Venezuela: Economic Warfare Brings Nation To Its Knees

Featured article from Mint Press News.

Which is mightier; the pen or the sword? In the case of the recent upheaval in Venezuela, the pen is the obvious answer.

The bankers fight using the pen — the pen that signs the paperwork to impose the sanctions that incur mass starvation, dissolve order, hike prices, and bring nations to their knees — Venezuela is in the crosshairs this time.

Last year, U.S. President Donald Trump signed a determination that singled out Venezuela for failing to adhere to counternarcotics obligations. The accusation came – perhaps not so coincidentally – on the same day that Venezuela declared it would no longer participate in the U.S.’ petrodollar trade system.

Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro made his position clear, he had stated earlier in that month that the country would look to “free” itself from the dollar within a week’s time, following the U.S.’ sanctions against the embattled nation.

The decision is similar to that once made by former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who dropped the dollar in favor of the euro a few years prior to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, we all know how that ended.

International markets thus far have failed to noticeably react to the policy shift, despite the threat it presents to the petrodollar system. The system, created in the 1970s, calls for OPEC nations to sell their oil in dollars in order to create artificial demand for the U.S. currency, a fiat currency based on thin air — held together by force.

Venezuela, home to the world’s largest oil reserves, is likely to exert some effect on the demand for dollars through its new policy, though the extent of the potential damage remains unclear. What is clear is that it means enough for the U.S. to declare a financial soft war in retaliation.

Millions of Venezuelans have seen their living conditions vastly improved through the Bolivarian process which shifted the focus away from compliance to the Western Banking Cartel.

The problems plaguing the Venezuelan economy are not due to some inherent fault in socialism, but to artificially low oil prices and sabotage by forces hostile to the revolution.

Starting in 2014, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia flooded the market with cheap oil. This is not a mere business decision, but a calculated move coordinated with U.S. and Israeli foreign policy goals. Despite not just losing money, but even falling deep into debt, the Saudi monarchy continues to expand its oil production apparatus. The result has been driving the price of oil down from $110 per barrel, to $28 in the early months of this year. The goal is to weaken these opponents of Wall Street, London, and Tel Aviv, whose economies are centered around oil and natural gas exports.

Venezuela is one of those countries. Saudi efforts to drive down oil prices have drastically reduced Venezuela’s state budget and led to enormous consequences for the Venezuelan economy.

At the same time, private food processing and importing corporations launched a coordinated campaign of sabotage. This, coupled with the weakening of a vitally important state sector of the economy, has resulted in inflation and food shortages. The artificially low oil prices have left the Venezuelan state cash-starved, prompting a crisis in the funding of the social programs that were key to strengthening the United Socialist Party.

Corruption is a big problem in Venezuela and many third-world countries. This was true prior to the Bolivarian process, as well as after Hugo Chavez launched his massive economic reforms. In situations of extreme poverty, people learn to take care of each other. People who work in government are almost expected to use their position to take care of their friends and family. Corruption is a big problem under any system, but it is much easier to tolerate in conditions of greater abundance. The problem has been magnified in Venezuela due to the drop in state revenue caused by the low oil prices and sabotage from food importers.

Venezuelans told of how the privatizations mandated by the International Monetary Fund made life in Venezuela almost unlivable during the 1990s. Garbage wouldn’t be collected. Electricity would go off for weeks. Haido Ortega, a member of a local governing body in Venezuela, said: “Under previous governments we had to burn tires and go on strike just to get electricity, have the streets fixed, or get any investment.”

Chavez took office on a platform advocating a path between capitalism and socialism. He restructured the government-owned oil company so that the profits would go into the Venezuelan state, not the pockets of Wall Street corporations. With the proceeds of Venezuela’s oil exports, Chavez funded a huge apparatus of social programs.

After defeating an attempted coup against him in 2002, Chavez announced the goal of bringing Venezuela toward “21st Century Socialism.” Chavez quoted Marx and Lenin in his many TV addresses to the country, and mobilized the country around the goal of creating a prosperous, non-capitalist society.

In 1998, Venezuela had only 12 public universities, today it has 32. Cuban doctors were brought to Venezuela to provide free health care in community clinics. The government provides cooking and heating gas to low-income neighborhoods, and it’s launched a literacy campaign for uneducated adults.

During the George W. Bush administration, oil prices were the highest they had ever been. The destruction of Iraq, sanctions on Iran and Russia, strikes and turmoil in Nigeria — these events created a shortage on the international markets, driving prices up.

Big oil revenues enabled Chavez and the United Socialist Party to bring millions of Venezuelans out of poverty. Between 1995 and 2009, poverty and unemployment in Venezuela were both cut in half.

After the death of Chavez, Nicolas Maduro has continued the Bolivarian program. “Housing Missions” have been built across the country, providing low-income families in Venezuela with places to live. The Venezuelan government reports that over 1 million modern apartment buildings had been constructed by the end of 2015.

The problems currently facing Venezuela started in 2014. The already growing abundance of oil due to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, was compounded by Saudi Arabia flooding the markets with cheap oil. The result: massive price drops. Despite facing a domestic fiscal crisis, Saudi Arabia continues to expand its oil production apparatus.

The price of oil remains low, as negotiations among OPEC states are taking place in the hopes that prices can be driven back up. While American media insists the low oil prices are just the natural cycle of the market at work, it’s rather convenient for U.S. foreign policy. Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, and the Islamic Republic of Iran all have economies centered around state-owned oil companies and oil exports, and each of these countries has suffered the sting of low oil prices.

The leftist president of Brazil, Dilma Rousseff, has already been deposed due to scandal surrounding Petrobras, the state-owned oil company which is experiencing economic problems due to the falling price of oil. Although much of Brazil’s oil is for domestic consumption, it has been revealed that those who deposed her coordinated with the CIA and other forces in Washington and Wall Street, utilizing the economic fallout of low oil prices to bring down the Brazilian president.

The son of President Ronald Reagan has argued that Obama intentionally drove down oil prices not just to weaken the Venezuelan economy, but also to tamper the influence of Russia and Iran, Trump has continued this foreign policy.

Writing for Townhall in 2014, Michael Reagan bragged that his father did the same thing to hurt the Soviet Union during the 1980s:

“Since selling oil was the source of the Kremlin’s wealth, my father got the Saudis to flood the market with cheap oil.

Lower oil prices devalued the ruble, causing the USSR to go bankrupt, which led to perestroika and Mikhail Gorbachev and the collapse of the Soviet Empire.”

Read more here.

 

Advertisements

Why Father’s Day Matters

The outright assault on the traditional family structure continues. This time, Father’s Day, an annual day set aside to appreciate the healthy father figure in people’s lives, but even this couldn’t stay pure for long.

Good Morning Britain tweeted that:

“Is it time to ban Father’s Day? With a rise in single parent, blended, and same-sex families, is it time to get more inclusive and appreciate parents all year round?”

With a total disregard for the science behind a non-traditional family structure, the mainstream media is bashing a symbol of stability, success, happiness, and wellbeing.

The negative effect of non-traditional families on human wellbeing is astonishingly understated, as I will explain.

Here’s some facts:

  • Single parent households double the likelihood of child mental illness.
  • Single mothers are more likely to get ill when they get older.
  • Children raised by gay couples are twice as likely to be in poverty as children of straight married couples.
  • Households with a single mother and a non-biological father have the highest rates of child abuse and neglect.
  • 85% of children who exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes.
  • Boys who grow up in fatherless homes have significantly lower testosterone levels than average.
  • Children born to single mothers show higher levels of aggressive behavior than children born to married mothers.
  • 71% of high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.
  • 70% of juveniles in state operated institutions come from fatherless homes.
  • 71% of adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes.
  • 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes.

Stefan Molyneux, a popular philosophy YouTuber, covered the effects of female-headed/single mother households and the associated poverty rates. In every example poverty rates were above that of the average poverty rate and the poverty rate of married couple families.

Welfare rewards and encourages social instability and boosts dependence on the state/big government.

Molyneux also discussed in the video below that in the West the introduction of welfare has subsidized irresponsibility by taxing stable, good income families and redistributing the resources to keep single mother households afloat. The effect of this is placing pressure on responsible members of society and encouraging social instability by funding the lower-end of society and helping it flourish.

Molyneux argues that because society is accustomed to the “safety net” guarantee of welfare, it feels at liberty to make irresponsible decisions and involve itself in marriages, decisions and partnerships that are dysfunctional rather than practical.

Welfare has broken apart the strength of strong, effective families and replaced it with an irreverence towards forging lasting, stable relationships — which form the bedrock of society.

To take things further, the deep state economists and legislators are perfectly aware that subsidizing bad decisions will equal more bad decisions. In fact, it’s their goal; suppress social stability and cohesion in the masses, promote fragmentation, atomization and encourage an unhealthy dependence and allegiance to a nanny/provider state, that, by extension, gets to call all the shots and direct all policy-making unhindered.

Feeding a cancer helps it to grow — the welfare state is a powerful fertilizer for the social cancers that afflict western civilization.

More welfare emboldens the weak, erodes the stable middle class, and empowers the deep state.

maxresdefault (1).jpg

The Truth About the Russian Revolution

This year marks the centenary of the Russian Revolution, a banker-backed partisan regime change, nominally called a “populist revolution”.

Both the February revolution and the October Bolshevik revolution happened because the Zionist-Jewish establishment wanted to take down the non-globalist power of Imperial Russia and the ruling Czar. Imperialist Russia’s anti-usury, anti-money manipulation stance was a blockade to controlling the wider European region.

The public believed that the United States leadership was opposed to the Soviet Union because one was capitalist and one was communist. Not true. They are different kinds of cartels, that’s all, and controlled, ultimately, by the same people. Communism was created by Wall Street and the City of London to generate enormous fear and conflict which was used to great effect to advance the Agenda. As always, it was planned long before it became public.

The first charge to remove the Romanovs in the February revolution was led by Alexander Kerensky, a Freemason, funded from Wall Street and London. A second and more brutal wave was led by Leon Trotsky and Lenin.

There was a clear pattern of strong support for Bolshevism coming from the highest financial and political power centers in the United States and other Western nations; from men who, supposedly, were “capitalists” and who, according to conventional wisdom, should have been the mortal enemies of socialism and communism. Instead, they used the faulty socialist-communist political system as an offensive strategy to devastate, and then dominate Russia.

The Bolshevik Revolution was not a spontaneous uprising of the masses. It was planned, financed and orchestrated by these ‘capitalist’ outsiders. Some of the financing came from Germany which hoped that internal problems would force Russia out of the war against her. But most of the money and leadership came from financiers in England and the United States. It was a perfect example of the Rothschild Formula in action.

Russian-speaking revolutionaries were trained in New York and sent to distribute the pamphlets among the prisoners and to indoctrinate them into rebellion against their own government.

Round Table members were working both sides of the conflict [Russian Revolution] to weaken and topple a target government. Tsar Nicholas had every reason to believe that since the British were Russia’s allies in the war against Germany, British officials would be the last persons on Earth to conspire against him. Yet, the British Ambassador himself represented the hidden group which was financing the regime’s downfall.

International Brotherhood bankers from Britain, the United States, Russia, Germany, and France met in Sweden in the Summer of 1917. They agreed that Kuhn, Loeb and Company would deposit $50 million in a Swedish bank account for Lenin and Trotsky’s use.

Lenin, Trotsky, and their cohorts did not overthrow the monarchy. They overthrew the first democratic society in Russian history, set up through a truly popular revolution in March, 1917, and in the process, brought Russia to her knees, making her wholly beholden to the international banker families’ agenda.

Within a few months after they attained power, most of the tsarist practices the Leninists had condemned were revived, usually in more ominous forms: political prisoners, convictions without trial and without the formality of charges, savage persecution of dissenting views, death penalties for more varieties of crime than in any other modern nation. The rest were put into effect in the following years, including the suppression of all other parties, restoration of the internal passport, a state monopoly of the press, along with repressive practices the monarchy had outlived for a century or more.


Lenin admitted the Bolsheviks were not independent.

The Bolshevik Revolution having been engineered and financed out of England and the United States is mostly portrayed as an independent movement. That was not the case, as Lenin admitted in March 1922.

At the Eleventh Party Congress of the Communist Party Lenin was foolish to admit that the party was being directed by “a huge bureaucratic machine.” He died a few months later from what was suspected as a poison that mimics paresis (syphilis,) which substance shall not be named here. The so-called Bolshevik Revolution was financed entirely with money from Lord Alfred Milner and Kuhn Loeb acting as a conduit for the Rockefellers through their puppet, President Woodrow Wilson.

A good deal of attention was paid to the cooperation of the governments of the United States, Great Britain and Germany in bringing the Bolsheviks to power in Russia. It was not long before it became perfectly clear that without the utmost help from these allegedly nominal Christian allegedly free Capitalist societies, the revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky could not have succeeded.

— Dr. John Coleman, The Committee of 300


Russia was once a nationalist powerhouse.

Before the Bolshevik coup d’etat, Russia was one of the most productive agricultural nations in the world. The great wheat fields in Ukraine justly earned her the title of the Bread Basket of Europe. But when the people’s utopia arrived, agriculture came to a standstill, and famine stalked the land. Even after Stalin, when the regime is said to have adopted more humane and productive policies, Russia never produced enough food for itself. A nation that cannot feed its citizens cannot develop its industry and it certainly cannot build a potent military force. It is not surprising, therefore, that for decades, the United States has annually “sold” tens of millions of tons of wheat – and other food stuffs – to Russia.

Profiteers sought to use their planted regime as a means to make money.

U.S., British, and German wolves soon found a bonanza of profit in selling to the new Soviet regime. Standard Oil and General Electric supplied $37 million worth of machinery from 1921 to 1925, and that was just the beginning. Junkers Aircraft in Germany literally created Soviet air power.

It was about this time [1920] that the Wilson Administration sent 700,000 tons of food to the Soviet Union which, not only saved the regime from certain collapse, but gave Lenin the power to consolidate his control over all of Russia.

In payment for these contracts and to return the “loans” of the financiers, the Bolsheviks all but drained their country of its gold – which included the Tsarist government’s sizable reserve – and shipped it primarily to American and British banks. […]The arrival of these shipments was coordinated by Jacob Schiff’s Kuhn, Loeb & Company and deposited by Morgan’s Guaranty Trust.

Globalist Bankers owned Russia and its politics.

In 1922, the Soviets formed their first international bank. It was not owned and run by the state as would be dictated by Communist theory, but was put together by a syndicate of private bankers. These included, not only former Tsarists bankers, but representatives of German, Swedish, and American banks. Most of the foreign capital came from England, including the British government itself. The man appointed as Director of the Foreign Division of the new bank was Max May, Vice President of Morgan’s Guaranty Trust Company in New York.

After the October Revolution, all the banks in Russia were taken over and “nationalized” by the Bolsheviks – except one: the Petrograd branch of Rockefeller’s National City Bank.

— G. Edward Griffin, The Creature From Jekyll Island


The Capitalists of the world and their governments, in pursuit of conquest of the Soviet market, will close their eyes to the indicated higher reality and thus will turn into deaf mute blind men. They will extend credits, which will strengthen for us the Communist Party in their countries, and giving us the materials and technology we lack, they will restore our military industry, indispensable for our future victorious attacks on our suppliers. In other words, they will labor for the preparation for their own suicide.

— Vladimir Lenin, as quoted by Antony Sutton in Revolution