The 2002 failed coup d’état in Venezuela spawned a 35-page Wikipedia entry, and Hugo Chavez another 52 pages. As I came to understand that Fidel Castro was an American Intelligence agent, I began to realize there is a pattern here. Hugo Chavez, like Castro, is/was an Intelligence agent.
Chavez led a plot against the government of President Carlos Andrés Perez in 1992. It was an illegal coup, and could have easily led to his permanent imprisonment, execution or banishment. Instead he went on to become the President of Venezuela by popular election. That tells us all we need to know.
The effect of these early life imprisonments and participation in coups is to establish credentials. Once it is seen by the population of Venezuela that Chavez is an enemy of the state, he earns their trust. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Chavez was elected in 1998, and in 1999 led the movement to enact a new constitution, which would later be used to justify his ouster. As his tenure went on, he did indeed become more dictatorial, but keep in mind that the oligarchs of Venezuela, just like our own in the United States, don’t care about democratic governance. They simply want to own the government against the mass of people who imagine they elect it, and for that purpose, used Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez.
The insurrection leading to the coup followed a standard pattern. Agents provocateur were engaged to bring people out of their homes and into the street. This included both pro and anti-Chavez partisans. That part did not matter, as the desired result was a confrontation. When the masses are engaged, when tensions are high, mercenaries are brought in to fire into the crowd, so that the government can be blamed for firing on its own people. This then leads to calls for the government to step down, and a new interim government composed of the usual suspects installed.
In fact, this very same model was used in Ukraine in 2014 to bring down the Yanukovych government. People do not naturally leave the comfort of homes and bars in the evening to protest, and so have to be organized to do so. So we will always find insurrection agents behind the public protests. It is one of the great myths of our times that people spontaneously protest or riot. It is always the result of agitation.
In Venezuela, strikes were organized to enhance the appearance of confrontation. Unions, usually led by controlled opposition, often participate in these events.
Finally, on April 11, the coup went into effect. (The Guardian reports that Chavez was aware of the plot as early as March 18.) On that day, “hundreds of thousands to millions” of Venezuelans marched … that’s Wikipedia slang for perhaps a hundred, perhaps a thousand organized protesters – we don’t really know. They were led to Minaflores Palace, the Seat of Government, where pro-Chavez agitators had already been assembled. Only one avenue was left unblocked, on which was an overpass – it is there that gunfire broke out at 3 PM. That is the model, that is how it works. To this day we don’t know who fired those shots. Wikipedia strongly implies that it was done on Chavez’s orders.
It is not clear how many people were injured during the confrontations. Wiki says that “between 17 and 19 died” (18?), and 60 were injured.
The stage had been expertly set, the protesters urged onto the streets by provocateurs, and then led to a violent confrontation that allowed for the introduction of gunfire, violence, and death.
Chavez was finally taken into custody the following day, April 12th, after the military pulled the plug on him. He was taken to a nearby Army base to await part two of this dramatic presentation.
The agents provocateur now called on pro-Chavez civilians to surround the Miraflores Palace. This would ordinarily have no effect, as the crowds were upset but not armed, and would eventually get hungry and tired and go home. So a special action was needed to give the appearance that their presence mattered – the palace guard pulled support on the new government, and demanded that Chavez be returned to power.
What new government is going to seize power, but not take control of the palace guard?
Again, “hundreds of thousands” of people were involved, and the normally pro-oligarch media turned on the new president, Pedro Carmona. Because the protesters around the palace were creating an “intimidating atmosphere,” Hugo Chavez was returned from La Orchila, an island off the coast where he had been “asked to resign.” He refused, and somehow, through his daughter, managed to get word out that he had not resigned.
So, at 8 PM on April 13, 47 hours after his arrest, Chavez was returned to power. The closing act complete, the curtain was drawn. All actors had performed magnificently.
There are several aspects of this psyop to consider beyond the Kabuki Dance done by the actors on stage:
Numerology: While it is never enough evidence to prove or disprove any theory, spook markers are important and need to be noted. The Wikipedia article on the failed coup is littered with them. As I read through it I circled them in orange, and later counted 46 numbers that coincidentally are derivations of or exactly 8, 11, 33, 47, and 555. This is a handy tool for anyone reading Wikipedia on any subject, as spooks are always signalling one another right under the surface of their writings. Here are a few examples:
- “The Venezuelan coup d’état attempt of 2002 was a failed coup d’état on 11 April 2002, that saw President Hugo Chávez, who had been elected in 2000, ousted from office for 47 hours, before being restored by a combination of military loyalists and support from the Venezuelan poor.” [Note here 4/11, 47 hours, and that the very first two footnotes are 8 and 9 (3*3). Is it not odd to start with footnote #8 in the first paragraph? (Footnote #1 finally appears on my printed page 13.)
- “Opposition to these programmes included an attempt by Democratic Action to have the Supreme Court assess Chávez for potential mental incapacity, which would permit his removal from office under Article 233 of the new constitution.” [There is indeed a section 233 in the 1999 constitution, but its appearance here among all the other spook markers is suspicious.]
- “The march on 11 April was to begin at 9:00 am …” Of course – what other time is there to begin a march than 9, or 3*3 …
- “…and pushed for a binding recall referendum under Article 72 of the Constitution of Venezuela, which was ultimately agreed on 23 May 2003.” [72 is the reverse of 27, or 3^3. Reversals are common in numerology. And note, 23-May-2003 is … 555.
Enough of that, you get the idea. This numerology business is all about us, and fun to spot once you know what to look for. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, a number is just a number, but anyone reading Spook literature knows to look for these markers. Wikipedia is a treasure trove of markers.
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a documentary that came out in 2003, within a year of the events. The filmmakers, Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó Briain, claimed to have coincidentally been on site filming a regular documentary about the Chavez government when these events broke out. I doubt it. I consider the documentary to be the companion guide to the psyop, made in step with the events to be able to show the world what horrible things were done by the Venezuelan oligarchy, and to further cement the Chavez regime in power.
I sat through this film again over the weekend, this time with a new set of eyes. I realized that the cameras were on top of every aspect of every event, on both sides of the palace walls, and right there to film a bleeding corpse (possibly real) or a grieving mother or spouse. Crowd scenes were filmed to enhance their appearance of massiveness. Street demonstrations said to have thousands showed perhaps twenty people at close range. Hugo Chavez walks down the steps after reinstatement, and the camera is right there filming the event as a coronation scene, angle low and looking up at him in procession. The film was merely part of the larger plan to place Venezuela permanently in the hands of controlled opposition.
Fidel Castro: Castro, like Chavez, is a sainted leader held in high regard by leftists all over the world. The event that sealed him in power was also staged, known as the 1961 Bay of Pigs Invasion. We are not supposed to know he was a planted Intelligence agent. Wikipedia throughout the article on the failed coup uses Castro as a foil, showing Chavez and Castro to be close friends, Castro as an advisor to the Chavez regime, Cuban doctors all about the country. Since Castro has effectively been given a bad name all over the Western world, he is useful in setting up Chavez as an ally of leftist causes, and a man of the people, the enemy of my enemy.
Know nothing, did nothing, saw nothing: Throughout the narrative on the coup, Wiki makes it clear that the event was spontaneous, that all public protests and gatherings were natural, and that the Venezuelan oligarchy, and especially the United States, knew nothing about it much less had any part in planning it. This is part of Wikipedia’s job – to act as an authoritative source while lying.
Death by cancer, another psyop: Hugo Chavez is said to have died on March 5, 2013 (note the spook marker) of colon cancer. His successor, Nicolas Maduro, is said to have suggested to advisers that Chavez had been injected with cancer. Notice how this insidious rumor is subtly planted and spread, never voiced publicly, and treated as a conspiracy theory.
I doubt that Chavez died, but his fake death cemented his regime and legacy in place, assuring that Venezuela will long be under the rule of controlled opposition forces masquerading as a leftist government.
Other instances in which weaponized cancer have been suggested to us as being very real include:
- Jack Ruby, who claimed that he was involuntarily injected with something in his jail cell, and who (most likely) faked his death on January 3, 1967.
- Dr. Mary’s Monkey, a book by Edward T. Haslam that claimed that Dr. Mary Sherman, who died (?) in 1964 in New Orleans under mysterious circumstances, was actually working on a weaponized cancer project.
- Bill Hicks, who faked his death in 1994 at age 32, succumbing to a very aggressive cancer. Couple this with his act in which he heavily criticized the Warren Commission and hinted at conspiracy in the death of JFK, and we are left to theorize that he too bought it by means of surreptitious injection.
- Me and Lee, in which Judyth Vary Baker, an obvious spook, suggests that she and Lee Harvey Oswald were involved in the cancer weaponization business, again in New Orleans.
Couple all of this with Hugo Chavez’s suspicious death at age 58, and I am left to suspect that there is no “weaponized” cancer, and further that Hugo Chavez lives on, perhaps on an island somewhere, maybe in Cuba, living the good life.
The model: We have seen the model, the installation of controlled opposition in power over countries with rebellious populations by means of fake events, used now in Cuba in 1961 (Bay of Pigs), and the failed 2002 Venezuelan coup d’état. How long has the model been around?
We can only speculate – 55 years after the Bay of Pigs (a brilliant maneuver) it is still shrouded in secrecy. No one can claim credit. But I am going to suggest a few places where it might have been used with some success:
Saddam Hussein: Took part in an insurrection, was jailed, magically escaped, went to London, rose to power in Iraq, and stayed there until his (probably faked) death in 2003.
Mohammad Mosaddegh, Iranian President, easily gave way to Mohammad Reza Shah, the notorious “Shah of Iran” overthrown in 1979 in yet another suspicious uprising wherein the country was taken under fundamentalist rule.
Muammar Gaddafi, again noted as an “opposition” leader to the Libyan monarchy, rose to power in 1969 in a coup d’état, and probably faked his death in 2011.
The list can potentially be long, as it appears that anyone who becomes notorious, leads rebellions in his youth and then rises to power is probably working for Intelligence. But I want to add one more, just food for thought and a future project, as the formula works in any country that has a rebellious population:
George Washington. We have learned now that every American president with the exception of Martin van Buren is descended from British royalty. Could it be that the Brits, seeing that the colonies were explosive and would eventually break free anyway, conducted their half-hearted war in order to install their own people in power under the guise of new leadership? Given the long succession of people connected to British blue blood, now including Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump, that is my bet. George Washington was descended from British royalty, just like his successors.