The Americas The - "Why Should I have to State Pinochet was terrible?" - Thread

[Comrade Clod]

Because goddamit, I really shouldn't.

Raping people with dogs is bad. Torturing and disappearing your opponents is bad. Being a fucking asswipe who overthrew a democratically elected government which might have been the start of a genuinely pro-democracy communist movement outside soviet influence is.... well I mean it depends on the person and it was the cold war but still shady as fuck.

FFS You don't see me going around proclaiming Enver Hoxha as someone to emulate why the fuck is pinnochet support even a thing?

I don't have that many hard lines, this is one of them.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

You shouldn't have the state it. Pinochet was a reprehensible tyrant who did a great many things that anyone who wants to call themselves a human being should condemn as utterly abhorrent, and if there is any justice in existence then he is roasting in Hell today for his (many) crimes.

But all of that doesn't mean that he didn't also do good things or things that were good for his country.

 

[Comrade Clod]

You shouldn't have the state it. Pinochet was a reprehensible tyrant who did a great many things that anyone who wants to call themselves a human being should condemn as utterly abhorrent, and if there is any justice in existence then he is roasting in Hell today for his (many) crimes.

But all of that doesn't mean that he didn't also do good things or things that were good for his country.

I'd argue given that people support and lionize him, yes I have to say it. As an addition to the fact that he did fuck all good for his country anyway.

 

[Deleted member 1]

Pinochet defended Chile from a systematic attempt to destroy its constitution and erode its moral fibre, to impose totalitarianism (Project Cybersyn being one of the most hilarious examples of what was actually a very grim process), and to bring in foreign communists to remake Chilean society. When you break down the bonds of society, excesses and crimes are committed. When you "cross the rubicon", evil follows. It is a terrible civil ill to begin that process. Nobody should walk down that road except as a last recourse against a greater ill--like the certain imposition of communism which would see nuns and monks and children burned alive in churches, the outlawing of religion, the expropriation of people from their traditional lands, their mass starvation...

It's ridiculous to assert that Allende was doing anything other than using the tactics of Hitler (with his 36% plurality and countless documented comments to his Cuban friends that he was just biding his time) to impose communism, as many communists have done over history. The end result of communism could easily be Pol Pot in the Southern Cone. The end result of Pinochet was, objectively, less than 3,000 people who were dead, many of whom were active participants in a process which might have killed millions had it been left to continue unchecked, as we had documented proof occurred in many other countries around the club. Pinochet made the right decision, and he was endorsed by the Chilean congress. That crimes happened during his administration and that some of those crimes should have been (and were) prosecuted after his subsequent voluntary transition back to democracy after rooting out the scourge of communism, is not going to be denied. I do not support torture as a crime against human dignity, even when I feel it is necessary to execute people for the survival of a nation and people. But that communism had to be stopped and stopped quickly in Chile, and that by that point Allende had eliminated all the other options, is factual and true.

The only reason internet communists defend Allende against all sense or sanity is because you think of him as "elected Che", the man who would have brought about the True Communism you are wedded to insisting is always around the corner.

So why don't you condemn Suharto first? The man whose nationalist terror in 1965 - 1966 killed between 500,000 - 3,000,000 people? Whose death squads intentionally targeted folk muslims (Abagan), ethnic Chinese, and atheists, not because of communist party membership or evil intent, but just because of their beliefs or race? Why isn't Soekarno the touchstone of the left? Is it because he still believed in democracy? Is it because he permitted traditionalism in society (The Yogyakarta Sultanate)? Is it because he encouraged religious expression? Is it because even as a leftist with the communists as his allies he was never going to implement your Perfect Dream?

I cannot believe the hypocrisy by which people care even one jot or iota for this man of Chile who acted to save his country from the innumerable massacres and the death of spiritual culture which is represented by communism, when here you have this genuine right-wing nationalist who committed atrocities, pogroms, ethnic cleansing during the suppression of a communist party, and he never comes up at all.

To me that clearly states that the real reason you condemn Pinochet is because you buy into the fantasy of Allende's mirage of democratic communism, and not because anyone attacking Pinochet actually cares one bit for those killed by his regime.

 

[Comrade Clod]

Pinochet defended Chile from a systematic attempt to destroy its constitution and erode its moral fibre, to impose totalitarianism (Project Cybersyn being one of the most hilarious examples of what was actually a very grim process), and to bring in foreign communists to remake Chilean society. When you break down the bonds of society, excesses and crimes are committed. When you "cross the rubicon", evil follows. It is a terrible civil ill to begin that process. Nobody should walk down that road except as a last recourse against a greater ill--like the certain imposition of communism which would see nuns and monks and children burned alive in churches, the outlawing of religion, the expropriation of people from their traditional lands, their mass starvation...

It's ridiculous to assert that Allende was doing anything other than using the tactics of Hitler (with his 36% plurality and countless documented comments to his Cuban friends that he was just biding his time) to impose communism, as many communists have done over history. The end result of communism could easily be Pol Pot in the Southern Cone. The end result of Pinochet was, objectively, less than 3,000 people who were dead, many of whom were active participants in a process which might have killed millions had it been left to continue unchecked, as we had documented proof occurred in many other countries around the club. Pinochet made the right decision, and he was endorsed by the Chilean congress. That crimes happened during his administration and that some of those crimes should have been (and were) prosecuted after his subsequent voluntary transition back to democracy after rooting out the scourge of communism, is not going to be denied. I do not support torture as a crime against human dignity, even when I feel it is necessary to execute people for the survival of a nation and people. But that communism had to be stopped and stopped quickly in Chile, and that by that point Allende had eliminated all the other options, is factual and true.

The only reason internet communists defend Allende against all sense or sanity is because you think of him as "elected Che", the man who would have brought about the True Communism you are wedded to insisting is always around the corner.

I cannot believe the hypocrisy by which people care even one jot or iota for this man of Chile who acted to save his country from the innumerable massacres and the death of spiritual culture which is represented by communism, when here you have this genuine right-wing nationalist who committed atrocities, pogroms, ethnic cleansing during the suppression of a communist party, and he never comes up at all.

To me that clearly states that the real reason you condemn Pinochet is because you buy into the fantasy of Allende's mirage of democratic communism, and not because anyone attacking Pinochet actually cares one bit for those killed by his regime.

I'm not going to dignify this drivel with a response more simple that this.

He had rape dogs and murdered innocents, you apparently support this too. Neither my faith nor my conscience will allow anything other than disdain for a man who perverted one of Latin America's democracies into a totalitarian failed state, which ironically had to be rescued by the socialists from economic collapse not 10 years after his reign ended.

You rank slightly above pond scum for moral fibre, if you will bend your rules so utterly just because the man hated communists as much as he hated common decency.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I'm not going to dignify this drivel with a response more simple that this.

He had rape dogs and murdered innocents, you apparently support this too. Neither my faith nor my conscience will allow anything other than disdain for a man who perverted one of Latin America's democracies into a totalitarian failed state, which ironically had to be rescued by the socialists from collapse.

You rank slightly above pond scum for moral fibre, if you will bend your rules so utterly just because the man hated communists as much as he hated common decency.

Evils follow the introduction of War, as I stated. I support nothing of the sort, but when the hour is at hand when the Sattvic, or upward, principle must be upheld by war in a society, because of the mad dogs who will pervert and destroy moral order, eliminate religion, and engage in the demoralisation of the human soul, then sometimes one must screw up one's courage and, endorsed by the body of Natural Law and by a constitutional order which had recognised--very nearly too late--the threat, take action to eliminate that threat. The action then has a terrible, evil logic of its own, a wickedness attendant with the decision to go to War--the logic of Cruel Necessity which means that nobody is in control once the decision is made, and you do not know where it will end. It is something to be feared and avoided at all costs -- except the cost of the soul and human liberty.

When you are backed into that corner and you have no choice but to fight, you must also accept the fact that you will not have control over the outcome. You can only have control over yourself in that moment. And there were righteous men in Chile, there were righteous men in many other places around the globe, who did their best. But when you unleash the dogs of war, you do not control them. Pinochet in fact saved Chile from totalitarianism, and from the inevitable evils of the communist countries. But by the time he was given the opportunity to do so, sewing the wind meant reaping the whirlwind. It was a terrible time, but I have no doubt that the spiritual salvation of Chile made it the right decision. A right decision can still be lamentable and attended with the horrors and savageries of civil conflict.

 

[Comrade Clod]

Evils follow the introduction of War, as I stated. I support nothing of the sort, but when the hour is at hand when the Sattvic, or upward, principle must be upheld by war in a society, because of the mad dogs who will pervert and destroy moral order, eliminate religion, and engage in the demoralisation of the human soul, then sometimes one must screw up one's courage and, endorsed by the body of Natural Law and by a constitutional order which had recognised--very nearly too late--the threat, take action to eliminate that threat. The action then has a terrible, evil logic of its own, a wickedness attendant with the decision to go to War--the logic of Cruel Necessity which means that nobody is in control once the decision is made, and you do not know where it will end. It is something to be feared and avoided at all costs -- except the cost of the soul and human liberty.

When you are backed into that corner and you have no choice but to fight, you must also accept the fact that you will not have control over the outcome. You can only have control over yourself in that moment. And there were righteous men in Chile, there were righteous men in many other places around the globe, who did their best. But when you unleash the dogs of war, you do not control them. Pinochet in fact saved Chile from totalitarianism, and from the inevitable evils of the communist countries. But by the time he was given the opportunity to do so, sewing the wind meant reaping the whirlwind. It was a terrible time, but I have no doubt that the spiritual salvation of Chile made it the right decision. A right decision can still be lamentable and attended with the horrors and savageries of civil conflict.

You are blinded by the worst sort of moral hypocrisy.

Begone with you, I have no words for those who try to say that the rape of women is somehow spirituality just

 

[Deleted member 1]

You are blinded by the worst sort of moral hypocrisy.

Begone with you, I have no words for those who try and that the rape of women is somehow spirituality just

When a flawed society defends itself from becoming more flawed, it is:

1. Going to commit evil;

and;

2. Still In The Right.

As a traditionalist I have a solution, which is to return to Tradition, so that such crimes are not committed, and such evils are held at bay in society, which is a reflection of the Sattvic or upward principle. As a Communist, you seek to drag society down to a lower level at which the atrocities and massacres and evils will be worse; this is called the Tamasic or downward principle.

 

[Comrade Clod]

When a flawed society defends itself from becoming more flawed, it is:

1. Going to commit evil;

and;

2. Still In The Right.

As a traditionalist I have a solution, which is to return to Tradition, so that such crimes are not committed, and such evils are held at bay in society, which is a reflection of the Sattvic or upward principle. As a Communist, you seek to drag society down to a lower level at which the atrocities and massacres and evils will be worse; this is called the Tamasic or downward principle.

I am a Christian Socialist, and people like you give my faith a bad name.

 

[commanderkai]

Pinochet was terrible, sure, but plenty will see Pinochet as the lesser of two evils, considering his communist opposition. Probably the same with Franco in Spain (less so with Franco due to the links with Hitler). Amusingly enough, it's only in the last decade or so when individuals like Pinochet have received "stardom" or a sort, being turned into memes and such. Yet shitheads like Che, Castro, Stalin, and Mao have been idolized by the Western left, including being made into public displays like on shirts for far longer.

I'd view the rise of pro-Pinochet stuff as a reaction to individuals who would unironically wear shirts with the faces of tyrants and murderers on them. The same people who get all upset about the "Pinochet Helicopter Rides" meme are typically the same one wearing the shirt of Che, or praising individuals like Castro. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Either torture and murder are bad, no matter your ideology, and the admiration of tyrants should be condemned, or it's not.

 

[Comrade Clod]

Either torture and murder are bad, no matter your ideology, and the admiration of tyrants should be condemned, or it's not.

Yes this is true. Which is why I don't see Che and Castro as being that much better than any other dictator.

Pinochet managed to get above these guys by sheer cruelty.

 

[Vargas Fan]

In Britain, Pinochet was...liked at least by Margaret Thatcher due to his opposition to Argentina, especially during the Falklands War. There have been long standing rumours that British operatives were in Chile performing observation on Argentinian bases, especially Air Force and Naval Air Force bases.

The fact that a fair amount of older British equipment like some warships and older aircraft like Hunters which were a durable and popular aircraft were transferred to Chile seems to reinforce that. There was also the carry on that he was regarded as too unwell to stand trial and when he landed in Chile he practically jumped out the wheelchair he was using.

 

[commanderkai]

Yes this is true. Which is why I don't see Che and Castro as being that much better than any other dictator.

Pinochet managed to get above these guys by sheer cruelty.

See, I'm not going to play dumb game about "who's the worse tyrant!?" It's fucking dumb.

The only reason why we know about Pinochet's actions is because he willingly stepped down from power, which began a Truth and Reconciliation process, and allowed those victimized by Pinochet's regime to share their testimony.

Have we seen the same from Cuba? Nope. You're comparing apples to drywall. The closest similarity is that they existed and were tyrants, yet Cuba has not liberalized and allowed a similar process where Castro and the victims of Cuban Communism can openly reveal how they were treated. Saying that Pinochet is worse, when Pinochet was only in power for 16 years (compared to the Cuban communist government being in power for 60 years) and we aren't even fully aware of the true extent of the Cuban government's crimes against it's peoples (let alone China, or the USSR) is laughable.

 

[Deleted member 1]

I am a Christian Socialist, and people like you give my faith a bad name.

How can you call yourself a Christian and defend communism? My support for the policies of Distributism is well-documented, as are the requirements of compassion and mercy in my religion. But there are higher mercies, higher callings. That is the Sattvic principle. Sincerely, Sir, I have spent hours and hours reading thousand page works detailing in excruciating detail the martyrdom of the victims of communism. The horrors the communists imposed on the world. The entire ways of life which were extirpated from the Earth and will never be known again, in the name of an ideology which has provided the same results each time it was tried.

How is my deep love for the ways of living annihilated by the communists, my profound desire to preserve the entire historical course of civilisations from them, something which you can dismiss over these evils and misfortunes of war which I called out as evils, misfortunes and wrongs? A hero is a man of the hour, nothing more; one can be a hero and still be flawed, even still be a tyrant. In the context of saving Russia from the Ostplan, one might even (though I would think it wrong), call Stalin a hero. I am not denying that crimes were committed in Chile, but there you are, wearing the avatar of a man who killed thirty million people, and making a joke of their suffering and deaths and their entire ways of life that died with them, and I, apparently, am pond scum, for accepting the necessity of Pinochet; for acknowledging that real evil attended a cruel but necessary act of overthrowing Allende while not bowing to your socialist mantra that his overthrow was wrong.

 

[Comrade Clod]

How can you call yourself a Christian and defend communism? My support for the policies of Distributism is well-documented, as are the requirements of compassion and mercy in my religion. But there are higher mercies, higher callings. That is the Sattvic principle. Sincerely, Sir, I have spent hours and hours reading thousand page works detailing in excruciating detail the martyrdom of the victims of communism. The horrors the communists imposed on the world. The entire ways of life which were extirpated from the Earth and will never be known again, in the name of an ideology which has provided the same results each time it was tried.

How is my deep love for the ways of living annihilated by the communists, my profound desire to preserve the entire historical course of civilisations from them, something which you can dismiss over these evils and misfortunes of war which I called out as evils, misfortunes and wrongs? A hero is a man of the hour, nothing more; one can be a hero and still be flawed, even still be a tyrant. In the context of saving Russia from the Ostplan, one might even (though I would think it wrong), call Stalin a hero. I am not denying that crimes were committed in Chile, but there you are, wearing the avatar of a man who killed thirty million people, and making a joke of their suffering and deaths and their entire ways of life that died with them, and I, apparently, am pond scum, for accepting the necessity of Pinochet; for acknowledging that real evil attended a cruel but necessary act of overthrowing Allende while not bowing to your socialist mantra that his overthrow was wrong.

You support the rape of innocents in the name of ideology.

No matter how long winded your argument, you still do.

As for my avatar? Stalin deserves to be mocked, and in playing up a mild caricature of a card carrying communist in the meme threads he will get all the mockery he deserves.

Pinochet was not necessary, he was unneeded. Democracy died when he took over, and even if for nothing else may he be damned to hell for that.

 

[Deleted member 1]

You support the rape of innocents in the name of ideology.

No matter how long winded your argument, you still do.

As for my avatar? Stalin deserves to be mocked, and in playing up a mild caricature of a card carrying communist in the meme threads he will get all the mockery he deserves.

Pinochet was not necessary, he was unneeded. Democracy died when he took over, and even if for nothing else may he be damned to hell for that.

You intentionally, falsely equate my acknowledgement that crimes may occur as an inevitable consequence of necessities because those necessities break down the bonds of civilisation, with an endorsement of those crimes. You do it because you don't care for nuance, and you are focused on your ideological objective to the exclusion of everything else.

People here are not necessarily democrats, but we certainly do not endorse genocide. Your reduction of this matter to simple cases of democracy = good, and Stalin = funny, amply demonstrates how little you really care about the victims of the purges and the Terrors.

 

[Comrade Clod]

You intentionally, falsely equate my acknowledgement that crimes may occur as an inevitable consequence of necessities because those necessities break down the bonds of civilisation, with an endorsement of those crimes. You do it because you don't care for nuance, and you are focused on your ideological objective to the exclusion of everything else.

People here are not necessarily democrats, but we certainly do not endorse genocide. Your reduction of this matter to simple cases of democracy = good, and Stalin = funny, amply demonstrates how little you really care about the victims of the purges and the Terrors.

Mmm, yeah I'm done here.

Sayonara.

 

[GoldRanger]

I think the "better dead than red" principle applies here.

Considering the horrors perpetrated by all the regimes the Soviets managed to flip to Communism, Pinochet, while evil, probably was the lesser evil of the two bad options on the table.

Alas, we don't have access to an alternate timeline to confirm or deny this supposition.

 

[Cherico]

Choosing between communism and a right wing dictatorship is like being given a choice between eating disease ridden feces and garbage. Sure the garbage is less likely to kill you but its still garbage.

 

[GoldRanger]

Choosing between communism and a right wing dictatorship is like being given a choice between eating disease ridden feces and garbage. Sure the garbage is less likely to kill you but its still garbage.

That's a sentiment I can 100% get behind. Pinochet was an evil shit, that doesn't mean he didn't save his country from disease rotten feces, which are objectively better than garbage, even if both are disgusting and inedible.