Magnificent Works

In this blog I’ve alluded to several monumental feats of engineering and construction such as the Caracas-La Guira Expressway, the Hotel Humboldt, the Pico Bolivar cable transport, the Torres Del Silencio, and more. 

Every single one of those works still stands, to this day — 70 years later — having endured the folly of men — coups and coup attempts as well as incredible neglect of maintenance and upkeep — and the vicissitudes of nature — the 1967 and 2026 earthquakes and the horrendous rains of 1999

They still stand.

In his memorable and enduring book and accompanying video series, How Should We Then Live?, the late Francis Schaeffer demonstrates that a civilization can be judged by its art, its architecture, its engineering, its construction projects, and more. He contrasts the art seen in Florence, Italy, with that which preceded and followed it. He discusses the uniqueness and endurance of Roman roads and aqueducts as well as the exquisite detail of Greek architecture contrasted with that of the more spartan Roman.

If Dr. Schaeffer is correct, then we must reckon with the magnificent works inaugurated during the Pérez Jiménez regime. To do so it is necessary to set aside our egalitarian, democratic prejudices and face reality, unencumbered by politics and ideology.

In the 50s Venezuela was a — several sources insist it was the most — prosperous South American country. She enjoyed economic freedom and was also “free” of the oratory of envy. Sources note that it had the largest middle class in South America. 

I was born in the early part of that decade, during the Pérez Jiménez regime. I remember in childhood rubbing shoulders with friends and relatives from all social and economic strata of society. I do not recall folks politically fomenting class warfare or envy of any kind.

Later in life I came to realize that under the dictatorship, we did not enjoy a free press nor did we have universal suffrage. However, we did enjoy high levels of freedom, including freedom of mobility, freedom of commerce, freedom in society, and certainly freedom in our homes. We had nowhere near the restrictions the peoples of Eastern Europe or Mao’s China struggled under. Not to mention Fauci’s America.

In the first half of the 20th Century Venezuela became an economic powerhouse. As the petroleum and later the iron ore industries surged, Venezuela ensured they remained in private hands. The dictators understood that the state did not have the expertise to manage such vast, far flung operations; they left them in the hands of the international companies but did charge royalties and obtained other concessions in return. This arrangement ensured increasing prosperity for her people as well as great advances in local technology and culture. 

This was a period of phenomenal progress in research and technology and discovery. “To cite just one example, the diamond knife (or scalpel) was invented in the 50s by Venezuelan Humberto Fernández-Morán Villalobos (1924-1999). This ‘significantly advanced the development of electromagnetic lenses for electron microscopy based on superconductor technology and many other scientific contributions.'”

In the 50s, the Venezuelan state was receiving billions and billions of dollars in monthly revenues (equivalent to today’s values). Well, so did the democratic regimes which followed, including Chávez and Maduro. But, unlike the latter two, the dictatorships were not involved as partners and major investors in illicit drug and mining operations. 

The big difference between the 50s and later eras was that state spending focused on the country’s roads, airports, schools, hospitals, and universities. In other words, they benefitted the people of the country. Such spending was represented by major works as the aforementioned, plus the University Hospital of Caracas and her great historic monument and park, Paseo los Próceres (roughly translated as Walkway of the Heroes).

Caracas and La Güira also boasted a breathtaking cable car up Mount Ávila where the cylindrical Hotel Humboldt was built in the same decade and stands to this day. The design of the hotel was not only for beauty but to better withstand the strong winds which flow at those heights. And earthquakes.

In comparison, the 2026 earthquakes uncovered the sand castles nature of the most celebrated works of the Chávez regime: public housing. By now millions have seen the heartbreaking photos or videos of collapsed buildings and their foam — foam! — support.

I do not pretend to believe that corruption was non-existent in the Venezuela of the 1950s or that government functionaries all had clean hands then. However, using our Lord’s measuring stick: “By their fruits ye shall know them”, we can easily conclude that the level of corruption paled exceedingly compared to the mafioso-like environment which followed thereafter.

But one need not be a professional auditor with access to all the data, financial or otherwise, to conclude thusly. One need just take a look around and see the fruits and enquire as to when such were sown and/or reaped. Every single major work was either inaugurated or initiated prior to 1959. Even the gargantuan SIDOR, Venezuela’s giant steel corporation, was founded in 1953 although it did not see its greatest expansion until the 1970s. However, today it is dead, its death agonies having accelerated in the Chávez years when the military took over and bled it to the grave.

The marvelous Macagua project, right in the heart of Ciudad Guayana was ideated in 1946 when plans were launched to “electrify” the entire country and to export her fossil fuels for added revenues. Construction began in 1956 for Phase 1 and the plan achieved its Phase 3 in 1997. Today, however, only a fraction of her generators are functioning. 

The magnificent Guri Dam project was also included in the 40s electrification plans for Venezuela and construction began in the early 60s, according to plan, after the initiation of the Macagua enterprise. Guri was certainly one of the engineering and construction wonders of the modern world when inaugurated. Today it operates at less than 50% capacity due to woefully neglected maintenance and upkeep. 

Put another way, the projects conceived in the 40s and 50s remain in use to this day, although all urgently require professional upkeep, repairs, and maintenance, which, sadly, are woefully lacking in a Socialistic environment where “everybody owns everything” — meaning no one owns anything and the State is god but a terrible administrator and creator.

Should you travel to Venezuela today, you would land in Maiquetía Airport, in La Güaira, and you would take the Caracas-La Güira Expressway. Should you like to visit the Humboldt Hotel atop the massive, imposing Mount Ávila, you could take the cable car from downtown Caracas up there. In the past, you could also take the cable car down to the coast to make a full day of it and return by the same expressway back to the city. However, due to lack of maintenance and upkeep that leg is no longer operational. 

You might also like to enjoy the large park, Próceres, with its aesthetically beautiful fountains and extensive mall. Or you might desire to take a cab to the still modern Torres del Silencio, with its traffic proceeding beneath the buildings to allow pedestrian tranquility above. And you might walk about the gardens of the University Hospital which still serves patients 50 years after her inauguration.

All projects noted in the previous two paragraphs were built and inaugurated in the 50s. They were designed and engineered by Venezuelan professionals, as well as Swiss, Italian, German, and North American; and they were built by men from the same or similar origins. 

Of course, the upkeep and maintenance have been abysmal; however, the engineering, architecture, and construction have stood the test of time in a natural and human environment which have been exceedingly challenging. One of the great expressway viaducts spanning hundreds of feet of bottomless canyons actually became fearfully unsafe for lack of care. A byway was constructed in its stead in the 90s.

I am not aware of any projects ideated let alone inaugurated after the 50s which come within a mile of those which came before.

What would a visitor a century hence conclude when observing these works?

I am confident that his conclusion would be that the caliber of the people, especially the leaders, in the 50s and prior was superior to that which came after.

For the most part it is principally the people and their faith, not their form of government, which primarily determine her progress or its lack. Many in Venezuela still remember Pérez Jiménez and some even tend to idolize him, which is wrong. However, they do recognize that the man loved his country and was not the corrupt kleptomaniac that politicians insist he was.

The United States government not only dishonored the amnesty he had sought, but put him in jail even though he had paid his bond — this jailing in Miami, Florida, where he was placed with common criminals was so unprecedented and even cruel that many in the international community protested. By the time he was transferred to Venezuela he had lost 40 pounds.

In Venezuela he was jailed for 5 more years while awaiting what to every sentient human being was a political trial, from which he was declared not guilty for the original charges, as per the extradition treaty — peculation (the “fraudulent appropriation of funds or property entrusted to your care but actually owned by someone else”) — but guilty of other charges (enrichment!) — which the politicized judges added towards the end of the legal circus, in violation of the extradition treaty. Even so, the prestige of the judges was by then so soiled that they released him, saying he had already served sufficient years for such incredible charges. 

He settled in Spain to live the rest of his life there; however, the people of Venezuela actually elected him to a Senate seat in the 1973 elections; nevertheless, the “democratic” political parties colluded to amend the constitution to prohibit his ever returning to the country.

The corruption and the malfeasance of public funds in Venezuela during the democratic governments were so vast and so obvious that the door was swung wide open to the demagoguery of Chávez. And, as previously noted, corrupt and repressive governments do not leave much of a heritage other than destruction or abandonment of what came before.

We must not ignore that particularly evil forms of government and culture not only do not foment the creation of beauty and functionality and permanence, but actually destroy what beauty and permanence they find. A brief look at Cuba and the Soviet Union makes this abundantly clear. Not to mention the utter deterioration in Venezuela itself, especially over the past two decades.

But — whether a republic as described in the USA constitution or a monarchy such as England’s during her incomparable industrial revolution or the monarchies of the GCC or the strict, autocratic government of Lee Kuan Yew’s Singapore — a system which allows a certain level of liberty and creativity to her people will enable them to leave us long lasting evidence of beauty and permanence, assuming the caliber of the people is “moral and religious” as per John Adams.

In December, 1961, President John F. Kennedy and the First Lady visited Venezuela as part of the inaugural tour of the Alliance for Progress. You can still find online the short speech given in Spanish by Mrs. Kennedy. In that speech she spoke about the need for progress and opportunity for all, not just for the fortunate. Although I appreciate Mrs. Kennedy and her efforts to speak the local language, her speech is illustrative of the facile politics in the modern Americas. 

In the 50s and into 1961 when the Kennedy’s visited, Venezuela had the largest middle class in all of South America. Today it is an impoverished land languishing under a suffocating “democratically elected” corrupt regime. Despite all the evidence right in front of her, the First Lady, like most modern politicos, assumed that the form of government dictates whether or not a people are fortunate. And she — and many, many like her — ignored what was right in front of her eyes.

A classic example of being led by sweet sounding words instead of reality; of being enamored of  gestures rather than substance.

Her talk was well meaning but woefully ignorant.

Caracas-La Güaira Expressway construction. Installation of one of her viaducts
Two massive tunnels, with the most modern lighting and exhaust technology were built; one is over a mile long through solid rock. One of the tunnels no longer has lighting which makes it dangerous to traverse, especially at night.
Caracas-Mt. Ávila cable car. 
Hotel Humboldt was an extraordinary feat of engineering and architecture. Construction was executed via cable cars which took materials and generator equipment to the summit of Mt. Ávila.
Los Próceres in Caracas, designed and constructed in the 1950s.
Torres del Silencio under construction in the early 50s
Conceived in 1948; inaugurated in 1954
University Hospital, Caracas
Macagua Dam in the heart of Ciudad Guayana: a 45-minute drive from El Pao. 
Early 20th Century Singapore
Singapore today

Nothing New Under The Sun II

Contrary to the hopes of millions of peoples around the world, the fall of the Communist Soviet Union did not mark an end to the state’s ages long, relentless offensive to bring all humanity and her activities under the state’s total control.

Nor did Soviet Communism mark the beginning of that quest. The previous post noted that Marx and Engels assumed Communism to be the Jacobins’ program a century before; Lenin himself said the Jacobins’ fatal error was to stop the terror, a mistake he (Lenin) was determined to not repeat.

However, going back to the Jacobins is not going back anywhere near far enough.

In the Middle Ages, there was a real tension within the church as to which was the more important or critical: the particulars or the absolute? How this question was answered would also lead to determining the standard by which the church should be governed: by men and their traditions or by the full authority of the Bible? Francis Schaeffer’s How Should We Then Live has an interesting narrative on this point, as does R. J. Rushdoony’s The One And The Many

This was a very real debate which “swung” one way to the other and back, with consequences for centuries thereafter.

Over time, those who pushed for men and their traditions won out over those who pushed for the authority of the Bible. The humanist victory was accompanied with absolutism, which is usually the case when the authority of the Bible, the Word and Law of God, is minimized or otherwise not recognized. According to St. Peter, judgment must begin in the house of God. As goes the church, so goes the rest. So the tension within the church devolved into a tension between the church and the state. After all, both claimed authority on the basis of men and traditions, not on the basis of eternal Law.

Interestingly, most folks believe that the church in the Middle Ages was running things. That’s a dangerous oversimplification. The church may have opened the door for the tyranny that followed; however, she ended up being blamed for crimes which she actually opposed. She clearly preferred to be the one running things, however the fact is that she was not.

In the battle to determine who was the supreme manifestation of man on earth, church or state, the state clearly won out. Yes, many in the church fought and argued for her supremacy, while many in the kings’ courts argued for the supremacy of Caesar.

Very few argued for the supremacy of God over both church and state. That was inherent in Augustine’s phrase, “The One and the Many” — God is One in Three Persons. Wherever the Trinitarian faith prevails, not only in creeds, but in sincere belief and practice, there is freedom. There is a recognition of individual liberty and desires (the Many) but also of community and communion, acknowledging the need for unity (the One). And there is the recognition that there are spheres in life, of which church and state are two. Others include family, school, work, etc. But all are under God and none is to usurp the sphere of another.

An example of the state’s tyranny for which the church is usually blamed is the case of John Hus. At the Council of Constance (1414-1418 in Bohemia) the church declared that John Hus was not a heretic. The members of the council disagreed with his focus on the Bible, but this was not heresy, according to them.

Emperor Sigismund had promised safe conduct to Hus. But that was a lie: as soon as Hus arrived he was arrested and was not permitted to defend himself; he was only permitted to renounce his faith, something he would not do. Regardless, Sigismund declared that even if Hus recanted his faith, he would be executed.

Hus declared, “I appeal to Jesus Christ, the Only Judge who is omnipotent and wholly Just. In His hands I place my cause, not on the foundation of false witnesses and councils, but on the foundation of truth and justice.”

He was cruelly burned at the stake, by Caesar’s orders and henchmen. Hus’s example can be multiplied by the thousands.

The state requires conformity, whether it be 21st Century health mandates, 20th Century Soviet Union, or 15th Century Bohemia. And for total conformity to become a reality, total control is necessary: everyone is to think the same and to do the same. For this to be so, the state must control even our thoughts and our beliefs. 

This is nothing new, not even in the 15th Century.

Incidentally, throughout the Inquisition, a program in which the Church did not execute anybody, the state did, sober estimates of executions range from a low of 2,000 to a high of 20,000. Compare that to the deaths chargeable to atheistic Communist regimes in the 20th Century alone, where the numbers go into the tens of millions and even up to 200,000 million, depending on your sources. I am most certainly not excusing the church’s role in this nefarious period of history; however, the tale needs to be told truthfully.

The important point for the purposes of this post is to realize that the battles of the Middle Ages revolved around the question: Christ or Caesar? The 16th Century Reformation decidedly proclaimed the Crown Rights of Christ the King — which became the cry of the English Puritans of the 17th Century, which conviction they brought to the Americas. This meant that Christ was over both the church and the state.

To the Reformers the solution of The One And The Many was the Trinitarian faith under which men were free to govern themselves according to the Bible, the only Rule for life. Under that faith, all legitimate institutions were under Jesus Christ. This meant that the state had no business regulating the church nor did the church have any business performing duties delegated by God to the civil authorities. So, for instance, the administration of justice was a civic duty. But the church could and should proclaim the justice of God including rebuke of a State which would deviate from God’s Law. This was a church duty and she had the liberty to freely exercise that duty.

With the passing of the decades and centuries, Americans increasingly inclined towards a more Erastian persuasion, meaning that as the state grew, citizens saw it as god, without actually saying so. For example, the federal income tax laws “exempt” charitable organizations, into which they lump the church. However, the 17th Century understanding was that the church was a separate sphere or kingdom under God’s Kingdom. The income tax authorities (if there had been any back then), would have absolutely no business determining if a church met their definition of charitable organization or not, much less demand a certification or registration to that effect.

The Erastian view is that the church must indeed “prove” to the state whatever the state demands. And that’s where we are today: a spot where the church is seen as “under” the state. The past three years where churches were shut down or ordered to cease communion or to wear masks or to practice social distance clearly demonstrated that the state, and many churchgoers, do not believe that Jesus is the Head of His Church, let alone King.

But, again, even that is not something new under the sun.

Way back in the Garden of Eden, man was tempted to be his own god; a god who determines what is right and what is wrong. He was tempted to not obey the Triune God Who had told him that He, God, tells him, man, what is right and what is wrong. R. J. Rushdoony has written much about this and any reader who is interested is encouraged to look into his writings.

Practically all of history is man’s quest to be god. The City and Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) is collective man attempting to be god. The attempt failed.

All such schemes will fail, whether they be Sigismund executing John Hus, whether they be Communist China seeking to control what her people think, whether they be federal and state officials telling churches how to worship and when, or whether it be the World Economic Forum predestinating us to a solitary, nasty, brutish, and short life.

All will fail.

There is nothing new under the sun.

Jan Hus (1370-1415) statue in Prague, Czech Republic

Emperor Sigismund (1368-1437)

Thomas Erastus (1524-1583)

Statism

“A number of years ago I shared a taxi with Francis Schaeffer in St. Louis. During our cab ride I asked Dr. Schaeffer: ‘What is your greatest concern for the future of America?’ Without hesitation or interval given to ponder the question, Schaeffer replied simply, ‘Statism’.” — R. C. Sproul, circa 1990

Some years ago, the Wall Street Journal published an essay documenting the number of state-sponsored killings in the 20th century, not counting 20th Century wars. Conservative estimates range from 80,000,000 to 100,000,000 killed by Communist regimes, including forced famines, forced marches, and mass executions. Nazism accounts for another 6,000,000 to 10,000,000 mass murders.

For perspective, maximum military action deaths in World Wars I and II are estimated at 13,000,000 and 26,000,000, respectively. Killed in the Korean and Vietnam Wars totaled 3,000,000 and 1,500,000, respectively. These figures do not include famines and plagues ensuing from those wars since estimates vary very widely, but they were certainly in the millions.

However, from the above one easily sees that the major statist ideologies directly accounted for more deaths than direct military actions in the 20th Century.

Thus far in the 21st Century one would have to be willfully blind to not see that statists willingly pursue policies on the mere word of “experts” who have been proved wrong over and over. In Australia we even saw the state force people into “quarantine” camps; and The New York Times soft shoed the tyranny, “Australia Is Betting On Remote Quarantine”. Sounds non-threatening, doesn’t it?

Not to be outdone, The Washington Post reported, with color photos, on a woman who returned from Moscow to her home in Australia but had to quarantine 14 days in a camp: “In Australia’s northern quarantine camp, a disused construction workers’ hostel outside Darwin, the rooms are basic and the food is, well, institutional. But the fresh air, eucalyptus trees, blue skies, and wind on your skin are sources of joy.” [sic!!!].

Tons of fun!

What about the US? Well, there was actually talk and even action. And the fact checkers at USA Today worked hard to put us at ease: “Fact check: Quarantine ‘camps’ are real, but camp claim stretches the truth”. 

Ah! I feel so much better now.

Dear friends, this executive overreach ought to concern us. If not for ourselves, then certainly for our children and grandchildren, we must take a page from our colonial and early republic history and truly push back. Hard. About a year ago as I walked to a post office, two men were talking about their anger at people who were not following a certain CDC guideline which had been mandated by mere executive order: “The police ought to arrest such and throw them in jail for six months.”

That’s a direct quote.

In the first place, such a mandate was not law. It was a mandate by an executive. In our system, laws are passed by the legislature, not by governors or presidents.

Were you at all bothered hearing pre-recorded messages in airports saying, “This is federal law”? It was never “federal law”. It was an executive order which was later overturned. It was not a law. Even private airlines were using that terminology. I wrote one of the airlines’ CEO and respectfully requested they get their facts straight and stop trying to instill fear into their customers by repeating lies.

In the second place, it turns out the guideline was all a bunch of hooey. And most of us knew it was nonsense from the very beginning. 

Why did we acquiesce so easily?

I believe the reasons, as is the case for most issues in life, are principally religious, because all people are created in the image of God and are therefore religious, regardless of whether one is a believer or an atheist.

First, we — and by “we” I include the majority of professing Christians — have so severely downplayed the Bible, especially the foundational book of Genesis, that we no longer think of the prior claim that the Triune God has on us. We do not think of God when “political” crises are thrown at us. Sadly, very sadly, we first think of the State. Can you, for even an instant, imagine the first and second century Christians thinking of Nero or Domitian first when faced with a political test? I didn’t think so.

For example, based on news reports and personal observation, it appears that most churches in the United States closed their doors based, not on law, not on advice of your personal doctor, but on mandates by governors or “public health authorities”: political figures. Did Christians even consider that the Bible does not mandate quarantining healthy people, but only the sick? Very few did so (QuarantineAddendum). And those few were in many cases attacked or mocked. Even by fellow Christians.

If you believe that God is the Creator of heaven and earth and that we are made in His image, you will defer to Him. If you believe that man is a product of chance and chaos and randomness working through muck and mire, then you will defer to whomever has the power to tyrannize you and your family.

Second, we do not know or study or even care about our history. A cursory reading of 17th and 18th Century correspondence, sermons, and essays are eye-popping with regards to our ancestors’ genuine distrust, if not fear, of centralized authority. They truly, and Calvinistically [there you have religion again!], believed that man is depraved and, left unguarded or without checks and balances, will usurp authority in order to chain free men and women. This is an inescapable fact of our early psyche, which we need to revive.

This will require us to teach our children and grandchildren, with particular emphases on the origin of man and the Calvinistic origin of our heritage. If taught sincerely and historically, the Triune God is utterly unavoidable. This teaching will require sacrifice of time and money. Clearly state schools are not teaching this. So if your children are there, and your circumstances are such that you cannot remove them, then you must work daily with them to ensure they know the Truth. If you can remove them, then you will either homeschool them or register them in a good Christian school. By “good” I mean a school that not merely “baptizes” the public school system, but actually teaches on the basis of presupposing the veracity of God’s Word.

Third, we continue to be beholden to the regular media — major newspaper chains, major news outlets, and big tech — as the supposed purveyors of reality. They are not. If we’ve learned nothing from the past two years, certainly we’ve learned that, no? Have you done a check on the “conspiracy theories” of the past two years that have now turned out to be true? Seeing Jack Dorsey, Twitter’s founder, admit that his quashing of a major news story in 2020 was “a mistake” is not comforting. It turned out to be true, like so many others his company its sisters have silenced.

A superficial review of the media in Communist regimes — PravdaGranmaVoice of KoreaPeople’s Daily — demonstrates that the media simply parrots the party line. Do you seriously see our major media doing anything different? They long ago ceased to be a check on the power of the state or its usurpation of the liberties of its citizens. Only contentious polemicists will deny this.

We have myriads of alternate media today. Some good, some bad, some not worth the time. We must work to discern and choose rightly: “Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good.” We must not adjust or conform to the major media and its cheerleaders in dingbat late night or daytime TV shows.

Fourth, too many of us still vote for [establishment] party, as opposed to principled candidates who are true to their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution. Yes, I realize that, often, a particular party’s platform is practically all we can go by as we may not know how true a particular candidate will be to his or her oath. Well then, if your party’s platform accords with your understanding of our history and heritage, then it is your duty to hold your representative and senators responsible for adherence to the platform to which they affirm loyalty.

In the 1980 presidential campaign season, an establishment candidate was asked about his party’s platform and he simply tossed the question aside, “No one pays attention to that after the election.” Precisely. We must pay attention and if our representative or senators are untrue then we must support a primary challenge to them.

I once heard that Yogi Berra said, “The trouble with Socialism is that it takes too many evenings.”

Yes, it does. Most of us are busy with our families and businesses or careers. We have church activities we don’t want to miss and by the time a decade has flown by, we look up to see our beloved country further down the road to ruin. And we see dangers rising to both our home and church. Our forefathers found the time to work to secure and then preserve our liberties. We need to look at our calendars and agendas and shuffle where it’s needed but we must fit in time, even if only once a week, to fight the good fight for our liberties. Not so much for ourselves, but for our children and grandchildren; for the religious liberties we inherited; for the God we profess to love and the advancement of His kingdom.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” “For where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.”

The atheistic state simply transfers the attributes and claims of God to itself. The results are not pretty. The above are conservative figures.
Pregnant mother arrested in Australia for promoting online protest against lockdowns and mandates