🇺🇸⚖️🇻🇪 TOP 10 BS DEFENSES OF THE U.S. COUP AGAINST VENEZUELA

Peter Joseph – author of Zeitgeist series

➡️#1 “Illegitimacy” of Nicolás Maduro’s Election

Debunked:

(a) Irrelevance under international law

Whether Maduro’s election meets U.S. approval standards is entirely irrelevant. The internal electoral affairs of a sovereign nation are not the business of another sovereign nation. This principle is foundational to international law and the UN Charter. There is no legal mechanism that allows one state to overthrow another based on disputed elections.

(b) Blatant historical hypocrisy

The idea that the United States has moral standing to object to electoral legitimacy is laughable when viewed historically. The U.S. has ignored, enabled, or directly supported election fraud, coups, and outright dictatorships across the globe—unless it suddenly became geopolitically useful to object. “Democracy” is invoked selectively, never consistently.

⸻

➡️#2 “Humanitarian Intervention”

Debunked:

(a) Sanctions as the primary driver of suffering

The humanitarian crisis cited as justification was dramatically worsened—if not primarily caused—by U.S. sanctions, especially financial and oil sanctions imposed after 2017. You don’t strangle a country’s ability to import food, medicine, and industrial inputs and then blame the government for the resulting suffering.

(b) Weaponized compassion

Human rights language is being used instrumentally, not sincerely. If humanitarian concern were genuine, sanctions would be lifted first. Instead, suffering is used as leverage, not a problem to be solved.

⸻

➡️#3 “Authoritarianism / Dictatorship”

Debunked:

(a) Selective outrage

The U.S. actively supports and arms regimes that are far more authoritarian—some with no elections at all. Authoritarianism becomes a problem only when a government is economically or geopolitically noncompliant.

(b) Context deliberately erased

Emergency powers, arrests, and restrictions in Venezuela occurred in the context of open coup attempts, economic warfare, and foreign recognition of a parallel government. Remove that context and anything can be framed as tyranny.

⸻

➡️#4 “Corruption”

Debunked:

(a) Universality without consequence

Corruption exists in virtually every state, including the United States. It is never grounds for invasion, sanctions, or regime change—unless it serves as a convenient narrative weapon.

(b) No jurisdiction, no due process

U.S. indictments of Venezuelan officials have no legitimate jurisdiction and rely heavily on testimony from incentivized defectors. Accusation is treated as conviction.

⸻

➡️#5 “Economic Mismanagement / Socialism Failed”

Debunked:

(a) Causation is deliberately misrepresented

Economic decline is blamed on “socialism” while systematically excluding the impact of sanctions, capital flight, asset seizures, trade embargoes, and financial isolation.

(b) Policy disagreement isn’t regime change license

Even if Venezuela’s economic model were flawed, policy failure is not a justification for overthrow. If it were, half the world—including the U.S. itself—would qualify.

⸻

➡️#6 “Drug Trafficking / Narco-State”

Debunked:

(a) Pure assertion, zero adjudication

These claims originate almost entirely from U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies with a long track record of fabrication in regime-change contexts.

(b) Jurisdictional absurdity

The U.S. claims the right to prosecute foreign leaders for alleged crimes committed outside U.S. territory, while refusing international jurisdiction over its own leaders.

⸻

➡️#7 “Regional Stability”

Debunked:

(a) Destabilization is the policy, yes

Migration spikes and regional strain closely track sanctions escalation, not internal Venezuelan policy alone. The instability is then blamed on the target.

(b) Double standard applied

Far worse instability in U.S.-aligned states is framed as “complex challenges,” not justification for overthrow.

➡️#8 “International Consensus”

Debunked:

(a) Manufactured alignment

“Consensus” means U.S. allies and client states. Large portions of the Global South reject the coup narrative outright.

(b) No UN mandate

There is no UN Security Council authorization for intervention. That alone ends the legal argument.

⸻

➡️#9 “Rules-Based International Order”

Debunked:

(a) The rules are applied only downward

Sanctions without UN approval, asset seizures, recognition of parallel governments, and economic warfare all violate international law—yet are justified retroactively.

⸻

➡️#10 “Well… the Venezuelan Population Needed It Anyway”

Debunked:

(a) Colonial paternalism in modern form

This argument reduces an entire population to passive subjects incapable of determining their own political future. It resurrects the same logic used to justify colonial occupation, coups, and “civilizing missions” for centuries: they can’t govern themselves, so we must intervene.

(b) Collective punishment disguised as concern

If the goal were genuinely to help Venezuelans, the first action would be to remove sanctions, restore trade access, and stop economic strangulation. Instead, suffering is imposed and then cited as evidence that intervention was necessary.

(c) No consent, no mandate

There is no democratic, legal, or ethical mechanism by which one nation can decide that another population “needed” its government overthrown—especially without consent, referendum, or UN authorization.

(d) The final mask-off admission—
When all other justifications fail—election claims, human rights rhetoric, corruption narratives

This is what remains: force is acceptable because the target population is deemed inferior in judgment. It is not a defense. It is an admission.

——

⚖WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

The truth is the overthrow of Maduro has been an extension of the interest to overthrow Chavez spanning well over 20 years in an effort to gain hydrocarbon resources fundamentally while squashing any country that doesn’t completely abide by the selfish interests of the United States imperial order. It is also a Geo strategic move simultaneously against Russia & China for global hegemony.