Believing Conspiracies (Or Not) in Venezuela
This column in Venezuelanalysis details Nicolás Maduro's conspiracy theories while criticizing those who view them as outlandish. The conspiracies mostly involve planes, but also assassination plots, and encompass the governments of the United States, Canada, France, and Colombia.
Across the capitalist media these events are reported in derisive ways with attempts, some more subtle than others, to discredit President Maduro and portray him as a fool or even as a madman - as though Washington is incapable of coups, assassinations and illegal wars in Latin America and around the world.
My own textbook on U.S.-Latin American relations details the coups, assassinations, and illegal wars in Latin America. A core question is whether the historical legacy should automatically be conflated with the assertion that every single conspiracy story is credible because of that history. Obviously I don't think so.
Nonetheless, I do agree with Hugo Pérez Hernáiz, who just yesterday wrote the following:
My opinion is that most of the people now in the government are real radical revolutionaries who sincerely believe in that what they are doing (not all of course, some are cynical corrupt opportunists). They have a radical Manichean conception of good and evil and a simple, clear, and easy to understand theodicy that helps them frame the struggle against evil. Their theodicy is based on the Leninist idea of imperialism as the last stage of capitalism, and it inevitably includes a lot of conspiracy theories to back it up. According to this view, Socialism is “scientifically” perfect; price controls and planned economy is the right way to go. If things go wrong, the only possible explanation is that the enemies are sabotaging the road to utopia.
Basically, if you do not share that radical view, then it is likely not possible for you to believe the many conspiracy theories offered up by the government. If you do share that view, then you are outraged that anyone questions them.
One caveat, though. Hugo Chávez obviously shared the radical view (after all, he created it!) but the conspiracy theories seem to have intensified under Maduro. If the theodicy is constant, then there needs to be some other variable explaining that change.
28 comments:
No real change but a constant increase. Perhaps the difference is Maduro´s lack of charisma? Although that is now being used as a magical explanation for all his actions.
Yes, lack of charisma & elections are both ad hoc explanations. We might need political psychology.
I agree with Greg that the history of U.S.-backed coups and the like doesn't make every contemporary charge of a conspiracy true. I also agree that the Chavistas are too ideologically prone to jump to conclusions that certain conspiracies are under way.
However, I also think that the United States periodically acts in ways that feed distrust. For example, threatening to expropriate the Cuban plane that Maduro would have used to attend the UN General Assembly was no way to engender greater diplomacy and trust. While the Chavistas' preconceptions are part of the problem, it's also true that the U.S. foreign policy establishment shares a good deal of responsibility for the sad state of contemporary U.S.-Venezuelan relations.
I think Hugo Pérez Hernáiz's anti-communism may have led him astray here. It could very well be that he's dealt with a different faction of chavismo than I do, but I can't for the life of me see the latest spate of conspiracy theories as reflecting the honestly held beliefs of any of the chavistas I talk to, let alone "most of the people now in the government". The few people who felt that the model was still working or could be made to work (let's set aside the question of whether anyone seriously thinks it's anything like "socialism") have all been fired (e.g. Jorge Giordani, Edmee Betancourt, et al.) or had their powers severely curtailed (Eduardo Saman).
In the past few weeks I've spoken to a bunch of chavistas about the ongoing economic crisis, and they've all seemed to understand its real causes: rationing of foreign exchange, devaluation, printing money to cover the state companies' losses, etc. As far as I can tell, the chavistas who speak of an "economic war" have done so not because they truly believe that hoarding, speculation, etc. are the causes of the crisis, but rather because they think that the more radical "war" discourse is an effective counter to the more "pragmatic" policies that seem likely to be implemented and which they fear will backfire. Also, pretty much everyone I've spoken to has a grasp of what's really going on at PdVSA, Corpoelec, and the CVG. To the extent that anyone talks about sabotage it's in the same, loose and metaphoric sense as when Chávez was alive ("Hay una quinta columna", "A Chávez lo tienen engañado", etc.). Contrary to what Pérez Hernáiz sees happening, my sense is that the gap between the government's increased use of conspiracy theories and what people in the government most likely believe to be true is growing.
In a way, Justin Delacour's latest display of credulity helps to make my point for me. It's pretty clear that he's inclined to believe Elias Jaua's claim that the U.S. threatened to "expropriate" the Cuban plane Maduro was flying in without any supporting evidence or even a clear idea that Jaua himself took the claim all that seriously because he's naive and slow-witted, not because he's a radical who believes that capitalism has arrived at its last stage. He's a perfect example of what the conspiracy theorists are looking for in a target audience.
"It's pretty clear that he's inclined to believe Elias Jaua's claim that the U.S. threatened to 'expropriate' the Cuban plane Maduro was flying in without any supporting evidence..."
Again, learn to pick your battles, fella. I never even saw Jaua's statement. What I saw is what Bloomberg news reported.
"The U.S. official said that a Cuban plane transporting a Venezuelan official to New York wouldn’t fall under the protections granted to diplomatic missions, and the U.S. government couldn’t have stopped a private citizen from seeking to file a claim in court on the aircraft."
In other words, by a U.S. official's own admission, Venezuelan concerns about the possible expropriation of the plane Maduro was flying were not unreasonable.
So, we've got a U.S. official who wasn't authorized to comment and would only do so on condition of anonymity speculating that the Cubans might have been worried about the Americans not being willing or able to prevent some hypothetical Miami nutcase from going to court to file a claim on their plane, and this, per your earlier comment (which everyone can still see), is to be taken as evidence of a threat on the part of the U.S. government to "expropriate" that plane. Now you backtrack and give us the more modest but no more persuasive claim that Jaua was acting on "concerns about the possible expropriation of the plane" which are "not unreasonable" on the lone authority of our unnamed official. You also admit that you didn't even read or listen to Jaua's statement before you arrived at any of these conclusions. You're really going to have to work on your reading and basic reasoning if you want me to take your advice on picking "battles" or anything else at all seriously.
Yes, big guy. Unlike you, I don't wake up in the morning, tune in to whatever Elias Jaua has to say, and then decide that the truth must invariably be the opposite of what he says because, er, he's a Chavista official. It should go without saying that that's a fundamentally back-assward way of attempting to arrive at the truth of a matter. Neither Venezuelan nor American statesmen are always trustworthy, but it doesn't logically follow that everything a Venezuelan statesman claims must be false.
I fear you might be completely lost to reason. I never said anything even remotely to the effect that whatever Elias Jaua says must be false because he's a Venezuelan statesman. In point of fact, I don't think I've passed judgment on the truth or falsity on any of Jaua's statements. What I have done is taken issue with a few of your moronic claims, such as that the U.S. having denied permission to Maduro's plane was an "established fact" when it was clearly a subject of live controversy or that the U.S. had "threaten[ed] to expropriate the Cuban plane that Maduro would have used to attend the UN General Assembly", which if you hadn't been too lazy to read Jaua's statement you'd know was a version of the story far more alarmist than anything he himself had said.
But, of course, you're such a self-righteous fool that you've chosen to present your ignorance and your inability to spend five minutes reading up on the issues you come here to troll Greg Weeks about as though they came from a position of deep principle.
Well, when we see statements from U.S. officials in the U.S. press to the effect that, yes, we initially denied Maduro overflight over Puerto Rico, and, yes, we told Maduro there would be no guarantee that the Cuban plane he was using wouldn't be expropriated in U.S. territory, I think it becomes obvious that you're pretty much grasping at straws on the particular matters at hand. Hence, the point that you should choose your battles more wisely.
As I've tried to help you understand, Justin, you badly misconstrued each of the press statements you're now referring to. But you're still flailing around trying to defend your own inability to read as though it was some kind of virtue, and I'm finally starting to see that there's no point in trying to reason with someone like you. You don't even understand that these little exchanges aren't anything like "battles" in that one of the parties - you - comes to them totally unarmed.
As I've tried to help you understand, Justin, you badly misconstrued each of the press statements...
Actually , there was nothing to misconstrue about the officials' statements in the AP and Bloomberg reports. These were pretty clear admissions that U.S. officials had (1) initially denied Maduro's flight plan over Puerto Rico and (2) told Maduro there would be no guarantee that the Cuban plane he was using wouldn't be expropriated in U.S. territory. For the life of me, I just don't get why don't just recognize the obvious here.
I'm going to try to explain this to you one last time and then I'll drop it. I believe in the principle of "from each according to their ability" but it's a real pain in the ass being asked to do all of the thinking for both of us here.
In the first instance you refer to, a minor U.S. official named Gregory N. Adams "said that while he didn't have the details, his impression was that U.S. officials were "caught short" and initially denied overflight permission." This guess about what might have happened was subsequently contradicted in every single public statement made about the incident by the American side. I provided you with some links so there's no good excuse for you not to know this. Venezuelanalysis.com recognized that there was a controversy about what had happened and ran a story with the title "Venezuela Rejects U.S. Version of Maduro Airspace Prohibition Dispute." Yet in the mushy little brain of Justin Delacour - and nowhere else on earth - the disputed initial denial of permission to use U.S. airspace has been converted into an "established fact" and Adams' off-the-cuff guesswork about what might have happened a "pretty clear admission that U.S. officials had... initially denied Maduro's flight plan over Puerto Rico."
In the second instance, a U.S. official speaking on condition of anonymity speculated that the Cubans might have gotten spooked because "a Cuban plane transporting a Venezuelan official to New York wouldn’t fall under the protections granted to diplomatic missions, and the U.S. government couldn’t have stopped a private citizen from seeking to file a claim in court on the aircraft." This would seem to be consistent with one of the at least three different explanations given for the cancellation of Maduro's trip to New York (the other two that I know of being the demand that two Venezuelan military officials submit to interviews prior to the granting of visas and the alleged assassination plot Maduro himself gave as an excuse), but it's still not clear what actually happened and up to this point we don't have any compelling evidence one way or the other. Yet you can see no reason not to press on with your claims that the Americans had "threaten[ed] to expropriate the Cuban plane that Maduro would have used to attend the UN General Assembly" and now that our unnamed U.S. official's off-the-record speculation about the Cubans' motives should be construed as an admission that someone in the U.S. government "told Maduro there would be no guarantee that the Cuban plane he was using wouldn't be expropriated in U.S. territory." If you don't even have the cognitive skills you'd need to understand that nothing about any of this is in fact "obvious" you're probably a lost cause.
In the first instance you refer to, a minor U.S. official named Gregory N. Adams "said that while he didn't have the details, his impression was that U.S. officials were "caught short" and initially denied overflight permission."
Well, somehow or another, the AP correspondent interpreted that admission (and the statements of other U.S. officials) exactly as I have. Hence, the opening line in AP's report:
"U.S. officials said Friday that they had initially refused Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro permission to fly over a segment of U.S. airspace on his way to China because his government made the request on short notice."
Now, forgive me if I'm more inclined to trust the correspondents' words than your own with respect to the statements of officials that AP interviewed. It's not as if AP has any sort of record of picking on U.S. officials with respect to U.S.-Venezuelan relations. In fact, AP is mostly just a sounding board for opposition claims nowadays, so, if AP comes out and admits that the U.S. did essentially what the Venezuelan government claimed in this case, that's probably what happened.
I think that, if you were smart, you would drop the issue upon learning what was actually reported by the U.S. press at the moment in question.
"This guess about what might have happened was subsequently contradicted in every single public statement made about the incident by the American side."
Actually, I don't think that's entirely true. But even if it were true, so what? In all likelihood, that would mean that cooler heads in the American state (1) recognized that the initial decision was bad for public relations, (2) countermanded that decision, and (3) then tried to cover up what happened for public relations purposes.
and now that our unnamed U.S. official's off-the-record speculation about the Cubans' motives
No, actually the statement had diddly squat to do with "the Cubans' motives." The U.S. official told Bloomberg that there wouldn't be diplomatic immunity for the plane that Maduro was using, meaning that the plane would be subject to possible expropriation. I shouldn't have to translate this for you, but here it is again: "The U.S. official said that a Cuban plane transporting a Venezuelan official to New York wouldn’t fall under the protections granted to diplomatic missions..." Now, if you wanna split hairs here over whether or not that constitutes a threat, I'm gonna get really bored. The bottom line is that it's not a very diplomatic thing to do and it's not a way of building trust and diplomacy.
Moreover, the U.S. quite obviously told Maduro that the Cuban plane would be in jeopardy of expropriation, for Bloomberg reports that there was a discussion between the Obama Administration and the Maduro Administration about the possibility of switching planes in Vancouver. Maduro apparently opted against such a move and flew back to Venezuela in the Cuban plane.
Of course, the outlandish Venezuelan claim that Maduro's life was put at risk is also not conducive to building trust and diplomacy, so the point isn't that the Americans hold all the responsibility for the poor state of U.S.-Venezuelan relations. The point is that neither are acting very diplomatically and that it would be misleading to suggest otherwise.
Seeing you flail around like this might be funny if it weren't so depressing. Why can you still not see that the source for the first AP story that you've invested so much faith in was, on his own account, not actually aware of any of the details and offering nothing more than his "impression" of what might have happened? Seriously, read the article all the way through just the once. Then take it and compare it to anything that was written about the incident once the known details and the competing claims of the Venezuelans and Americans about what happened were better defined. Do you still really want to double down on your absurd claim that the denial of permission to use U.S. airspace is an "established fact"? That denial could well have happened, but we don't have any evidence that it did and you'd have to be an idiot to think you can parse one minor U.S. official's impression of what might have happened and take that as proof there's no controversy.
Turning to the Bloomberg story, we're faced with a U.S. official who wasn't authorized to speak on the record and commented on condition of anonymity. What does this official give us? An entirely uncontroversial account of the legal risks the Cuban plane might run in the United States, plus some speculation about how an apprehension of those risks might have led to a cancellation of Maduro's trip. (Here's the relevant line of the story, since you either didn't read it or on reading it failed to understand it "The Cuban government was likely concerned that: a new airplane it had loaned Maduro might be seized on U.S. territory, according to the Obama administration official, who wasn’t authorized to speak on the record and asked not to be identified".) You've taken this little piece of off-the-record speculation and spun it into your own private fantasy not only about a precise threat made by the Americans but also about the manner and timing of its delivery. The most annoying part is that you seem to think you can cover up your failure even to understand the most basic facts in issue with some po-faced allusions to "building trust and diplomacy".
Do you still really want to double down on your absurd claim that the denial of permission to use U.S. airspace is an "established fact"? That denial could well have happened...
Oh, but wait a second there, big fella. Your first claim in the other thread was that any suggestion that the U.S. initially denied airspace was "so ridiculous you'd have to be something of an idiot to take [it] seriously." Now you're saying that it "could well have happened." Which is it, there, big fella?
And who exactly is flailing around here?
It's still you. One can look skeptically on an evidence-free claim put forward by one interested source without foreclosing on the possibility of allowing oneself to be persuaded if and when some evidence is brought to light.
One can look skeptically on an evidence-free claim put forward by one interested source without foreclosing on the possibility of allowing oneself to be persuaded if and when some evidence is brought to light.
Okay, flail boy.
In my book, if one says, out of one side of his mouth, that a claim is "so ridiculous you'd have to be something of an idiot to take [it] seriously" and then immediately afterwards says, out of the other side of his mouth, that the claim "could well" be accurate, that person is probably a bombastic charlatan who doesn't merit my time. Enough said.
I'm starting to wonder if you're real or someone's playing a joke on me. I find it hard to believe there could be someone so mired in wilful and self-righteous ignorance that he seriously thinks basing one's beliefs on the best available evidence can be dismissed as some kind of charlatanry.
People who base their "beliefs on the best available evidence" usually don't vacillate wildly from one day to the next. The reason is that they have serious methods of determining what the "best evidence" is and thus tend to refrain from making bombastic assertions in the first place.
The charlatan, on the other hand, has few conscious methods of evaluation and is thus more inclined to vacillate wildly.
Seeing the way you struggle to keep up with basic reasoning and seize upon the most peripheral irrelevancies is painful. It's not vacillating to have expressed skepticism about an allegation that was both contested and presented without any supporting evidence while still being open to the possibility that the claim could be true and you might allow yourself to be persuaded if and when some actual evidence comes to light.
Seriously, just go back and re-read the statement you've seized upon as evidence of some unnamed perfidy on my part: "That denial could well have happened, but we don't have any evidence that it did and you'd have to be an idiot to think you can parse one minor U.S. official's impression of what might have happened and take that as proof there's no controversy." Although I might have specified that you'd have to be an idiot to interpret Justin Delacour's taking an AP lede sourced to an anonymous official's "impression" of what could have happened on faith as proof both that the denial did happen and that there was no controversy about whether or not it had happened, the point I made there is both unremarkable and entirely consistent with my skeptical view of Jaua's claim that permission had been denied. But I can see how this might be confusing to someone who's clearly struggling to think even one coherent thought at a time.
I think it'll be clear to anyone who reads this thread that you're hardly an authority on "serious methods of determining what the "best evidence" is" or "conscious methods of evaluation" (whatever the hell you think that means).
Yeah, I'm sure everyone finds you just brilliant, fella.
Now, seeing as the AP correspondent obviously took the story quite seriously that U.S. officials had initially denied U.S. airspace to Maduro, I'd be oh-so-curious as to whether you found the AP correspondent or his editor to be "something of an idiot" for having taken the story seriously. Or is it the case --by some other brilliant logic that escapes everyone but you-- that only some of us are idiots for having taken the story seriously while others are, er, you know, momentarily misguided?
And you still haven't answered the central question.
Is the suggestion that the U.S. initially denied airspace to Maduro really "so ridiculous you'd have to be something of an idiot to take [it] seriously," as you claimed a week ago?
Or is it that it "could well have happened," as you tell us today?
Because, if it "could well have happened," that implies that you too now take the possibility seriously, which seems to mean that you too would have to be "something of an idiot" by last week's standards.
So what gives, Einstein?
Yes, Justin, both you and the AP reporter were mistaken when you treated Gregory N. Adams' information-free "impression" of what might have happened as though it was firm evidence that the U.S. had initially denied access to Puerto Rican airspace to Maduro's plane. I'm not sure about the AP reporter, but I can say without hesitation that you're an idiot for grasping so energetically onto a belief that everyone else in the world can now see is false.
I suspect you lack the self-awareness you'd need to get this, but you've repeatedly proven my original point in your increasingly silly and incoherent comments. It's a truism that there's a close-to-infinite number of events which don't violate the laws of nature and therefore "could well have happened" - let's say, e.g., the U.S. briefly denying permission for Maduro's plane to fly through Puerto Rican airspace, Chavez dying in December, Maduro's birth in Colombia, Maduro being dumb enough to fly to the United States with narco-traffickers in his entourage, an act of sabotage causing the Amuay explosion, Lorenzo Mendoza having a giant hidden stash of harina P.A.N. somewhere, U.S. diplomats hatching plots with Sumate. But - and here's the part you seem to have a lot of trouble with - faith and wishful thinking aren't sufficient to justify believing in any of them. To move from a priori plausibility to justified true belief you need to have evidence.
I'm going to drop this depressing back-and-forth and let you get back to whatever the hell it is that you do, Justin, but I want to thank you for the vivid illustration of my original point: Conspiracy theories, which are not meant to stand in for rational belief but rather to conceal the truth and sow confusion in the population, are likely to find a fertile audience in people like Justin Delacour, who has shown himself to be easily confused. It's the kind of ignorance and irrationality that he's put on display here, and not ideological zeal, that allows conspiracy theories to take root and thrive.
I can say without hesitation that you're an idiot for grasping so energetically onto a belief that everyone else in the world can now see is false.
But you just wrote it "could very well" be true, Adam.
Which is it?
You're truly pitiful. I'll try to clarify this final point for you and then I'll let you go on suffering the pain and confusion of being you all on your own: The denial of permission "could very well" have happened in that it wouldn't violate the laws of nature for it to have happened and we haven't yet seen any truly convincing evidence that it didn't happen. Got it? You are an idiot for doggedly refusing to give up your mistaken belief that Gregory N. Adams' "impression" regarding what might have happened is an "admission" constituting evidence that the Americans initially denied permission to Maduro's plane. Got it? I really can't make this any clearer for you without reverting to hand signals and pictograms.
"I can say without hesitation that you're an idiot for grasping so energetically onto a belief that everyone else in the world can now see is false," but allow me to add that what you say "could well have happened."
Right, no confusion there at all. Just brilliance.
I'm not brilliant by any stretch, but I get the sense that more or less anyone would begin to look that way next to you. I'm genuinely sorry that you find this all so confusing, so I'll map it out for you one last time: You're strenuously holding onto a demonstrably false belief (that Adams' "impression" was an "admission" that would constitute evidence that the denial happened) and this is the only basis that you have for holding onto a second, not necessarily false but clearly irrational belief (that the denial is an "established fact" even though its happening continues to be a disputed point and we simply have no evidence to justify taking a firm position either way). Plenty of people who believe in conspiracy theories think like this - e.g. someone who takes an unconfirmed rumour or a poorly understood bit of physics and turns it into an elaborate story about how 9-11 was an inside job and everyone who can't see it is "sheeple".
The question for everyone else who reads this is why Justin can justify continuing to think in this way to himself. My theory is that he's truly and sincerely the naive and slow-witted person he seems to be. He's not obviously driven by any real ideology; as far as I can tell, he's an unremarkable (if a bit more sanctimonious than normal) kind of American liberal, and he doesn't really fit into the model of the socialist true believer that was presented by Hugo Pérez Hernáiz in the blog post Greg Weeks linked to as an explanation for the recent uptick in conspiracy theories in Venezuela.
Oh no, Adam, don't sell yourself short. Your brilliance is truly awe-inspiring. I finally get it.
Post a Comment