By Terry Hooper

“The U.S. government believes that the only democratic institution in Venezuela is an assembly that has not met in seven years and whose term has expired,” writes Vijay Prashad, an Indian historian, editor and journalist in a recent article from Consortium News.

Without a single word of dispute for Vijay’s presented view of the United States’ dogmatic approach to Venezuela, I would like to add that everything about the situation, whilst very real, reeks of a something very familiar, and very sinister.

How convenient that the elected Venezuelan members of the 2015 assembly haven’t set foot in the Palacio Federal Legislativo, which houses the National Assembly, since the 2020 election of the new assembly.

The US government was good friends with the outgoing assembly president, Juan Guaidó.

The US government is quoted as calling the election a “political farce”.

As stated in Prashad’s article, both of the Venezuelan opposition parties, both of which failed to take control of the assembly, accept the legitimacy of the election, but the US does not.

How can this be?

Or, does the US intelligence services have an ulterior motive for advising the state department to not accept the 2020 elected assembly as legitimate?

If they don’t accept the legitimacy of the most recently elected body, then they can publicly regard the previous democratically elected assembly as being the only one they recognise.

Since the US state department naturally relies heavily on the intelligence services for information regarding other countries, and any threats to democracy in those countries where it exists, it stands to reason that if these intelligence agencies don’t want a regime change, for reasons of their own, they would of course advise their government that the election was a “political farce”.

This, in the face of those who lost the election giving statements of support for the legitimacy of the election.

I’m not someone who could infer as to what might be an agenda for such actions by intelligence services, but, I think it’s fair to say that the US intelligence services do have a very significant history of interfering in other countries’ politics, for whatever reasons that they have had.

Vijay Prashad states that he met with both of Venezuela’s opposition leaders and they both recognise the legitimacy of the 2020 election, in which they failed to secure enough votes to take control of the assembly.

This being the case, how is it even possible that the US state department could expect to be believed when they state that they only recognise, as a valid assembly, that which has not set foot in the Palacio Federal Legislativo since the election was resolved in 2020?

I ask again, how is this possible, unless the US intelligence services have an ulterior motive?

And, what is it?

I certainly don’t have a clue, but it seems to me that it has to be something to do with their affiliation to Juan Guaidó, the 2020 outgoing president that they apparently insist is still the only legitimate president.

A man who refuses to acknowledge his role as president has expired, as the Venezualen constitution requires, under Article 233, as stated in Vijay Prashad’s article.

Having written all of this, I may as well point out that it is my view that many of this world’s citizens would, and I believe do, find it difficult to relate the US model of democracy as anything more than a mere shadow of what most people consider a properly functioning democracy to be.

Is it possible that the US citizenry might at some time in the future, recognise the errors of their country’s actions in seeking to police the democracies of the world, when in fact, their power brokers have shown time and time again to be interested only in financial profiteering for themselves and their political donors?

I think not.

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/the-biggest-threat-to-venezuelan-democracy-is-the-usa/

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

The polls in Venezuela have so consistently shown that by more than a 3 to 1 margin, Venezuelans will vote for the pro-U.S.-Government candidate Edmundo González Urrutia in preference over the pro-independence candidate Nicolás Maduro, so that the likelihood of the U.S. Government’s failing to win back control over Venezuela on July 28th is virtually 0%.

“Chavismo” (named after Venezuela’s former President Hugo Chavez) which Maduro represents, and which had been Venezuela’s Marxist (communist) independent Venezuela, will become past history, when President González will start his (six-year) term on 10 January 2025.

The reason why a vast majority of Venezuelans will be voting for González is that this will be the only way they can get the U.S. Government’s virtual blockade of sanctions against their country lifted so that maybe the enormous mass poverty that those sanctions imposed upon them will likewise end. However, that favorable outcome for the poor of Venezuela won’t happen, and here is why:

González is secretly committed to privatizing Venezuela’s gas, oil, and other resources, as well as a “broad program of privatization of companies and public assets,” including the currently entirely free-to-the-public educational system and pension system, all of the Government’s assets to be auctioned off to investors from throughout the world so as to produce profits from the poor to increase the wealth of investors throughout the world, and, so to increase yet further the economic-inequality indexes throughout the world. The ideology that ‘justifies’ this is “libertarianism” synonymously “neoliberalism” but by either name referring to the extension of the economic theory known as “capitalism” as being the foundation of the political theory of “libertarianism” synonymously “neoliberalism.” It is designed to increase liberty for the rich at the expense of the poor, and to impose a model of ‘human rights’ in which those ‘rights’ depend entirely upon two things: how much wealth the individual owns, and how much charity will be given to that person by others (obviously, especially by the rich, who have plenty of money they can give to individuals who please them).

The first practitioners of this political theory, as heads-of-state, were Benito Mussolini and then Adolf Hitler, both of whom were the first two to auction-off public assets in order to fund armaments build-ups so as to grow their respective empires by invasions so as to pillage foreign nations. This “libertarianism” synonymously “neoliberalism” was originally called “Fascism” by Mussolini, and “Nazism” by Hitler. In the United States itself, it has been called both “neoliberalism” as pertaining to domestic policies, and “neoconservatism” as pertaining to international policies.

And before it was called “fascism,” it was called by the name of laissez faire, by the physiocrats who supported the aristocracy in Louis XIV’s France and were thoroughgoing libertarians and proponents of “individualism”; they were, in fact, the first prominent economic champions of the aristocracy’s beloved concept of laissez-faire, which then became adopted by Adam Smith as his admonition to rely upon the “invisible hand” of God, instead of upon the visible hand of the public’s elected representatives ruling in a democracy. The DuPont family were the publishers of the physiocrats, and have remained as physiocrats, ever since the 1700s – still champions of aristocracy, against democracy. For this reason, too, Thomas Jefferson had been wary of this acquaintance of his, from the time when he was the Ambassador to France. As Robert F. Haggard said, in concluding his December 2009 “The Politics of Friendship: Du Pont, Jefferson, Madison, and the Physiocratic Dream for the New World”: “Despite his own best efforts, Du Pont became in America what he had long been in the land of his birth: an anachronism, a voice crying in the wilderness, and a prophet preaching the tenets of a dead religion.” Yet, physiocracy itself lived on, within the DuPont family and others among the American aristocracy, until this laissez-faire belief came ultimately to be called “libertarianism” after WW2 and “fascism” was in need of a name-change. And, so, even after WW2, it won a public following in America among conservative fools who fancied themselves to be aristocrats, as well. Such “tenets of a dead religion” are now the neoliberal-neoconservative orthodoxy, just as they were in King Louis XIV’s time, and in Adam Smith’s, and in Milton Friedman’s, and now. Perhaps Venezuela will soon have its own Pinochet.

Only its techniques have changed; its ideal or objective, of creating the perfect one-dollar-one-vote state so as to replace any one-person-one-vote state, is now being carried out with far more sophisticated propaganda than back in the 1920s-1940s, and (of course) even farther back in the late 1700s. Robespierres have become increasingly unfashionable. Throughout the collective West, at least, the aristocracyagain rule virtually without challenge.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s latest book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.

https://theduran.com/u-s-government-is-set-to-win-back-control-over-venezuela-on-july-28th/

READ FROM TOP