The Venezuelan Coup Explained

Richard Stanley

Administrator
The following 37 minute presentation coherently explains the background of the Venezuelan coup. It shows graphs of how the Trump sanctions have triggered the current economic crisis there. It does this by fucking with the flow of oil funds back into Venezuela. It debunks 'right-wing' (and others) claims that socialism is the cause of the economic problems or that Venezuela is not democratic. If anything, Venezuela makes the USA look like a banana republic, because it is.


Furthermore, he discusses how various Western, left media outlets and politicians are seriously shading the truth in alignment with Trump.

Below is a classic example of the above with MSNBC contributor, Donny Deutsch, saying that he would rather vote for Trump than a socialist. "We are not Denmark". WTF?

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/dem-candidate-declines-capitalist-label-why-it-matters-1454401091693

Furthermore, all of this puts the lie to Trump being an enemy of the Deep State, but rather allied with it. It's all a shit show, like I've been saying. Doot, doot, doo.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
There's one other important factor in Venezuela's decline, which is the fact that their oil is mostly heavy oil and/or shale oil, which is relatively expensive and inefficient to produce and refine. In the US and Canada, similar heavy shale oil has been a crucial factor in reversing the decline of total oil production caused by "peak oil" and exhaustion of conventional oil reserves. But, the production of this shale oil has been enabled by availability of enormous amounts of financing which has been made possible by the Federal Reserve and their imperial printing press. It's not clear whether there has ever been any profit, or even positive cash flow, from production of shale oil.

Venezuela's oil has always been relatively expensive, but nevertheless it has been very profitable at times of high oil prices. With historically depressed oil prices in recent years, the amount of surplus revenue available from Venezuelan oil production has been much less. Without oil revenues, the Venezuelan government has been unable to subsidize the well-being of the average Venezuelan citizen. Thus impoverished, the people become more receptive to the message of the pro-American, pro-Capitalist mass media and opposition figures like Guaido.

US sanctions and threats of military intervention are, at this point, the primary driving factors of Venezuelan economic collapse. Low oil prices and high production costs are secondary factors, but they contributed to creating fertile grounds for US intervention.

All of this is explained in an article by Nafeez Ahmed, which nevertheless I am hesitant to recommend, because Ahmed systematically understates the importance of US interventions in Venezuela. And, furthermore, John Bolton and the Neocons are correct when they regard Venezuelan oil as a prize to be treasured for the future. Oil prices will rise to cover the cost of production soon enough. Depending on how things play out here, the profits might wind up being used to help the average citizens of Venezuela. Or, perhaps Trump and his friends will be able to buy more of those solid gold toilet bowls.

https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/venezuelas-collapse-is-a-window-into-how-the-oil-age-will-unravel-f80aadff7786

As an aside about Ahmed, here's an article in which he explains his position about 911. He's written very prolifically on the topic, and he sees many problems with the official story. I would basically consider him an important part of the 911 truth camp. But at the same time, he's very critical of "inside job" theories, based on the following logic:

https://www.nafeezahmed.com/thecuttingedge//2015/08/911-conspiracy-theory-and-bullshit.html

perhaps jones is incorrect in his explanation about explosives. even if he was correct in suggesting explosives were used, establishing the chain of guilt to particular individuals in the US government is another thing entirely.
there are several logical possibilities, and narrowing down which is more likely would itself be a complex task involving a criminal investigation. one might argue, for example, that al-qaeda planted the explosives (assuming jones is completely correct). one might argue further that al-qaeda did so with the help of corrupt elements with access to the wtc, who were bought off (al-qaeda after all has access to funding, and fbi whistleblowers like sibel edmonds have talked about the corrupt relationship between terrorists, mafia and intelligence operatives in certain cases).
This is just wrong on so many levels. For one thing, Ahmed has just finished explaining why there will never be hard forensic proof of explosives at 9/11: because the evidence was criminally destroyed as quickly as possible. He doesn't come to terms with the fact that what we do know, points to the conclusion that explosives almost certainly were involved, at least at WTC 7. (That is, unless the publicly available evidence is all fake.)

If the authorities had any belief that Al Qaeda had planted explosives in the buildings, they would not have acted in such a guilty manner to destroy the evidence. On the contrary, there would have been a serious investigation to find out how Al Qaeda carried off such a stunt. Indeed, Ahmed acknowledges that Al Qaeda couldn't possibly have done it without the cooperation of intelligence operatives.

But if US intelligence operatives or other persons in the WTC cooperated with Arab terrorists to plant bombs in the WTC, who is ultimately and primarily responsible? Wouldn't it be safe to say in this circumstance, that the Arab terrorists were essentially in the role of patsies, being set up to take the blame?

And furthermore, we know who actually was in charge of WTC security at the time (it was Bush-linked corporations) and we know who had access to the buildings and the specific levels where explosives would have been most badly needed (a team of artists.) So why is Ahmed being so obtuse here?
 
Last edited:

Richard Stanley

Administrator
And, furthermore, John Bolton and the Neocons are correct when they regard Venezuelan oil as a prize to be treasured for the future.
Yes, thanks for bringing up Bolton, of which the video in the first post here plays the clip of Bolton admitting that private American companies must take control of Venezuelan oil ... for the Venezuelan peoples' benefit ... of course.

Regarding 9/11 and Al Qaeda, there was also the tight link(s) between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family and that Al Qaeda was/is actually a Western intelligence front, controlled opposition. Now we have the kushy Kushner/Trump friendship with the Saudis as an analogue. BTW, the bailout of Kushner's 666 Fifth Avenue property appears directly related to the problems that Qatar had with its neighbors.

'Artists' prepping the Twin Towers? I remember Israeli 'artists', but as a different intel gathering aspect. In any case, I have always thought that the towers would have been prepped under the cover of 'asbestos remediation' efforts.

The 1993 explosion was likely done (with the knowledge of the FBI) as setting the narrative that Muslims would be at the center of 9/11.

Below is a classic example of the above with MSNBC contributor, Donny Deutsch, saying that he would rather vote for Trump than a socialist. "We are not Denmark". WTF?
Interesting to find out that Donny Deutsch has been dating Marla Maples, Trump's second wife. Deutsch, who made the big time on Madison Avenue, is also a close personal friend of .... Michael Cohen. Deutsch and Morning Joe and Mika are also well familiar with Trump (just like the Clintons). Trump appeared often on Morning Joe and Joe and Mika visited Mar-a-Lago. More controlled opposition? Is this just too cozy?

Look what Joe Scarborough and Deutsch does to Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, a man who built a successful brewing company and was a successful governor in building Colorado's economy. All over the labels of socialist versus capitalist. The tag-team, knee-jerk reaction does expose the true dynamic though, and that Trump is already 'campaigning' on, and it is dividing the Democrat's 'big tent'.

https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/hickenlooper-declines-to-call-himself-a-capitalist-1454566467734
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
So why is Ahmed being so obtuse here?
With regards to Ahmed, I feel I should quote one more passage:

Indeed, my message to conspiracy theorists is simple: what happened to 'innocent til proven guilty'?
This is obviously relevant advice, with respect to the 'artists', Gelitin and E-Team. It's entirely possible that Gelitin and E-Team had nothing to do with the collapse of the WTC, and that their presence there was simply a coincidence. I'm merely expressing an opinion that, if there ever is a real investigation, they should be brought in for questioning at the very least.

At this late date we can assume there never will be a real investigation. So we're left, as historians, to evaluate the Bayesian probability of Hypothesis 1 (the official story, 17 Arab hijackers from Al Qaeda were responsible) vs. Hypothesis 2 (Inside Job, in all the various possible permutations.) Indeed, this is why I like the formulation "Inside Job"-- because it covers so many possible scenarios.

What sort of "presumption of innocence" should be extended to Elliot Abrams? In the Iran-Contra affair, Wikipedia reports:

During investigation of the Iran-Contra Affair, Lawrence Walsh, the Independent Counsel tasked with investigating the case, prepared multiple felony counts against Abrams.[29] In 1991, Abrams admitted that he knew more than he acknowledged in his congressional testimony, cooperated with Walsh and entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor counts of withholding information from Congress.[34] For failing to cooperate, he would have faced felony charges of perjury over his congressional testimony.[35] He was sentenced to a $50 fine, probation for two years, and 100 hours of community service. Abrams was pardoned by President George H. W. Bush in December 1992.[36]
In 1997, Abrams was publicly sanctioned by the District of Columbia Bar for giving false testimony to Congress about the Iran-Contra affair. Although several of the court's judges recommended disbarment, the court ultimately declined to disbar Abrams over questions related to the effect of Abrams' Presidential pardon for his prior criminal conduct.[37]
Once again the contrast to Chelsea Manning is appalling. Faced with multiple felony counts that he lied to Congress, Abrams took a plea bargain and paid a $50 fine. For community service, what did he do? Participate in cover-ups of massacres in El Salvador?

By contrast -- for her heroic action, Manning went to prison for 7 years, and now she's back in prison again.
 
Top