Oligarchy: noun – A small group of people having control of a country or organisation.
Oilygarchy: noun – A small group of people determined to control the world, who use words like “democracy”, “human rights” and “freedom” to persuade gullible people to support their plans for toppling the governments of other countries, especially those with large oil reserves.
“Stop what you’re doing and care about Venezuela. Yes you! Although we’ve hardly ever mentioned the country before, and although you may not even be able to point to it on the map, you’ve just gotta care. You have to. It’d be heartless not to, wouldn’t it? The poor people in that country you’ve hardly heard of and know nothing about, are living under a dictator whose name you don’t know. And night after night after night we’re gonna keep talking about it until you say it in your sleep: Maduro Must Go! He must be replaced by another man whose name you’ve never heard of either, but we can assure you he’s a good guy. Yessir, he’s a good guy alright. Kind. Compassionate. A true democrat. A true lover of freedom. A man of the people. Oh and he’s friendly with our oil companies too.
So, c’mon what are you waiting for? Support our nightly campaign to unseat the man whose name you’ve never heard of, in the country you can’t place, with a man whose name you can hardly pronounce let alone remember. And together let’s bring about true freedom and liberty for the Venekrainian people, and maybe get ourselves some cheaper oil as well.”
Thus spake the Western media in their new campaign to get us to support yet another regime change, brought to you courtesy of Neocon Warmongers Inc., nicely wrapped up of course in the obligatory garb of squishy newspeaky buzzwords like “freedom’n’democracy’n’human rights”.
I actually had no idea until this past weekend that the Government of my country had any jurisdiction over who runs the country of Venezuela. But apparently they do. I’m not sure where this jurisdiction arose from, much less who gave it to them, but it seems they believe that they have the right to issue ultimatums to the leader of a sovereign country over the other side of the world.
Of course, it hopefully won’t have escaped your attention than many of the people doing this are the exact same people who’ve been blubbing and bawling incessantly for the last few years about the apparent meddling of one country in the affairs of others — even though they have failed to back up their allegations with anything like evidence. And yet here they are, not even trying to hide their blatant meddling in the affairs of another sovereign state that has nothing to do with them. But actually, this isn’t meddling; this is MEDDLING in 100ft high neon letters — a blatant, overt, in-your-face-and-see-how-you-like-it attempt to topple the leader of another country and replace him with their own man.
I have to hand it to them. Such levels of hypocrisy are so far above the common or garden variety hypocrisy we might encounter on a day-to-day basis, that one can only stand back and marvel that they don’t choke on their own tongues or at least burst out into a fit of maniacal giggling as they complain about unproven meddling on the one hand, whilst engaging in the most blatant interference they can muster on the other.
Ah, but of course it’s okay for Western democracies to do this sort of thing. It isn’t meddling, of course. No, it’s standing up for the rights of the people in that country to determine their own future. It’s all about freedom. It’s all about human rights and defending the people from the brutal dictator. Blah, blah, blah.
Is it really? Okay, so why aren’t we right now seeing attempts to topple the Saudi despotism in order to bring freedom’n’democracy to the poor people there? Why do we invite the unelected Chinese despot to London to be fawned over by the Queen and Government? Why aren’t we speaking up on behalf of Le Mouvement des gilets jaunes against the deeply unpopular and arrogant leader of that country? Could it just possibly be the case that the reasons given for why we must intervene in Venezuela are not in fact guided by the noble principles we hear in the media day after day, but rather more squalid ones? Yes, I think it might just possibly be.
I do marvel at the neocons. This small group of rebranded Trotskyists are many things, not the least of which is determined. Having seen their dreams of installing a NATO naval base in Sevastopol evaporate before their very warmongering eyes, and having then seen their dreams of deposing the Syrian President using Islamist fanatics to do the spadework go up in smoke, far from retiring to do something useful with their lives, such as repenting of their wickedness that has ruined the lives of countless people, here they go again.
And the playbook is always the same. “Something must be done.” “He’s a dictator.” “We must act to bring democracy to country ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ.” “The people deserve freedom.” I can scarcely believe that there are still people out there who are naïve enough to fall for this tripe. It doesn’t matter how many times it’s done, and how many times the toppling of some little despot like Maduro leads to even more misery and chaos than before, Western TV watchers are still suckers for it. Part of this is of course because the Western media only ever show the movie up to the bit where the coup is finished and the old anti-Western despot is toppled. And there they leave that country, safe in the hands of the new pro-Western despot, who we are assured is bound to lead his country to that magical sunlit place where democracy flourishes, the people’s rights are guaranteed, and ice cream is free. And whilst the peoples of the West go back to their lives and forget where that country is and who replaced who, safe in the knowledge that freedom has triumphed over tyranny, away from the glare of CNN, Fox and the BBC it descends into even more of a hell on earth than before.
In this case, however, they’ve even told us what it is really all about. Here’s what über-neocon, John Bolton said in this recent interview with Fox News (actually “interview” is probably the wrong word, since it is one of the scariest examples of corporate news propaganda that I have ever seen):
“It’ll make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”
Aha. Not just about freedom’n’democracy’n’human rights then, huh? Actually, not about those things at all. If it were, there are plenty of other countries around the world that the US would be looking to overthrow, including some of its closest allies. No, it is of course all about the US Government’s right to control Venezuelan oil fields — since that country has around 20% of the world’s proven oil reserves — , which would bring them tremendous leverage over the other oil producing countries.
The situation of many in Venezuela under the corrupt Maduro Government may well be dire — dire enough to cause vast numbers of people to leave to neighbouring countries. But if you think that the likes of Mike Pompeo, John Bolton and Elliot Abrams care two hoots about them, I have a bridge to sell you. And so as the supine vassals and lapdogs form a line behind the US as it prepares to dismember yet another country, remember when it descends into even more chaos, and quite possibly outright civil war, and the Western media forgets where it is, that it was all done under the banner of restoring freedom and human rights. Although the Oilygarchs may have had other motives.