Pol Victoria was recently interviewed by Intereconomía about that not-so-well-known side of the history of Simón Bolívar.

[I submitted English subtitles to their YouTube channel. However, as their review will probably take a couple days before publishing them, I am leaving the caption file below.]

Caption file:

Drawing on the work of historian Pablo Victoria (no relation to Pol Victoria), Victoria walks viewers through a series of troubling facts that are utterly at odds with the perennial legend of Bolívar as El Libertador [The Liberator] of peoples oppressed by an evil Spanish empire.

Rather, Bolívar’s so-called “war of independence” could better be described as a civil war between two factions of Spanish creoles: those who favored Spanish rule (the Realists), and those who, under Bolívar’s leadership, opposed it.

Bolivar was, of course, inspired by the ideas of the Enlightenment as much as any member of the Jacobin Club during the French revolution. And the fanatic zeal with which he pursued those ideals was also on a par with those who implemented them in France:

  • In what today is Venezuela, Bolívar declared war to the death against the Realsits, and he carried it out with full force.
  • After the battle of El Tinaquillo, in August, 1813, he razed a series of towns, and kills all the “Europeans and Canarians,” as he called the Realists.
  • In September that same year he implemented forcible conscription, and shot those who refused to take arms.
  • Immediately after that, he shot 69 Spanyards without trial.
  • In December, 1813, he defeats the weakened Realist army at Acarigua, and orders the execution of 600 prisoners.
  • On February 8, 1814, he goes after Spanish prisoners held at Caracas, Valencia and La Guaira. They were approximately 1,200 civilians, most of them retail traders, and immediately orders the shooting of all Spanyards among the prisoners as well as those in the hospital, without exceptions. Because gunpowder was scarce, they were executed with swords and pikes, and to finish them off, they crushed their skulls using large rocks.
  • The elderly and disabled were taken to the gallows tied up to their chairs.
  • Despite the supplications of Caracas’ archbishop, Bolivar carried out the killings.
  • The last report of the butchering shows that the sick in the hospitals were also executed.
  • There was also the killing of the shipwrecks of a Spanish boat at Margarita island, the criminal looting of Santa Fe, and the killing of prisoners after the Boyacá battle.
  • When Bolivar comes back to Caracas after his victory, the first ones to rebel against him were the slaves in his own haciendas. They thought they were much better off living under Spanish rule than under cruel, blood-thirsty, fanatical zealot.

Understanding Bolívar’s true character and motivations is also crucial for understanding the utter failure of Latin America as the prototypical multicultural project. For only a Utopian fanatic like Bolívar would dare carrying it out.

As much as Bolívar was very much aware of the impossibility of unbridled democracy to function in the simmering cauldron of races that were the territories he liberated, he thought all he needed to do to make his revolutionary dream come true was a little institutional fine-tuning here and there.

But his attempt to implement liberal ideals in a top-down fashion through a centralist state, through what has been described as a model of “enlightened absolutism,” finally blew up in his face.

By 1830, reality finally dawned on him, and on his way to exile, he gravely declared:

‘I have ruled for 20 years and from these I have gained only a few certainties:
America is ungovernable, for us;
Those who serve a revolution plough the sea;
The only thing one can do in America is emigrate;
This country will fall inevitably into the hands of the unbridled masses and then pass almost imperceptibly into the hands of petty tyrants, of all colours and races;
Once we have been devoured by every crime and extinguished by utter ferocity, the Europeans will not even regard us as worth conquering;
If it were possible for any part of the world to revert to primitive chaos, it would be America in its final hour.’

Needless to say, Bolívar’s true legacy is, more than ever, of great interest for understanding today’s tumultuous political situation in the West.

The utter failure of Latin America as a multicultural project is the direct consequence of his political legacy, and is a dire warning to those still under the globalist spell who harbor any hope that diversity can, somehow, be a strength.