Intellectual rigor and consistency means applying our principles across the board.

Intellectual rigor and consistency means applying our principles across multiple situations, without exceptions that aren’t justified by the principles themselves. In the current situation, that means evaluating the reasons pressed for invading Venezuela and asking what other countries they imply we should be intervening in those countries- whether by kidnapping their leaders or by blockade or by other methods of war.

In other words, let’s see why the justifications for invading Venezuela imply we should invade Canada.

Monroe Doctrine

The Monroe Doctrine has been summarized as justifying Venezuelan regime change because we’re stopping China and Russia from getting a foothold. Setting aside the question of whether signalling to every South American and Mesoamerican nation that they should invest in security and military assets (which they can buy from China) is a good strategy to that end, let’s pursue the question a little farther.

Venezuela has been taking money from China and developing military connections. If we make that grounds to regime-change (an act of war, let’s be clear) in Venezuela, then we have grounds to at least eye Canada. Canada has a military relationship with China. Canada is also led by an ex-Governor of the Bank of England and an active member of the WEF. In other words, Canada is part of the European order of power which Monroe decries. If foreign entanglements are dangerous, moreover, more than 23% of their population being foreign born makes Canada an ongoing concern for demographic integration into a political order alien to America’s interests.

The actual Monroe doctrine, note, doesn’t really justify this intervention. Monroe explicitly does not consider an active attempt by a European power to conquer an American country to necessitate intervention, let alone full war, as he does not consider the attempt to be likely to succeed. If an ongoing but likely-ineffective conquest doesn’t justify action, it’s hard to see how Venezuela forming a relationship with China and other old-world nations necessitates regime change. Nor would Canada’s foolishness, though it would definitely justify stricter border controls and diplomatic efforts.

Also, if you want to sound credible on this, maybe don’t do it with a country whose land is being bought up by China (and Bill Gates).

Natural Resources (Oil)

Venezuela has oil, lots of it. Possibly not too easy to access, but that’s not my expertise.

Canada has oil, lots of it, as well as other ores, like uranium. In other words, Canada and Venezuela are both countries with a lot of resources available to a conqueror, resources current governmental incompetence or malice are barring from use. If the desire to use Venezuela’s resources justifies American regime change efforts, Canada presents a very tempting target.

If you are willing to pay blood for oil, consider doing it in Canada!

Narco-Terrorism

We intervened in Venezuela because of their participation in the drug trade (I mean, not that the cartel we alleged was actually a thing, but what are some lies between friends?). Maduro, you see, was working to flood the US with drugs, lots of them. Well, leaving aside the question of how much of the drug trade actually ran through Venezuela, Canada is a significant fentanyl supplier for the US, albeit nowhere near Mexico. The conclusion is clear: Mark Carney is a narco-terrorist!!!

Democracy

Venezuela is probably not a model of democracy. I’ve heard bad things, and I’ve no reason to doubt that the overall model is bad (albeit more in the old-world monarchical tyranny model rather than modern surveillance-nanny state pattern). But Canada has imported a third of its own population in new immigrants, a massive eventual reduction to its own people’s voting capacity, and roughly 4% of the deaths in 2024 were carried out by Canada’s MAIDS program, euthanasia, another massive demographic alteration in the long-term and one under government control. All this is aside from whatever dubious electoral policies they have up there- as a non-Canadian I haven’t followed closely.

TL;DR – Canada also has problems with democracy. Perhaps we should decide who their leader is going to be?

Theft

The only heading I can’t think of an immediate parallel for is the assertion that we’re attacking Venezuela to force it to pay up on the debt it owes other people in connection to its economic policies. So far as I am aware, Canada hasn’t particularly done that. So here’s your out, at least in this argument: if we were justified to attack Venezuela because they have a debt to pay to some Americans (a debt we’ve been making it harder for them to pay by sanctioning them), you’ve got your reason.

(And consider how that makes might into right, given as might would then be the only reason the US need not fear justified invasions from all the multitudes we owe debts to.)

Conclusion

I’m not asserting that advocacy for the Venezuela intervention necessitates advocacy for invading Canada. I’m simply noting that if the people advocating for the Venezuela intervention are consistent, they’ll at least give serious thought to advocating an intervention in Canada, given the parallels in the circumstances. Differences exist, and perhaps those differences would be material to most. I’d guess that prejudice and the human ability to find an excuse will be much more prevalent in the influencer population, though.

And my final question: why can we arrest Maduro (contra Constitution) before we arrest Democrat and Republican politicians who have individually done much more than Venezuela ever has, to the American people? You’ve got the entire bureaucracy and most of Congress and 50 state governments to overview, and you choose Maduro? Is it a coincidence that he’s not part of the administrative state, where those better targets are?

God bless.