and Syriza in Greece to see that the allure of the revanchist bullshit being peddled by the PSF, knows no borders…

  3. There are people who take great pride in the exhibition of a self glamorizing ‘progressive’ identity , in the cult of anything that smacks of radical progresivism, who are like salivating dogs when hearing the rings and wistles that signal the presence of a radical stance in a person , in a regime in a political cause . They are revolutionary vedettes basking in the limelight of their bloated revolutionary enthusiasms and indignations , Behind such postures is a form of narcicism that takes it for granted that any one that opposes the prevalent political and economic values of the west is a moral hero engaged in some epic quest against the forces of evil. Because they act uncritically in response to a personal narcicistic need in showing off these postures they can never acknowledge the failures and crimes of the causes they have supported in the past when these become revealed ….., at most they conveniently forget their past shows of admiration !! In short they are dishonest in refusing to acknowledge their past mistakes . !! The Guardian article is grand in pointing these dishonesties out.!! This post is great in calling attention to this marvelous article.

    Dont know who was the sharp wit that came up with the monicker ‘pendejos sin fronteras’ , but it is so apt that it deserves recognition !!

  4. The vitriol Cohen received in some of the comments suggests the Chavista cheerleaders abroad and on the internet are more than a little uncomfortable being called out for their years of uncritical and vocal support of such a destructive and evil regime.

  5. I wonder if Jimmy Wales (from Wikipedia) can be included as part of this PSF cast.
    As recent as 2 years ago and for many years you could go to Hugo Chavez’s Wikipedia entry in English, it was extremely positive and of course it was locked down so nobody could edit it. Then you could go to Obama’s entry and the criticism section was like 10 times longer than Chavez. WTF ?!!

    Here in the USA the average citizen knows Chavez for its speech at the UN calling Bush the Devil.
    That tidbit of information is how much they know and if you hated Bush Iraq invasion you would sympathize with Chavez. Hell, some even think he is still the Vzla President since are not aware of his death. lol

    Now, I am totally anticipating FWB 2 (Fools Without Borders Two), the sequel.
    The release is scheduled for 2019 when the MUD will be recalled and lose given the discontent among the population triggered by the tough measures imposed to correct the economy.

    María Gabriela Chavez 2019 wins by a landslide with her slogan Chavez is alive!!!

    • Wales is not responsible for everything on Wikipedia. No one could be. Wikipedia’s crowd-sourced content model is inherently beyond any rigorous control. Unfortunately, that makes it vulnerable to attacks by determined corrupters (ideologues, fanboys, PR flacks, cultists). But then, traditional “closed”, “professional” publication has been corrupted many times, and the latter venue is a much harder place to “fight the power” in.

      WIkipedia has plenty of negative information about chavismo. There is a pretty damning article on “Boliburguesia”. (Though it could use a lot of expansion by a knowledgeable person.)

  6. “In The Guardian (of all places)”

    They too are walking away, whistling as innocently as all the individuals you mention. As recently as this past December, in the aftermath of the parliamentary elections, I remember reading nauseating opinion pieces about the ‘death of democracy’ and so on… but, of course, their already shaky credibility would all but vanish into thin air if they kept it going now that, as it were, the ‘real truth’ is out.

    Following from what you say, Cohen’s piece is invaluable precisely now that the spotlight is on us, and precisely in a place such as The Guardian, who has indubitably helped garner chavista support in Britain’s unbearable pseudo-lefty circles. A quick glance at the garbage pit that is The Guardian’s comment section is enough to turn any sensible person’s stomach

    I wonder where its more ‘radical’ (read: idiotic) readers will turn to now for their share of much desired ideological masturbation… Except that I don’t, really. Fools will be fools and will revel in their delusion. God bless their simple hearts.

      • So, the fact that our Quico wrote a piece for The Guardian is meant to disprove the fact that many (if not most) of its readers held Chávez in good light precisely because of the nature of their –The Guardian’s, that is– usual coverage of Venezuela?

        Also, isn’t it said that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit?

        • The comments to Quico’s article are mostly of the PSF variety. One of my favorites was from the “I’m so knowledgeable and you idiots aren’t” crowd.

          “Vote Si”? In a Spanish speaking country? Now why the hell would they do that?

          Never heard of the imperative or subjunctive modes, apparently.

    • Dear Ivan,

      Let me bring you up to speed on the The Guardian’s comment section as someone who is British.

      You ask “I wonder where its more ‘radical’ (read: idiotic) readers will turn to now for their share of much desired ideological masturbation”. The answer is the Morning Star, but most of them are already reading the Morning Star.

      Please don’t fall into the trap of assuming a comments section is truthful and representative of the views of the readers of the paper. Have you ever heard of trolling!

      Most extreme comments in The Guardian are from Morning Star trolls who are trying (failing) to subvert and influence another publications editorial line.

      Like I have said elsewhere in reply to Francisco, I am no fan of the guardian, but let’s not get drawn into polarisation.

      • Dear Limey,

        That I was incensed when I wrote my comment is evident.

        I did not mean to tally up all of The Guardian’s readers’ views with its comment section; it would be silly to do so for most online news sites comment sections…

        As for the question about the idiots, that was rhetorical.

        I live in Britain, and so the particular grudge I hold with The Guardian is the opinions they have sown in the more moderate, less politically inclined liberals who just have it as their news source. Many educated, intelligent, progressive people who have simply not been interested in digging deeper into Venezuelan politics, etc., had been led into the simplistic opinion that Chávez was simply a just man directly dealing with the issues of poverty and inequality, unlike his predecessors.

        I have met enough people, from all social strata, who simply thought that Chávez was doing good, and would simply take their go-to newspaper’s opinion at face-value. Let me be clear: I don’t blame these individuals ONE BIT. Had I been in their situation, I could have probably fallen for the same ruse. ‘I read an article about this guy in this country halfway around the globe who seems to be doing good for his people’. If I’m not particularly intersted, why would I be dissatisfied with this opinion?

        And, again, these were mostly very moderate people. Some Labour voters who even voted Tory last year held these simplistic views, because, why shouldn’t they? Not everyone is as politically minded as one might be, it’s not everyone’s cup of tea to go deep into the politics of third-world countries 5000 miles (or however many) away… and so how can we blame them for holding these views?

        Who, then, is to blame? Need I say it?

        In other news… I have no idea how Labour is going to survive in the short-term, really. How are these moderately-minded people, longtime Labour voters, going to take seriously a man who has repeatedly endorsed the chavista program over the years?

        /end rant

  7. Another worthwhile moniker that has described what motivates those who heed the clarion call of ‘revolution’ is ‘resentimiento social’, or social resentment. As such, people who’ve grown up with one complex or another, who cannot fit into mainstream platforms that would reveal their inadequacies, find irresistible oblique opportunities, where the gatherings of the more innocent or poorly educated, provide audiences to the parasitic, looking for their next high to feed their psychological needs.

    And yes, as BB noted, narcissism will never allow these parasites to make amends, much less a full apology. At their core, narcissists are cowards.

  8. “in The Guardian (of all places)”

    As a Britain I can clarify your surprise. You will note that Nick’s piece is in the ‘comment is free’ section where people are encouraged to raise views that provoke debate. Likewise, most of the previous, really offensive, pro Chavez/Maduro pieces have also been in this section.

    It should not be a surprise to read Nick’s counter piece in this section as that is what the ‘comment is free’ section is for. In a functioning free press there should always be room to present counter arguments to an audience that already has a pre-determined point of view.

    Whilst I am no fan of the Guardian in general and especially their ‘editorial line’ when it comes to Venezuela, let’s not fall into the trap of polarising everything.

    Because we know where polarisation leads!

  9. Other “friends” :
    Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte, Sean Penn, George Ciccariello, Jimmy Carter, Ignacio Ramonet, Miguel Tinker Salas, Larry Birns, Joseph Kennedy III, Bill Delahunt, Ernesto Samper, José Mujica,

    One who is now and finally seeing the light is David Smilde at WOLA, a Washington based think tank. ,

    • Dear Gustavo,

      Let’s not place José Mujica into a group of people including United States actors.

      Mujica was an acting President and was making decisions for what he viewed was the best interests of his country. To understand Mujica properly you need to read his statements since he stopped being President.

      Plus Mujica has been through a hell of a life and still managed to come out of it without bitterness or the desire to corrupt the democratic process. If Mujica was an African President I suspect he could have been the recipient of the Ibrahim Prize.

      • To understand Mujica properly you need to read his statements

        Quién entiende a ese borrachito de esquina? If Pepe Mujica had principles and integrity, he would have used the hell he had been through in life, and more accurately assessed Chávez, while not accepting the largesse-in-exchange-for-the-growth-of-Chávez’s-empire. It’s not as though Uruguay is an impoverished nation with no productive motors of its own.

      • “…and still managed to come out of it without bitterness or the desire to corrupt the democratic process.”

        Yet, he still supported a dictatorship that left Venezuela in ruins.

        Screw that miserable, hypocritical bastard, him a EVERY one of those “freedom rebels from yore” that claim to have faced every regime in Latin America before, yet they went running to kiss the ass of the first regime that gave them money just because it called itself “leftist”; Dilma and Kirchner are in the same sack that that old moron.

  10. Btw, thanks Quico for selecting that photo of Oliver Stone — have you ever seen a schmuck so totally in love? — sitting next to Chávez. Pendejo.

  11. Wonder what these rich idiots will say when the massacre starts? Chavez basically played on race and class hatred to get into power, bled a functioning economy dry giving away gifts to ideological friends and crooks, then died as the money was running out and left an incompetent Castro clone in power who is slowly turning into Pol Pot. And the band played on….

    • The same thing they’ve said in 2002, 2014 and all the other years where thousands of venezuelans have been murdered by chavismo: NOTHING or IT’S A COUP.

      • Lordy, Lordy.

        If ever there was a top prize for Narcissism, Eva Golinger would surely be awarded…by those not questioning the fluff from EG’s own website.

        What is this “International Journalism Award” she received in Mexico (“one of the most prestigious awards in journalism in Latin America”)? And when? In serious parlance, the year of an award is normally noted. So, too, her admission to the Bar of, among other entities, the State of New York … Or are numbers not important to her and her coterie of adulators?

        She states that she “has 18 years of experience in immigration with a focus on business” (Reeeally? Business?) “and entertainment immigration.” Add to that her “extensive experience and expertise in International Law and Media Law, amongst other areas.”

        She continues to heap praise on herself, while my head spins over her Superwoman persona and her so-called capabilities in all things, all the time.

        Ese pobre hijito.

        • Media Law, Libel and Defamation: Successful lawyering to defend high-profile and celebrity clientele against libelous and defamatory publications in both broadcast and print media. Thorough knowledge and expertise in libel and defamation laws in different U.S. states as well as internationally and online. Successful obtainment of retractions, corrections and settlements.

          I have to wonder why, if she’s such a fantastic attorney and fast ally of the chavismo, our good friend and fearless defender of the revolution, Diosdado, did not engage her with regard to his lawsuit…

          Or a consult on the DolarToday lawsuit?

          I bet Cilia is just kicking her self she didn’t put Eva on a retainer to assist in the wrangling of her nephews.

          Eva’s a shill; always has been, always will be. You have to admire the hustle and flow…she’s capitalizing on her left credentials. Even if she has largely dropped off the face of the Earth recently.

          Maybe she’s inventing more awards for herself? Taking a page from her beloved revolution, if you repeat something enough, it must be true. Looks like something of the first 40 page hits for that award are self-referential.

    • Eva Golinger is in a class by herself. She was not just another useful idiot. She knew exactly what was going on, and profited excessively from it. Many of the others deserve to be publicly ridiculed. She deserves to be prosecuted.

  12. “It’s hard to do justice to Nick Cohen’s absolutely brutal mauling of the PSF (pendejos sin fronteras) set in The Guardian (of all places) in just a quote or two.”

    I believe The Guardian and No Logo Author Naomi Klein were “Radical” supporters of Chavez and “his policies on helping the poor in Venezuela” (I invented that last quote but the bulklshit was around that) Not to mentioin the current leader of the Labour party in uk Corbyn (you can go on his twitter feed and find his support there) and also by ex mayor of London and now Hitler supporter (“Hitler did nothing wrong” almost his words) Ken Livingston.

    So I would like to see an apology form: The Guardian and from Naomi Klein to all the venezuelans that ar queuing at the moment to get food. To all th evenezuela that have died unnecessary and violently in th elast 18 years, to all the venezuelans that are in a hospital or medical institution right now trying to surviving under medieval conditions. I WANT AN APOLOGY NOW! (The other two scumbags can go and fuck off)

  13. Some years ago whenever i encountered these first world socialists i couldn’t help but feel angry at how we were going straight to the slaughterhouse and people outside didn’t give a damn, and even called us ungrateful, lost in the Eternal Fiambre’s charm. Today i kinda don’t care anymore. In due time they’ll have their own Chavez and i’ll laugh my socks off. I know i’m being edgy but having to shell out 60k Bs every month just to eat isn’t helping me feel better.

  14. Dear Limey:
    I did not understand that the fellow travelers should all be from the U.S. In fact, I don’t think so.
    I included Jose Mujica because I think he is a hypocrite who received favors from Chavez and gave him his loyalty, to the extreme of going to Venezuela to speak in a rally during the last Chavez presidential campaign (while president of Uruguay). In plain words, he was a whore.
    The fact that he now speaks badly of Chavez reinforces my poor opinion of the man.
    Sorry to be so stubborn, but I think principles cannot change with the weather

  15. Chomsly a half-baked intellectual? Bitch please. Chomsky is a true intellectual. He just happens to have a love affair with some oppressive regimes.

    • In his own field (linguistics) he is a “true intellectual” and a pioneer. Unfortunately, outside of his own narrow field of expertise, he is just another useful idiot and PSF.

    • To love a dictatorship requires a special brand of stupitity.

      So, no, he’s no true intellectual, and he’ll never be, simply because he supports dictatorships as disgustingly brutal and oppresive as the chavista one.

      I bet all of those sickening so-called “intellectuals” would be worshipping even the bloody ISIS if they declared themselves to be “leftist and socialist” and all that idiocy.

      • Roy and Ulamog:
        You may have noticed that I am not defending Chomsky’s positions on Venezuela or other oppressive regimes, but that I have a gripe about Quico’s definition of intellectualism, which you both seem to share. Essentially, in your book one can only be an intellectual if they share your (admirable) point of view. That, my friends is anti intellectual. It is the same as if a Chavista would label, say, Vargas Llosa, as a half-baked intellectual because of his views in defense of free markets and democracy. Some of Chomsky’s views are indefensible, but others (not just linguistics) have had real influence. Hope you see my point now.

        Why do I even bother with this comment. Well, words matter. I have been called a right wing nut by Chavistas and a communist by opposition members; all because of their very own definitions of things. As one of my friends says, ‘los extremos se tocan.”

  16. I’ve been seeing a ton of “No True Scotsman” arguments lately, e.g. “Socialism is still the bees knees because Venezuela wasn’t -really- socialist or socialist enough.”

    The other argument I see is “This is what you get for being a petrostate in an oil downturn!” (because other petrostates are faring so poorly?)

    The third argument is “Venezuela’s always been this way! Chavez made it nicer but it wasn’t going to last after he died!”


    • Your first argument is what I call the religious fanatic argument. You pray to a God for a miracle, it does not come to be, you fault the believer for weak faith.

      Remember, religious fanatics are never wrong.

      And while we club religion.

      Reasonable religion will argue that God did not allow the requested miracle because it is outside his will, so you best figure out what is his will (which surely implies a change on your end).

      Chavismo is behaving as a cadre of religious fanatics.

    • Tonne and a bit… Sandra White, MSP (and someone likely nominated for membership of the PSF) is one of the international luminaries who has offered an endorsement of the Venezuelan model. She has been part of the political brood that was invited to ‘accompany’ the CNE in its delivery of various election results aligned to the Bolivarian Revolution. She has suggested that Scotland could learn a great deal from the “model” Venezuela had employed in its efforts to reduce inequality.

      • The Chavismo Venezuelan economic model requires vast oil revenues. It cannot be applied in nations that have no oil, and it is insane to apply in nations do have oil because high oil revenues cannot be guaranteed. As an aside, the case for Scottish independence (and Sandra White supported it) was built around predicted oil revenues. Had Scotland voted for independence, it would have faced crushing austerity.

        People should be held accountable for their beliefs. It is one thing to support anti-poverty programs, but it is another to support completely unsustainable economic programs that lead to ruin.

  17. “Mujica was an acting President and was making decisions for what he viewed was the best interests of his country.”

    “Let’s not place José Mujica into a group of people including United States actors.”

    Dear Limey,

    Trying to exclude someone like Mujica is a waste of time under the current argument or discussion. At the end Mujica never was acting for the benefit of the Venezuela’s population in general. What would I care if he was acting for o towards a percentage of Uruguay’s people? So we can put in the same bag hi with ego driven “actors” and “artist” who went to venezuela to fish some “street cred” and “petro dollars”

    One thing is for sure, And I dont know if its relevant because the guy is dead and well rotten, but Chavez liked adulation… his allays and his enemies knew that was his weak point and even the Castros exploited the shit out of that.

  18. Some years ago there was a psychological modality called Neuro Linguistic Programming. It largely went the way of other New Age fads, but they did leave one lasting truth – a simple saying: “Never argue with someone stuck in a perspective.”

    For someone stuck in Venezuela, their perspective will change soon enough re all the old Chavistas rotting for Maduro’s exit so they can eat and live productively and securely once more. But for those still rooting for socialism from the prosperity of a first-world country, they, like the alcoholic, will always find an angle to lay blame not on radical socialism, but on the latest pendejo to trot it out there as a social and economic system holding out hope for the pueblo. To such morally and socially autistic folk, Chavez, and Maduro, just made some honest mistakes, then the question gets flipped to run down the list of crimes perpetrated by “the man.” Pick your poision, they seem to say, if they say anything.

    The simply fact, bore out by history, that radical socialism has bankrupt and made destitute every country who has ever tried it, while destroying institutions, freedom and fostering the most shameless horrific theft and cronyism, is never blamed on radical socialism itself, but on the particular person or group who failed at it.

    In fact a moderate socialism is a windfall to the pueblo, as seen in Norway etc., but this all hinges on a booming private sector bringing in the cast to pay for it, and usually a well-managed flow of oil or other natural resource.

    But like every drunk you have ever been around, when radical socialism goes south, as it always does, outright denial and blaming others is always the fallback position. Coming clean is simply not in the cards because are fundamentally dishonest to begin with, basing their beliefs on philosophy that never plays out in the real world ergo is dishonest itself – that we can actually get something for nothing, and that others are obliged to pay for it.

  19. We shouldn’t exempt international organizations, such as the UN’s FAO, which until even recently was giving Venezuela top praise/prize for its “extraordinary advancements in agricultural production”, or those praising Venezuela for its “elimination of illiteracy”. As for poor Sean Penn, he did leave his mansion in Malibu for a short stint shirtless in earthquake-ravaged Haiti, although it may only have been preparing for his role in a recent movie, running shirtless through an African refugee camp, where he was doing humanitarian work drilling water wells, while trying to avoid bad guys delvering payback for his previous work as a paid political assassin.

    • Statistics from Vz’s literacy gains through the Misión Robinson were never verified by Unesco, but that didn’t stop this august organization to present Aristóbulo with a certificate, a photo-opp event, if there ever was one —
      or those praising Venezuela for its “elimination of illiteracy”.

      And yes, the flim-flam in the UN should be exposed, as should be the Carter Center. But let’s not stop there. There’s a whole raft of wide-eyed innocent journos and not-so-innocent editors et al, in the mainstream media, all angling for eyeballs at the expense of serious research and balanced views.

      • To be a little bit fair, these folks, despite their leanings, do provide links to people who oppose them. It was how I found this blog.

        In addition, unlike the British-based ‘solidarity’ sites, they are still publishing new material. The ones run by the British Left all lost interest some time in 2014. Fair-weather Bolivarians, it seems.

        • what about

          Are those guys still writing long articles about “hoarding” and the economic war?

  20. I would suggest that in addition to Tariq Ali, Greg Grandin, Seumas Milne, Oliver Stone, and Jeremy Corbyn, you could also include Ken Livingstone, Caroline Lucas, Diane Abbott and Owen Jones.

    Owen Jones in particular has built a career on supporting the Bolivarian revolution. However he has been mainly silent about this poor country since 2014 or thereabouts.

    Ken Livingstone is honorary president of the Venezuela Solidarity Campaign. Lucas and Abbott are patrons.

  21. Here’s Tamara Pierson to set the wreckord straight. 😛

    “As the right wing and the rich, conservative, boring white men elites make some painful gains in Latin America, and as Venezuela’s sifrinos (brats, or privileged conservative kids) call for coups and burn medicine facilities, the English language mass media has suddenly been uncovering an apocalypse of dying babies, caused of course, by socialism.”

    I presume the sifrinos did it?

    “The articles blame it all on Chavismo, socialism and Maduro, without bothering to reference any context or to recognise that the rightwing have some power and therefore a level of responsibility in Venezuela now.”

    What power does the “rightwing” have exactly? Business owners have been arrested and jailed. Businesses have been expropriated. The exchange rate is controlled by the government. The AN has only been in power for three months and has had every piece of legislation vetoed often times on extralegal grounds. How can you claim private enterprise has power to control anything when the means of production are firmly controlled by the government?

    “Nor do they care to admit that like all countries, Venezuela’s economic situation has structural, economic and historical causes.”

    Funny how Marxists are such whizzes at dishing out the dialectical materialist conclusions of current events UNLESS it involves a record of socialist governance itself. It’s the worst form of hypocrisy.

    “Some Venezuelans are going hungry (but not starving)”


    “The best way to counter the media war on Venezuela is to do what they don’t do: offer in depth, contextualised, critical coverage that helps people who aren’t there to understand what is going on and to learn from an extremely complex and difficult situation that a revolution under attack is facing.”

    It would be wonderful if hack shops like Venezuelanalysis would join the rest of the “media” in offering contexualized critical coverage that helps people understand. But they don’t. They’re partisans. They’re so partisan…and so do not give a damn about Venezuela that they will minimize things such as starvation and medical shortages as just things that need to be better explained. Where is the accountability? Where is the pathos? How low do you have to sink to keep defending this government?!!!

    “I think that everything can be reversed, even though sometimes the defeats hit us flat in the face. I’m also certain of the huge amount of effort by organisations, collectives, and maybe competent institutions”

    Defeat of whom exactly? You? Your peers living abroad? This infuriates me. People are dying by the scores from systemic neglect of an obstinate criminal government who have spent years redwashing themselves for the consumption of idiots like these, and all they care about is THEIR IMAGE.

    Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

    • Come on, you’re going to leave out Tamara’s gem of an opener?

      “One of my deepest reasons for respecting Chavez was his way of speaking sin pelos en la lengua – without hairs on his tongue – directly, clearly, unafraid of admitting to problems, challenges, and his own humanity, right down to his toilet needs.”

      Así, así, así es que se defeca!

      • Tamara Pearson sufre de coprofilia. Porque a quién se le ocurre mencionar semejante barbaridad sinó estúpidez. Otra enferma mental, puej.

  22. Daniel Duquenal (part of the reality based community and somebody who should really contribute here too) has some interesting remarks today.

    “One maddening thing about being overseas is dependency on tweeter to try to follow what is really going on in Venezuela. Except for the honorable mention of El País in Spain the rest of the world has, understandably, more important matters to deal with than a suicidal asshole of a country.”

    First, OUCH!

    Then he asks this:

    “Saturday the military exercises to defend Venezuela took place. We saw pictures of soldiers? militia? wearing Cuban flags, wielding sticks in lieu of rifles for a gran total of “troops” larger than D-day operations, if we are to believe tweeter wits. Meanwhile no one nowhere reported of any troop concentration unless you count an AWACS doing its routine drug traffic control over the Caribbean as the preparation of massive US Marine landing.”

    Is there any truth to this? Is this so called massive military exercise just a phantom announcement with no hard developments?

    More here:

  23. Half an hour ago I got a text from my daughter, an MD in Caracas, sitting in her apartment with no food, electricity, water or hope. Finally, after watching babies die needlessly for two years, and with no place to go, she bottoming out, is desperate and nearly hysterical. She texted (“her” refers to her 8-month old daughter): “I will die in Venezuela if I can’t take her out of here.”

    If I saw a “journalist” from Venezuelanalysis on the street right now I’d run them over with my car, I swear to God.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here