Why are the libertarian Ron Paul and the socialist Nicolás Maduro both opposed to the U.S. coup-attempt?

Who was Cecil Rhodes?

Eric Zuesse, originally posted at strategic-culture.org

First of all, it definitely is  an attempted coup, and Juan Guaido has no basis in the Venezuelan Constitution to be that country’s ‘interim President,’ because Venezuela’s elected President has not been removed from office in accord with anything in that Constitution, and so Guaido’s assertions to be ‘the acting President’ of the country are bold lies, which are traitorous to that Constitution, and to Venezuela, and to democracy of any sort.

On 9 March 2015, U.S. President Barack Obama declared Venezuela a ‘national security threat’ to the United States, and he went openly for a coup there. That’s international aggression by the United States Government — Venezuela’s Government was not (and is not), at all, aggressing against the U.S. — this was one of Obama’s more blatant lies. But no successful coup happened. Trump is now making a much more serious attempt at it, also on the basis of lies. As on every other aspect of Obama’s neoconservatism, Trump continues and escalates Obama’s neoconservative policies. Under Trump, the Cold War is now official policy without there being any USSR and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance countering America’s NATO alliance; and, in his and the U.S. Congress’s fantasies, all of this is ‘aggression’ not by the (‘guiltless’) U.S., but by Russia and Russia-friendly nations — none, at all, by the U.S. Government, against Russia and against nations that are friendly toward Russia. The U.S. Government’s lying overflows and presumes a stunningly stupid public to believe it.

This aggression by the United States, and the lying also by Juan Guaido to serve as its stooge, are the reason why the libertarian Ron Paul rejects Guaido’s claims, despite sharing Guaido’s free-market and pro-privatization ideology. (Though Paul avoids publicly going on-record this way, he selects for publication at his site only articles that are critical of Trump’s attempted coup in Venezuela — such as this and this and this.)

Paul’s view contrasts, for example, versus a neoconservative libertarian who says, at the libertarian Zero Hedge site, that due to Venezuela’s socialist Government, “People are being forced to pillage, loot, steal, do whatever it takes to keep their families from starving,” because “socialism eventually always fails and ends in misery.” (Oh? Tell me about Sweden, etc.) But, just as Dr. Paul doesn’t go public with his opposition to the coup-attempt, the Zero Hedge writer also doesn’t go public with his support of the coup-attempt. Nonetheless, one can clearly tell their respective positions, by what articles they select to publish about this coup-attempt.

The reason why libertarians hide their views of the coup-attempt is that whereas the billionaire-funded Libertarian Party (co-founded by the Kochs), and all the rest of the billionaire-funded libertarian movement, are neoconservatives (just as the Bushes, and Clintons, and Obama, and Trump, are, and just as both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are), the non-billionaire-funded portions of all of those Parties are opposed to neoconservatism. All of the U.S. opposition to Trump’s coup-attempt in Venezuela come only from progressives and from non-billionaire-funded libertarians.

The difference here isn’t the ‘ideology’, but how wealthy the backers are. Both the Republican and the Democratic Parties are controlled by the billionaires who supply the vast bulk of their funds during campaign-season. Any candidate who is the choice of the billionaires is a neoconservative, because billionaires profit enormously from neoconservative policies. They are 100% behind it.

The very origin of neoconservatism was billionaires, going all the way back to the British tycoon Cecil Rhodes in the late 1800s who was the first one to advocate a continuation of the British Empire under the cover of a special relationship between the British aristocracy and the American aristocracy. Today’s American neoconservatism is thus the U.S. version of the British Empire’s imperialism. But it needs a different name: “neoconservatism.” (The U.S. regime can’t admit that it’s “imperialist,” because America’s Founders despised and warred and won against imperialism, and everybody knows this. The successful gradual American counter-revolution must therefore be hidden. This counter-revolutionary movement toward American imperialism actually started not only with the Republican U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower’s coups against democratically elected progressive non-communist leaders in Iran in 1953 and in Guatemala in 1954 — and installing brutal dictatorships in both — but it also started at the same time in the Democratic Party with the Democratic U.S. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson, and it didn’t become named “neoconservatism” until 1982 when the racist-fascist, or nazi, Republican Jew, Norman Podhoretz, named it that. His parents came from Galicia, which is the most rabidly Jew-and-Russian-hating part of Ukraine and of Poland, the region in those two adjoining countries that supported Hitler against Stalin; and, so, Podhoretz, as a thoroughly ethnocentric Jew, was a fanatic supporter of Zionism, and he sought the rise of a new U.S. empire, to be fronting not only for England, but especially for Israel. Neoconservatism had to front U.S. imperialism, to foreigners, because “imperialism” was known to be un-American, hostile toward America’s Founders, who had rebelled against and ended imperialism. So, in America, the name was changed, to “neoconservatism.” This actual counter-revolution had to be kept secret. But the first neoconservative (other than Eisenhower and many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress, was actually Scoop Jackson, who led this new movement ideologically, and his main sponsor was a domestic corporation, no foreigners, at all. He was fronting mainly for Boeing, his biggest financial backer and a huge weapons-maker. The push for neoconservatism wasn’t just from England and from Israel, but also from America’s own armaments-manufacturers, and oil and mining companies — the chief economic beneficiaries of invasions and conquests.)

Ronald Reagan was a flaming neoconservative but hid it by his spouting anti-communism as the excuse. George Herbert Walker Bush first came out unambiguously for neoconservatism only in private, at the very moment when it became clear that anti-communism could no longer continue to be the excuse for American imperialism. This occurred on the night of 24 February 1990, when he secretly instructed America’s foreign stooges to continue the war against the now non-communist Russia until NATO and other U.S. allies ultimately conquer and absorb Russia. That’s the way they are: psychopathic.

No billionaires support progressive candidates. To be a progressive candidate is to accept the fact that the billionaires won’t support you, and that they’ll never publish you unless you’ve already become so well-known that they virtually have to (which, for authentic progressives, rarely happens, because no billionaire will make you famous).

The reason why progressivism is intrinsically hostile toward neoconservatism is that progressivism is a repudiation of imperialism, and neoconservatism is simply American imperialism — that’s what neoconservatism is. All of the billionaires know it, but the naive masses tragically don’t, and aren’t informed anything about it by the billionaires’ media, and think tanks, and elite universities. You don’t learn about this — the fundamental unAmericanism of imperialism — from those sources. Some of the naive masses are Democrats, some are Republicans, some are libertarians, but this is the reality, regarding all of them. It’s simply the reality, though (other than by a tiny minority, which includes all billionaires and the few non-billionaires who understand their world) it’s not known; it is instead — and intentionally — secret.

The British excuse for imperialism was racist — to improve ‘inferior’ peoples. In fact, Rhodes’s mentor and colleague said succinctly that Rhodes’s “imperialism was that of Race and not that of Empire.” But this was intended to be a secret — “his idea of the secret society broadened and made presentable to the public.” America’s version didn’t become known about for certain, to the U.S. regime’s own stooges, until America’s excuse for it — opposition to communism, and support of democracy — became stripped bare, right in front of their eyes, on the night of 24 February 1990. And they went along with it, as realpolitique. They saw it, right in front of their eyes: the American Revolution had now clearly been defeated, and the imperialists (what the U.S. Founders had intended to have defeated) now were, yet again, clearly in control in Washington, and this time fully armed with lies. The vassals’ attitude to that was: If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. And they all did. It’s the international aristocracy’s world-system: it is strictly hierarchical, and so is opposed to democracy at home and abroad, though it touts itself, now, as championing (instead of as trying — as they always do — to crush) democracy, everywhere, at home, and abroad.

Empire is inconsistent with democracy. It always has been. It always will be. It cannot not be. This is the most fundamental, the most basic, belief of progressivism. Anything to the contrary is definitely not progressive (and so the billionaires will at least consider to fund it). To the extent that a culture is aristocratic instead of democratic, progressives are out in the cold, and on their own. That is the situation in which revolutions happen, but if the result of a revolution turns out to be not only success but yet another type of aristocracy, then the revolution has ultimately failed, because any type of aristocracy is psychopathic. It is corrupt to the very core, because any aristocracy is psychopathic, exploitative, by its very nature. And this is a reason why yet another basic political issue that libertarianism ignores — except to lie to blame it upon its bugaboo ‘socialism’ — is corruption. Therefore, libertarianism itself has no consistent and unified — no basic — position (no actual doctrine) regarding either imperialism or corruption. Libertarians can and do disagree with each other about both of those two issues. Progressives cannot (without displaying themselves to be non-progressives).

There are two big dangers to revolution: failure, and success followed immediately by failure. Successful revolutions — ones that produce some sort of limited democracy — are exceedingly rare. The American Revolution was one of those rarities, but it ended when FDR died, and America’s dictatorship finally became firmly planted on 24 February 1990. Russia’s second revolution — what started in the 1980s and almost collapsed in the 1990s, and then became finally established as a democracy on 1 January 2000 — now made Russia free, at last, from the U.S.-and-allied imperialists, and from the Russian billionaires that America’s billionaires had established in Russia as the U.S. regime’s foreign ‘partners’. However, any democracy can, at best, only be a work in progress. That’s true regardless whether the given successful revolution is sudden and violent, as in America starting on 4 July 1776, or else is gradual and non-violent, as in Russia, as finally ended on 31 December 1999. But in both cases, a successful revolution that is really successful is, above all, a nation’s being freed from the grip of foreign aristocracies. That’s the only real basis upon which democracy becomes even possible. No colony can be a democracy, because it must obey its foreign dictator.

As regards the question that started this analysis — “Why are the libertarian Ron Paul and the socialist Nicolás Maduro both opposed to the U.S. coup-attempt?” — the key is that libertarianism is not committed to democracy (though some libertarians are), and that only progressivism is. All progressives are committed to democracy, because that commitment to democracy is what progressivism is. To be a progressive and an imperialist is therefore like to be a populist and an elitist: it is sheer fakery. (In fact, a libertarian anti-imperialist, such as the Republican U.S. Senators Rand Paul and Justin Amash, is more progressive than are the many Democratic members of the U.S. Congress who call themselves ‘progressive’ in order to fool their voters, but who, in Congress, vote, time and again, to impose sanctions (the first stage of war — it is economic aggression) against countries the U.S. aristocracy intends ultimately to conquer (usually sanctions against Russia and against countries that have friendly relations with Russia, which sanctions are then followed either by coup or invasion). Economic sanctions that are not supported by a resolution from the U.N. General Assembly should be viewed as violations of the U.N. Charter and therefore as prohibited and outlawed, legally null and void. Cooperation with any such economic sanctions should thus automatically be reason for censuring, or perhaps expelling from the U.N., any such cooperating nation, as being an aggressor-nation, and therefore a violator of the U.N. Charter, and so prohibited from membership in the international community — a “rogue nation.” If democracy is not authentically supported by the U.N., then the U.N. itself needs to be replaced.

Maybe it does need to be replaced. If the U.N. isn’t supportive internationally of democracy, and doesn’t rigorously apply the U.N.’s own Charter, including especially the independent sovereignty of each member-nation, then the U.N. must be replaced by a new organization — starting (though perhaps not remaining) with the same charter — that will faithfully and strictly apply its charter. The U.N. was intended, by its chief creator, FDR, to end imperialism, and to replace that by an international federation of independent sovereign republics. If it instead accepts imperialism, it has been hijacked by the aristocracies, and therefore needs to be replaced (by an organization that does adhere to the U.N.’s Charter). Any country which would refuse to join the replacement-organization would effectively be making public its support of aristocracy, and opposition to democracy. The public must know what they’re really dealing with. Absent honesty, democracy itself becomes impossible.

To the exact contrary of the aristocratically financed lie that the U.N. was founded with its main concern being to encourage democracy within nations, it was actually founded primarily to establish a workable basis for democracy to exist between and among nations: the international federation, not any sort of international dictatorship enforcing democracy within nations. The neoconservatives’ ‘nation-building’ is just a big lie. For the U.N. to participate in it, at all, is for the U.N. to need to be replaced. All sorts of economic sanctions that are imposed for ‘spreading human rights and democracy’ are fraudulent, and merely excuses for imperialism, and thus are contrary to the spirit (and to the very Charter) of the U.N.’s creators. If the U.N. accepts such, the U.N. is in need of replacement — and the sooner the better.

No country has the right to dictate to any other country. Any attempt to do so is dictatorial, the exact opposite of democratic. Internationally, a rogue nation is a violator of the international democracy — is an aggressor by means of invasion, or coup, or sanctions that have not been authorized by the General Assembly — but it is not (for example) a tyrannical regime (such as the Sauds, or North Korea’s dynasty). Internal affairs — of any sort — are instead strictly the responsibility of each sovereign government. This isn’t just progressive. It is what FDR set the U.N. up to do. But the aristocracy now has taken control not only over the U.S., but over (to a large extent) the U.N. And that’s now a huge problem.

SOURCES: click onto the links here. The most comprehensive source regarding Cecil Rhodes is the brilliantly written and superbly documented blog-post by Mike McCloughry, “The Round Table”, which is undated there but which was first posted on “January 23, 2015”, and which lists a few of its sources but fails to link to what seems to be the main one, which was the 370-page masterpiece completed in 1949 by Dr. Carroll Quigley, and issued only by a non-mainstream publisher in 1981, soon after Quigley’s death: The Anglo-American Establishment. On page 326 of the photographed book, and 311 of the searchable text, appears the list of the 31 known original members of the Rhodes group. (By “Rhodes group,” I refer to the group Rhodes founded, but he died in 1902.) That book is remarkably incomplete, because it includes almost no Americans. Quigley admitted that he was an outsider, who had found only very incomplete documentation regarding the organization, and received no cooperation from the group’s members. Fortunately, McCloughry double-checked Quigley’s book and even sometimes corrected minor errors in it, and he went back to and usually linked to the original sources. McClaughry’s 22,000-word blog-post (previously linked-to here) is by far the best and the most meticulously researched and double-checked, and the most comprehensive, single publicly available source on Rhodes and how he worked; but, even there, almost all of the members are English. The main aristocrat on the U.S. side, who is mentioned, was J.P. Morgan, who was an intense Anglophile and worked with the Rhodes group to get America into WW I. Almost all of the others mentioned were financially dependent upon Morgan. Inasmuch as Rhodes — who was financially dependent upon Nathaniel Rothschild, who publicly said nothing about the group and who seems not actually to have been at all active in it — had secretly made clear that Americans needed to be participants, and not only Brits, what’s publicly known is only the British side of a two-sided operation. America’s aristocracy weren’t supposed to be taking instruction from Britain’s; but even whether the group ever did become both countries (such as via the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations) isn’t known for certain. However, my own research has indicated that by around 1902, the Rockefeller and Morgan empires in the U.S. agreed to move forward jointly to control the U.S. Furthermore, Morgan did have extensive contacts among all of the British aristocracy. No one can honestly claim to understand the inner workings of the Rhodes group. Neither Quigley nor McCloughry claimed to. However, after World War II (when Quigley’s researches on the Rhodes group ended) it seems reasonable to assume that the Rhodes group became, essentially, “the special relationship” that emerged between the U.S. CIA and Britain’s MI6 and that worked together against the USSR post-WWII — and secretly continues to do so after Russia, on its side, ended the Cold War in 1991.

Oxford and other Rhodes-group agents have tried to debunk the allegations that Rhodes had an intention for the UK and U.S. aristocracies to join together to take over the world, and those debunking-efforts are, themselves, well debunked by John Klyczek’s 10 February 2015 “CFR Rhodes Scholar says Rhodes Secret Society does not exist”, at Intrepid Report. However, the fact remains, that solid documentation on the group’s American side is virtually non-existent, publicly, as of yet. Furthermore, the group’s relationship to the Balfour Declaration, which set into motion the creation of Israel, hasn’t yet been made clear. However, the Balfour Declaration was a collaboration between Sir Arthur Balfour, Walter Rothschild, Lord Alfred Milner, and Leo Amery — all four of whom were listed as members of the initial 31-member group, except for Walter Rothschild, who was a son of Nathaniel Rothschild. That’s a bit too much ‘coincidence’ in order for any intelligent person to think it likely to be a mere coincidence. After all: even the CIA-edited and written Wikipedia says that “Financed by N M Rothschild & Sons, Rhodes succeeded over the next 17 years in buying up all the smaller diamond mining operations in the Kimberley area.” The Balfour Declaration was among the historically most consequential events of the past century, and it came entirely from the Rhodes group. However, yet again, all of these people were Brits, none were Americans. Was the Balfour Declaration part of a ‘Jewish conspiracy’ as some have charged? Only one of these four persons was a Jew: the son of Rhodes’s chief financial backer. It certainly could have been part of a conspiracy, but this would then have been a very elite British conspiracy. Furthermore, Rhodes himself was clearly the principal, and he was nationalistically and racistly a Brit, never a Jew, of any sort. In fact, he was a son of Reverend Francis William Rhodes and Louisa Rhodes (formerly Peacock). Moreover, Quigley wrote that “Within The Society of the Elect, the real power was to be exercised by the leader, and a ‘Junta of Three.’ The leader was to be Rhodes, and the Junta was to be Stead, Brett, and Alfred Milner. In accordance with this decision, Milner was added to the society by Stead.” Stead likewise was a clergyman’s son; and it was he who had worked together with Rhodes in drawing up the plan for the group; Stead was the #2 person in it, and both were clergymen’s sons. So: if anything, Israel resulted not only from thuggish Jews, such as the anti-Muslim nazis (or racist fascists) Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, and David Ben-Gurion, but from an authentic conspiracy by Britain’s elite Rhodes group. And that conspiracy was the most basic part of this entire operation, and led to the creation of the Jewish-supremacist state. The Jewish thugs who carried out the ethnic cleansing there weren’t. Nor (of course) were the millions of Jews worldwide (many of whom opposed the formation of Israel), who, in any case, constituted far too large a group to be even able to conspire together — the small number of members that are a pre-requisite to any real conspiracy.

So: although the roots of neoconservatism can authentically be found in the Rhodes group, and maybe that group was even its very seed, only the British roots of it are, as of yet, visible within that group; the American roots of it are not.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.