The Venezuelan Question is a black-and-white issue: one either supports Lula and Biden’s regime change efforts in Venezuela, with each advancing this in their own but still coordinated way, or they support Maduro and Putin’s defense of Venezuela’s independence and sovereignty.
"...virtue signal support for the US’ ruling Democrats’ shared policy..."
I don't really understand what it's got to do with the Democrats. Where's the evidence to demonstrate anything would have been any different had Lulu been virtue signalling to the Republicans, headed by e.g. Reagan/Bush/McCain/Trump or the Clinton/Obama/Biden/Harris/etc. mob. They're all the same, aren't they; it's all the fabled 'Deep State', as far as I can see? Which US political party since 1959 has really made any significant long-term change to life in Cuba? Why would Venezuela be any different? I don't believe the insult to the Monroe Doctrine suffered by ANY part of the US government at the temerity of ANY government opposing it in America's own backyard, is acceptable to ANY part of the US Deep State. What's it got to do with the Democrats or Lulu or the Venezuelans?
Concerning BRICS, I was very surprised to read in Gilbert Doctorow's Armageddon Substack today that the BRICS countries do NOT intend (any more?) to create alternatives to the Dollar and Swift. But weren't these the main projects of that organization? Or have we been gaslighting all the time by what you would call the "mainstream altmedia"?
Venezuela is not a black-and-white issue. Thats because conditions on the ground in Venezuela are not black and white. Any discussion about Venezuela will quickly descend into an unresolvable argument about what conditions are like in Venezuela. The great elephant in the room that nobody will ever acknowledge is that ELECTIONS CAN BE AND ARE FIXED IN INNUMERABLE WAYS. Unless there is a heroic and transparent effort on the part of the State to ensure and prove to the world that elections are honest, then we come to the point were we are in much of the world, including the US that elections are mostly illegitimate.
I know very little about Venezuela except from media and the few people I know who left Venezuela - who tend to call themselves refugees. I'm pretty sure I would not want to live there or live under a regime similar to Venezuelas.
All these arguments about legitimacy are misdirection. It's just another euphemism for who controls the guns and organs of violence in the state. In that sense ALL governments are "legitimate". Which means the word has no real meaning.
I, too, wouldn’t want to live in a country where the sovereign will of the people to nationalize its oil industry is confronted with decades-long economic warfare by the regional/global hegemon. The US has no right to impose such consequences on the Venezuelan people - all to incentivize them towards regime-change and US-backed opposition candidates whose treason is confronted as such and propagandistically portrayed as evidence of Chavez/Maduro “authoritarianism” to gullible Western audiences.
As I said, the argument immediately descends into unresolvable he-said-she-said views of what conditions are like on the street in Venezuela.
If people are living better there since they destroyed their oil industry, thats great. If the stores are full of products and people have jobs and can buy stuff without standing in long lines, great. I've never been there. I read conflicting stories. I've talked to a grand total of 2 Venezuelens who lost everything and fled the country. If it's a garden paradise, move there.
Hegemon this and that, but I notice that the Socialist Elites are pretty much like the Capitalist Elites, they just have different skill sets and seem a bit more jumpy.
Is it unreasonable for a founder member of the club to have a veto? If not, is it unreasonable to wield it against a country ratcheting up military pressure against a mutual neighbour?
Have the "naive conscience" individuals or the morons of the financed alternative media finally been exposed? Let's see what "narratives" will follow after the mask that the Workers' Party is a left-wing party falls! Will the idiot masses eventually realize that the PT is a branch of the US Democratic Party and a Vatican affiliate that passes itself off as "left" when in fact it is the IDENTITARIAN RIGHT???
BRICS is going to have a hard time with the consensus model in general. For small groups that are broadly aligned it isn't an issue. But, for large groups that have significant differences it is almost totally unworkable.
I sincerely hope that they solve this problem, but it is almost baked into the organization. As a multipolar, collaborative, cooperative organization it can't just go with majority rules and it also cannot get anything specific done if just one member decides against it.
Realistically speaking aren't there a hist of arguments against admitting Venezuela into the the BRICS at this moment in time? Therefore, exclusion is reasonable. Yet at the same time, the BRICS can't be seen to rebuff cooperation with the Global South, so any delay in Venezuela's admittance would better come from Brazil than any other member.
All very well stated. It's hugely disappointing that Lula is being such a pawn. Therefore, it was all the more surprising that he spoke strongly in favor of alternatives to the dollar during his online address to BRICS. His statements were much more in line with the "old Lula" the one before his lawfare arrests. Until his speech, all statements from Brazil seemed focused on the "climate change" meme. Therefore many, including myself didn't expect much else. Accordingly, some have speculated about Brazil's chairmanship of the BRICS gathering in 2025. Where is Lula? Is his defining act the veto of Venezuela to BRICS Partnership? Or, does he actually know, as we do, that Venezuela will be able to get what it needs from BRICS anyhow. Thus, he has done his bidding for U$a & can move on? Really?
Lula, from what is my understanding from afar, is a master of the political balancing acts, a skill he has honed in the domestic arena. As for the dedollarisation issue, there is actually evidence that the global controllers of the financial capital themselves pursue it. See, for example, mBridge, which is promoted by BIS, the Bank of International Settlements based in Basel. By the way, a moderate move away from the dollar accidentally helps the USA economy, recently was noted by some economist of the Michael Hudson type.
Brazil is a strikingly non-sovereign for a country that lends its first letter to the name of the alternative to US hegemony. Many of my insights into Brazil are based on reading the substack gig. gigmmxxii.substack.com/
"...virtue signal support for the US’ ruling Democrats’ shared policy..."
I don't really understand what it's got to do with the Democrats. Where's the evidence to demonstrate anything would have been any different had Lulu been virtue signalling to the Republicans, headed by e.g. Reagan/Bush/McCain/Trump or the Clinton/Obama/Biden/Harris/etc. mob. They're all the same, aren't they; it's all the fabled 'Deep State', as far as I can see? Which US political party since 1959 has really made any significant long-term change to life in Cuba? Why would Venezuela be any different? I don't believe the insult to the Monroe Doctrine suffered by ANY part of the US government at the temerity of ANY government opposing it in America's own backyard, is acceptable to ANY part of the US Deep State. What's it got to do with the Democrats or Lulu or the Venezuelans?
Concerning BRICS, I was very surprised to read in Gilbert Doctorow's Armageddon Substack today that the BRICS countries do NOT intend (any more?) to create alternatives to the Dollar and Swift. But weren't these the main projects of that organization? Or have we been gaslighting all the time by what you would call the "mainstream altmedia"?
Venezuela is not a black-and-white issue. Thats because conditions on the ground in Venezuela are not black and white. Any discussion about Venezuela will quickly descend into an unresolvable argument about what conditions are like in Venezuela. The great elephant in the room that nobody will ever acknowledge is that ELECTIONS CAN BE AND ARE FIXED IN INNUMERABLE WAYS. Unless there is a heroic and transparent effort on the part of the State to ensure and prove to the world that elections are honest, then we come to the point were we are in much of the world, including the US that elections are mostly illegitimate.
I know very little about Venezuela except from media and the few people I know who left Venezuela - who tend to call themselves refugees. I'm pretty sure I would not want to live there or live under a regime similar to Venezuelas.
All these arguments about legitimacy are misdirection. It's just another euphemism for who controls the guns and organs of violence in the state. In that sense ALL governments are "legitimate". Which means the word has no real meaning.
I, too, wouldn’t want to live in a country where the sovereign will of the people to nationalize its oil industry is confronted with decades-long economic warfare by the regional/global hegemon. The US has no right to impose such consequences on the Venezuelan people - all to incentivize them towards regime-change and US-backed opposition candidates whose treason is confronted as such and propagandistically portrayed as evidence of Chavez/Maduro “authoritarianism” to gullible Western audiences.
As I said, the argument immediately descends into unresolvable he-said-she-said views of what conditions are like on the street in Venezuela.
If people are living better there since they destroyed their oil industry, thats great. If the stores are full of products and people have jobs and can buy stuff without standing in long lines, great. I've never been there. I read conflicting stories. I've talked to a grand total of 2 Venezuelens who lost everything and fled the country. If it's a garden paradise, move there.
Hegemon this and that, but I notice that the Socialist Elites are pretty much like the Capitalist Elites, they just have different skill sets and seem a bit more jumpy.
Is it unreasonable for a founder member of the club to have a veto? If not, is it unreasonable to wield it against a country ratcheting up military pressure against a mutual neighbour?
Have the "naive conscience" individuals or the morons of the financed alternative media finally been exposed? Let's see what "narratives" will follow after the mask that the Workers' Party is a left-wing party falls! Will the idiot masses eventually realize that the PT is a branch of the US Democratic Party and a Vatican affiliate that passes itself off as "left" when in fact it is the IDENTITARIAN RIGHT???
If further proof were needed that BRICS ain't all it's cracked up to be...
BRICS is going to have a hard time with the consensus model in general. For small groups that are broadly aligned it isn't an issue. But, for large groups that have significant differences it is almost totally unworkable.
I sincerely hope that they solve this problem, but it is almost baked into the organization. As a multipolar, collaborative, cooperative organization it can't just go with majority rules and it also cannot get anything specific done if just one member decides against it.
Here is a much more thorough and detailed treatment:
https://aurelien2022.substack.com/p/unlike-for-like?source=queue
Very much worth the reading time, and I'm pleased to say, concludes that BRICS has a viable future.
Realistically speaking aren't there a hist of arguments against admitting Venezuela into the the BRICS at this moment in time? Therefore, exclusion is reasonable. Yet at the same time, the BRICS can't be seen to rebuff cooperation with the Global South, so any delay in Venezuela's admittance would better come from Brazil than any other member.
Lula is a creature of the WEF. That's all you need to know.
All very well stated. It's hugely disappointing that Lula is being such a pawn. Therefore, it was all the more surprising that he spoke strongly in favor of alternatives to the dollar during his online address to BRICS. His statements were much more in line with the "old Lula" the one before his lawfare arrests. Until his speech, all statements from Brazil seemed focused on the "climate change" meme. Therefore many, including myself didn't expect much else. Accordingly, some have speculated about Brazil's chairmanship of the BRICS gathering in 2025. Where is Lula? Is his defining act the veto of Venezuela to BRICS Partnership? Or, does he actually know, as we do, that Venezuela will be able to get what it needs from BRICS anyhow. Thus, he has done his bidding for U$a & can move on? Really?
Lula, from what is my understanding from afar, is a master of the political balancing acts, a skill he has honed in the domestic arena. As for the dedollarisation issue, there is actually evidence that the global controllers of the financial capital themselves pursue it. See, for example, mBridge, which is promoted by BIS, the Bank of International Settlements based in Basel. By the way, a moderate move away from the dollar accidentally helps the USA economy, recently was noted by some economist of the Michael Hudson type.
Brazil is a strikingly non-sovereign for a country that lends its first letter to the name of the alternative to US hegemony. Many of my insights into Brazil are based on reading the substack gig. gigmmxxii.substack.com/