…by Jonas E. Alexis
I am simply amazed at some of the responses I have been getting from a number of individuals who have read a series of articles I have written on the New World Order in Venezuela and capitalism. One individual whose name shall remain unanimous emailed me saying:
“In your opening paragraph at your latest article at VT you claim Venezuela’s opposition is funded by NWO in the US. Unfortunately you make the claim in a vacuum of information. Can you be more specific? What groups or individuals representing the ‘WO’ are funding Juan Gauido’s party? I’d be interested in seeing if you have any evidence to back up these claims.
I responded by saying:
“I am really surprised that you would even ask that question, precisely because the argument is pretty straightforward. Washington is essentially a New World Order cell, and when it comes to Venezuela, puppets in Washington have made it clear that they are supporting both Guaido and the opposition party. We have seen this played out before. It is the same thing in Iraq, Libya, and Syria.
“The CIA made it very plain that they were supporting ‘rebels’–or terrorists–in Syria. They are supporting Guaido precisely because he is a puppet of the United States as well as Israel. Listen to the title of this article by the Washington Post: ‘The U.S. has quietly supported the Venezuelan opposition for years.’”
The Washington Post article specifically says that the Trump administration “indicated it would support a military overthrow of the socialist government headed by President Nicolás Maduro. Second, the administration, alongside two dozen other countries, recognized opposition leader Juan Guaidó as the legitimate, interim president of Venezuela…the United States and Venezuela have had an acrimonious relationship for the past 20 years — in part because the United States has long supported the Venezuelan political opposition.”
If the correspondent had carefully read the article by the Washington Post, he would have gotten a deeper understanding of how the New World Order has essentially funded the opposition group in Venezuela. The Washington Post continues to say that
“Shortly after Hugo Chávez’s initial election in 1998, the U.S.-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) took the lead in training and guiding political parties on how they might best compete against him. One of the NED’s sub-agencies, the International Republican Institute (IRI), led these efforts…
“The IRI sponsored such Republican politicians as Darryl Howard, the executive director of the Oregon Republican Party, and Mike Collins, the former Republican Party press secretary, to travel to Venezuela and meet individually with Venezuelan party leaders from the opposition, offering guidance on how they might electorally defeat Chávez.
“IRI members also ran political workshops for party members on issues such as constructing political platforms and reaching out to youth. One IRI contractor who helped facilitate some of these workshops bluntly described their objective to me: to help the opposition “get [their] s— together so they could defeat Chávez. In 2006, the IRI brought five technical specialists to assist the campaign of Manuel Rosales, the opposition’s presidential candidate, to monitor elections on the day of the event.”
Sociologist Timothy M. Gill of the University of North Carolina, the author of the Washington Post article, says: “U.S. diplomats, including several ambassadors, also told me how they advised the opposition. One ambassador revealed she ‘met with the opposition — I can’t tell you how many times. I told them they need to come up with a plan and needed to unite. There were 50 opposition parties registered!’ In doing so, she urged the opposition not to splinter its vote and hand Chávez an easy victory.”
Professor Gill moves on to reveal more diabolical activities by the United States in Venezuela.
“U.S. state agencies also strategized with opposition social movements. These efforts have been led by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and, in particular, its Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI), a group that often works in war-ravaged countries, currently including Syria and Ukraine.
“When I asked a USAID representative why OTI was in Venezuela, he told me that OTI acts as ‘the special forces of the democracy assistance community,’ and it can get aid to groups in countries much more quickly than traditional channels.
“USAID/OTI, for instance, initiated a strategy to develop neutral-looking organizations in working-class neighborhoods focused on community initiatives such as participatory democracy. These groups were organized with opposition activists to put Chávez supporters in contact with opposition members to help persuade them to reduce their support for the Venezuelan government.”
In short, USAID for the opposition group in Venezuela is well documented. Even back in 2007 the United States established an anti-Chavez student movement. USAID also provided students the necessary tools and ideological materials “to amplify their message, including such basics as paper and microphones, and they organized training seminars to help the students enhance the effectiveness of their movement.”
“Outside Caracas, USAID helped students in such regions as Maracaibo, where it funded such efforts as a conference run by students opposed to the Chávez government and paid for airfare for individuals to attend. Over time, the U.S. government assisted the efforts of the anti-Chávez student movement significantly. Many of its members are now high-ranking opposition leaders, including Guaidó, Stalin González and Freddy Guevara.”
So the debate of whether the New World Order ideology is supporting both the opposition group as well as Guaido in Venezuela is over. Perhaps my correspondent didn’t have time to sift through the entire Washington Post article. He responded by saying:
“That the US supports the Venezuelan opposition is common knowledge, my question was to get at specifics regarding your claim that NWO operatives in the US are funding the opposition groups. The link to the wp [sic] story you provided does not support your claim.
“It does mention support for student groups in opposition to Chavez, but that wasn’t your claim. As of now, you have provided nothing, neither here nor in your essay, to support your claim. Who are these puppets? Who do they work for? Have you attempted to interview them (like a real researcher would have)? What makes you think Guaido is a puppet of Israel? I’ll give you extra points if you can answer that question without relying on negative jewfish stereotypes.”
Alexis: “Can you cite me the claim first? What did you read in the article?”
Correspondent: “I did cite it. In my very first email to you. I knew the answer before I asked the question. Of course you can’t point to any evidence to back up your claims, you’re a conspiracy theorist at VT. And before you ask… no, I am not a member of the ‘despicable few.’”
“Well, the reason I asked was because I wanted to make sure you thoroughly read what I actually wrote in the first paragraph. Here’s what I said: ‘New World Order agents in the United States are using a new diabolical tactic in Venezuela: famine. How are they actualizing it? They slapped sanctions on the entire country. The New York Times itself has acknowledged that the sanctions are intended to target both President Nicolás Maduro and the oil company.’
“Did you read it carefully? Where did I specifically say what you are impugning to me? I said specifically that New World Order agents in the United States are using famine to starve the average Venezuelan. Isn’t it true that Washington is putting sanctions on the entire country? Isn’t it true that puppets in Washington are supporting both the opposition group and Guaido? I simply don’t understand what your objections were.
“The second paragraph said: ‘The opposition group in Venezuela, which is funded and supported by NWO agents in the United States, have said that they want ‘to deliver tens of millions of dollars in food and medicine to ease devastating shortages and undermine the authoritarian rule of Nicolás Maduro.’
“The article by the Washington Post I sent you supported the thesis that the opposition group has been supported by Washington. Now, what is your objection again?
I haven’t gotten any more response from the correspondent.
With respect to the Tucker Carlson article, I again am amazed to see that some readers are not really paying attention to what was clearly said. Here is one commenter:
“One of the worst episodes of errant bloviation [sic] from Jonas…..what is he trying to say? Apparently, if you work for a rich man, you share much of the guilt for not turning the guy in at the IRS. After all, you have every right to squeal on your boss and if you lose your job, it’s his fault. Jonas, you hit a foul ball here and it didn’t go out of the park.”
This is simply a violation of some of the basic laws of logic. I never said that ‘if you work for a rich man, you share much of the guilt for not turning the guy in the IRS.’ This is madness. The only way this person can maintain this vacuous position is by ignoring some of the central and clear arguments in the article. I simply do not want to duplicate here.
Let me make one last point: Tucker Carlson is living in an incoherent system. The reason he got upset with Rutger Bregman is because Bregman got to the heart of the issue, which Tucker failed to discuss in his book as well as on Fox News.
If an oligarchic ruler like Rupert Murdoch spent almost a decade without paying taxes, wouldn’t it be nice to call him out at least once? Can we just ignore this and focus on easy targets like feminism? And if Carlson does not have the intellectual courage to expose the entire oligarchic system, of which Rupert Murdoch is a part, then by what logical inference that allows him to call other people out and tell people to “go fuck yourself” when they get to the heart of the issue? Is that fair?
Another commenter genuinely responded:
“Working for a man like Murdoch doesn’t make Mr. Carlson a bad person or a hypocrite for taking his money. Nor is it his responsibility to shine a condemning light on his boss, that would be irresponsible and get him fired. Indirectly he is often shining a light on his boss and the Koch brothers for their policies on immigration, endless wars, abortion (child murder) and fiat currency / usury.”
First of all, I did make it very clear at the end of the article that “we must give Tucker Carlson some credit because the he is now challenging the Neoconservative ideology or the war machine which ontologically seeks to create chaos in much of the world; he is to be applauded for calling out the Trump administration for attempting to stage a coup in Venezuela, and for taking on Neocon luminaries and ethnic cleansers like Max Boot and Bill Kristol.”
It is not like I disagree with everything he has ever said or written. He and I do have some common ground. To be quite frank, I do have much respect for him. What I am asking is that Carlson’s principle has to be universally and philosophically consistent. This would be right in line with what Kant would call the categorical imperative.
I am also a fan of Alexander Solzhenitsyn. He was one of the rarest minds of the twentieth century precisely because he didn’t play dice with the truth. Solzhenitsyn points out that embracing the truth and rejecting lies may bring bad consequences—including lost jobs or even threats on one’s life.
Yet this is the path that valiant and courageous men and women ought to take. Solzhenitsyn almost lost his own life for challenging the twentieth century’s most brutal and bloody regime: the Soviet Union.
Here are a few quotes from him:
“And therein we find, neglected by us, the simplest, the most accessible key to our liberation: a personal nonparticipation in lies! Even if all is covered by lies, even if all is under their rule, let us resist in the smallest way: Let their rule hold not through me!
“Our way must be: never knowingly support lies! Having understood where the lies begin—step back from that gangrenous edge! Let us not glue back the flaking scale of the Ideology, not gather back its crumbling bones, nor patch together its decomposing garb, and we will be amazed how swiftly and helplessly the lies will fall away, and that which is destined to be naked will be exposed as such to the world.
“And thus, overcoming our temerity, let each man choose: will he remain a witting servant of lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?”
I agree completely with Solzhenitsyn here. There is a price to pay to tell the whole truth. Only a few people are able to do it today. The fact that Carlson had the temerity to tell Rutger Bregman to “go fuck yourself” is an implicit defense of the news channel that pays Carlson’s bills. He could have at least listen to Bregman carefully and responded with serious arguments. That was the least he could do.
Moreover, Carlson even said that he sincerely meant it when he uttered the “Go fuck yourself” phraseology. This is another implicit admission that Tucker doesn’t want to be challenged. So this is not “thoughtless tripe.”
Another commenter declared:
“The author of this article understands next to nothing about economics and capitalism. Example: During the 1930’s the tax rate for the highest incomes rose to nearly 90%. This actually prolonged and deepened the depression. When tax rates become too high there is no money left to reinvest in a business.
“You can’t buy new or upgraded equipment. You can’t expand either because all the extra capital is now being used to pay taxes. The result is lost business and thus lost profits which means that employees will have to be laid off.”
First of all, the commenter didn’t even make an attempt to address what was clearly discussed in the article. But he seems to invite me to jump on his bandwagon. We are talking about the rich not paying taxes!
How is the economy going to thrive when the average man is required to pay taxes and the rich and powerful are getting a get-out-of-jail free card? How has this played out in the past five thousand years or more? Has it been good for any nation at all? All you have to do is look at the historical record to answer that question.
It is really hard to discuss the historical issues that need to be teased out of capitalism here, but I would highly recommend anyone to pick up a copy of E. Michael Jones’ 1400-page book The History of Capitalism as the Conflict Between Labor and Usury.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.