Nicolás Maduro – The Pull Of The Land

Evidence of Fascism, Socialism, and Communism — Hurting Your Own People

November 2, 2024November 2, 2024 Richard Barnes

I was recently asked about the usual definition of fascism placing it as a right-wing phenomenon, as if Hitler were a conservative or right wing politician or orthodox Christian(!).

Unfortunately, that is the “popular” understanding of the term; so if you are conservative or traditionalist in your beliefs you are liable to be identified as a fascist.

Perhaps the best source to consult in this matter is the classic by F. A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom. In that great work, he makes the obvious observation that the line between fascism and socialism or communism is practically … nil.

The three systems, and their multifarious variants, are undergirded by one constant: total control.

All else is dressing. Communism seeks total control by having the state own all property, or “means of production”; fascism seeks total control by having the state direct or force or threaten all property, or “means of production” to act as directed.

The end result in both cases is the same: totalitarian control of the people and their property. In other words, total control of everything.

In all such cases, Orwell’s definition applies: a boot grinding on our faces forever.

That is the reality.

To attempt to describe fascism as “conservative” or “right wing” is worse than a distraction. It is false and misleading.

Another aspect of totalitarianism — regardless of its provenance — is its complete disregard for the people under its governance.

Totalitarianism — whether fascistic or communistic or socialistic — acts and rules to retain power.

The conservative temper is totally of another world. It acts and rules as an exercise of love. It governs with an inchoate understanding that we are responsible not only for those living today, but for those who have gone before us — who have bequeathed us a wonderful heritage — and for those who are yet unborn — who will carry on on our behalf long after we are gone.

Conservative temperament sees our time on this earth as a trust. A responsibility to not only preserve what we have inherited, but to improve upon it and to pass it on to our descendants after us.

It is a disinterested temperament — it cares more for those to come in the future than it does for “me”.

So when we learn of the former self-described socialist president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, commanding his loyalists to block Bolivia’s major roads, starving out the populace, in order to prevent his arrest on charges of pedophilia, we should not care whether he is a leftwing or a rightwing maniac.

What we should understand is that he is determined to return to power.

And when we read that the self-described socialist president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, is providing the vehicles to ensure those road blockages, we should readily understand that Mr. Maduro is also a man consumed with retaining power. Whether he is a “socialist” or a “fascist” is irrelevant.

He and Morales are totalitarians.

And the totalitarian temper is not limited by forms of governing. It is found in monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, republics, fill-in-the-blank.

In all such cases, the attitude is: the people be damned.

Both Bolivia and Venezuela are suffering greatly. But this does not concern the powerful in those countries.

Their concern is to retain power.

So the blockades have caused over $1.3 Billion in damages to the economy of Bolivia plus untold deaths and wounded by the violence of the Morales thugs. All the while Venezuela’s ruling elite focuses on assisting an ally more than on liberty for her own people.

So, instead of asking whether a politician or a pundit is right wing or left wing or fascist or socialist or communist, a better question or analysis is: does that person promote or pursue more liberty for the people or does he or she promote more regulations and controls.

That is the litmus test: liberty or tyranny.

Ah. One more thing: an irreligious people cannot govern itself. Therefore, such a people will confuse “more liberty” with “more libertinage”, which always results in more tyranny.

Pray for the people of Venezuela. And Bolivia.

At a wholesale market in the central Bolivian city of Cochabamba, farmer Damaris Masias watches through tears as 10 tonnes of tomatoes that she spent over a week trying to get through roadblocks are tossed into a bin (Barron’s)

A Summary of the Recent Elections in Venezuela and Their Aftermath

August 10, 2024August 10, 2024 Richard Barnes

Rene J. Abreu wrote a post on his LinkedIn page which you might find of interest. It is brief and compact, yet the full story. The most recent news is that the Venezuela state has suspended X (formerly Twitter) in Venezuela, thereby further hindering the communication and the uncensored news among the Venezuelan people.

I thank Rene for his post and have put his link further below.

By Rene J. Abreu

Venezuela Events After the July 2024 Presidential Elections and the “Venezuelan Mining and Metallurgical Engineers Society (SVIMM)”.

In Spanish SVIMM is “Sociedad Venezolana de Ingenieros de Minas y Metalúrgicos”, an institution created in 1958. As censorship grew up significantly in Venezuela during the last two decades, new directors took the institution lead in 2017. Bravely, this professional institution has been publicly in favor of the truth and the right doing in the natural resources industries in Venezuela.

On Sunday July 28th, 2024, a Presidential Election took place in Venezuela and the opposition won with roughly 70% of the votes. On the same day, the Government announced fraudulently their victory, showing no proof of votes and proceedings.

As it is not easy to understand this situation by my non-Venezuelan friends and readers, following are some facts that may help:

1) For 25 years the same government/political system has been in power.

2) After the first election in 1998, using the democracy tools the government was able to control all the internal institutions and became a “modern dictatorship”.

3) Some opposition parties and leaders were prohibited, controlled, jailed, assassinated, or forced to emigrate. Approximately 8 million people were forced to emigrate and some 4.5 million of them were lawfully registered to vote abroad. Only less than 70,000 emigrants were allowed to vote in this presidential election.

4) Through a Primary Election in 2023, leader Maria Corina Machado unified the opposition, but the regime disqualified both, Mrs Machado and her appointee Mrs Corina Yoris. The lawful opposition party “Plataforma Unitaria Democrática (PUD)” was able to register Mr Edmundo Gonzalez as the unique opposition candidate.

5) While the regime changed rules, jailed politicians, and used traps, the opposition built up a huge social movement of people along the country.

6) Peacefully millions of Venezuelans attended and voted on July 28th.

7) On Monday July 29th the opposition started progressively publishing in internet the actual proceedings (Acts) to prove the wide gap in votes between both candidates. This platform is still open to the world.

8) Venezuelans have been peacefully demonstrating on the streets nationwide against the fraud. The regime is violently acting as a gang of foreign and local criminals combined with some police and military Venezuelans. The repression continues now. It is urgently required the support by the world’s democracies to save the Venezuelan People and for the truth to prevail.

I would like to congratulate SVIMM for publicly demanding on August 1st the Venezuelan Electoral Authorities the publication of all the proceedings supporting their July 28th, 2024, announcement. I think that the future of geology, mining, and metallurgy is bright in Venezuela with the resilience and bravery of institutions like SVIMM.

(26) Feed | LinkedIn

Castro In Venezuela In 1989

February 8, 2023February 8, 2023 Richard Barnes

In my research on the Cuba-Venezuela Nexus I read about a remarkable photograph taken when Fidel Castro arrived at the Teresa Carreño theater to participate in the festivities celebrating the inauguration of the second (non consecutive) term of Carlos Andrés Pérez (CAP), on February 2, 1989.

CAP thought highly of Fidel Castro, actually meeting with him secretly multiple times during his first tenure (1974-1979) which was, not coincidentally, the age of massive expropriations in Venezuela. CAP invited the bitter dictator to the inauguration for his second term (1989-1993).

Bitter because he had an almost lifelong compulsive lust to use Venezuela’s riches to fund his Napoleonic dream of ruling over all of Latin America. A Spanish empire redivivus of sorts, only with lots more executions. He never lost that dream and when President Rómulo Betancourt spurned him he became inflamed with anger and took reckless actions to topple the elected president.

Fast forward to February 2, 1989, when the photo below was taken.

We cannot read another person’s mind. But in looking at this photo, you can! You can, because we now know what was going on in his mind at that moment.

CAP had naively given Castro carte blanche to enter the country with hundreds of “advisors”, by-passing immigration. This was unprecedented … and ominous. CAP also gave the Cubans full use of the Eurobuilding Hotel, then in final phases of construction, in Caracas. During Castro’s visit no Venezuelan was allowed in the sprawling premises, only Cubans, including food and cleaning services.

It was during that infiltration that Nicolás Maduro returned to Venezuela camouflaged as a Cuban adviser. And, just as ominously, scores of fully equipped sharpshooters entered also. Upon departure, Venezuelan emigration officials reported to CAP that the number of Cubans and equipage departing was significantly less than what had entered.

The president waved aside their concerns. Later, after the 9-day Caracazo (February 27 – March 8, 1989) which by some estimates killed over 1,000 Venezuelans, the usual suspects reported this rioting as “spontaneous” reactions to CAP’s economic policies. There was nothing “spontaneous” about it. The playbook was a reboot of the April 9, 1948 Bogotazo whose aftermath is what Castro wanted for Venezuela. He eventually got what he wanted.

What was the context of the much ballyhooed discontent supposedly suffocating Venezuelans in the 70s and 80s which led to a massive popular uprising which brought a Communist, Hugo Chávez, to power, never to be relinquished?

Between 1973 and 1982, when conspiracies, mostly within Venezuela’s left-wing military leadership, had sworn to do away with “democracy”, Venezuela “was a country whose economy had grown 50% in a decade … and found herself among the 20 top economies in the planet and in the top 10 with the best quality of life. Unemployment was 3.2% and poverty had fallen from 14.4% in 1976 to 9.5% in 1979 … the index of absolute privation was .53%, the lowest percentage of the entire American continent along with Canada and 90% of Europe.” (Source: Thays Peñalver)

Democracy in Venezuela was not ended because of poverty or privation which has been argued or asserted since the late 1980s. She eschewed her democratic institutions according to the designs of leftwing ideologues mostly ensconced in the Venezuela military.

Nor was Venezuela hopelessly in hock to American companies and interests. CAP was ardently anti-US and his policies left no room for doubt. His administration nationalized the oil and iron ore industries, and greatly regulated the American companies operating in the country. Unprecedented actions, all, which, produced an initial period of economic euforia, like a drug rush. But then the piper had to be paid and that was the situation in 1989, when CAP threw a vast party for his second inauguration, with Castro as a guest of honor.

It is difficult for most of us to appreciate the chaos and havoc faced by the citizens of Caracas during those nine days in late February and early March of 1989.

In addition to his own plane, Castro had arrived accompanied by two Soviet transport planes, later known to have been packed with munitions, weaponry of war, and other arms and grenades with “great powers of destruction”. All this was waved in with not so much as a by-your-leave. And when he departed, only a fraction of the equipage returned with him.

The Venezuelan authorities, not briefed about the unaccounted personnel and equipage brought by Castro. assumed that the disturbances which began in late February were merely local unrest. As police and national guard personnel approached the areas of riots, they fell under unremitting, unrelenting fire. By some estimates as much as 200 sharpshooters ensconced in the roofs of the city’s buildings fired and killed at will — both unarmed civilians as well as police and national guard. Areas of Caracas were virtual war zones as attested by European journalists such as José Comas, who had reported on the wars in Kosovo and Serbia. He described his coverage as, “The Caracas war front”.

To this day we still lack an authoritative accounting of the death and bloodletting of those nine days. The attacks were so severe and the crossfire so violent that the original intent — the overthrow of CAP, Castro’s good friend –was abandoned and the backup plan was implemented. Now the Caracazo was affirmed to have been the result of heavy handed suppression ordered by CAP himself and executed by the Venezuelan authorities.

Fidel Castro called CAP to express his support and solidarity and to denounce the scum who wished to overthrow him. American newspapers dutifully reported the crocodile tear expressions of the bitter butcher.

A mere three years later, CAP was impeached and removed from office. A few years after that, Hugo Chávez, who had been involved in three coup attempts was elected president and, though dead, his administration continues to this day, under Castro’s hand-picked successor to Chávez, Nicolás Maduro.

One important note: during last coup attempt in 1993, President Pérez, swearing he would not commit suicide like Allende, acted with great courage and audacity, fully armed and fighting his way out of La Casona to Miraflores where he was shortly surrounded once again, forcing him to fight his way out a second time that night. CAP was too much of an ideologue in his enmity of all things US and, worse, he was naive and foolish in his embrace of a rattlesnake like Castro. But when the chips were down, he acted valiantly. We are not cardboard creatures.

Fidel Castro arrives at the Teresa Carreño Theater to celebrate Carlos Andres Perez’s second inauguration on February 2, 1989. He had arrived in Venezuela accompanied by two Soviet Transport planes with war materiel which was allowed into Venezuela without being searched. Most stayed in Venezuela after Castro’s departure and was deployed in the Caracazo of February 27 – March 8, 1989. Surely all this was on his thoughts as he saw the realization of his decades-long dream close at hand.

Caribbean and South American Communism Protevangelium

March 25, 2022March 25, 2022 Richard Barnes

In recent posts we have documented the fact that Communist activity in Cuba and Venezuela did not begin with Fidel Castro, let alone Hugo Chavez.

Communism did not arise in Cuba as a reaction to Batista or in Venezuela in revulsion to Gómez or Pérez Jiménez. Nor did it come because of the “horrors” of the United States’ invasion of Cuba or her “exploitation” of Venezuela (or insert any south-of-the-border country). The usual shibboleths insisted upon by our betters simply will not hold under more than casual examination.

Communistic ideals, preached in the Paris communes in the 19th century predated the Spanish American War as did Lenin’s radicalism and destructive activism as well as his admiration for the French Revolution. His initial hateful attitude was directed to the Russian Tsarist regime. His glee at the outbreak of the First World War had nothing to do with the United States, which entered that cavalcade of horrors towards its end. He wanted war and mayhem because he was convinced it would enable the overthrow of the Tsarist dynasty and the consolidation of power under a Communist regime. In this he was correct.

But the United States did not enter into his fevered dreams at that stage.

Neither did she enter into the fevered imagination of another admirer of the French Revolution: Simón Bolívar. Like Lenin, Bolívar was an acolyte of the Jacobins and, initially, of Napoleon, who was seen as the one who would ensure the Revolution would endure and advance. If one is to judge Bolívar by his fruits, one would inevitably be confronted with the parallels between the bloodshed and mayhem in France and that in South America. One would see that in both cases, the fruit was bitter, and the deleterious effects, long-lasting, persisting to this very day. The power and glory of late 18th and early 19th Century France and South America are no more, and no comeback is on the horizon.

And neither, at the time, vocalized any blame to America for their own disastrous policies and actions. The rationalizations and blame-game came much later by way of their advocates and fellow travelers seeking to justify the savagery and terror as well as their own consolidation of power and overarching control over people: their own and others. (For this, American universities and high schools will One Day give an account.)

So, as for instance, we have the Cuban, Paul Lefargue (Lefargue), one of the most influential Communists who predated the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. Lefargue was born in Cuba in 1842 and died in Paris in 1911. He married Karl Marx’ daughter, Jenny, and the two of them were indefatigable in their successful promotion of the Communist virus in France and Spain, from whence it sailed back to the Caribbean and South America where the successful infiltrators, the Polish Comintern agent, Fabio Grobart (1905-1994), and the Venezuelan Comintern agent, Gustavo Machado (1898-1983) (agents) both were enthusiastic carriers, having promoted the objective conditions necessary for its propagation: hatred for the colonial past and for the United States present.

Hugo Chávez was born in 1954. His first overt coup attempt was in 1992. However, to understand him, his actions, and the worldview that motivated them, one must review well over a generation before, as this blog has striven to do.

Fidel Castro was born in 1926. His first overt coup attempt was in 1953 (ignoring the aborted 1947 attempt to overthrow Trujillo in the Dominican Republic). However, here too, one must provide a broader context well beyond Castro, to understand his actions and motivations, setting aside the psychological aspects.

Absent the actions and evangelistic fervor of Paul Lefargue, Fabio Grobart, or Gustavo Machado, there would have been no Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez, or Nicolás Maduro regardless of what the United States did or did not do. Special mention must also be accorded to Douglas Bravo, the Venezuelan guerrilla and erstwhile Castro ally, whose long-term strategy of infiltration of the Venezuelan armed forces and the use of Simón Bolívar as a euphemism for Marxist ideology enabled and ensured the rise of Chávez and Maduro and continues to pay dividends to this day. (Gustavo Machado had the same idea but was discovered during the Gómez dictatorship, resulting in his exile.)

Of course, these men did not act alone: the Comintern keenly sought and aided their success in the Americas; women of means and influence as well as United States reporters, bureaucrats, academics, and politicians were devoted disciples and promoters. Whether knowingly or duped is irrelevant; the results were horrible just the same.

Last photo taken of Lenin (1870-1924) in 1923. By this time he had had 3 strokes and was mute.

The “Right Wing” Military

February 25, 2022February 25, 2022 Richard Barnes

Growing up, a standard assumption was that “the military” — whether that of the United States or that of Venezuela — was “right wing”. So ingrained was that assumption that when Hugo Chávez appeared on television on February 4, 1993, announcing that his coup attempt had failed “por ahora“, we assumed he and his comrades had intended to re-impose a Pérez Jiménez dictatorship on the country.

No one paused to consider his words nor his co-conspirators — all, without exception, men of the Left. No one paused to question the previous night’s role of Nicolás Maduro, trained in Castro’s Cuba and recently reintegrated into Venezuela.

Our paradigm was Seven Days in May, both the novel and the movie: any military uprising has to be from the “right”, à la Augusto Pinochet. (So strong was that paradigm that we didn’t ask ourselves whether the Chinese or Soviet armies were also “right wing”.)

In 1978, during a trip to Venezuela, while visiting friends whom I had known since infancy, conversations inevitably cascaded to the massive construction and manufacturing projects in the country, in particular the Ciudad Guayana area. My concerns about the massive “nationalizations” (expropriations) that had taken place and the control of the oil and iron ore industries — both the properties and the management — were met with assurances that these actions, although admittedly concerning, would not lead to a Socialistic or Communistic environment.

Seeing my doubts about their readiness to ascribe good intentions to the politicians drunk with power and riches, my friends clinched the argument by stating the obvious: “Ricky, don’t worry, if things take a turn to Communism, the military will not allow it. They will step in and put a stop to it.”

They had a point. We all agreed the military tended to be conservative. After all, Pinochet put a stop to the Communist depredations in Chile and by 1978, Chile’s GNP growth was in the double digits after the negative GNP swamps of the Allende era. Chile would go on to lead South America in both economic and personal liberties until recent years when they began flirting again with the totalitarian Zeitgeist.

So, it is easy to understand why Venezuelans felt somewhat secure in assuming their military had their back.

However, that does not excuse us. A little scratching beneath the surface ought to have awakened us to the fact — incontrovertible by now — that Venezuela’s military leadership was a hotbed of Communist infiltrators, with direct connections to Fidel Castro. Did we not consider it strange that the very first official state visit by Fidel Castro after the January 1, 1959, coup against Batista was to Venezuela a mere 22 days later?

Did we not have strong reasons to credit the rumors — now corroborated as facts — that the Venezuelan army had surreptitiously and illegally supplied United States war materiel to Castro’s guerrillas in the Sierra Maestra? Did we not wonder how it was that Vice-Admiral Wolfgang Larrazabal had so freely, with unmitigated audacity, invited Dictator Castro to Venezuela to celebrate the first anniversary of the coup against Pérez Jiménez (see Larrazabal)?

Where was the Venezuelan army when Communist-instigated “students” violently attacked a sitting vice-president of the United States and his wife when they came to the country on a state visit (see Nixon). For decades, the beautiful people instructed the rest of us to ignore Nixon’s assertion that Communists, a loud minority, had orchestrated this embarrassment. However, since the election of Chávez in 1999, the truth of Nixon’s statements was no longer denied and was now openly celebrated.

So, my good friends and I were without excuse: the Venezuelan Army could not be relied upon to protect the country from a Communist takeover because its leadership was too compromised. And many decent Venezuelan soldiers eventually paid a high price for this.

But it took decades to see this. President Carlos Andrés Pérez thought highly of Fidel Castro, actually meeting with him secretly during his first tenure (1974 – 1979 — the age of expropriations), and inviting him to his second tenure’s (1989 – 1993) inauguration. It was during that inauguration that Pérez naively gave Castro carte blanche to enter the country with hundreds of “advisors”, by-passing immigration. He also gave the Cubans full use of the Eurobuilding Hotel, then in final phases of construction, in Caracas. No Venezuelan was allowed in the building, only Cubans, including food and cleaning services.

It was during this infiltration that Nicolás Maduro returned to Venezuela camouflaged as a Cuban adviser. And, just as ominously, scores of fully equipped sharpshooters entered also. Upon departure, Venezuelan emigration officials reported to President Pérez that the number of Cubans and equipage departing was significantly less than what had entered. The president waved aside their concerns. Much later, Venezuelan intelligence (before its complete replacement by Castro’s Communists) confirmed that the weapons had been stashed for years in the Caracas metro, under Maduro’s hooded eyes.

Before closing this post, I do want to preview that during the coup attempt in 1993, President Pérez, swearing he would not commit suicide like Allende, acted with great courage and audacity, fully armed and fighting his way out of La Casona to Miraflores where he was shortly surrounded once again, forcing him to fight his way out a second time that night. Pérez was naive and foolish in his childish embrace of a rattlesnake like Castro, but when the chips were down, he acted valiantly. We are not cardboard creatures.

The above may read like an outline or a pitch for a political or crime thriller, but it is all true and factual. As we continue to review the rise of Chávez, we will get into some detail. For now, let it be said that one must never assume anything, including that the military, whether that of Venezuela or that of the United States, is “right wing”. Everything rises and falls on leadership. Instead of assuming, one must observe and analyze the leadership and its decisions and policies.