Ten ways we are losing against Socialism
There are numerous trillion dollar bills right now before the Congress. Trillions of dollars per bill. The question is who gains from these bills ? Will these bills make our country a better place or will it help transform the country into an authoritative government , a Socialist Dictatorship ? Does the supporters of these bills ask , will these bills improve our country or do they ask , will these bills help the Socialist Revolution ?
Socialism has been gaining favor in this country. presently more Democrats prefer Socialism over Capitalism.
On March 12, 2121, Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued this statement on Democrats’ action on a transformative, jobs-creating infrastructure package:
“Congress must work swiftly to build on the historic Biden American Rescue Plan. Our recovery plan must Build Back Better For The People in every zip code by creating good-paying jobs for the future.
“To that end, I have called upon the Chairs of the Committees of Jurisdiction to work with their Republican counterparts to craft a big, bold and transformational infrastructure package."
Many have emphasized Speaker Pelosi's use of the term -transformative- bills that would transform and to bring us a step closer to Socialism. To many in the United States, the concept of Democratic Socialism is new and exciting. It sounds like a kinder Government , one that takes care of us all. Where we never have to have worries again.
Should the United States try Socialism ? We do not have the experience in this country with a system where the Government controls our lives. To get a perspective we would have to see how well it works in countries like, China, Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.
It is through an election in Venezuela where Freedom was voted out for more Government control for that sense of security. When the Venezuelan people realized that they now lived in a Socialist Dictaorship, they have been fighting for their Freedom for twenty years with no success. We bring n investigative report on this topic that aired on
Sin Filtros , a You Tube show with
host Maibort Petit
specialist in global security, Joseph Humire
and with the journalist, Celia Mendoza.
Presented a show that dealt with the
The 10 lessons left by the struggles against the Venezuelan dictatorship
The twenty years of struggles against the dictatorship that has ruled in Venezuela, first with Hugo Chávez, and now with his successor, Nicolás Maduro, have left a series of lessons learned from conversations with experts that we present below after analyzing them in conjunction with the specialist in global security, Joseph Humire and with the journalist, Celia Mendoza.
First lesson: Is there a Chavismo and a Madurismo or is it a single ideology?
The death of Hugo Chávez and the coming to power of Nicolás Maduro sowed in some the belief that these were two opposing ideologies. A thesis emerged with the attempt to excuse the late president from blame and attribute the responsibility for the disaster that is currently being experienced in Venezuela only to his successor.
Humire warns that the regime itself has promoted from counterintelligence a series of versions about alleged fractures and divisions within Chavismo. Distracting tactics to take the focus away from the heart of the Venezuelan crisis. Likewise, the argument has been used on the opposition side to accommodate dissident Chavismo and obtain more allies in the struggle for the usurpation of power by Nicolás Maduro.
Almost immediately after Chávez's death, conspiracy theories began aimed at pointing out Maduro as a traitor and pointing him out as an alleged conspirator with the Cubans to let the former president die. From these conspiracy theories began a narrative that there were people who believed in Hugo Chávez, in his leadership, but not in Maduro. These theories are driven, mainly, by the subversive Chavismo of February 4, 1992, who scattered around the world argued that Chavismo and Madurismo are two different things.
Humire warns that the opposition accepted these people with the argument that these dissidents would have privileged information that would help the overthrow of Maduro and stresses that "these ideas that are what led directly to April 30, to Operation Gideon, to several errors that have been committed by the Chavista origin of those beliefs."
In this sense, Humire states that "there was never this division of Chavismo", a discussion that has taken place, even in Washington. He emphasizes that it is difficult to believe this theory, because the very nature of Chavismo makes inconceivable the existence of a war in which there are no reprisals, revenge or murders, actions against them or their relatives or relatives.
More forcefully, Celia Mendoza believes that the thesis of division of Chavismo is only an excuse to be able to forgive dissidents. "That was the way to be able to get out of the shadow of Chavismo with Chavez dead and use it to go the other way. They are double agents, because they still have the principles of Chavismo, which is what propitiates the birth of madurismo, because without Chávez there is no Maduro (...) They are using ideology to save themselves."
The Justice Department warned when accusing Nicolás Maduro that it was a single narrative, a single regime. There is no chavismo and madurismo, they are one thing. The indictment raises all the elements that allow certifying that it is a process that has been maintained for 20 years, that it is an organization, a criminal regime, the same company, the same corporation.
The incorporation of dissidents of Chavismo in the opposition movement goes through the evaluation of their actions and not their words, since the reincorporation into Venezuelan democratic society must be on merit. Whoever committed crimes must face justice.
Second lesson: Are the Armed Forces a Critical Factor in Removing Maduro from Power?
There is a belief in many sectors and it is an issue that is still being discussed, that the Armed Forces are fundamental to get out of the Maduro regime. This is a thesis based on the fact that by maintaining the usurper government's control of arms, which is in the hands of the military, so it is thought that, just by adding them to the opposition movement, the problem would be fixed. Such thinking is wrong, since the strength of the regime is not in its institutional military equipment, since they have other armed groups, some of them involved in illicit activities.
Since the institutions do not work in Venezuela, the Armed Forces also act outside the duty of duty. The fact that some men handle weapons does not make them military, because it is a matter of training. If the democratic forces obtained the support of all the military, this would not be enough to remove Maduro from power, since the regime would still have the militias, collectives and paramilitary groups that, most likely, would face the FAN that rise up against Nicolás Maduro. It must be taken into account that these are irregular forces that even have better weapons, training and preparation for combat, in addition to having the obscene support of several countries. Such a situation would pose a scenario of brutal civil war.
The Armed Forces are not a critical factor and are part of the problem that Venezuela suffers. Many of its members are involved in drug trafficking, money laundering and other illicit activities. In addition, in the country there is a great historical separation between the political class and the military class.
Relying on the Armed Forces to resolve the conflict will distract from finding the center of gravity of this conflict. It should be remembered that Hugo Chávez changed the formal structure of the Armed Forces and it ceased to be at the service of the people and the interests of the nation. Meritocracy, education and training ceased to be the north of the institution that became at the service of the ruling party and the president.
It is essential to remember that within the Venezuelan Armed Forces the Cartel of the Suns was born, so it will be extremely difficult to convince those who are enriching themselves with drug trafficking and criminality and at the same time wear uniforms and are the leaders of the army of a country, to join the democratic movement.
The Armed Forces, as has already been demonstrated, are not fundamental to the return of democracy in Venezuela, since their disrupted nature borders on organized crime and international allies who have other interests.
In conclusion to Part One, we discussed a country where the Socialist Revolution it is paramount. The people and their needs are not as essential. A political system called Socialism created a revolution with the banner of power to common man. A system where the Government promises to give the people more security and in fact is one where the leaders and those in Power is all that matters. They will never reliquish power. Bills are passed to promote the Government and to build upon their control. Accordingly, the armed forces no longer is in existence to protect the citizens.