In Latin Americans' collective consciousness, the figure of Simón Bolívar is seen as a symbol of resistance and the fight for peoples' liberation from the yoke of bloody and thieving monarchies. The very name by which he is known, The Liberator, reinforces the belief that Bolívar was simply responding heroically to a deep-seated need that consumed an entire continent.

Juan guaido venezuela bolivar
© Agence France-Presse
Juan Guaidó, the head of Venezuela's opposition, tried and failed to oust Nicolás Maduro in April, 2019.
Within this context, Hugo Chavez used Bolívar as an archetype for his revolution, called for this reason the Bolívarian revolution, which would bring to Venezuela (and the entire region, if Chavez had been successful) the "socialism of the 21st century." Sadly, the reason why Chavez Frias' effort was destined to fail is the same reason why choosing Bolívar as the exemplary figure was a terrible mistake.

Simón Bolívar was born in Caracas in 1783 to a prominent Creole family. His education took place in Venezuela and in Europe. He was openly a freemason and had contacts in France and England. His desire for power was influenced (and perhaps directed) by the agendas of western European empires competing with the Spanish crown for global control, and for whom dismembering the vast Spanish territory was a priority that would represent a gigantic geopolitical victory.

You can find much detailed information on the internet about the life of Bolívar and his military campaigns, but I would like on this occasion to invite the reader to question the narrative myth using a little basic logic.

Where did the troops loyal to the Crown come from?

In the history of the independence of Latin America, in general, two camps are established: the troops of Bolívar, also called patriots, independents or liberators, and the Spaniards who are called royalists, royal troops, and so on. The point of using these specific names seems to be to establish the notion that Bolívar was in his country fighting against foreign or invading troops.

This presents a problem when you look at it carefully.

The territory of what became Gran Colombia after the Bolívarian intervention had been Spanish territory for centuries, controlled by viceroys from Spain, with town councils and captaincies that included significant Creole participation. In many cases the viceroy did not have real power over the decisions taken by the Creole, and served more as a ceremonial figure than as a leader.

This meant that the inhabitants of the viceroyalties and captaincies of the Spanish empire, by royal mandate of the Crown, were Spanish citizens, and the soldiers who protected the territory came not only from the Iberian Peninsula but from the entire Spanish territory, including the viceroyalties on the high seas, i.e. America.

That is why Bolívar's military battles were not fought against Spanish soldiers from the Iberian Peninsula - foreigners to the region - but against Spanish soldiers born in America - whether Creole, mestizo, or even indigenous.

This point is important because the image that emerges is not that of a heroic Bolívar fighting against an invading country, but that of a Bolívar attacking soldiers who protected their country from a rebel aristocrat who threatened the order of their homeland. The image of a traitor.

Understanding this point is essential to studying what happened during their "liberation" campaign. For example, the fact that Bolívar declared "War to the Death" as his military strategy meant the extermination of any Spanish (American) soldier who did not surrender immediately and join his army. In effect, "surrender and join our effort to destroy your country, or we kill you" - doctrinaire absolutes we are familiar with today thanks to such 'liberators' as George W. Bush or Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.

From Wikipedia:
"Spaniards and Canarians, count on death, even if you are indifferent, if you do not actively act in gratitude for the freedom of America. Americans, count on life, even if you are guilty," and that would give name to said period. Bolívar, at the end of the campaign, wrote to the Congress of New Granada that he had passed through nine cities and towns "where all Europeans and Canarians were shot, almost without exception."
The question that comes to mind is, of course, how did he determine who was a Spaniard and who wasn't? Such cruelty can only be devised by an ideologically-possessed criminal mind. This is readily apparent in his famous "Letter from Jamaica", which revealed his narcissism and twisted reasoning. Tying this to other anecdotes from contemporaries of Bolívar, the image that appears is that of a man for whom the end justified the means. You can listen to this talk by Pablo Victoria, which contains many details not commonly known.

Even Karl Marx, in one of history's curious ironies, described Bolívar as follows in an unfriendly biography titled "Bolívar and Ponte, Simón", published in the New American Cyclopedia:
A "falsifier, deserter, conspirator, liar, coward and plunderer," and a "false liberator who simply sought to preserve the power of the old Creole nobility to which he belonged."
This is evidenced by what happened following declarations of independence from Spain by the five new nation-states through which he passed. There was little desire for change, and no one had any idea of what it was they were seeking to do. Immediately after independence, the region entered into a round of military conflicts over whether to organize their new countries along centralized or federal lines.

What had been the viceroyalty of Nueva Granada, the viceroyalty of Peru and the captaincy of Venezuela, under one prosperous empire, ended up becoming the divided Gran Colombia (the "Patria Boba" or 'foolish homeland'), and later Venezuela, Peru, Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia - all weak countries, heavily indebted, and, 200 years later, largely vassals of the 'American' empire.

Estatua de Simón Bolívar en Londres. Por lo visto, los ingleses quisieron agradecerle sus servicios con esta escultura.
© Wikipedia
Statue of Simón Bolívar in London. Apparently, the British government wanted to thank him for his services with this sculpture.
"Bolívar ended up dying in Colombia because, as the accounts go, he was unwelcomed in Peru, Ecuador, and even in his 'own' Venezuela. His legacy is a region with common ancestors, common religion, common language... and yet disconnected from its own history, its own cultural roots, confused about its identity, and apparently destined to suffer the same tragic fate over and over again.

The Bolívar of the 21st century

Juan Guaido calls himself the leader of the Venezuelan majority, who fights for freedom from an oppressive dictator who usurped power. His efforts to seize power are financed from abroad and supported by nations for whom destroying Venezuela's integrity would represent a great geopolitical victory. Does that sound familiar?

Imagine if last April's pathetic coup d'état attempt had been successful; what would the globalist media have written about it?
"Juan Guaido achieves the impossible, frees Venezuelan people from Maduro dictatorship"

"'Freedom!' shouts Venezuelan crowd after a welcome victory in Caracas"

"The blood spilled was not in vain: today Venezuela breathes freedom"

"Guaido's liberation campaign retakes Caracas with help from France and U.S. - Bolívarian forces defeated"
And so on. The point is that we have seen this before, not only in distant lands like Libya or Ukraine, but in Latin America itself.

The best example of this is Simón Bolívar and his betrayal of the homeland, which was later packaged in a revolutionary romanticism that ironically inspired Hugo Chavez, but which actually describes Juan Guaido.

Who else but a traitor, a useful idiot, a Washington puppet without conscience, would publicly call for military intervention to seize power, most likely killing Venezuelan soldiers, civilians and, of course, destroying the infrastructure of his own country? Today Juan Guaido, but 200 years ago, Simón Bolívar.