America, Venezuela, and the Will-to-Machine
Geopolitically—i.e., machinationally—it makes sense for the United States to war with Venezuela: it is resource rich, unsympathetic to the US, and a relatively easy target. Equally important is the military-industrial complex’s (MIC) need to flex its techno-bellum muscle—which means not only technological tests and assessments, but also refinement to tactical and operational levels of war. This will posture the US to better strategically compete with its peers, Russia and China.
Russia has been in hot war with Ukraine for nearly four years. And regardless of the geographical outcomes of the war, Russia is gaining invaluable modern-battlefield experience that any machinationally minded power would be remiss to dismiss or not pursue. Drones—and automation, generally—are revolutionizing warfare. Tacticians of World War I saw the value in nascent mechanized warfare (e.g., tanks) and air support to overcome attritive stagnation; both tactical experience and technological advancement led to Blitzkrieg; lessons from these and the many subsequent warfare revolutions during the domination of liberal-Marxist states brought us joint warfare and, now, mass automation.
We are only in the incipient stages of automated warfare, and it would be foolish for any world power to stay sidelined while competitors reap the rewards. Materiel support to proxy wars is never a long-term surrogate for the hard-won lessons of direct combat. And while nothing is more precious to a corporate state than its blood—for beating pulses are still necessary to hold the ground cleared for troops—we are learning just how much fodder is needed for this metamorphosis of war. The US cannot afford to be a distant learner amidst such rapid revolution, so it searches for a viable target.
Entering the Russia-Ukraine conflict couldn’t possibly be seriously considered; and even bastions of the MIC aren’t eager for such an ill-fated outing: aside from being a logistical nightmare and economic burden, what could one hope to gain by engaging a near-peer on the opposite side of the globe? Both Russia and the US have enough weapons of mass destruction to annihilate the other. What does it take to end a country—crippling its cyber infrastructure, neutralizing its satellites, or the physical destruction of maybe ten major cities? What political power wants to risk its power—i.e., its whole reason for existing? Those lusting for power are many things, but they are not ignorant of how to hold and gain what they love most. Moreover, with China’s “impending invasion of Taiwan” (mark your calendars for 2027!) the US can’t risk remaining idle for a war (i.e., defense of Taiwan) that would inevitably require mass automation. Thus, invariably, liberal-Marxist corporate states must make war to prevent it.
To prepare for the certainly-not-propagandistic eventuality of China’s Taiwan invasion, the US must exercise its tactics, techniques, and procedures—not to mention its technology—in a nearer and easier theater. Are there far weaker corporate states in the American neighborhood? Sensational claims toward Greenland and Canada were never more than geopolitical and media agitation. Mexico would be a better target, but it is America’s biggest trading partner, so there is too much to lose economically (always of interest to the power-hungry); not only this, but a significant and growing segment of the American population has Mexican roots, which would likely be an insurmountable propaganda barrier. However, this does not mean Mexico is a friend; and where friendship lacks, geopolitical pressure appears. Enter Venezuela.
Venezuela is weak—militarily, economically, and diplomatically. No war—especially a modern one—is easy, but a fight against Venezuela would be about as easy a war as the US could hope to have in the present environment. For years, the US has been laying the groundwork for the propaganda victory that serves as the necessary prelude to war. It began with the rise of Hugo Chávez, the popularly elected Bolivarian leader who eliminated Venezuela’s corrupt two-party system—a system that, unsurprisingly, gave the illusion of popular choice, but really only served the interests of powerbrokers who pretended to stand for something other than their own personal gain. Before Chávez, US-Venezuela trade was strong, with oil exports dominating the field and US business interests officiating play.
Chávez’s Bolivarianism promised to nationalize its valuable resources, however, and redirect trade wealth back to Venezuelans; it delivered on its promise to nationalize resources, but the Chávez government’s own dysfunction was problematic for any universal success. Exacerbating the dysfunction inherent to any new government was immediate American reprisal: the nationalization of Venezuelan assets meant limiting American officiating, which adversely affected the profits of companies like ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips; with tremendous governmental lobbying power, such companies pressed for severe sanctions, which only devastated an already fledging Bolivarian system. American reprisal was turned into Chávezian ineptitude and tyranny: now the “man of the people” was a dictatorial wolf in sheep’s clothing, vying all along for self-serving power. And perhaps he was and his successor, Nicolás Maduro, is; but this does not excuse the machinational thrust of American power.
Now we are met with two liberal-Marxist powers—Venezuela and the US—facing off to defend their purportedly “national” interests. We, the masses, are meant to believe that the “left-wing” populism of Venezuela is somehow ideologically at odds with the “right-wing” republicanism of America. The United Socialist Party of Venezuela—formed by Chávez and headed by Maduro—explicitly states its intent to uphold “the principles of scientific socialism, Christianity, liberation theology, all critical and humanist universal thought, gender equity and equality” and prides itself on being a “multiethnic and diverse party.” Although they might reword some of these values, what empowered American party or organization would reject them? Each of these dogmas thrives in the American system—the most multiethnic and diverse corporate state on the planet. But we, the masses, are meant to believe there is a great ideological divide between the US and Venezuelan states. We are meant to believe that one side is a tyranny and the other is not, and that the crux of the issue isn’t, as always, money in liberal-Marxist coffers.
But this only sets the stage for where we are today. The new American administration has ramped up the rhetoric against floundering Venezuela. American audiences (which means audiences across the West) have heard for years that Maduro was a bumbling tyrant, an evil overlord who incessantly abuses his people. Not only this, but he exports his abuse to America: in place of oil, poor Americans receive loosed criminals, mental-asylum patients, and narcoterrorism. Real ineptitude and corruption almost certainly enable narcotrafficking through Venezuela; but it is neighboring Colombia that produces far more narco-material. But perhaps—just perhaps—the focus is on beleaguered Venezuela for other reasons.
Nevertheless, drug cartels were designated as terrorists as soon as the Trump Administration took office—be they Mexican, Venezuelan, or presumably of any other origin. Cartels are indeed a cancer, and decent people everywhere should celebrate their dismantling. But one has to wonder: (1) who decides what a “terrorist” is, and (2) what exactly is the drug terror? To the first question, it is of course the powerful who decide what is or is not a “terrorist”—this is not a concern of the present essay. More significant is the second question: Where is the terror? Yes, cartels are predicated on violence; but cartels need a customer. Who might this be? No cartel forces people to use and abuse drugs. Any decent person could surround his residence with mountains of drugs and—apparently miraculously—he won’t become an addict. The problem, it seems, is not with the cartels (though they are a symptom of the problem1), but with society itself. Liberal-Marxism fosters societies that are alienated, abandoned, abused, distracted, and exploited at every turn. Every facet of such societies presumes the continuation of these afflictions in perpetuity to prop up the Ponzi schemata, and liberal-Marxist physical diversity is designed to inflict ideological homogeneity, the necessary preamble to any real tyranny.2
Such tyranny is fostered by the “free” press’s incessant manipulations. For all its overt resistance to seemingly dichotomous measures imposed by whatever party is in power, the media always seems to focus on ubiquitous res supervacuae while completely ignoring the criminality of its patron(s). We leave such criminality aside. Instead, we reflect on the images of monster-faced Germans bayoneting babies that saturated American press before and during America’s involvement in World War I; we recall tales of barbaric Germans harassing “noncombatant” shipping lanes and “millions” of unfortunates as prelude to World War II; we are instructed on Saddam Hussein’s stockpile of weapons of mass destruction; we are told, for decades, of Iran’s “imminent” possession of the nuclear weapons its enemies are allowed to have; we learn of Hamas’s primordial evil in its beheading of babies; and on it goes… On it goes to the present, when any number of outlets (federal or otherwise) bemoans the “poisoning” of American communities (with drugs). With now six strikes on trafficking boats originating from Venezuela, we see the foundation being laid for public tolerance, if not support, for the “existential” threat that is big, bad Venezuela.
And, if you were the United States, why wouldn’t you attack them? You would be crazy not to. Neither Russia nor China are so invested in Venezuela that they would risk their own logistically and economically demanding war; and you could lessen Russian and Chinese influence in your hemisphere, at least in the short term. You could reinvigorate (via exercise and modernization) your military-industrial complex, gain an even stronger foothold in resource-rich South America, and pressure your biggest trading partner (Mexico) through the inevitable refugee flows and economic/geopolitical strain. And, perhaps most importantly, you could posture yourself for greater conflicts with apparent adversaries—namely, China and Russia (even if this only ever amounts to posturing). Who knows—maybe the conflict would lead to a permanent military base in South America—to match American bases or hubs in Europe, Asia, North America, Australia, and Africa—and an expansion of the MIC.
What does all this war get us? Aside from the manufactured glory and bloodshed, it is certainly enriching—for some people, somewhere. The rest of us can be thankful for our mass distractions. These are the individual stakes. Collectively, we march closer to our inescapable end. Personal, geopolitical, or even cultural windfalls do not drive our behavior; something that only appears as internal and possessed does: It is not a will-to-live or will-to-power, but a deeper metaphysical urge prodding us ever forward, toward mass technicization, toward omnipresent automation: It is the will-to-machine.
What difference does it make when one party or the next is in machinational power when the focus is only outward? Absent the inward turn, man is never more than a tool in a long existence of perpetual technologizing. His every act and innovation only serves the alien will he mistakes as his own. Liberal-Marxist power, which pervades all geopolitics, sets conditions for the mass overwriting of spiritual man: in his place arise modular biological units, expendable and interchangeable. When, from the masses, a negligible few awaken to their plight, they imagine a practical and novel—or perhaps traditionalist—approach to scaling the metaphysical mountain before them. Ah, but this time it’ll be different—the last words of the last man.
https://www.arktosjournal.com/p/america-venezuela-and-the-will-to