Today's wacky discussion with anarcho-capitalists and libertarians (http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_news&Number=292892085&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1&t=-1#Post292892085)

Pinochet was definitely not an "evil madman," but the question remains of just how much of a "saviour" he was.

While I am inclined to be sympathetic towards any traditionalist rightwinger who fights communism and keeps his nation from becoming the Cuba of South America, I find it difficult to unconditionally defend anybody who brings the disciples of Milton Friedman ("the Chicago Boys") into his country to run the economy.

Pinochet's first instincts were on the right track - a rightwing populist regime in the style of Peron or the Spanish Falange. However, his ties to the CIA probably forced the Friedmanite Chicago Boys down the Chilean gullet, and what followed was the sort of plutocratic regime every neocon and Wall Street speculator could be fond of - namely, one where most of the populace is disenfranchised, the economy has endless wild boom and bust cycles (beloved by speculators, hated by everyone who has to live through the consequences), and domestic production is strictly export-driven to the detriment of any self-sustaining industries.

As such I don't consider myself a Pinochet "supporter" by any means, though I did find his arrest disgusting given the fact that leaders left and rightwing with far worse human rights records are given carte blanche.

AY:

Chile is in better economic shape thanks to Pinochet's rule than Argentina, which saw public spending create deficits way too large to manage, resulting in the crash.

Pinochet was definitely not an "evil madman," but the question remains of just how much of a "saviour" he was.

I'll vote savior. Shouldn't there be a graph for our poll?

A news item from National Vangaurd (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3644):

88-year-old Augusto Pinochet unconstitutionally stripped of immunity for "crime" of defeating communists

A Chilean court has stripped former President Augusto Pinochet of constitutional immunity, meaning the 88-year-old may face "charges" related to his defeat of left-wing terrorism in the 1970s.

Pinochet seized power in a coup in 1973, overthrowing the leftist Allende regime which had eviscerated the economy. Adopting a fascist economic model Pinochet rebuilt his nation -- despite US-led worldwide blockades -- forging a First World economy largely immune to the hyper-inflation which rocked Ibero-America in the period. Pinochet also resisted domestic subversion from well-heeled communist terrorists and a "liberation theology" Catholic hierarchy.

While the CIA was aware of Pinochet's coup plans, and the US was in favor of an Allende overthrow due to Allende's leaning towards the USSR, America quickly abandoned Chile, especially when Pinochet made clear he would not throw Chile open to uncontrolled US "investment."

Chile is one of the Whitest nations in Ibero-America with, like Argentina, a higher per capita White population than the USA. The nation's Founder, Bernardo O'Higgins, was of Irish descent, and Pinochet himself is of French lineage.

As John D. Smith wrote here at NationalVanguard.org:

Hero Pinochet destroyed Communism in his nation. He has double merit: The Carter administration applied economic sanctions to Chile when Carter realized the success of Hero Pinochet, and started to get afraid that other countries might follow Chile's example. During Reagan's administration, the sanctions were not lifted. The only country Chile could trade with was its White brother in the South Hemisphere, South Africa. Many weapons in the Chilean army were South African-made. In spite of the economic embargo, Chile became a rich country. Just compare it to [largely non-White, especially after many Whites left in 1959] Cuba!

Chile demonstrated that against all odds, a majority-White country can struggle and fight, and at the end of the day it will be victorious. When the people have a common IDEA and the burning desire to survive and win, nothing can stop that people -- nothing, not even economic embargo.

I had no idea there were sanctions on Chile. It only raises my respect for Pinochet's achievement.

Another factor that nobody seems to care about: Pinochet killed 3,000. I don't mean to be overly facile, as even Communist life has some value (not that it shouldn't be destroyed, only that we should understand what we are doing when we do so), but 3,000 is nothing at all. Certainly, to create a stable government in South America, it seems nothing at all. Most South American governments have killed ten times this number or worse with nothing to show for it.

I mean, do the math - Mao killed 65,000,000, and Communist China has been given every trade advantage and manufacturing deal imaginable. The Soviet Union killed 60,000,000 and we went to war to give them Eastern Europe. I don't recall any sanctions on them until the Afghanistan invasion. Every Soviet Commisar and Mass Murderer died peacefully in their beds, a common enough event in the course of Communist life. During the worst years of Soviet Communism, the only thing we heard through our press was that they had 'no unemployment' and 'universal health care'.

Methinks a double standard is present in discussions of Pinochet's 'misdoings'. I mean he killed 3,000 people and ended up with the only stable government in South America. Then he stepped down. Meanwhile, Steven Spielberg and other replusive members of our elites go to Cuba to fete Castro, whose dungeons and mass murder have done nothing to bring prosperity and freedom to his miserable people. Rather, he and they get film festivals, and frequent cries from stateside sympathizers to 'lift the sactions'.

We live in a seriously mixed up world.

Wintermute

I agree that Pinochet was unfairly singled out for "human rights abuses," and that I don't think that Allende would have been a better alternative. That is where my defense of his rule in Chile ends.

I'm not sure that I'm so eager to laud any man who brought Friedmanite economic doctrines into his country. Friedmanism, imported into Eastern Europe by "advisors" like Jeffrey Sachs, has done nothing but created a mafia-run kleptocracy. I rather doubt that its implementation in South America was any better. For all the talk of "prosperity," Friedmanite Plutocracy managed to enrich a few dozen wealthy families while leading the rest of the Chilean population disenfranchised. Sure, they "prospered," meanwhile Chile had extreme cycles with well over 50% unemployment during the bust periods (which is to be expected under Friedmanite fantasies of "laissez-faire" and monetarism).

As for Castro, whatever misery he has caused could hardly be worse than the wretched poverty that existed there under the thug Battista. Need I remind anybody that Battista's Havana was essentially run by the Jewish thug Meyer Lansky, and that its main "industry" was gambling casinos and whorehouses? I shed no tears for the "old Havana," personally.

Given the choice between communism and corrupt plutocracy, I am proud to say that I happily chose neither.

For all the talk of "prosperity," Friedmanite Plutocracy managed to enrich a few dozen wealthy families while leading the rest of the Chilean population disenfranchised. Sure, they "prospered," meanwhile Chile had extreme cycles with well over 50% unemployment during the bust periods (which is to be expected under Friedmanite fantasies of "laissez-faire" and monetarism).

I agree with you about Friedmanite practices. Alarmingly, I believe that Friedman now agrees, also. Didn't I read a recent article about his abjuration of his life's work? Rather similar to Derrida's recent admission that certain concepts, namely 'justice', were undeconstructable. Funny stuff. I admire, to a degree, thinkers who come out at the end of their career and say, "I was wrong".

The Vanguard article indicates, though, that Pinochet refused the high levels of investment desired by the United States. I'd have to see more literature on this before venturing an opinon. I don't have the necessary information to make an opinon.

As for Castro, whatever misery he has caused could hardly be worse than the wretched poverty that existed there under the thug Battista. Need I remind anybody that Battista's Havana was essentially run by the Jewish thug Meyer Lansky, and that its main "industry" was gambling casinos and whorehouses? I shed no tears for the "old Havana," personally.

Please note: I am not defending Battista's Havana. I am making plain a certain difference between the way authoritarian thugs and Communist monsters are treated by the law, the world Press, and the world Government.

Surely you agree that there is a double standard in the relentless hunt for Pinochet combined with the hands off attitude displayed towards every other dictator in the world? Did the World Court spring into action when Imelda Marcos was spotted at certain New York night spots? It did not.

Or, more to the point: you say that Castro is hardly worse than Battista. Maybe (or maybe not), but where's the international summons for Castro to appear at the Hague?

It's a plain enough double standard.

In fact, I'll go one step further: Pinochet stepped down, and is now being stripped of certain constitutional protections.

Will you please name a Communist state where the head, say Castro, is in danger of being stripped of immunity to prosecution? Or has willingly stepped down?

Please take as long as you like.

Given the choice between communism and corrupt plutocracy, I am proud to say that I happily chose neither.

Well, I'll go ahead and say it: you're soft on Communism. Though I am a tempermentally libertarian and free market guy, I'd accept a variant of socialism or distributism to keep the more radical plutocracy in check. However, the plutocracy is not the threat to human souls, bodies, and pocketbooks that Communism is. Saying "I would choose neither" is like saying the common cold and Ebola are the same. They're both bad, but not at all comparable.

One exception: a Jewish plutocracy in a non-Jewish nation is obviously terrible. But mostly becuase it is a prelude to totalitarianism.

Do you have an example of a 'plutocracy' that one was forbidden to leave? That engaged in re-education? That killed ten million people or more?

I'd be happy to hear about it.

Wintermute

I agree that Pinochet was unfairly singled out for "human rights abuses," and that I don't think that Allende would have been a better alternative. That is where my defense of his rule in Chile ends.

I'm not sure that I'm so eager to laud any man who brought Friedmanite economic doctrines into his country. Friedmanism, imported into Eastern Europe by "advisors" like Jeffrey Sachs, has done nothing but created a mafia-run kleptocracy. I rather doubt that its implementation in South America was any better. For all the talk of "prosperity," Friedmanite Plutocracy managed to enrich a few dozen wealthy families while leading the rest of the Chilean population disenfranchised. Sure, they "prospered," meanwhile Chile had extreme cycles with well over 50% unemployment during the bust periods (which is to be expected under Friedmanite fantasies of "laissez-faire" and monetarism).

As for Castro, whatever misery he has caused could hardly be worse than the wretched poverty that existed there under the thug Battista. Need I remind anybody that Battista's Havana was essentially run by the Jewish thug Meyer Lansky, and that its main "industry" was gambling casinos and whorehouses? I shed no tears for the "old Havana," personally.

Given the choice between communism and corrupt plutocracy, I am proud to say that I happily chose neither.


And yet Chile has done much better than its socialist neighbours.

There is much to say for lean government and low government spending.

And WM is right.....Communism is much, much worse than a kleptocracy or plutocracy.

I agree with you about Friedmanite practices. Alarmingly, I believe that Friedman now agrees, also. Didn't I read a recent article about his abjuration of his life's work? Rather similar to Derrida's recent admission that certain concepts, namely 'justice', were undeconstructable. Funny stuff. I admire, to a degree, thinkers who come out at the end of their career and say, "I was wrong".

The Vanguard article indicates, though, that Pinochet refused the high levels of investment desired by the United States. I'd have to see more literature on this before venturing an opinon. I don't have the necessary information to make an opinon.



Please note: I am not defending Battista's Havana. I am making plain a certain difference between the way authoritarian thugs and Communist monsters are treated by the law, the world Press, and the world Government.

Surely you agree that there is a double standard in the relentless hunt for Pinochet combined with the hands off attitude displayed towards every other dictator in the world? Did the World Court spring into action when Imelda Marcos was spotted at certain New York night spots? It did not.

Or, more to the point: you say that Castro is hardly worse than Battista. Maybe (or maybe not), but where's the international summons for Castro to appear at the Hague?

It's a plain enough double standard.

In fact, I'll go one step further: Pinochet stepped down, and is now being stripped of certain constitutional protections.

Will you please name a Communist state where the head, say Castro, is in danger of being stripped of immunity to prosecution? Or has willingly stepped down?

Please take as long as you like.



Well, I'll go ahead and say it: you're soft on Communism. Though I am a tempermentally libertarian and free market guy, I'd accept a variant of socialism or distributism to keep the more radical plutocracy in check. However, the plutocracy is not the threat to human souls, bodies, and pocketbooks that Communism is. Saying "I would choose neither" is like saying the common cold and Ebola are the same. They're both bad, but not at all comparable.

One exception: a Jewish plutocracy in a non-Jewish nation is obviously terrible. But mostly becuase it is a prelude to totalitarianism.

Do you have an example of a 'plutocracy' that one was forbidden to leave? That engaged in re-education? That killed ten million people or more?

I'd be happy to hear about it.

Wintermute



I defend Batista. He may have not been to everyone's liking, but he did crack down on communism, as I recall. I read a book about the old Cuba some years ago. The U.S. government paved the way for Castro by telling Batista to step down, that they would not recognize his government as legit anymore.

I also defend Pinochet.

PS -- read about Argentina's "dirty war" in the 1970s. I once read a book about that, too. Amazing.


------------

Another factor that nobody seems to care about: Pinochet killed 3,000. I don't mean to be overly facile, as even Communist life has some value

Why? Maybe their organs do. I agree with the rest of your post Wintermute.

As for Castro, whatever misery he has caused could hardly be worse than the wretched poverty that existed there under the thug Battista. Need I remind anybody that Battista's Havana was essentially run by the Jewish thug Meyer Lansky, and that its main "industry" was gambling casinos and whorehouses? I shed no tears for the "old Havana," personally.

You gotta be kidding AY, very few of the white people were poor pre Castro./

Why? Maybe their organs do.

Yours is a beautiful soul, Otto, which is why I encourage you to find an avatar that will show it off to better advantage.

In addition, you are, of course, right.

Their organs do have value.


PS -- read about Argentina's "dirty war" in the 1970s. I once read a book about that, too. Amazing.

I have a friend who's very interested in the whole Pinochet period, Franco, and I would be very glad to have any book recommendations you would care to give.

Wintermute

Yours is a beautiful soul, Otto, which is why I encourage you to find an avatar that will show it off to better advantage.

ROTFLMAO... you have to watch the Deadwood (http://www.hbo.com/deadwood/) series... Mr Swearengen( well in episode II he was just really really evil) shows my beatiful soul perfectly :D .

I once did some research on this issue for my U.S.-Latin American Relations class last spring. We had a discussion about this on the old board. Weikel probably remembers it. I have rather mixed feelings about Pinochet. Its a good thing that he put down some of the leftist scum, but in the beginning he ended up making himself somewhat of a pawn to the USA. Later on he was thrown out to dry by the Yankees after his regime became to much of an embarrassment.

I agree with you about Friedmanite practices. Alarmingly, I believe that Friedman now agrees, also. Didn't I read a recent article about his abjuration of his life's work? Rather similar to Derrida's recent admission that certain concepts, namely 'justice', were undeconstructable. Funny stuff. I admire, to a degree, thinkers who come out at the end of their career and say, "I was wrong".

The Vanguard article indicates, though, that Pinochet refused the high levels of investment desired by the United States. I'd have to see more literature on this before venturing an opinon. I don't have the necessary information to make an opinon.



Please note: I am not defending Battista's Havana. I am making plain a certain difference between the way authoritarian thugs and Communist monsters are treated by the law, the world Press, and the world Government.

Surely you agree that there is a double standard in the relentless hunt for Pinochet combined with the hands off attitude displayed towards every other dictator in the world? Did the World Court spring into action when Imelda Marcos was spotted at certain New York night spots? It did not.

Or, more to the point: you say that Castro is hardly worse than Battista. Maybe (or maybe not), but where's the international summons for Castro to appear at the Hague?

It's a plain enough double standard.

In fact, I'll go one step further: Pinochet stepped down, and is now being stripped of certain constitutional protections.

Will you please name a Communist state where the head, say Castro, is in danger of being stripped of immunity to prosecution? Or has willingly stepped down?

Please take as long as you like.



Well, I'll go ahead and say it: you're soft on Communism. Though I am a tempermentally libertarian and free market guy, I'd accept a variant of socialism or distributism to keep the more radical plutocracy in check. However, the plutocracy is not the threat to human souls, bodies, and pocketbooks that Communism is. Saying "I would choose neither" is like saying the common cold and Ebola are the same. They're both bad, but not at all comparable.

One exception: a Jewish plutocracy in a non-Jewish nation is obviously terrible. But mostly becuase it is a prelude to totalitarianism.

Do you have an example of a 'plutocracy' that one was forbidden to leave? That engaged in re-education? That killed ten million people or more?

I'd be happy to hear about it.

Wintermute

wintermute -

Our disagreement is similar to the one between the Strasser and the Hitler wings of the NSDAP. Roehm and the Strassers believed that state socialism was tolerable and in many ways benificent as long as it was nationalistic socialism rather than Judaeo-Bolshevism. Hitler and Rosenberg believed that plutocratic capitalism and private banks were tolerable as long as they were in German rather than Jewish hands. I will note here that neither state socialism nor laissez-faire are Jewish creations, both have gentile and Talmudic incarnations that can be debated on their own merits without reference to this issue.

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to ideologies that destroy the human soul and stifle culture, plutocracy is the far greater evil (relative to communism) because it is more subtle. Was it Werner Sombart who remarked "Soviet Communism robs us of our freedom, American capitalism robs us of our soul?" The primitive brutality of the communists, with their gulags and jack-booted thugs are no match to the subtle and insiduous propaganda machine of the plutocracy, one that bombards impressionable individuals with symbols and hidden messages from the time they are toddlers, instructing them fto worship Golden Calves with names like "McDonalds," "Nike," "GAP" etc.

Your thread "imagine a basketball shoe stomping on the human face forever" is half-true. In a plutocracy, there is no need for stomping. It is enough that the basketball shoe and the simian wearing it appear on the television screen 24x7. And while being Judenfrei would ease the problem somewhat, I am not of the naive opinion that in the absence of Jews McDonald's would serve gourmet meals and that a Music Television network would run Brahms instead of NSync or Snoop Dog.

The key difference between communist totalitarianism and plutocracy is that the former cares most about what you do, the latter cares more about what you think. If an individual revolts in a communist state, there is a gulag apparatus to deal with him. In America there are no gulags, not because our leaders are nicer, but because there is no need for gulags - as long as the masses get their bread and circus, plutocratic consumerism precludes the very possibility of revolt. You claim the Jewish plutocracy is a prelude to totalitarianism - I disagree - no totalitarianism is necessary when the masses love big business and big brother for bringing them Reality TV and Monday Night football. And this is in my opinion symptomatic of consumer culture, a systemic problem that Jews and others masterfully exploit but didn't create.

But to address the subject of this thread, I hope you didn't misunderstand my position on Pinochet. I agree with you that he was unfairly singled out, and that ideally both Castro and Marcos would be brought under arrest for the sake of consistency.

I am interested in the claim that Pinochet actually took measures to prevent his country from being run by US investors. If that is true my opinion of his regime will have gone up exponentially. Perhaps like the more savvy Eastern Europeans he eventually came to realize the Friedmanite Chicago Boys for the poison that they are.

Franco -

Concerning whether we should admire Battista for being "anti-Communist," in my opinion it is not enough to be against something. One must also be for the right things. Battista was against Communism because he prefered getting rich off Meyer Lansky's Havana casinos and brothels. In what way is communism worse than such a system?

As Henry Kissinger put it, National Security Advisor to President Richard Nixon, “I don’t see why we need to stand idly by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people.”5 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn1) Kissinger was speaking of the recent success of the Unidad Popular movement and the confirmation of its candidate, Salvador Allende, as President of Chile. Allende, a hard-line socialist, had been able to eek out a slim victory in the 1970 Chilean elections, garnering 36.6% of the vote in a three-way race in which the Chilean Center and Right were unable to create an effective political coalition. All candidates having failed to capture a plurality, the election was thrown into the Chilean Congress, in accordance with the Chilean constitution, in which Allende ultimately emerged the victor. The election of Allende inspired fear in powerful multinational corporations, closely associated with the Nixon administration, of expropriation of their holdings.

This symbiotic relationship between state and capital was clearly realized in the strategy applied towards Allende’s Chile. Thus, then Secretary of State, William Rodgers, in a meeting with executives of six firms worried about the fate of their investments in Chile (Anaconda, First National City Bank, Ford, Bank of America, Ralston Purina, and ITT), reassured them that “the Nixon administration . . . favoured business interests and (its) job was to protect these businesses.” The cooperation between ITT and the U.S. government in their efforts to block the confirmation of Allende as president is the best-known example of a relationship which takes place on various levels, such as the constant interchanging of functions between the highest corporate executives and the highest government bureaucrats. James McCone, once a high ranking CIA functionary and subsequently a senior executive in ITT, is a case in point.6 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn2)
Ricardo Israel Z. puts the value of U.S. assets nationalized by the Allende government at $400 million and notes that additional interests of $210 million were taken over through intervention or requisition. Despite the value of these investments, Ricardo Israel Z. concludes that the involvement of the United States in undermining the Allende regime were motivated primarily by a general ideological opposition to the expansion of Socialism in the Western hemisphere.7 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn3) This assessment is in line with the conclusions reached by the CIA, as revealed in a confidential memorandum, which concluded that the U.S. had no “vital interests in Chile” but an Allende victory would without a doubt pose “a definite psychological advance for the Marxist idea.”8 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn4) The desire of the Nixon administration to oust Allende, while to some degree arising from self-interested economic motives, was primarily due to strong support from within the American national security apparatus. Henry Kissinger once explained the political consequences an Allende regime would have for U.S. interests in South America

“In a major Latin American country you would have a Communist government, joining, for example, Argentina, which is already deeply divided, along a long frontier, joining Peru, which has already been heading in directions that have been difficult to deal with, and joining Bolivia, which has also gone in a more leftist, anti-U.S. direction. . . . So I do not think we should delude ourselves that an Allende takeover in Chile would not present massive problems for us, and for democratic forces in Latin America, and indeed the whole Western Hemisphere.”9 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn5)
Roger Morris, a political aide at the NSC, further substantiates the ideological thrust of Kissinger’s evaluation of the situation in Chile

"I don't think, anyone in the government understood how ideological Kissinger was about Chile. I don't think anybody ever fully grasped that Henry saw Allende as being far more serious a threat than Castro. If Latin America even became unraveled, it would never happen with Castro. Allende was a living example of democratic social reform in Latin America. All kinds of cataclysmic events rolled around, but Chile scared him. He talked about Eurocommunism the same way he talked about Chile early on. Chile scared him.”10 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn6)And it was precisely this fear, that of a successful Socialist revolution by democratic means, that struck the most fear into the United States government. Ricardo Israel Z. agrees

“Chile did not pose a threat to U.S. security, but the National Security Council was worried by the possibility of the [i]Chilean path being followed by other countries. It was the threat of this example, which caused the massive mobilization of resources by the greatest power on the globe. The fear was political.11 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn7)
The events of 1973 were a culmination of a decade long U.S. effort to undermine the political ambitions of Salvador Allende. As early as 1962, the U.S. government had given the Christian Democratic Party $180,000 dollars had the CIA had spent almost $4 million dollars by 1964 in efforts to undermine leftist organizations in Chile. Indeed, the CIA successfully stopped Allende from becoming President in 1964 by contributing three million dollars to the electoral campaigns of rival parties.12 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn8) The United States also spent 1.4 billion dollars in Chile throughout the 1960s through the Alliance for Progress program. From 1964 to 1970, Chile received more funds (in the form of loans) from the Alliance for Progress than any other South American nation, as leftist organizations and organized labour were especially strong there. The ultimate purpose of the Alliance for Progress was political, that being to bolster pro-U.S. forces in the region in the aftermath of the Cuban Revolution, in Chile, that meant primarily the Christian Democrats.13 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn9) In fact, during the campaign of Eduardo Frei in the 1964 Chilean elections, the CIA and U.S. multinational corporations spent double amount of money per voter than was spent in the Goldwater and Johnson campaigns going on in the United States combined.14 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn10) Furthermore, as was later disclosed by the Senate Select Committee which held hearings on the subject, during the period 1963-1974, there were thirty-three covert action projects undertaken in Chile, of which, twenty-five were taken without consultation with Congress.15 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn11)

American involvement in the 1970 Chilean elections was reserved compared to the extent of previous U.S. involvement in the internal affairs of Chile. Apparently, the United States was confident a center-right coalition would emerge at the last moment to defeat Allende’s candidacy. The Senate Select Committee revealed in 1974, that American multinational corporations had contributed $700,000 to the campaign of the National Party and the U.S. government itself had spent $400,000 on ‘spoiling activities’.16 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn12) Much of this money was spent in a massive propaganda effort against Allende’s candidacy. According to a report by the Select Committee, “726 articles, broadcasts, editorials and similar items” can be accounted for” . . .directly from Agency [CIA] activity” during the 1970 election. This included a substantial amount of articles printed in El Mercurio, Chile’s largest newspaper.17 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn13) The Right controlled over 80% of the Chilean media at this time.18 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn14) Despite such advantages, a center-right coalition was unable to coalesce in 1970 to defeat Allende’s candidacy. Right-wing Chileans were far to angry with President Eduardo Frei to support the centrist Christian Democrats on account of the fact Frei had expropriated large tracts of farmland from the wealthy in order to organize them into peasant cooperatives. The result was a victory for the left, which received a plurality of the vote in the 1970 election, throwing the election into the Chilean Congress.

At this point, alarm bells began ringing in Washington. The Nixon Administration was mortified at the prospect of an Allende victory, for the reasons outlined above, and set about developing and implementing a two track strategy to prevent Allende’s confirmation as President by the Chilean Congress. In the words of a Chilean diplomant

“This meant that this CIA undertaking, first known as Track I and Track II, included everything from cloak-and-dagger- operations, involving the murder of generals and civilians, to strangulation of the Chilean economy and subversion of its legally elected government.”19 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn15)
According to Track I, the United States would struggle to prevent the accession of Allende at first through constitutional chicanery, by encouraging current President Eduardo Frei to resign and be replaced by a temporary military government. At this point, the Chilean Congress would elect Jorge Alessandri President of Chile, who shortly thereafter would call for new elections in which Eduardo Frei could run as a candidate again under the Chilean Constitution.20 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn16) Funds were appropriated by the Committee of Forty to bribe Chilean Congressmen. Track I ultimately fell apart as Frei and Alessandri were unwilling to cooperate with the American scheme. At this point, the United States became desperate and turned to more drastic measures.

Track II was a plan to forestall Allende’s election by fomenting a coup by the Chilean military. It began on September 15, 1973, in a meeting between President Nixon, National Security Advisor Kissinger, CIA Director Richard Helms and Attorney General John Mitchell. The United States government, in alliance with major multinational corporations, would also use its enormous political clout within international monetary institutions and neighbouring Latin American nations to isolate and economically destabilize Chile. In fact, on September 28, 1971, ITT presented President Nixon with an 18 point plan to takedown Allende. In addition to cooperating with factions within the Chilean military, the CIA was given a go ahead to cooperate with factions and disgruntled social classes within Chile itself in order to subvert the incoming Chilean government.

"This sixty-day interval was seized upon by Washington for a final attempt to stop Allende at all costs, regardless of the consequences. There was still time to sway public opinion and have the Congress turn against Allende. Every effort was to be made to frustrate Allende's coming to power. This was a direct order from Richard Nixon, the President of the United States.

In testifying to the Senate Select Committee, Helms recalled his impression that the "President came down very hard, that he wanted something done, and he didn't care how and that he was prepared to make the money available. . . if there were one chance in ten of getting rid of Allende, we should try it;. . . and aid programs should be cut; [Chile's] economy should be squeezed until it 'screamed'. . . . This was a pretty all-inclusive order. . . ." Helms added that the President shouted and cursed and said that he would authorize ten million dollars to pay for whatever was needed to stop a Socialist government from coming to power.21 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn17)

With Track I having failed, on September 21 the CIA ordered its operatives in Chile their goal was to “prevent Allende from taking office. The idea of bribing Parliament has been discarded. A military solution is the objective now.”22 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn18) Standing in the way of this ‘military solution’ was the head of the Chilean army, General René Schneider, a patriotic soldier who believed in upholding Chile’s constitution and keeping the military out of civilian affairs. The CIA concluded that in order for a coup to succeed, Schneider would have to be removed and appropriated funds and a supply of submachine guns for this purpose. Although the CIA originally intended to have Schneider kidnapped and taken to Argentina, he died in a gunfight resisting. Schneider’s death came as a profound shock to most Chileans and in disgust the Chilean Congress rallied behind Allende’s party and confirmed him as President.

With Allende’s election secure, the United States continued to undermine his regime over the next three years. Severe economic pressure was put upon Chile in order to foment a coup within the military. On December 4, 1972, Allende described this effort in speech at the United Nations

“We find ourselves faced with forces which operate in the shadows, without a flag, with powerful weapons, posted in the various places of influence . . . From the very day of our electoral triumph on the fourth of September 1970, we have felt the effects of large-scale external pressure against us which tried to prevent the inauguration of a government freely elected by the people, and has attempted to bring down ever since, an action that has tried to cut us off from the world, to strangle our economy and paralyze trade in our principal export, copper, and to deprive us of access to sources of international financing.

“We are the victims of virtually imperceptible activities, usually disguised with words and statements that extol the sovereignty and dignity of my country. We know in our own hearts, however, the distance that separates these words from the specific activities that we face.”23 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn19)
Allende was quite correct in this estimate. The CIA continued to fund propaganda efforts designed to rally opposition forces against the new Chilean government and the popularity of the UP began to decline. Chilean transportation was paralyzed by a truckers’ strike financed by the CIA. Sources of credit in international institutions such as the IMF dried up as the United States applied political pressure to deny Chile loans.

“In October 1970, before Allende had even been confirmed as president, the Export-Import Bank immediately reclassified Chile’s credit-worthiness to the lowest category – D – without the Chilean government having taken any action to account for this change.”24 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn20)

Financial assistance to Chile through the Alliance for Progress was substantially cutback. Chilean industry ground to a halt as spare parts available only from American manufacturers became widely unavailable. An embargo was placed upon Chilean exports to the United States and European banks were pressured by the United States not to extend credit to Chile.

“This situation imposed severe limitations on Chile’s weak economy, which contributed to the radicalization and polarization of the political climate: shortages of essential goods affected the whole Chilean population. Chile underestimated U.S. determination to eliminate the socialist experiment; the Chilean position was always based on the assumption that it was possible to negotiate with the United States, and the revelations before the congressional committees showed that the United States was in no mood for negotiations.25 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftn21)
The economic sabotage brought about by the United States ultimately created the climate of discontent that made Pinochet’s military coup in 1973 possible. While the United States did not intervene with direct military force, it did play a substantial role in the ultimate downfall of Salvador Allende’s regime.

Works Cited

Chavkin, Samuel. The Murder of Chile: Eyewitness Accounts of the Coup, The Terror, and the Resistance Today. New York: Everest House Publishers, 1982

Clark, Sarah. ‘Young Americans Still In Dark On Geography, Survery Shows: Swedes, Germans and Italians Outperform Other Countries’. National Geographic.com URL:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/releases/pr021120.html

Constable, Panama and Valenzuela, Arturo. A Nation of Enemies: Chile under Pinochet. New York and London: W.W. Norton & Company, 1991

Hersh, Seymour. New York Times, September 11, 1974

Israel Z., Ricardo. Politics and Ideology in Allende’s Chile. Tempe: Center for Latin American Studies, 1989

Smith, Peter H. Talons of the Eage: Dynamics of U.S- Latin American Relations. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000

Sweeny M., Paul and Magdoff, Harry. Revolution and Counter Revolution in Chile. New York and London: Monthly Review Press, 1974

Trivedi, Bijal P. ‘Survey Reveals Geographic Illiteracy.’ National Geographic Today. URL=http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/11/1126_021120_TVGeoRoperSurvey.html ( 20 Nov. 2002)

Valenzuela, Arturo. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978


5 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref1) Quoted by Seymour Hersh, in New York Times, September 11, 1974, 14


6 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref2) Ricardo Israel Z, Politics and Ideology in Allende’s Chile, p.161


7 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref3) Ibid., p.158


8 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref4) Smith, p.174


9 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref5) Ibid., p.175


10 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref6) Ibid.


11 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref7) Richardo Israel Z, p.157


12 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref8) Chavkin, The Murder of Chile, p.40


13 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref9) Smith, p.151


14 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref10) Arturo Valenzuela, The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Chile (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1978), p.118


15 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref11) Chavkin, Murder of Chile, p.42


16 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref12) Ibid


17 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref13) Ibid., p.46


18 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref14) Ibid., p.62


19 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref15) Ibid., p.40


20 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref16) Smith, p.173


21 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref17) Chavkin, p.47


22 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref18) Ricardo Israel Z, p.172


23 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref19) Chavkin, pp.41-42


24 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref20) Ricardo Israel Z, p.165


25 (http://www.thephora.org/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=20864#_ftnref21) Ibid., p.166

wintermute -

Our disagreement is similar to the one between the Strasser and the Hitler wings of the NSDAP. Roehm and the Strassers believed that state socialism was tolerable and in many ways benificent as long as it was nationalistic socialism rather than Judaeo-Bolshevism. Hitler and Rosenberg believed that plutocratic capitalism and private banks were tolerable as long as they were in German rather than Jewish hands. I will note here that neither state socialism nor laissez-faire are Jewish creations, both have gentile and Talmudic incarnations that can be debated on their own merits without reference to this issue.

The fact of the matter is, when it comes to ideologies that destroy the human soul and stifle culture, plutocracy is the far greater evil (relative to communism) because it is more subtle. Was it Werner Sombart who remarked "Soviet Communism robs us of our freedom, American capitalism robs us of our soul?" The primitive brutality of the communists, with their gulags and jack-booted thugs are no match to the subtle and insiduous propaganda machine of the plutocracy, one that bombards impressionable individuals with symbols and hidden messages from the time they are toddlers, instructing them fto worship Golden Calves with names like "McDonalds," "Nike," "GAP" etc.

Your thread "imagine a basketball shoe stomping on the human face forever" is half-true. In a plutocracy, there is no need for stomping. It is enough that the basketball shoe and the simian wearing it appear on the television screen 24x7. And while being Judenfrei would ease the problem somewhat, I am not of the naive opinion that in the absence of Jews McDonald's would serve gourmet meals and that a Music Television network would run Brahms instead of NSync or Snoop Dog.

The key difference between communist totalitarianism and plutocracy is that the former cares most about what you do, the latter cares more about what you think. If an individual revolts in a communist state, there is a gulag apparatus to deal with him. In America there are no gulags, not because our leaders are nicer, but because there is no need for gulags - as long as the masses get their bread and circus, plutocratic consumerism precludes the very possibility of revolt. You claim the Jewish plutocracy is a prelude to totalitarianism - I disagree - no totalitarianism is necessary when the masses love big business and big brother for bringing them Reality TV and Monday Night football. And this is in my opinion symptomatic of consumer culture, a systemic problem that Jews and others masterfully exploit but didn't create.

But to address the subject of this thread, I hope you didn't misunderstand my position on Pinochet. I agree with you that he was unfairly singled out, and that ideally both Castro and Marcos would be brought under arrest for the sake of consistency.

I am interested in the claim that Pinochet actually took measures to prevent his country from being run by US investors. If that is true my opinion of his regime will have gone up exponentially. Perhaps like the more savvy Eastern Europeans he eventually came to realize the Friedmanite Chicago Boys for the poison that they are.

Franco -

Concerning whether we should admire Battista for being "anti-Communist," in my opinion it is not enough to be against something. One must also be for the right things. Battista was against Communism because he prefered getting rich off Meyer Lansky's Havana casinos and brothels. In what way is communism worse than such a system?



Well, I think that capitalism is always better than communism; I must still have some paleoconservatism left within me...




--------