How Do You Feel About Augusto Pinochet?

10 posts


Communist influence under his reign was very minimal, Chile was very prosperous under his rule yet he was also considered by most to be a CIA/USA puppet. How would you rate his leadership and how he handled his country? Was he an asset or liability to Chile?

His Wikipedia entry:

From the little bit there:

Also, being the military leader of the nation and kicking out psychopathic demagogues (ie. elected representatives) is a definite plus in my book. He knew that extreme violence was not needed to help sustain a healthy society. Pretty close to an ideal setup, in my mind.
Niccolo and Donkey
Abe de Ville

There is something about Latin America that makes the countries there more susceptible to despotic regimes than Anglosphere realms like the USA, Canada, etc. Having said that, it seems to work for them (well, not so much for the people killed by said regimes but, "you have to break a few eggs" etc). Stroessner and Pinochet, for examples, contributed to the development of their nation states. I think of it as the Russian model of rule - historically, that is, e.g. the Petrine system. The dictator is to be the first servant of the state, and its development/the promotion of its interests becomes his chief dedication. It's not without its benefits, but I suppose your assessment of it will depend upon your particular set of values. Certainly if you value liberty, this is not an ideal set-up. The appeal of socialism in Latin America owes to the fact that the general populace has generally been quite poor, similar to pre-rev Russia. Sometimes I wonder if despotic regimes don't merely prolong the misery and even make bad outcomes inevitable (i.e. underclass uprising) by refusing to address necessary societal changes and adhering to blinkered reactionary views which are not easy to sustain with time. The West has suffered due to this, just look at how continental Europe embraced utopian, universalist ideals of men like Schumann after WWII - certainly this was a reaction to fascism. I suppose the Pinochet model has its charms, particularly to those of a right-leaning and authoritarian bent, but I'm starting to see moderation as a far more prudent long term strategy.


The Grand Orient was also behind the campaign directed against
Augusto Pinochet, the military leader of Chile, since he had caused
the death of the masonic brother Salvador Allende. Allende became a
freemason in 1935, in the lodge Progreso No. 4 in Valparaiso. Before
he was elected president, his grandfather was masonic. The Grand
Orient of France on 3 November 1998 demanded justice concerning


Pinochet. He was officially accused of having ordered the murder of
3000 left-wingers (many of whom were terrorists). At the same time,
the media kept quiet about the fact that Pinochet thereby saved the
lives of hundreds of thousands of countrymen, who were on the
death lists of the Marxist terrorists. Even the non-violent Mahatma
Gandhi considered it right to kill madmen who murder innocent
people, thereby saving many more. Police officers also have the right
to return fire in order to defend themselves and the public. According
to the Grand Orient, Augusto Pinochet did not have this right,
although he is also a freemason (belonging to another lodge), and
had established close contacts with criminal gangs smuggling arms
and drugs.

The fact that Pinochet is a freemason is made clear by an interview
with Roger Letrei, grand master of the Grand Orient of France (Le
Point, May 1989). When a left-wing freemason is finished, a rightwing
freemason takes over.

Augusto Pinochet - he had it all: military, leadership, you name it. Who cares if the Chilean economy collapsed? Capitalism is natural - you've heard it said. Sometimes people die, sometimes they don't. Who cares if he was regularly spitroasted by old Jewish grandfathers and spent many a night on his knees, praying to the gods of sodomy with every tear his little raisin body carried? Jews are good at business; hence the unprecedented success of capitalism worldwide. Democracy is also very good, perhaps the best form of government - Chile had it. Maybe it was a dictatorship, maybe it wasn't - it doesn't matter. Democracies need help now and then. Socialism is bad, it leads to Swedens and rapefugees and Merkels, etc. Modern Germany is more socialist than the USSR. Everybody knows this. Breitbart knows this. Pinochet had helicopters, out of which he threw people. If that isn't "badass", what is "badass"? I don't know.


The definition of Zog and hopeful "ex"-libertarians' self-written invitation to the right. Liquidating nat'l industry and selling your entire country to be financialized by American Jewish banks is cool as hell when you kill "commies". Look up any critique of orthodox economic measuring and read Collins and Lear's book on Chile. Next on the list of awesome authoritarian nationalist libertarians: Boris Yeltsin

I don't think he was ideological, he expelled the Chicago Boys when their schemes failed, Büchi was most responsible for the recovery. And his relationship with the US was never good.
Whigger nationalist
"In this moment, I am euphoric. Not because of any phony Dictator's blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my autodidact's understanding of economics."