The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Oliver Boyd-Barrett Archive
Arce-Castillo Socialist Alliance for South America
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Castillo’s Victory in Peru Validated

On July 28th, 2021, Pedro Castillo, son of illiterate Andean peasants will be inaugurated as President of Peru, celebrating the victory of his socialist party Perú Libre in the elections of June. Peru has strong historical ties to other regional powers, most notably Ecuador and Bolivia.

Castillo’s victory follows by two months the swearing in of Guillermo Alberto Santiago Lasso Mendoza as President of Ecuador in May. Although Lasso is center-right, he will be constrained by the continuing hold over Ecuador’s 137 seat assembly of allies of former President Rafael Correa (2007-2017) which maintains the largest bloc with 49 seats, and the leftist Pachakutik party which has unprecedented indigenous influence, holding about 45 seats in alliance with the center-left Democratic Left party. In contrast, Lasso’s center right Creando Oportunidades (CREO), party has just 12 legislators, and an early alliance with the right-wing Social Christian Party fell apart on May 14.

More significant even, Castillo’s victory in Peru follows by eight months the swearing in of Luis Arce as President of Bolivia in November 2020, confirming the resounding victory of the socialist party he founded with Evo Morales, Movimiento al Socialismo–Instrumento Político por la Soberanía de los Pueblos, abbreviated MAS-IPSP, or simply MAS. This in turn followed by under one year the swearing in of Peronist Alberto Fernandez as President of Argentina in December 2019, together with his Vice-President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner who was President of Argentina 2007-2015 and wife of former leftist President (2003-2007) Néstor Kirchner.

In addition, Castillo’s victory follows by two months a significant progressive development in Chile when, on May 15 and 16, over 6 million Chileans voted for the 155 members of the Constitutional Convention, a body that will be responsible for writing the country’s new constitution to replace that drawn up by the fascist government of Augusto Pinochet in 1980. Independent and left-wing forces obtained resounding triumphs and won the majority of seats in the Constitutional Convention. The clamor for a constitutional convention stems from substantial protests involving millions of Chileans that began in October 2019, demanding faster progress in the task of replacing Pinochet’s constitution, one that was considered to entrench neoliberal economics and the domination of right-wing parties. 78% of voters had approved the decision to rewrite the constitution in a referendum in October 2020. This augurs well for progressive prospects in the upcoming presidential, parliamentary and regional elections scheduled for November 21 this year, 2021. The Chile Vamos center-right coalition held a legal primary on 18 July 2021, which was won by former minister Sebastián Sichel by 49% of the vote. The Apruebo Dignidad leftist coalition decided its presidential candidate in a legal primary held on 18 July 2021, which was won by lawmaker Gabriel Boric by 60% of the vote.

In regional and municipal elections that were also held May, Chile’s Communist Party and other left-wing movements performed well. In Recoleta, Communist Mayor and Presidential candidate Daniel Jadue was re-elected with over 60 percent of the votes. 30-year-old Communist economist Irací Hassler became Mayor of downtown Santiago. These developments suggest the possibility of a significant leftwing shift in Chilean politics in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections scheduled for November 2021.

In Brazil, elections are scheduled for 2 October 2022 which will elect the President, Vice President and the National Congress. Elections for state Governors and Vice Governors, State Legislative Assemblies and the Federal District Legislative Chamber will be held at the same time.

Brazil’s current President, the pro-militarist, proto-fascist, Jair Messias Bolsonaro, imitating the antics of former US President Donald Trump, has recently taken to issuing threats that he will not accept the outcome of elections that he deems to be fraudulent. That is, any elections that do not vote him back into power. Bolsonaro. Brazil’s Datafolha institute revealed the results of a May 2021 poll which it puts the former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, as the favorite over Bolsonaro .Since Lulu was cleared in March of corruption charges by the Supreme Court and has regained both his liberty and his political rights, he has gathered increasing electoral potential as issues such as social segregation and the mismanagement of the pandemic by Bolsonaro makes Brazilians yearn for the progressive path of the Workers Party (PT), which produced enormous social achievements in the 2000s.

A Right-Wing Discredited

Confirmation of Castillo’s victory by the Peruvian Electoral Board on July 19th occurred within days of the space flights of British billionaire oligarch Richard Branson (July 11) and of American billionaire oligarch Jeff Bezos (July 20). These represent, on the one hand: a peasant teacher, Marxist and unionist, with a program to lift Peru’s largely marginalized and indigenous population from poverty by diverting the country’s wealth from the country’s traditional ruling class and their patrons – foreign extractavist corporations and the financiers who bankroll them. And, on the other hand: two supremely skillful image shapers, technically quite smart, but sub-neanderthal in socio-emotional intelligence, representatives of shallow, neoliberal greed and rudderless morality, neither of whom has intelligent or humane thoughts to offer on the dire planetary and species challenges of climate change, nuclear war and obscene social inequality.

Their political counterpart was Castillo’s opponent, presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori. Peruvian ruling class support for Fujimori, extending even as far as an embrace by world celebrity author and former presidential candidate (against Keiko’s father, Alberto Fujimori), Mario Vargas Llosa, exposes the unfathomable depths of greed, selfishness, and stupidity which increasingly characterizes the nouveau riche of the global neoliberal parasitic incubus. This is what it is signified when a ruling class can only come together on a candidate whose two previous attempts at the presidency have failed, who is the daughter of a jailed former president, dictator, swindler and torturer, whose offer that Keiko should replace her jilted mother as Peru’s first lady was apparently irresistible at the age of 19, and whose supporters were scarcely embarrassed by a potentially false-flag massacre in May that seemed designed to stall Castillo’s campaign, or by the advice from jailed former CIA-backed eminence-grise and Alberto Fujimori’s head of national intelligence, Vladimiro Montesinos, that the “Fujimoristas” should bribe judges of the Peruvian Electoral Board to rule against Castillo.

The New Pink Revolution

Castillo’s victory in Peru is particularly significant in the light of the return to power last November of MAS in Bolivia, this time under the leadership of Luis Arce. Under the last, most recent MAS president, Evo Morales, Bolivia enjoyed a largely successful socialist advance, for the country and its people, in the period 2006-2019. Morales’s victory in the first round of the 2019 elections was undermined by false charges of electoral fraud suggested by the preliminary “findings”, widely disputed, of the pro-US Organization of American States (OAS), that provided a pretext for military and police pressure on Morales to resign. The transitional administration of Jeanine Áñez – cut. it would seem, from the same neoliberal, conservative and clownish cloth of Keio Fujimori, Jair Bolsonaro, Donald Trump and other emerging proto-fascists of the global right-wing faux-neoliberal order, in which “free trade” ceded to “heavily managed trade” – was an embarrassing and dangerous disaster that helped guarantee a return to power of MAS in the 2021 elections, albeit under new leadership (although Arce was Morales’s vice-president, and Morales continues to be president of MAS), with even stronger electoral backing than for Morales in 2019.

Pervian-Bolivian partnership on the basis of ideological unanimity creates the prospect of a progressive and, very loosely, North-South Latin American chain that extends from Venezuela down through Bolivia, Peru, a democratically and constitutionally reinvigorated Chile, and Argentina (which occupies most of the continent’s southern cone). This helps offset the darker resurgence of US Empire through its Brazilian ogre, Bolsonaro, allied to anti-, or less-progressive regimes of Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana, Paraguay and Uruguay and, very likely, Haiti, while the US places increasing pressure on the communist leadership of Cuba, through sanctions and support for the popular protests that sanctions and the Covid challenge and the US apparatus of regime change shenanigans have helped provoke. More simplistically, the logic suggests that the inauguration of Castillo solidifies the prospects of a progressive mainly Pacific corridor for South America plus, from the Atlantic side, Argentina, in opposition to a faux-neoliberal and reactionary South Atlantic corridor.

Imperial Vultures

Notwithstanding the hopeful embryonic core of a new, more realistically progressive South American continent, the land mass as a whole still reflects or represents not simply accommodation to or resistance against the northern hegemon, the USA, but also the strong, continuing influences of former imperial powers. Most notable are Spain and Portugal whose legacy includes not simply an inclination to regular recourse to caudillo-style military dictatorships (usually of the right but, sometimes – as at different times in Venezuela, Peru and Bolivia – of the left) but also a distinctive, Southern European, circular dance between liberal and conservative wings of the ruling classes. Occasionally, through liberals, the choreography breaks form to allow greater, though often temporary or iterative, integration of the interests of workers and indigenous when economic conditions are propitious. In addition, we should note northern European influences along the north-east coast, as in the former British (1796 to 1966) colony of Guyana, the former Dutch (1815-1954) colony of Suriname and the ongoing French colonization of French (from 1667) Guinea (home to France’s Guiana Space Centre, which is also used by its NATO allies). These represent not simply the lingering cultural incursions into South America of Northern Europe but also symbolize the strong influence throughout the continent of NATO power generally, now challenged to a modest degree by China.

Consider that the longest border France has with any country is the border between French Guiana and Brazil: some 450 miles. Its border with Suriname (former Dutch Guiana) is 345 miles. Journalist Rick Rozoff has weighed recent NATO activities in the region. These include a 2006 visit by the Standing NATO Maritime Group One to fellow NATO members’ possessions in the Caribbean and engage in exercises with the owners. The preceding year then-Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez accused NATO of planning an invasion of his nation under the code name of Operation Balboa. In 2018 Colombia was admitted to NATO’s Partners Across the Globe program. Continental USA provides NATO a 2,000-mile border with Mexico. Other NATO possessions in the New World include: (for Britain): Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Turks and Caicos Islands; (for France): French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Miquelon, Saint-Barthélemy, Saint Pierre and Saint Martin; (for The Netherlands): Aruba, Bonaire, Curaçao, Saba, Sint Eustatius and Sint Maarten; (for the USA): Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Invoking cautions of former and continuing imperial influence, Bolivia’s former president and continuing president of MAS, Evo Morales, recently denounced what he described as the new U.S.-led Operation Condor. This was in reference to a notorious US-directed secret intelligence program in the 1970s and early 1980s affecting Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Uruguay and Paraguay, and that resulted in the torture and “disappearance” of thousands of people. Uppermost in Morales’ mind was the sending of war materials by the former faux-neoliberal presidents of Ecuador (Lenin Moreno), and Argentina (Mauricio Macri), in support of the 2019 coup against Morales – based, as already described, on false allegations of electoral fraud and corruption – and a letter of thanks allegedly sent by Bolivian Air Force General Terceros to Macri in gratitude for Argentina’s armed support. Morales also referenced the assassination in July 2021 of the President of Haiti, Jovenel Moïse, by former Colombian military personnel trained in the USA, and US support for protests against the communist regime of Cuba. Morales asserted that the progressive Bolivian government of Arce was targeted by the USA because Bolivia had recovered control over its natural resources, nationalized strategic companies, and closed the US military base in Chimoré.

Just six weeks before the election in Peru, the USA had dispatched a new ambassador , Lisa Kenna, an adviser to former US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a nine-year CIA veteran and former US State Department official in Iraq. In other suspicious imperial moves, CIA Director William J. Burns had visited Colombia a week before the assassination of Haitian President Jovenal Moïse. In a March 2021 interview, former US ambassador to Haiti Pamela White talked about a plan to “put aside” President Moïse, leaving power in the hands of an interim Prime Minister, possibly with a view to avoiding the democratic elections which the population have been calling for since early 2020. In Nicaragua, having failed to unseat President Daniel Ortega in the elect ions of 2018, the USA unfolded a new plan of destabilization against the Sandinista administration of Daniel Ortega. The plan, entitled Responsive Action in Nicaragua (RAIN), was managed and financed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and leaked from the US embassy in July 2020. The plan called for an unconstitutional “transition” and for promoting “transition-related activities.”

In Venezuela, in July 2021, the socialist president Nicolás Maduro, detailed and denounced two assassination attempts against his life in just the preceding two weeks. Maduro also recently denounced the US Southern Command and CIA for plans to attack Venezuela from Colombian territory.

In Honduras, US officials, notably then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had played an important role in preventing President Manuel Zelaya’s return to office in 2009 and allowing the military junta who ousted him time to consolidate its power in the face of massive nonviolent citizen protests. Top US officials had been in discussions with the military commanders and right-wing politicians who organized the coup shortly before Zelaya’s overthrow. During the subsequent protests and over the ensuing years thousands of indigenous activists, peasant leaders, trade unionists, journalists, environmentalists, judges, opposition political candidates, human rights activists, and others have been murdered. Hundreds of thousands of Hondurans have fled the subsequent worsening economic conditions and intense gang activity that exacerbate the pressure of refugees on the southern border of the USA.

Zelaya had incurred US displeasure by moving his government to the left, raising the minimum wage, providing free school lunches, milk for young children, pensions for the elderly, creating additional scholarships for students and, legitimately, paving the way for constitutional change, badly needed, that might have allowed him a second term in office. He built new schools, subsidized public transportation, and even distributed energy-saving light bulbs. Leader of the coup, Honduran General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, was a graduate of the notorious US School of the Americas. In recent years, the USA has poured hundreds of millions of dollars in security assistance to Honduras, supposedly to fight drug traffickers. Yet in January 2021, federal prosecutors in New York presented evidence to suggest that the nation’s President Juan Orlando Hernández (who is supposed to step down later in 2021) had helped traffic drugs. Prosecutors claimed that the President had used his nation’s armed forces to protect huge shipments of cocaine in exchange for hefty bribes, and cited documents that accused Hernández of stating, in front of an unnamed witness, that he had embezzled aid money from the USA through nongovernmental organizations. Hernández denied all wrongdoing, saying that cartel leaders had falsely accused him precisely because he has successfully cracked down on trafficking.

The Morales and Correa Miracles

It can be argued that the pink revolution of the 2000s rode the crest of an economic wave of neoliberal globalization that finally gave space to South American countries to modestly redistribute wealth to the working and indigenous peasant classes. Neoliberalism was able to do this not so much because it is a magical formula – it isn’t – but because it took money, assets and markets from State institutions and handed them over to domestic and international private corporations and the banks that finance them. Additionally, it can be argued – especially with respect to the administrations of Morales in Bolivia and Correa in Ecuador, along with others that will be discussed later – that these neo-socialist states systematically established ownership, structural, financial, and equitable conditions designed to ensure that national wealth was conserved primarily for national and popular benefit, and only secondarily to satisfy international markets and local oligarchs. There shared a far more realistic awareness than their twentieth century predecessors of the imperial and predatory role of IMF and World Bank loans in tethering and subordinating national wealth to the needs of international capitalism. Most of the pink revolutionary states performed acceptably well up until 2014 when the commodities boom came to an end; they subsequently glided and then crashed as the result of the 2020 pandemic.

The achievements of Morales and Correa were far more than happy surprises contingent on a rising sea that lifted most boats. Analyst Carwill Bjork-James of Vanderbilt University has noted that the Morales and Arce team became:

“Experts at playing against type, contrasting their moderate polices with their radical reputation. They maintained small fiscal deficits, large currency reserves, and a high growth rate in GDP. Accordingly, the international capital markets have provided Bolivia with financing, while gradually upgrading its bond rating”.

Perhaps for that reason, therefore, the USA did not react with quite the expected level of hostility when in the first five years of Morales’ presidency:

Bolivia re-nationalized its gas fields and infrastructure (under the state-owned YPFB), electrical grid (ENDE), telephone company (ENTEL), the Huanuni and Vinto tin mines (COMIBOL), major airports (SABSA), and the Vinto smelter (Empresa Metalúrgica de Vinto). It also created a new national airline, BoA; and a series of light manufacturing enterprises producing cardboard (CartoBol), packaged milk (LacteosBol), Cement (ECEBOL), paper (PapelBol), clothing (Enatex), and refined sugar and alcohol (San Buenaventura).

Dr. Francisco Dominguez, Latin American expert at Middlesex University has helpfully enumerated the many achievements of the Morales-led MAS-IPSP government in Bolivia, 2006-2019:

  • GDP up from US\$9,574 bn in 2005 to US\$40,000 bn in 2013 (an increase of over 400%), that is, an annual average of 4,6%, the highest in the region
  • A fiscal surplus in 2006 for the first time in Bolivian history; and by 2018 it had US\$8,946 million in international reserves
  • Extreme poverty reduced from 38% in 2006 to 16% in 2018 (a historic low)
  • Infant mortality declined by 56%
  • Social bonuses (the elders, primary and secondary school pupils, pregnant women) benefited 5,5 million people (more than 50% of the population)
  • Domestic savings in the period 2006-2018 up from US\$4,361 million to US\$27,123 million
  • External debt down from 61% of GDP in 2004 to 23% in 2018
  • Number of health centers up from 2,870 to 3902, and 49 new hospitals were built, well equipped by the state with the latest medical technology (public health is free of charge)
  • With Cuban help, Operation Miracle conducted over 3 million ophthalmological visits and 742,000 surgeries leading to many Bolivians having their eye sight restored.
  • The budget for health up from 2,5 million Bolivianos (national currency) in 2005 to 18, 805 million in 2018
  • Illiteracy eradicated by 2014.
  • Between 2014-18 the nine-lines metro-cable in La Paz (completed in 2014), had transported 174 million passengers
  • Drinking water by 2020 reached 9,7 million people out of total population of 11 million
  • The end of the latifundia system led to the redistribution of about 1 million hectares of land to peasants and peasant families
  • In 2005 only 18% of the parliamentarians were women; by 2018 this had increassed to 51%
  • 4,796 new km of roadway were added to existing motorways in the period 2006-2018
  • All of the above was financed by the renationalization of the energy industry (mainly gas, also oil)
  • The Tupac Katari satellite was placed in space.
  • The re-nationalized ENTEL (telecommunications company) granted Internet access to millions of Bolivians free of charge, as a fundamental right
  • 36 indigenous nations were recognized
  • Special cultural and ancestral land rights were enshrined in the new Constitution of the Plurinational State
  • National sovereignty was affirmed by eliminating foreign (US) interference, with the expulsion of the DEA, USAID, CIA and even the US ambassador.

The Post-Morales Era

MAS-IPSP recovered the presidency with a 55% of the votes cast, against 28% of right-wing Carlos Mesa, and 14% of extreme right-wing Luis Camacho. This was a much-improved performance compared to the election in November 2019 when their candidate, Evo Morales won with 48% against right wing Carlos Mesa’s 36%. All international election observation missions confirmed that there had been no electoral fraud and that the elections proceeded smoothly and properly. The results also showed that MAS achieved a better result with a candidate other than Morales, suggesting that his insistence on running again after three terms in office was neither necessary nor smart. Arce has said there would be no place for Evo Morales in his government.

Most political actors quickly recognized the result, with only a few radical right-wing groups refusing. MAS-IPSP won in 6 out of the country’s 9 with the right wing winning in two and the extreme right wing being victorious only in Santa Cruz. The 6 departments where Arce was victorious contained nearly 7 million of Bolivia’s total population of 11 million. MAS-IPSP candidates obtained 75 out of the 130 seats of the Plurinational Legislative Assembly, and 21 out of 36 in the Senate. The MAS-IPSP presidential candidate also won in 314 municipalities, the extreme right in 21, and the right wing in 18.

This victory was achieved despite or perhaps because of traumatic, systematic, political and judicial persecution against the MAS-IPSP, its leaders and cadre before and after the 2019 electoral fiasco. Morales himself was charged with terrorism, forcing him to seek refuge in Argentina. Leftist social movements were suppressed by means of murder, massacre, illegal imprisonment, harassment, exile, and judicial manipulation (“lawfare”). Fascist violence was unleashed on indigenous women, and in massacres against social movements defending their rights and fighting for democracy.

Jan Souverein, head of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung’s office in Bolivia explained MAS success in terms of strategic decisions taken by MAS, the wretched behavior of its political opponents, the poor governance of the transitional government, and the economic and social consequences of the Covid 19 pandemic. One important strategic decision of MAS was its chosen candidate duo: oa cosmopolitan economist who had worked for the Bolivian Central Bank from 1987 and was a former successful Minister of Economy and Public Finance – Luis Arce – together with David Choquehuanca, a former foreign minister of indigenous Aymaran ethnicity.

Opposition candidates had focused their campaigns narrowly on preventing MAS from returning to power – hardly a message likely to secure the support of the working and indigenous classes whose interests had been so thoroughly neglected by the transitional government of a relatively unknown senator, Jeanine Áñez Chávez, whose authoritarian and illegitimate leadership exposed to the world all the ugliness of contemporary right-wing Latin American (and global) movements. This included disregard for the requirements of democracy and disdain for the indigenous. The latter was manifest in public burnings of the wiphala or indigenous flag and brutal suppression of the protests staged by indigenous peoples. The resulting deaths were deemed massacres by The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The grossness of the crime was aggravated by the granting of immunity to the soldiers responsible. The incompetence of the transitional government were further manifest in mismanagement of the health crisis, poor political coordination with sub-national levels, reckless expenditure on the comforts of the already privileged, and cases of egregious corruption. Añez’ economic policies aimed to demolish the accomplishments of the Morales years and reverse all his social policies that had benefited the people. She then requested unnecessary financial emergency assistance from the IMF whose loan of US\$327 million came with the customary onerous conditionalities undermining Bolivia’s economic sovereignty. Arce has since flung it back.



Commonality of Challenges

Arce in Bolivia and Castillo in Peru face some similar challenges: paralyzed economies, the exhaustion of some sources of income such as natural gas and the emergence of others (e.g. lithium); the pandemically-related rise in poverty; deep social divisions between rich and poor and between well-endowed areas and areas less fortunate; a historical legacy of ruling class entitlement; health and education systems in great need of additional resources, especially in the poorer and more remote regions; environmental challenges such as the destruction of the Amazon rain forest; the insistent pressure for access and profit by multinational corporations, especially in the extractivist industries; the need to fortify and expand national institutions and the role of the State in the national economy; the always looming threat of the regional hegemon, the USA and its allies, both local and global, which, when angered sufficiently stifle economic and political development through the application of sanctions and financing of local “pro-democracy” movements. In both Peru and Bolivia, it must be expected that the right-wing will seek revenge and redress for electoral defeat by resort to anti-democratic practices, rabble-rousing, the withholding of all cooperation with the administration in power, and backdoor, treasonous collaboration with the USA, western multinational corporations, and right-wing neighbors.

Arce’s first acts in power may also resonate with Castillo’s program. They include establishment of the Bonus Against Hunger program, which provides 1,000 Bolivianos (US\$150 / £100) aimed at the most disadvantaged – some 4 million people; tax reduction on credit card payments from 13% to 8%, returning the difference (5%) to the customer; return of VAT to low-income people; on large fortunes; negotiation for credit with the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank,without economic or political conditionalities attached, and for a moratorium and condoning of the country’s debt and the interest on it; maintenance in the value of the currency; import substitution; stimulation of economic demand via subsidies to the poorest; professionalization of the judiciary, on criteria of merit and qualification rather than political quotas determined by the relative strength of existing political forces; continuing industrialization of lithium and iron; food sovereignty; promotion of domestic tourism; export of electricity and the industrialization of gas broadly under state control and ownership. Other polices include 10-11% increase in State expenditure on health and education; increase in public investment so as to achieve a rate of economic growth of 4,8% for 2021 and return of the IMF loan contracted by Añez in 2020.

Arce is committed to the production of industrial inputs from raw materials, a strategy he believes generates employment and reduces economic dependency But neo-socialism in both Bolivia and Peru has yet to construct programs of State-directed equitable economic growth and redistribution which do not simultaneously contribute to planetary destruction. For example, debt-financed public investment is planned to build thirty-five hydroelectric dams at a cost of US\$27 billion, providing 9.9 to 11 GW of power by 2025. Among the largest is the El Bala/El Chepete complex, which is set to flood parts of the Amazon basin in northern La Paz, including in the Madidi National Park. This energy is not needed within Bolivia, whose peak electricity consumption is well under 2 GW. Instead, the government hopes to make electricity into a major export commodity, sent overland to Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Peru.

Regional Networks

Arce has resumed the country’s membership in three major blocs aimed at regional integration, reversing moves by the previous “interim” government to withdraw from these left leaning organizations, which are: the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (known by its Spanish acronym CELAC), the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA). All these seek to promote political and economic cooperation between members. UNASUR has shed most of its original twelve members amid disputes over its leadership and direction, particularly with reference to Venezuela and the US-backed Lima Group. With Arce in power, the group now comprises only four members: Bolivia, Guyana, Suriname and Venezuela. CELAC is made up of 32 Latin American nations and is seen by some members as an alternative to the US-founded and headquartered Organization of American States (OAS). Bolsonaro took Brazil out of CELAC. ALBA aims to eliminate trade barriers and foster economic unity between Latin American nations. Its ten member countries are Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominica, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Venezuela

A Bolivia-Peru Alliance

In building regional networks that can both sustain and help protect Bolivia, Arce might do well to consider the advantages of an ancient twin and ally, Peru, now that Peru is under the supervision of Pedro Castillo’s Perú Libre neo-socialist administration. The potential for such a link is deeply inscribed in the history and cultures of both countries.

During colonial times, the territory of Audiencia de Charcas, also known as Alto Perú, now Bolivia, was an integral territory of the Spanish Viceroyalty of Peru from its creation. But in 1776, it was administratively severed and became a province of the newly created Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata. Yet for geographical and historical reasons, this remained closer to Lima than to its administrative capital, Buenos Aires. The territory achieved independence in 1825 at a time when union with Peru was widely supported. The new Republic of Bolivia (named in honor of Simón Bolívar – whose full name was Simón José Antonio de la Santísima Trinidad Bolívar y Ponte Palacios y Blanco, also colloquially called El Libertador) was born, with Bolívar as its first president. An armed uprising in Chuquisaca was used by Peru as an excuse to invade Bolivia. The Peruvian army entered La Paz, Bolivia, on May 28, 1828.

The Bolivia-Peru Confederation and Bolívar’s Gran-Colombia Bolivar

A plan for a federation, or at least a confederation, was accepted by the legislative branches of both countries, although there were disagreements as to how much autonomy Bolivia should enjoy. The idea of a federation conflicted with Bolívar ambition to create a political umbrella for all of the former Spanish possessions in South America. His preferred structure would have consisted of present-day Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama, northern Peru, western Guyana and northwest Brazil known as Gran-Colombia Bolivar.

Bolívar’s plan to invade Peru was failing in 1828-1829 and stalled indefinitely upon his death in 1830. A few years later, it was Bolivia’s turn to invade Peru and a confederation of the two nations, the Peru-Bolivian Confederation, was formed, comprising a Republic of North Peru, a Republic of South Peru, and the Republic of Bolivia, under the presidency of Marshal Andrés de Santa Cruz, 1836-1839.

The union attempted to restore ancient commercial routes and promote a policy of open markets. But the confederation was opposed by the elite of Lima on the grounds that it interfered with Lima’s good relations with Venezuela. Neighboring countries such as Argentina and Chile were alarmed by the size and economic strength of the confederation. Chile began to regard the confederation as an enemy and went to war with the confederation in 1836. Argentina followed suit in 1837. On August 25, 1839, General Agustín Gamarra became president and officially declared the dissolution of the confederation, bringing South and North Peru together as one country (Peru), separate from Bolivia.

Allies in the War of the Pacific

Bolivia and Peru were to ally again a few decades later in their war against Chile (War of the Pacific), 1879 to 1884. Bolivia and Peru had already signed The Treaty of Defensive Alliance in 1873 to contain Chile’s expansionist tendencies over several fronts, including claims on the nitrate-rich coastal Bolivian territory in the Atacama Desert. On February 14, 1879, Chile’s armed forces occupied the Bolivian port city of Antofagasta. War between Bolivia and Chile was declared on March 1, 1879, followed by declarations of war between Chile and Peru on April 5, 1879.

The Forever Issue of Coastal Access

Chile gained significant resource-rich territory from Peru and Bolivia as proceeds of a war from which it emerged overwhelmingly victorious. Chile and Peru signed the Treaty of Ancón on October 20, 1883. Bolivia signed a truce with Chile in 1884. Chile acquired the Peruvian territory of Tarapacá, the disputed Bolivian department of Litoral. This turned Bolivia back into being a landlocked country.

To gain access to the main routes of transoceanic trade, Bolivia had previously ceded more than 100,000 square kilometers of territory to Brazil in 1867 in exchange for riverine access to the Atlantic Ocean. In the War of the Pacific Chile had demonstrated technological superiority and better coordinated military strategy. Peru and Bolivia were hindered by domestic fragmentation, both economic and institutional. Bolivia lost immediate access to the Pacific. Peru was humiliated by the occupation of Lima by Chilean troops for more than three years. Bolivia has subsequently continued to pursue its dream of access to the Pacific coast, a lack that it has been estimated to cost it 1.5 percent of its annual GDP, despite port collaboration with Chile in Arica and Antofagasta.

From 1880 to the 1920s, Bolivia recovered from its defeat while benefitting from the rebirth of silver mining and the growth of the tin industry. Politically, the Conservative Party dominated national politics until its overthrow by the Liberal Party in the “Federal Revolution” of 1899. A new political force, the Republican Party, came to power through a bloodless coup in 1920, but the Great Depression of the early 1930s cut short Bolivia’s economic recovery.

In addition to many common indigenous roots in cultural and linguistic groups such as the Quechua and Aymara,and their common subjugation to Inca and Spanish conquests, Bolivia and Peru share many other strong historical parallels. Both have experienced long periods of military rule (Bolivia rather more than Peru), which occasionally have exhibited left-wing or progressive tendencies.

The Startling Era of Left-Wing Military Dictatorships

The most notorious Peruvian and Bolivian dictators have been conservative tyrants: e.g., Hugo Banzer in Bolivia (1971 to 1978) and Alberto Fujimori in Peru, 1990-2000. Whereas Banzer later became a constitutional president (1997-2001), Fujimori transitioned the other way from constitutional president to dictator (1882-1990). Both presidents excused their dictatorships as necessary reactions to what they claimed were the excesses of earlier, military and revolutionary presidents (Juan Velsasco Alvarado in Peru, Juan José Torres in Bolivia).

These earlier revolutionaries, whatever their faults, constitute an important reminder of the long history of radicalism in these countries and those of their neighbors, and a warning that the hopes that fresh progressive faces inspire one day can be quickly dashed the next by reactionary revengeful successors like Jeanine Áñez. In the case of Peru I have recently examined the interesting legacy of Velasco. Velasco’s presidency (1968-1975) lasted a few years’ longer than that of Torres in Bolivia (1970-71) but it is more than coincidence that they overlapped not only with one another but also with the presidency of Salvador Allende (1970-1973) in Chile and with the reign of the left-wing dictator of Panama, Omar Torrijos, 1968-1978 (predecessor to Manuel Noriega). All came to a sorry end, with the backing of the USA, and all were succeeded by right-wing dictatorships. While this period further coincided with the democratic liberal regime of Rafael Caldera in Venezuala it also recalls the US-backed military coup d’etat in Brazil which overthrew President João Belchior Marques Goulart in 1964. Goulart was considered the last left-wing president of Brazil until Lula da Silva took office in 2003.

Two of these died naturally (Velasco, Caldera), another was assassinated (Torres, possibly and indirectly at the hands of his successor Banzer, as part of an Operation Condor project) and another committed suicide as the forces of Augusto Pinochet surrounded Chile’s presidential palace (Allende), and yet another died in an air crash (Torrijos) which some suspect was the work of the CIA. One (Goulart) died of a heart attack that was never officially confirmed.

Torres, who had climbed from birth to a poor Aymara-mestizo family to serve as 50th President of Bolivia from 1970 to 1971 had been the reform-minded right-hand and commander-in-chief of under President Alfredo Ovando Candía. Ovanda had led the Armed Forces of Bolivia in the aftermath of the 1952 Revolution that installed in power the reformist Revolutionary Nationalist Movement party (MNR).

Torres urged Ovando to enact more far-reaching reforms and to stand up to the more conservative officers. He denounced capitalism on the grounds that it fostered underdevelopment and encouraged dependence on foreign countries. In 1969, Torres had been one of the main protagonists in the nationalization of the Gulf Oil and had participated in the occupation of the company’s headquarters in La Paz. Ovanda’s rule was threatened by a right-wing military coup attempt in October 1970. But leftist military forces under Torres triumphed. Ovanda stood down in favor of Torres. He called together an Asamblea del Pueblo in which representatives of specific “proletarian” sectors of society were represented (miners, unionized teachers, students, peasants). It was granted the powers of a working legislature. Torres proposed to rebuild society on the four pillars of workers, academics, peasants and the military. He wished to defend Bolivia’s natural resources, expropriate the sugar industry, and negotiate with the Chilean government of Salvador Allende for Bolivian access to the sea. He proposed amnesty for former rebels, increases in the university budget and closure of the United States Strategic Communications Center. His government was undermined by US Ambassador Ernest Siracusa (who had participated in the coup d’état against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954, and was expelled from Peru in 1968, accused of being CIA). The World Bank and the Inter-American Development Bank refused loans. After only ten months, Torres was overthrown in a coup led by the colonel Hugo Banzer, and with the support of the Brazilian military regime and the USA.

Other Parallels

The politics of both Peru and Bolivia since the second half of the nineteenth century have otherwise largely constituted a struggle between conservatives (or later, in the case of Boliva, republicans) and liberals. Both countries have comprised primarily indigenous, or mestizo populations governed by mainly white, Hispanic ruling classes. The wealth of both countries has depended significantly on metals (though different metals at different times), oil, and agriculture, as has their vulnerability to fluctuations in international demand and their consequent wild impacts on prices. This in turn has been a controlling constraint on the extent of any significant redistribution of wealth. Until the late 20th century the export of metals dominated Bolivia’s trade but, with the collapse of the world market in tin in the 1980s, natural gas became a leading export. Metals, petroleum, and natural gas account for most of Bolivia’s legitimate export trade. Soybeans are the principal agricultural export. Bolivia’s primary trading partners include Brazil, Argentina, China, the United States, South Korea, Japan, and Peru. Illegal trade in cocaine continues to have a significant but decreasing impact on the Bolivian economy.

Working Socialism in South America

Recent socialist administrations have been good for Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru. The broad pattern in each of these countries is one of economic growth and better social conditions in the early 2000s, levelling off at the end of the commodities boom of 2014, and partially reversed as a result of Covid in 2020. Much the same was true of the Venezuelan economy of Hugo Chavez (1998-2013) and of the economy of Brazil under President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (2003-2011).

Brazil under Lulu

Brazil is by far South America’s largest and most popular (over 214 million in 2020) country. Lula was born in poverty in 1945 in the northeastern state of Pernambuco and migrated with his family at the age of seven to São Paulo, then Brazil’s booming industrial city. He never went beyond the fourth grade in school. In the 1970s he became leader of a labor-based movement of opposition to the military dictatorship. This gave rise to the Workers’ Party (PT) which came to power in 2002.

The PT was committed to socialism in the form of agrarian reform, participatory democracy, redistribution of wealth, independence from the North American superpower, and regional solidarity within Latin America. When Lula became president, Brazil had been one of the world’s top 10 industrial economies for some years. Lula’s predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, had opened the economy to an unprecedented influx of foreign capital.

Lula reassured foreign investors that he would not attack the position of capital nor withdraw from any international agreements. He proved to be more fiscally conservative than Cardoso, who had run up a substantial public debt, and instead ran a high budget surplus and paid the debt to the IMF in full. Brazil found new markets for its products, for which there was elevated demand, helping the country achieve relative prosperity through the 2000s. Brazil particularly tightened its relationship with China, which is now its most important trading partner.

Brazil suffered less from the economic crisis of 2008 than most countries, with growth resuming by the end of 2009 and achieving a growth rate for 2010 of 7.5%. The Bolsa Família and other Brazilian cash-transfer programs were extended by Lulu to include all of the country’s poor. They included credit to small farmers for food production and pensions for workers in the country’s informal sector. Recipients were obligated to keep their children in school and see that they received regular medical attention. According to the World Bank, the poverty rate fell from 22% to 7% between 2003 and 2009. But government benefits to small-scale agriculturalists were limited to a family farm credit, the legalization of squatters’ possessions, and the colonization of new land in the Amazon region. There was little challenge to the latifundio or redistribution of land from absentee owners to those who work it. Affirmative action programs for higher education expanded dramatically.

Venezuela under Chavez

Venezuela had a population of almost 29 million in 2019. Hugo Chavez was born in 1958 to schoolteachers. He attended the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences, where he graduated in 1975 with a degree in military arts and science. He went on to serve as an officer in an army paratrooper unit. Chávez was leader of the Fifth Republic Movement political party from its foundation in 1997 until 2007, when it merged with several other parties to form the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), which Chavez. led until 2012.

Using the rise of oil prices in the early 2000s to consolidate State power over the economy and the country’s natural resources, Chávez created “Bolivarian missions”, aimed at providing public services to improve economic, cultural and social conditions. His policies aimed for redistribution of wealth, land reform, and democratization of economic activity via workplace self-management and creation of worker-owned cooperatives. He achieved greater autonomy from USA and European governments and used oil funds to promote economic and political integration with other Latin American nations. Venezuela’s economy improved dramatically during much of the Chávez presidency. From 1999 through 2013, inflation dropped to its lowest levels in the country since the late 1980s; unemployment dropped drastically from 14.5% in 1998 to 7.8% in 2011. Poverty also decreased significantly, dropping by nearly 50 percent since the oil strike, with extreme poverty dropping by over 70 percent. The narrative beyond Chavez to Maduro of course, has been a great deal more problematic, not least because of intensifying US economic warfare and destabilization against Venezuela and much more challenging economic circumstances.

Bolivia under Evo Morales

Bolivia had a population of 11.6 million in 2020. In Bolivia, poverty lowered from 66 percent in 2000 to 35 percent in 2018 in the wake of direct action, especially under Evo Morales, to develop the economy, reduce poverty and income inequality, and increase foreign investment. The extreme poverty rate fell to 15.2 percent (down from 37.7 percent ) in this period. Bolivia’s GDP growth hovered around 4 percent since the early 2000 to 2014. From 2000 to 2012, Bolivia increased its exports. These were mainly minerals and hydrocarbons which accounted for only 18% of GDP in 2000, but 47% in 2012. Just over 50% of the country’s GDP is earned by services. Bolivia’s decision to focus on exports helped grow its economy, add jobs, and reduce income inequality. Economic growth led to wage increases for many Bolivians. Salaries increased after the government took direct involvement in income inequality. The real minimum wage increased by 122 percent in the years 2000-2015. The average labor income also increased by 36 percent during 2000-2013.

A 2019 report by the Washington-based Center for Economic and Policy Research observed that for most of 13 years Bolivia had enjoyed balance of payments surpluses. The country’s solid economic growth contributed substantially to the reduction of poverty and extreme poverty. Facilitating factors included a new constitution with significant economic mandates; nationalization and public ownership of natural resources and some strategic sectors of the economy; redistributive public investment and wage policies; policy coordination between the Central Bank and the Finance Ministry; and monetary and exchange rate policies directed toward de-dollarizing the Bolivian financial system. The renationalization of hydrocarbons in 2006 was vital to Bolivia’s subsequent economic and social progress. In the first eight years of the Morales administration, national government revenue from hydrocarbons increased nearly sevenfold from \$731 million to \$4.95 billion.

The CEPR report concluded that the importance of the government’s nationalization of hydrocarbons to Bolivia’s economic progress over the past 13 years could not be overemphasized. These revenues accounted for macroeconomic stability and financed social spending. This advance could only have come about after breaking free from the constraints of IMF agreements. When Evo Morales took office in 2006, Bolivia had been operating under IMF loan agreements for 20 years, and its GDP per capita was lower than it had been in 1980. The IMF had opposed any kind of nationalization or even lesser attempts at increasing government control over hydrocarbon.

Ecuador under Correa

Ecuador had a population of 18m million in 2021. In Ecuador, things were beginning to improve following dollarization of the economy in the 2000s, and further improved under Correa. GDP grew steadily from \$US8.3bn in 2000 to \$US108.1 in 2019, since when it fell back to \$US98.8 in 2020. Correa was helped by resurgence in oil prices. Oil had been the largest contributor to Ecuador’s economy since the 1970s, but non-oil commodities subsequently grew as serious contributors to the economy. Tourism, bananas, shrimp, coffee and gold are today among other top contributors to export earnings. There has also been an influx of foreign investors, most notably China. Poverty dropped from 45 percent to under 22.5 percent under Correa and has stayed fairly steady at around 24% for much of the period 2015-2018. Share of population living on less than 3.20 U.S. dollars per day in Ecuador from 2010 to 2018 fell from 14.7% in 2010 to 8.6% in 2013 and then climbed up to 9.7% in 2018. Because of Covid it grew 8 percentage points to affect 1.3 million people in 2020, and the inequality gap widened. Since 2000, Ecuador has experienced an average of four percent annual economic growth, and since the beginning of Correa’s presidency, unemployment has decreased to less than five percent. Because Correa defaulted on Ecuador’s 3.2 billion dollars of sovereign debt the debt had amounted to nearly five billion dollars by 2014 and nine and a half billion by 2021.

Peru from Fujimori to Castillo

Peru had a total population of 32m in 2019, with a per capita GDP of approx. \$7,000 and an overall GDP of over \$230 billion. Peru is the seventh largest economy in Latin America. Its services sector accounts for 60% of GDP, within which telecommunications and financial services alone account for nearly 40% of GDP. Industry represents 35% of GDP. Peru’s ores and minerals exports make up over 50% of total exports, food accounts for 21% and mineral fuels account for 12%, a trade that is very vulnerable to shifts in terms of trade. In a financially dollarized economy, consumers and firms might borrow in USD but buy and sell products in local currency, so any fluctuation of the foreign exchange can lead to distortions in both production and consumption decisions.

For two decades in the twenty-first century, Peru’s economy appeared robust, among the best-performing Latin American economies, with annual real GDP growth averaging 5.4 percent 2005-2020. But economic inequality had been intensifying since 2014, when a 12-year run of sustained growth in the national GDP, driven by a mining boom, came to an end.

Poverty had been the fate of 50% of the population in 1970, even increasingly slightly to 54.1% in 2000. It then declined a little, to 49.1%, in 2006, but went down a whole lot further, to 20%, in 2019. But the 2020 pandemic pushed it back up to 30%. In 2019 the top 1% and 10% of income earners got 29.6% and 56.6% of GDP, respectively; 40% of middle-income earners got 35.8% of GDP, whilst 50% of low-income earners only received 9.4% of GDP. About 45% of Peru’s total population is indigenous and 52% of those who live below the extreme poverty line are indigenous.

According to the Instituto Nacional de Estadistica y Informatica (INEI), people who earn less than 338 soles, or US\$150 dollars, per month are in poverty and those who earn less than 183 soles or US\$80 a month are in extreme poverty. The minimum living wage has been established at 930 soles, or 415 dollars, per month. In 2017, poverty in urban areas impacted 15% of the population, but poverty in rural areas was 44%. 70% of the rural poor did not have titles to their property, 42% lived in adobe houses, and 58% lived on dirt floors. 73% of the rural poor had no access to a public water source, and 50% had only reached a primary school level of education. More than 80% did not have health insurance, and 53% worked in agriculture. Decades of neoliberal meanness in the matter of social and welfare benefits have cast millions into precariousness and hardship, enhancing their vulnerability to pandemics such as Covid-19. Peru has experienced one of the highest Covid-related mortality rates.

By 2021 a total of US\$ 17 billion had been transferred abroad in fear of Pedro Castillo’s presidency. Consumer prices jumped 3.2 percent 2020-2021, a rise concentrated in products of the “basic food basket” impacting mainly the poor. Peru produces only 9.5 percent of the wheat it consumes—the rest is imported from Canada, the US, Argentina, and Russia. By 2020 the number of families declared poor (earning US\$2,520 or less annually) in Peru had risen from 20 percent to 30 percent of the population, wiping out the poverty reduction achieved over the past decade. More than 10,000 families have been evicted from informal settlements. Yet foreign investment in Peru’s mining sector was expected to total US\$34 billion over the next decade. Although the international price of copper rose by 94 percent from May 2020 to May 2021, mining employed fewer personnel due to increasing automation.


From this survey we can conclude that quite suddenly the prospects for progressive governance in South America have improved. At their heart is the scope for productive ideological harmonization and practical political collaboration between left-leaning parties in both Peru and Bolivia. This opportunity should be placed in a broader context of the current electoral dominance of the left in Argentina and Venezuela and, more particularly, the prospects for progressive victories in upcoming (2021-2022) elections in Brazil and Chile.

We should also take wary notice that radicalism in South America is hardly new, and that today, just as in the past, its prospects are highly vulnerable to the play of imperial power from the USA and NATO, in particular, but also to the continuing cultural and political impacts of former empires, notably those of Spain and Portugal. These are manifest broadly and deeply in most areas of life in South America: the tedious dance of liberal and conservative wings of the ruling classes that only occasionally open up chances for integration of the indigenous and mestizo populations into the mainstream of economic prosperity; the continuing and largely still reactionary influence of the Roman Catholic Church as well as of evangelical Protestantism; the inclination to usually reactionary military force as a quick response to significant threats to ruling class intersts; economic dependence of agricultural, mineral and hydrocarbon products on international market demand and investment by exploitative multinational corporations; steep social and economic inequality that has strong ethnic or racist overtones between – whites, mestizos and indigenous, populations in those areas that are naturally well-endowed with resources and those that are not, rural and urban, traditional social classes (bourgeois, professional, worker and peasant); and, not least, men and women.

Oliver Boyd-Barrett is Professor Emeritus, Bowling Green State University, Ohio and of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He currently teaches at California State University, Channel Islands. He has also taught at the Chinese University in Hong Kong and at the Higher School of Economics in Moscow. His most recent books include RussiaGate and Propaganda (Routledge); Media Imperialism: Continuity and Change (edited with Tanner Mirrlees)(Rowman and Littlefield); Media Imperialism (Sage) and Western Mainstream Media and the Ukraine Crisis (Routledge).

Hide 74 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. “These represent, on the one hand: a peasant teacher, Marxist and unionist, with a program to lift Peru’s largely marginalized and indigenous population from poverty by diverting the country’s wealth from the country’s traditional ruling class and their patrons – foreign extractavist corporations and the financiers who bankroll them.”

    Would that the US could elect such a leader. With such leadership, the US would become heaven on earth.

    Because stealing from the rich and giving to the poor is a good thing. Ask Robin Hood. Ask Jesus.

  2. Wyatt says:

    Would that the US could elect such a leader. With such leadership, the US would become heaven on earth.

    You know, that might mean something if the Spanish speakers down south didn’t have a history of electing incompetent retards to nationalize industries and fuck up everything because the mestizos don’t understand that socialism is just jewish feudalism intended to get a small ruling class into power that has no business being there.

    Hell, this is the one time I’m gonna blame the CIA, not because of their interference, but because they didn’t target Chavez within 3 years like that dumbass Allende.

    We don’t need a Pedro. We need a Pinochet.

  3. Notsofast says:

    thank you for this informative, well laid out article. when the usurpers in the bush jr. administration first came into power they were so focused on their plans of overthrowing sectarian middle eastern countries, that they took their eyes off central and south america, allowing chavez, lulu, correa, morales and the like to gain power and institute socialist governments. with the exception of their failed coup of chavez, they pretty much allowed these governments to put into place these sweeping changes to their economies that had such dramatic effect on poverty levels, healthcare and education to the indigenous populations. by the time the neolib/neocons refocused on the south they were horrified to find out that socialism was not only working but outpacing their uber corrupt crony neoliberalism. this had to be stopped at all cost and during the administration of the “liberal” nobel peace prize laureate the focus and the reticle was placed back on central and south america again. starting with the overthrow of zelaya, (which the clueless obama described as a coup in a press conference before being corrected by his boss), the death (assassination) of chavez, the color revolution removing dilma and lulu, the turning of the ratfucker moreno, and the coup of morales, things looked like a return to business as usual. i am shocked and pleasantly surprised at how quickly the situation has seemed to turn around. the resolve and courage of the people of these countries is an inspiration to the world, i only wish americans had this kind of political awareness and courage.

    • Replies: @Colonel Corn
    , @AndrewR
  4. Notsofast says:

    thanks for your “i need to pinchashit” video. say what you want about fascist dictators but they are snazzy dressers with their big hats to cover their empty heads.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Hannah Katz
  5. Thanks for the comments! My frustration with B&B (Branson and Bezos) is mainly that, given their enormous wealth, their lack of real focus on the truly important issues of our times is stunningly unhelpful. My description of them as socio-emotionally Neanderthal probably applies to the rest of the human race, including myself. I suspect they may be good conversationalists at the bar and I don’t truly mean to impugn them as people. Mine’s a beer, thank you!

    • Replies: @Notsofast
  6. In further comment on Branson and Bezos:

    Particularly bearing in mind that both have contributed to the intensification of fossil fuel burning, I do not take either’s protestations or proposed solutions terribly seriously. Branson’s 2019 support for a Clean Energy Dividend involves a payment based on fossil fuel use that can then be recouped by investment in (profit-oriented) wind farms, solar panels and breakthrough technologies, sounds to me eminently self-serving and a long way short of the urgency of the issue.

    Bezos only as recently as 2020 has said he will start a \$10bn fund as part of (admire the humility) a Bezos Earth Fund which will go to just about anything the fund’s administration imagines is worthwhile if and when it gets started. Amazon is supposedly pledged to be carbon-neutral by 2040, and has said it will commit a \$100 million fund to restore and protect forests and wetlands. Well, that can mean just about anything and the size of the fund is as nothing to the wealth of the company or of Bezos himself. On returning from his recent space flight Bezos said it had increased his commitment to climate change – apparently it made him realize there were “no borders” – and proposed that polluting industries should be relocated into space (from where presumably they could pollute space and possibly continue to pollute us from above) which I am sure is an incredibly simple thing to do.

  7. anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    If you carefully select quotes from major historical fascists, they can sound not-too-extreme, and make some good points … for example in this meme about Benito Mussolini, where he declares that fascism will not be a ‘police-ridden’ state (!) and promising to leave ‘individual elbow-room’… and the first paragraph critique of the sometimes-sham of ‘democracy’, is not far off the mark … Mussolini of course noted for his early opinion that Adolf Hitler would, in typical Germanic style, royally screw up the whole fascist project

  8. anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    ‘When I grow up, I want to be: Pinochet’

    • LOL: Notsofast, InnerCynic
  9. onebornfree says: • Website

    “Arce-Castillo Socialist Alliance for South America”

    Oh kerr-ryst! A ” socialist alliance” no less! 😂

    Yeah! That’s gonna work!

    Gawd help the inhabitants of these countries who are about to be totally screwed over yet again by the lying, murdering elitist scum who are at the top (or near top) of the pyramid.

    “Why are the super-rich for socialism? Don’t they have the most to lose? I take a look at my bank account and compare it with Nelson Rockefeller’s and it seems funny that I’m against socialism and he’s out promoting it.” Or is it funny? In reality, there is a vast difference between what the promoters define as socialism and what it is in actual practice. The idea that socialism is a share-the-wealth program is strictly a confidence game to get the people to surrender their freedom to an all-powerful collectivist government. While the Insiders tell us we are building a paradise on earth, we are actually constructing a jail for ourselves.” Gary Allen- None Dare Call It Conspiracy

    “Regards” onebornfree

    • Agree: Rich
    • Replies: @GomezAdddams
  10. Notsofast says:
    @Oliver Boyd-Barrett

    as a neanderthal i take particular offence at my people being compared to the reptilian creatures bezos and branson, who obviously have no human characteristics what so ever. i would also like to remind you that we have bigger brains than you homosapien sapiens and it was our people that built the caves that modern europe was founded on. please refrain from this slander in the future.

  11. These represent, on the one hand: a peasant teacher, Marxist and unionist, with a program to lift Peru’s largely marginalized and indigenous population from poverty by diverting the country’s wealth from the country’s traditional ruling class and their patrons – foreign extractavist corporations and the financiers who bankroll them. And, on the other hand: two supremely skillful image shapers, technically quite smart, but sub-neanderthal in socio-emotional intelligence, representatives of shallow, neoliberal greed and rudderless morality, neither of whom has intelligent or humane thoughts to offer on the dire planetary and species challenges of climate change, nuclear war and obscene social inequality.

    That’s quite a dichotomy you have in your head there. What’s interesting is that you seem much more psychologically familiar with the half you hate. Your language is so much more visceral.

    You also don’t appear to have the ability empathise with the “sainted” indigenous at all. There’s nothing there but abstraction. You might say you have an abstractivist approach towards thinking about indigenous movements.

    This is perverse in a way, but it actually makes sense. You can only see agency in the half that carries the characteristics of the part of yourself which you identify with. Your argument therefore treats people exactly as you imagine the “bad” half of your dichotomy treats them.

    Another way of making the same point is that by trying to convince everyone that you’re not “sub-neanderthal in socio-emotional intelligence”, you have become it.

    This is self-alienation pretending to be political commentary on Latin America.

  12. @obwandiyag

    “Thank God Gomez —now USA has the God given right to send military forces to South America for the next 50 years and costing a measely 12 Trillion to kill all those nasty peasants and keep America safe at home. Glad Pugsley watching Davey Crockett and as for Wednesday’s math problem–she is correct that 225 out of 243 is indeed 92.5% —this is the same Gomez as USA being at war since its inception in 1776 —–and it makes me swell with pride—no other nation comes close to USA when Peace earned via War is established ” and my friend Sergeant Slaughter is a great human and Knight of Columbus —St. Paedophile Branch of Our Lady of the Mourning Manuscript in downtown Philadelphia..

  13. I look at it this way… when anyone, or any party for that matter, “wants” to be in power …. well, there’s something wrong right there from the start. Human nature being what it is there is corruption and evil baked right into the cake.

  14. @anonymous

    Il Duce’s fatal mistake was to ally with Hitler. Of course, if he hadn’t, it would have saved him personally, but it wouldn’t have saved Italy from a becoming a province of the Anal Empire. It just would have postponed its accession, as happened to Spain.

  15. @onebornfree

    The USA model is not working last time I checked —640,000 croaked and 40 million infected and Winter is not here and Alabama is in “da slamma”. USA is broke –how can it repay 28 trillion?? Be serious. Amtrak Joe ( clickey clack) wants to now spend another 50 trillion to keep up with the Belt and Road and Blinken in India buying elephants for the big ceremony coming in DC when Trump and Biden will split the Presidency —–and Crooked Hillary and Hunter Biden will elope.

  16. Larry says:

    As they say “no cabe un tonto más”.

  17. GMC says:

    The overthrow of any decent government in Central or South America is only one or two assassinations of the top leaders – away. Otherwise the corrupt military that has members trained in the school of america’s will work it all out. Uniting the populace with a decent leader, is the only answer. Of course it would be nice if their military – was honorable to their country – which is pretty hard to find.

    • Agree: Notsofast, Mustapha Mond
  18. @Wyatt

    USA will not make it to 300 –it will be bankrupt in 5 years time.

  19. Rich says:

    “Proto-fascist” Trump? This guy has to be joking. Trump governed like a typical moderate republican, cut some taxes, a few regulations, but what else did he do? Ridiculous how everybody communists oppose suddenly become “fascist”. Joke.

  20. @Notsofast

    Look at that cape Pinochet is wearing! Where can I get one? No one seems to wear capes these days (other than comic book super heroes) and we need to bring them back into style. Or something…

  21. Thanks for an interesting review.
    Amid the heartening statistics of rising standards of living the thought came that the best recruits to National Socialism in 1920s Germany were former members of KPD.
    Because, of course, NSism is real Socialism unlike the Jewish fake Marxism.

    NS lifts indigenous out of ignorance and poverty, emphasises “the people”, opposes classes and the selling of the national patrimony to jewish-freemason transnationals, often just for bribe money and employing locals at minimum wage or less if they can get away with it. Absolutely opposes takeovers by non-native powers.

    Daniel Ortega is mentioned.
    The long-ruling king of Nicaragua, currently arresting anyone who seems a likely challenger to him in the presidency elections due in Nov. He still occupies and apparently has done financially very well out of the presidency from 1979, when his forces deposed/later assassinated Anastasio Somoza, to 1990.
    Refusing to take a hint, he returned in 2006, still there.
    Hopefully Bolivia/others can avoid this kind of murderous fiasco.

  22. @obwandiyag

    Stealing is not an answer, paying fairly is!
    Consider what the Bible says:

    2 Timothy 2:6-7
    King James Version
    6 The husbandman that laboureth must be first partaker of the fruits.

    7 Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.

    This means pay the farmer (& all raw material producers) their fair share first, then you will understand all things as economics and morals!

    When you pay the producers of wealth their fair share first, then the economy is not forced to borrow money that is necessary when one cheats the producers of wealth.

    Remember wealth is prior to money, and if you do not think so then try eating dollars to stay alive!

    This wisdom, was once the policy of United States of America known as Agricultural Parity, which actually is still Law 7 USC Sec 602 though not followed as farmers are getting a 33 cent dollar forcing bankruptcy and borrowing by the entire nation.

    We have traded a earned income economy for a go into debt economy. Parity is not communism but rather the means of ensuring people’s capitalism by stopping theft of real wealth from the producers of real wealth.

    These leaders need to enact raw material parity tariffs at the standard of living of those outside the country purchasing the wealth. Then such economies can grow from the bottom up, as America did.

    America needs to stop stealing its daily bread, here and abroad.

  23. @anonymous

    ” … carefully selecting quotes” is also a good way to present a distorted picture …

    Perhaps that was not your intent.
    But just for any who might wish to have the complete text so that they can make up their own minds, here is an audio file of —

    The Doctrine of Fascism by Giovanni Gentile and Benito Mussolini.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  24. @Wyatt

    I can’t believe that totally agree. We need a Pinochet. Thanks lefties for killing my dysfunctional republic, and make me OK with a strongman.

  25. Oh gee, should we all start singing Kumbaya? The good people are now running almost all of South America… again. Gosh if you flip us, just think what can be done? The superrich will still be rich, but those moderately rich, upper middle class will pay. Well not the managerial moderately rich. They are the epitome of the good people. They take their cut, and spread out the rest while bowing down to the oligarchs. Good times ahead if you are an oligarch. Finally do you really think someone like Pedro Castillo can rise to the top without a hidden guiding hand?

  26. Mefobills says:

    Quote from the article:

    In addition, Castillo’s victory follows by two months a significant progressive development in Chile when, on May 15 and 16, over 6 million Chileans voted for the 155 members of the Constitutional Convention, a body that will be responsible for writing the country’s new constitution to replace that drawn up by the fascist government of Augusto Pinochet in 1980

    The Pinochet Government was neo-liberal/neo-con, not Fascist. Neo-Con’s are part of international finance capitalism, which real fascism reacts AGAINST.

    This sort of inversion of what fascism is, irks me and is more annoying clown world hypnosis.

    Here is Hudson explaining what really happened:

    The Chilean experiment originated in an exchange program of economists between the University of Chicago and Chile’s Catholic University in Santiago. In August 1972, more than a year before the military coup, the CIA funded a 300-page economic blueprint which it supplied to the country’s military and some of the most ambitious business families in an effort to hasten the overthrow of Salvador Allende’s socialist government, which had been elected by a small plurality in 1970.

    The Chicago-style monetary plan described efforts to privatize industry, reign in government spending to lower inflation, and to create a more active stock market financed by labor’s own forced savings in order to increase stock prices. The hope was that capital gains would suffice to pay off the loans that the government gave its supporters and cronies to buy industrial companies will little or no cash down.

    Those privy to the neoliberal plan were able to use the report to make money for themselves and their allies under the military junta that seized power in 1974. Contrary to Augosto Pinochet’s avowed dream of “a nation of entrepreneurs,” their maneuvers led to a consolidation of monopoly power. This was contrary to the stated goals of his economic advisors, “The Chicago Boys,” educated at the University of Chicago and devoted to economists Milton Friedman and Friedrick Hayek. Chile became the first country subjected to “shock treatment,” starting with drastic reductions in social spending, privatization of industry and financial control on concessionary credit terms, and the deregulation of financial institutions. Most notorious of all, however, was the policy of “disappearing” labor and political opposition through the secret police, the DINA.

    The Chicago school was over-run by our (((friends))), especially after the Chicago plan was invented. Think of it like the Ford Foundation. Henry Ford was an arch anti-semite, and now Jews control the Ford Foundation. The same thing happened to the economic department at University of Chicago.

    If you don’t have a Jew-Dar, you are unable to understand the world.

    It was the Chicago (((Boys))) that convinced Yeltsin to privatize and hand over the commanding heights of the Russian economy to the (((Oligarchs))).

    Mussolini nationalized the banks in 1926, to then benefit the Italian people. Mussolini did NOT hand Italy’s money power over to a cabal of foreign privateers.

    • Agree: gatobart, Sin City Milla
  27. @Notsofast

    You have to be joking. I spend a lot of time in South America. Socialism is definitely NOT working.

  28. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Yo King Arthur, check out this video of Estado Novo Portugal during the time of António de Oliveira Salazar. All destroyed by the (perhaps Zio Globalist) Carnation Revolution.

    A Trans World Airlines film about Portugal in the 1960s. Good video.
    Check out some of the comments
    XcXtrippyXcX comments
    “Lol what bullshit, you do realize Portugal was 10x more wealthy in the 1960’s than it is now right? The war was necessary, citizens were murdered, it’s not all about money… ”

    Karl Lux Lusitania writes
    “a Beautiful Country and Life that secret societies destroyed and ‘revolutionary socialism” (erhm ..erhm…) corrupted! The takes seem to be from 67-68, when i was living there with my family, and I was five but remember it as if it were today. Then the ‘revolution’ came… some revolution, let me laugh…”

    Guilherme Ferreira responds
    “Everyone knows that. But we arent allowed to talk shit about the revolution”

    MALLA: In a democratic country you cannot criticize the leftist revolution? Oy Vey!!!

    E K writes
    No one was constantly watching smartphones, no BMW´s or Audi´s, no Banking credits for over-expensive lifestyle. No disregard of nature, nor respect-less behavior .
    Instead clean streets, polite, friendly, hardworking inhabitants. Have people been happier with their lives then?

    biteme emetib writes how expensive colonial Empires really are
    “portugal was kept in the darkness after crazy monarchs destroyed and then fascist state, but what really destroyed the country was an empire having an empire with just 1 million ppl is a invitation to be bullied arround and war all the time and then always more money going out then coming in, dutch realized this right away and never kept colonys just islands and smnall posts “

    MALLA: More money going out than coming in from the Empire. Colonialism many a times is expensive business.

  29. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    One more good video of Portugal under António de Oliveira Salazar.

    Introducing Portugal – 1956.

    We can see Salazar at 13:12 minutes. Check out the development at 13:42 minutes

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  30. Bro43rd says:

    It seems to me the socialists are just like the democrats & republicans. Say whatever gets you elected then it’s business as usual. In general government is just a scam that is tolerated only due to an onslaught of propaganda & its minor utility. Although lately it’s become increasingly difficult to tolerate.

  31. Notsofast says:

    neolib/neocons are fascists. mussolini did not like the term fascist he is credited with originating, he said he preferred the term “corporatism”.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  32. Socialism is good for Latin America. It’s good for Cuba, it’s good for Bolivia, it’s good for Brazil, it’s good for Venezuela.

    They already had free market. They don’t like it.

  33. Left to their own devices, most if not all, South American countries would go socialist, save for the habitual disconnect between the rulers and ideologues on the one hand and the common folks on the other. Corruption, incompetence and meddling from Uncle Sam would creep in, not allowing stable and peaceful evolution of socialist governance. Besides, the more these countries turn socialist, the busier our criminal Eliott Abrams will get cooking up regime change schemes under the usual pretexts of promoting democracy and human rights. With a helping hand of deposed leaders and their paid puppets naturally.

  34. SeanInNYC says:

    Anyone to the right of a Marxist, the Marxist will call “fascist”.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  35. @Malla

    Thanks for this mention/link to “Portugal’s greatest Statesman”, Malla.
    Antonio Salazar’s policies, patiently promoted by him for many years, transformed Portugal and immensly benefitted all Portuguese.
    Until wrecked by the “Carnation Revolution” disaster as you say.
    That lunacy that reduced Portugal towards 3W status today.

    This is pt 1 of a very good (in my humble opinion) series on Salazar, with linear history diverting into analyses of his Economic policy, opposition, the Estado Novo etc etc.
    Well worth your/anyone’s time.
    The Reds, associates of those raping catholic nuns in Spain and similar atrocities, called this humble and good man a “bloodstained Fascist murderer” … such is the power of the (((media))) and the (((education))) system that he is either unknown or vilified.
    Like Vidkun Quisling for example … and many others …

    • Thanks: Malla
    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  36. Mefobills says:

    NeoLibs/NeoCons are finance capitalists and usurers.

    They are for international corporatocracy. Don’t be confused by the word corporatocracy – it means that corporations rule, not the people.

    The order of hierarchy in today’s corporatocracy is: 1) International Credit (capital that comes into existence with a debt instrument). 2) International Corporations. 3) Government that is subordinated to money.

    Politicians then become mouthpieces for Oligarchy, and said Oligarchy is tied and cross linked corporate interests.

    Fascism = corporatism, which Mussolini defined. Corporatisms is not corporatocracy.

    Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State

    neolib/neocons are NOT FASCISTS! Do I need to state it in bold to get it through the thick heads here in the comment board.

    Fascism arose to counter finance capitalism, especially as it was taking sordid gains against labor during the rise of the industrial era. Neolib/NeoCons are a Jewish thought construct, and they go bezerk over real fascism. Finance Capitalism was a Jewish invention which started in Amsterdam, and then jumped to London.

    Fascism was STATE CREDIT channeling into industry NOT PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL BANK CREDIT.

    Italy’s civilization had polarized in the same way as had Germany. The “owners” were taking sordid gain as plutocracy had arisen.

    Fascism is actually a corrective to Finance Capital and endemic polarization. To conflate fascism with neocons/neoliberals is just more proof that we live in clown world.

  37. Lokke says:

    Regarding Brazil, the author very conveniently focused on the Lula years (during which Brazil surfed on China-led the global commodity boom while literally maintaining a Neoliberal economic policy that had been the legacy of the former president, center-right FHC). While it’s easy to portray the Lula years positively (despite the fact that the prosperity was illusory and the country de-industrialized at lightning speed – as it became clear during the following lost decade), it is absolutely impossible to do so to Lula’s puppet successor Dilma.

    During the Dilma years (with Lula governing from the shadows), the government pivoted towards a more “genuinely leftist” economic policy. Debt exploded, capital rushed out as fast as it could and all the social gains of the previous years were reversed. Tens of millions of Brazilians were thrown back into poverty and the social fabric was torn apart. I wonder why the author left this out? It makes me think this article is a worthless piece of propaganda, honestly. If you want to be taken seriously, at least try to appear non-partisan.

  38. Mefobills says:

    Anyone to the right of a Marxist, the Marxist will call “fascist”

    Fascism is a blank slate people project onto. Mussolini defined it, so it is not a blank slate. Ignorance reigns, but in the case of (((Marxists))) they may be active disinfo agents.

    Ironically, China has a fascist type of mixed economy, where the State issues sovereign money via their state banks.

    China is a mixed economy, with state credit channeling into industry in what is almost a carbon copy of Fascist economies. China has evolved past the failures of Marxism and into Fascism.

    The Colonials invented Industrial Capitalism which found its ultimate expression as NSDAP/Fascism.

    The U.S., especially after 1913, adopted Finance Capitalism/Atlantacism/Rim Theory and all of the BS invented and promoted from the square mile. Or rather, it wasn’t adopted, but was inserted into the U.S. by the parasite in the election of 1912.

  39. tito says: • Website

    Latin America is devoid of global importance.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @gatobart
  40. Mefobills says:

    Latin America is devoid of global importance.

    That was determined during the McKinley era. We are living in the aftermath of the Atlanticist vs Nationalist/Sovereigntists battles.

    The Atlanticist won. They also won in WW1 and 2.

    A major battle which has been intentionally obscured from history books took place in the wake of Lincoln’s murder and the re-ascension of the City of London-backed slave power during the decades after the Union victory of 1865. On the one hand America’s role in the emerging global family of nations was being shaped by followers of Lincoln who wished to usher in an age of win-win cooperation. Such a system which Adams called “a community of principle” asserted that each nation had the right to sovereign banking controls over private finance, productive credit emissions tied to internal improvements with a focus on continental (rail/road) development, industrial progress and full spectrum economies. Adherents of this program included Russia’s Sergei Witte and Alexander II, Germany’s Otto von Bismarck, France’s Sadi Carnot, and leading figures within Japan’s Meiji Restoration.

    The Win-Win cooperation intended to extend railroads and American Treasury Credit into Central and South America. Gilpin was the major promoter of the American System.

    Alfred Thayer Mahan (1840-1914) represented an opposing paradigm which true American statesmen like Lincoln, Secretary of State James Blaine, William Seward, President Grant, William Garfield, and McKinley detested. Sadly, with McKinley’s murder (run by an anarchist ring with ties to British Intelligence) and the rise of Teddy Roosevelt in 1901, it was not Gilpin’s but rather Mahan’s worldview which became the dominant foreign policy doctrine for the next 120 years (despite a few brief respites under FDR and JFK).

    (FDR was a POS, but he did revive some of the American System. FDR was not as successful as Hitler, who went all the way – and hence Germany had no great depression.)

  41. @Mefobills

    Indeed, Mefo, thick heads brainwashed by the (((media)) repeating implanted disinformation … maybe in some cases agents for Levi Davidovitch Bronstein …

    As you say, Fascism = corporatism.
    A useful way for me at least to think of Corporatism is from its Latin root corpus

    Etymologically, corporatism derives from the Latin “corpus” meaning “human body”, indicating the intention that society should be in harmonious functioning when each of its divisions efficiently performs its designated function, such as a body’s organs individually contributing its general health.

    It’s difficult to imagine a body (nation) being healthy when a Parasite has inserted itself for malicious intent. This is the analogy with Finance Capitalism, which has very many facets such as marxism, frankfurt school, liberalism, feminism, satanism etc … designed to appeal to the foolish and corrupt … the USA after 100 years of judeo-freemason influence for example has been perverted beyond recognition …

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  42. AndrewR says:

    Learn how to use capital letters, commie scum

  43. Notsofast says:

    Neolib/neocons are the deep state and miic, your glory days of the 20’s and 30’s are long gone. Time for you to embrace neo fascism.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  44. gatobart says:

    You don’t know what you are talking about. Salvador Allende wasn’t toppled by the CIA and the CIA wasn’t “targeting” him anyway. The CIA didn’t even play much of a role in his overthrown as Allende was brought down by the Chilean elite allied to the Chilean middle class and mainly as the result of his own mistakes. Truth is, he was toppled not so much for being a Socialist but simply for being an incompetent, not to mention the fact that he had been expropriating latifundios and industries belonging to the Chilean elite and that was reason enough for them to take him out so they didn’t need or want the CIA for that, they could perfectly do it themselves with their control of the military.

    The main role played by the CIA in Chilean politics was after Allende’s electoral victory of Sept. 04 1970, when Nixon & Kissinger told the CIA to go to Santiago and see a way to prevent him from taking office, something scheduled for next nov. 04. In Santiago the CIA contacted diverse right wing politicians and tried to convince them to so something to legally block Allende’s way to the Moneda palace; for example by forcing Congress to pick the candidate who had gotten the second majority, against all tradition, but they were unsuccessful in all their attempts as most local politicians agreed that they could deal with a Marxist as president, that Allende wouldn’t be the end of Chilean democracy. Finally and out of desperation the CIA gave some weapons to a handful of extreme right activists so they’d kidnap the Chief of the Army, General Schneider, expecting that the blame would fall on the extreme left wing guerrilla movement MIR and that would make the Army take power. A really harebrained CIA plan. But the amateur operatives botched the coup and rather than kidnaping General Schneider they killed him when he resisted his captors and pulled his gun. Chilean military justice did its job and the identity of the real culprits became known and so their connections to the CIA, which provoked a wave of public indignation against the US and against the CIA. So all what the CIA in Chile had managed to achieve was to create a deep anti-US feeling that greatly helped Allende for the first six months of his administration. After that fiasco, a true political Bay of Pigs, the CIA was careful to meddle again in Chilean internal politics. It was only by March or Avril of 1973, when the Right had already decided to take out Allende with a military coup, that the collaboration between the Chilean right and the CIA resumed, mostly in logistical and technical support. So, from October 1970 on, there was no CIA operation in Chile, except the handing of some money to finance anti-Allende strikes. So, no, the CIA never targeted Allende personally.

  45. gatobart says:

    “The Chilean experiment originated in an exchange program of economists between the University of Chicago and Chile’s Catholic University in Santiago. In August 1972, more than a year before the military coup, the CIA funded a 300-page economic blueprint which it supplied to the country’s military and some of the most ambitious business families in an effort to hasten the overthrow of Salvador Allende’s socialist government, which had been elected by a small plurality in 1970.”

    We have to be careful anyway and keep in mind one thing. The fact that there have been plans and projects drawn and that they may work to perfection on paper doesn’t mean in any way that they constitute a historical inevitability. If that was truth, then the USSR would have been nuked shortly after ww2 and then divided into many small parts. And the same would have happened to China after Mao’s revolution. Not to mention Cuba which should have probably disappeared as a nation in 1962. Because there were plans drawn by the Pentagon and the CIA to bring all those events to reality. So why didn’t they come to happen…? Simply because other factors came into play that made impossible their realization and that could have been said also of the case of Chile and of the so-called Pinochet coup (which BTW, wasn’t at all the work of Pinochet, there was no Pinochet coup).

    So, the fact that by August 1972 the CIA and others had made a study on the imposition of neoliberalism after a military coup in Chile doesn’t mean that it was going to happen no matter what. In reality the factors for the Chilean 911 are many and varied and even if Allende had had to abandon his office before the end of his mandate there was a very possibility of him doing it within the legal framework given by the Chilean Constitution and above all, peacefully and in an orderly fashion. And that is very important because had he left the presidency this way, there would have been no way or justification for a military coup, let alone a military regime, and the plans drawn by the CIA and the Chilean oligarchy would have amounted to nothing as more than 60% of the Chilean population would have resisted all attempts by the elite, less than 5% of the population, to implant a dictatorship, let alone something as brutal and undemocratic as neoliberalism as it was applied there.

    The sad reality is that what happened in Sept. 1973 and during the decades after it was decided in the Parliamentary elections of March 1973 and in the months after it. The Right and a good chunk of the center, i.e. the elite and most of the middle class, wanted to send Allende packing legally, so they campaigned for this election with the slogan “Give us 2/3 of Congress so we can impeach Allende”. Had they achieved this magic number, Allende would have been out within the law, new elections would have been called and, the most important thing, Chileans would have kept intact their Constitutional system, their democratic rights and their social, political and economic conquests.

    But the opposition didn’t get their 2/3, as the result of the elections gave them 56% of votes against 44% for Allende and his left wing coalition, which meant a majority in Congress for the first but not in any way one that translated into a 2/3 majority of its members. So, after the results of the election were out it was clear that Allende would stay in power until the end of his mandate, in nov. of 1976. Now, in any country where the political class thinks first and above all in the country and the people this would have been the moment where politicians of both sides would have said to the other: “OK, you can’t win, we can’t win either. President Allende may stay but is now paralyzed because the opposition has the majority in Congress. So it is time to sit and talk, to arrive to a deal, for the sake of the nation”. That is what DID NOT happen in Chile in March 1973 in Chile and the reason is simple: because Chilean politicians weren’t thinking of Chile or working for Chile but for their own international patrons/mentors/bosses. The Chilean PC, just a docile and obedient franchise of the USSR-PC, doing what it was being told by Moscow; the center-right-left Christian Democrats being financed themselves by the daddy of all CDs, the West German CDs. The Socialist, the same and even the extreme left MIR receiving their aid from Cuba. So at the end it wasn’t only the CIA that was pouring money and aid into the Chile of Allende but practically everybody and his dog, including Mao’s China that was financing their own Maoist minuscule party in Chile.

    That was the real tragedy of Chile and the main reason for the chaos and mayhem that finally broke the camel’s back and brought us the tragedy of its 911. The fact that almost every politician was thinking first and foremost of his own party, his own religion, his own dogma and its own foreign mentors, forgetting those he should have been serving in the first place, the Chilean people. That made impossible all accommodation or concession, all deal or agreement to save Chilean democracy after those parliamentary elections of march 73, so the situation continued to deteriorate in a country more and more divided by the day. The coup of September 11 1973 was the final result of that process.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @Sin City Milla
  46. Mefobills says:

    Neolib/neocons are the deep state and miic, your glory days of the 20’s and 30’s are long gone. Time for you to embrace neo fascism.


    I just explained how China is a fascist economy. China is winning the battle, because fascism of the 20’s and 30’s is part of the natural order, whereas the ne0lib/neocon deep state are part of Jewish method i.e. finance capitalism.

    Anything Jewish is anti-logos…it is against the natural order.

    Time for you to embrace real fascism. Clown world degeneracy is already inducing a backlash among civilized people.

  47. Mefobills says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    It’s difficult to imagine a body (nation) being healthy when a Parasite has inserted itself for malicious intent.

    Exactly. An economy is like a body with muscles, sinew, energy… and it is in motion, it is not static.

    If a tumor is protruding from your neck, you don’t tax the whole body. You would be taxing the bones, sinews and muscles and weakening the body.

    You would instead tax rents, unearned income and usury. The tumor is taxed, or denied nourishment, so the body can become healthy. A healthy body can shake off its parasites.

    Fascism was an attempt to take a sick body and make it healthy by ejecting those things making it sick.

    The average western NPC (non player character) has been downloaded with false narrative, and doesn’t even know what rents, unearned income and usury are.

    The devil wins the moment he disappears from view. The parasite emits hypnosis, and does not want you to have glasses to see his activity.

  48. Mefobills says:

    forgetting those he should have been serving in the first place, the Chilean people.

    If you civilizational hierarchy is serving foreign masters, or is self interested, then your country is screwed. The control centers have been usurped.

    Hitler forbid many government workers from owning stock and participating as “capital” owners in the economy, as he considered it a conflict of interest. This prevented government workers from becoming self-interested, and working for themselves against the commonweal.

    Thanks for the details of various players angling for their own interests.

    • Replies: @gatobart
  49. @Wyatt

    The entire world takes advantage of America’s dysfunctional government to meddle in our internal affairs. Diversity is a Marxist death sentence. We definitely need a Pinochet.

    • Replies: @Lemming
  50. @gatobart

    Are you certain you aren’t discussing today’s Washington DC?

    • Agree: gatobart
  51. @Mefobills

    A universal truth:

    Anything Jewish is anti-logos…it is against the natural order.

    (((They))) reject God who came as man. (((They))) know His divinity but choose to side with the diabolical against Him.

  52. An excellent, comprehensive, review. Thanks!

  53. gatobart says:

    If you civilizational hierarchy is serving foreign masters, or is self interested, then your country is screwed. The control centers have been usurped.

    Unfortunately, that seems to be true even as we speak, in July 2021 as it was the case in September 1973. Things have not improved since, rather worsened. In the last five years, starting with the very Socialist Michele Bachelet Chile has been intentionally inundated by refugees from every possible poor country in the Americas, something that critics have denounced as a premeditated ONU plot (Agenda 21 or something like that) managed by the Jesuits and the Human Rights local mafia. The Chilean Northern border has been left completely open so everyone who wishes has been able to enter the country and demand, not even plea, for things they never had in their own countries, social security, free medical healthcare…and they have gotten it, while Chileans have to pay for their own services at a very expensive price. Many also agree that the worst curse for Chile, the worst knife in its collective back, is the entire political class. As for myself I dream of a true dictator taking over and obliterating every single political party, physically eliminating every one of their militants, every single politician from extreme right to extreme left. And then, maybe then, there will be any hope for the country. And I know also that is the dream of many Chileans.

    BTW, many Chileans say that from a country importer of valued, professional skilled immigrants that bring value, Chile has turned into a net importer of misery and crime. Truer words were never spoken.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  54. Good stuff.

    \$10 says if Castillo does a bang up job, he’ll be a “fascist akshully” too. The Peru National Socialist party guy sounds like an Unz commenter.

    Peru’s Nazi party leader believes even the conquistadors were Jews

    The Pencil guy has a solid platform, strictly anti imperialist, anti capitalist, anti-monopoly no suggestions of violence or war mongering to conquer anyone, so definitely not fascist. Hahaha I don’t think they run as Marxist either, but a very pro-labor and populist rhetoric. No suggestions of roughing up commies or union members like most fascists might do….

    We shall see. If he isn’t bought off, assassinated or overthown he may achieve some good things. Which would be good for us as well.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  55. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Have you heard of Miguel Serrano?
    Miguel Serrano was a Chilean diplomat, writer, occultist, and fascist activist. A National Socialist, he later became a prominent figure in the National Socialist movement as an exponent of Esoteric Hitlerism. During the Second World War, in which Chile remained neutral until 1943, Serrano campaigned in support of Third Reich Germany through his own fortnightly publication, La Nueva Edad. In 1953, Serrano joined the Chilean diplomatic corps and was stationed in India until 1963, where he took a keen interest in Hinduism and wrote several books. He was later made ambassador to Yugoslavia and then Austria.

    Miguel Serrano meeting Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru (right) in May 1957

    M.Serrano: Warrior and Visionary of the Spirit – Norman Lowell

  56. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    There is this excellent video of Miguel Serrano celebrating Hitler’s 100th birthday in Chile.
    Short video, but I would recommend everybody to watch his moving speech , in Spanish but with English subtitles.
    Miguel Serrano celebrates the 100th birthday of Adolf Hitler in Chile 1989 (1989 – Miguel Serrano celebra in Cile il centesimo anniversario della nascita di Hitler), 20 aprile 1989

    He also speaks about 22 Chilean National Socialists who bravely sacrificed their lives for their beliefs or something in some other video. Are you aware of this?

    Here is an interview with him in Spanish (English subtitles), but this is more about spirituality. pretty interesting esoteric stuff. Discusses the relations in between Hinduism, Tantra, Islam, Kaaba, Abraham, Christianity. You could say he is more in line with Savitri Devi.

    Interview to Miguel Serrano (pt.1)
    Miguel Serrano interviewed by Cristian Warnken for the TV show “La Belleza de Pensar”.
    Broadcasted on January 17th, 2005

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  57. Mefobills says:

    As for myself I dream of a true dictator taking over and obliterating every single political party, physically eliminating every one of their militants, every single politician from extreme right to extreme left. And then, maybe then, there will be any hope for the country. And I know also that is the dream of many Chileans.

    Aristotle noted the cycle, where late stage democracy gives rise to a Tyrant. Tyrant is a good thing, it is one Oligarch (soon to be King or Fascist dictator) releasing debts, and includes killing off or marginalizing the other Oligarchs.

    Book V of Aristotle’s Politics describes the eternal transition of oligarchies making themselves into hereditary aristocracies – which end up being overthrown by tyrants or develop internal rivalries as some families decide to “take the multitude into their camp” and usher in democracy, within which an oligarchy emerges once again, followed by aristocracy, democracy, and so on throughout history.

    Debt has been the main dynamic driving these shifts – always with new twists and turns. It polarizes wealth to create a creditor class, whose oligarchic rule is ended as new leaders (“tyrants” to Aristotle) win popular support by cancelling the debts and redistributing property or taking its usufruct for the state.

    You may yet get your wish.

    I’m American, and the dynamics you describe are happening here too. U.S. is being bought up and debt polarization is accelerating, while simultaneously the borders are wide open, to then create a new serf class.

    Our civilizational hierarchy is a hidden elite, something like a layer above the political class and hence above government. It could care less about the general welfare, and actually hates the population, which has been euphemized as deplorables.

    The founding stock of whites are especially hated, and the narrative issued is always some sort of guilt to then keep the white population compliant and ducking their heads, or being afraid (Covid, etc.)

    Unironically, many of the Oligarchy, are liberal whites themselves, or Jews who could pass as white.

    Trump didn’t know that he was supposed to be the Tyrant; His instincts and his intellect were not in alignment.

  58. Mefobills says:

    Peru’s Nazi party leader believes even the conquistadors were Jews

    Ummm… yes.

    Many of the conquistadors were Conversos from the Canary Islands. Jews fled to the Canary Islands when expelled from Spain. They had money lust, and were looking for gold.

    (They also fled to Portugal, and then onward to Amsterdam, where they invented Finance Capitalism.)

    Here in Texas, Canary Island Jews were a large fraction of the Spanish Missionary class.

    Since when is Fascism war-mongering? Italy and NSDAP Germany did not start WW1 or 2.

    Finance Capital wants to make gains, or it wants to protect its Colonies, or international assets. So, the hidden finance elite work tirelessly to influence their usurped democracies toward war. Gaslighting the population and emitting false narrative are part of the parasites bag of tricks.

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
    , @Lemming
  59. @Mefobills

    Since when is Fascism war-mongering? Italy and NSDAP Germany did not start WW1 or 2. … Gaslighting the population and emitting false narrative are part of the parasites bag of tricks.

    It’s understandable that people can be embarrassed on realising that they have been fooled into fighting for their own enemies, or at least not opposing them.
    But what to make of those who have some knowledge and come across e.g. that “communism” was funded by Jacob Schiff, a Jewish banker in a Jewish Bank in NYC ?
    Maybe refusing to believe it … or ask Why ?
    Maybe refusing to look further into the history/nature of “communism” ?

    Continuing to fight for marxism and its many self/destructive facets …
    Perhaps even teaching it in Universities to young pliable minds ?
    Publishing it as “journalists” to the public ?
    Writing “histories” that (deliberately) do not tell the full truth ?

    How is anyone to regard such people ?
    Misguided ? Depraved ? Corrupt ? — I search in vain for a suitable adjective ..

    • Replies: @Mefobills
    , @gatobart
  60. @Malla

    Thanks, Malla.
    I had heard of Miguel Serrano, not much more than the name and a few details.
    I know next to nothing about Savitri Devi’s esoteric views.
    It’s perhaps interesting, though, in the reminder that Benito Mussolini and Giovanni Gentile identified Fascism as essentially a spiritual movement and I agree with that.

    These developments in Las Americas are interesting … it will prove impossible that tired old politically correct jewish marxism will be any kind of effective answer against rapacious jewish freemason “extractive” Vulture capitalism/latifundia agrobusiness.
    Possibly those countries will continue the process into National Socialism.
    This to me is the logical outcome.

    “Am Ende steht der Sieg”.

    • Replies: @Malla
    , @Malla
  61. Mefobills says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    How is anyone to regard such people ?
    Misguided ? Depraved ? Corrupt ? — I search in vain for a suitable adjective ..


    Demoralization is a function of the brain neuron wiring. First information if myelin sheathed, so it takes primacy.

    Second brain function is Amygdala firing before Hippocampus. So, the base functions (fight or flight) take precedence. The Hippocampus (rational thought) has to deal with the irrational Amygdala firing, and it can make up “excuses.”

    A demoralized person has difficulty rewiring their brain in the face of new information, their brain is not plastic. Instead they cling to their shibboleths. Others, the ones that know better, are simply depraved. Then there are psychopaths and sociopaths as part of the population.

    I like to pick on demoralized people, or obvious disinfo agents that appear here on these pages. It illustrates their mental state to others who are not so far gone.

    I keep asking the question, how to you organize and staff your civilizational hierarchy? I’m of the opinion that it would take a special school, where the students are pre-screened for desirable characteristics, such as empathy. Then they are trained to function as third party agents.

    Man has two way relations and three way relations. Government, police, law, insurance, banking, etc., are third parties mediating between two way relations.

    These sensitive nodes cannot be staffed by psychopaths, sociopaths, or demoralized types. Unfortunately, the ruling elite of America are staffed with the worst sort of people.

    Our (((friends))), such as Jacob Schiff acted as a third party via their money power, to then work for his in-group benefit, and against the general welfare. Schiff was probably also a psychopath.

    We can do brain scans now for psychopathy.

    • Replies: @Mefobills
  62. Mefobills says:

    I’m of the opinion that it would take a special school, where the students are pre-screened for desirable characteristics, such as empathy. Then they are trained to function as third party agents


    The British Civil Service is a good example of a third party that had desirable characteristics, especially as they administered their colonies. For the most part, Civil Service people were selfless and above petty rivalries.

    I’m hard on “City of London” as it is a Jewish Construct via the big bang, as I have previously described.

    But, the “City” was wise enough to staff their Civil Service with empathetic people, unlike themselves. Once the colonial system was in place, it needed to function without hitch, something like a trucking fleet, moving goods from here to there, and hence extracting the increment of production as gains for their class.

    • Replies: @Arthur MacBride
  63. Notsofast says:

    i’d love to hear you explain to xi how he should change the name of the country to the peoples fascist dictatorship of china. i’ll meet you half way on this although, in the future i will refer to neolib/neocons as neofascist or military industrial intelligence corporatists.

  64. Mefobills says:

    I’ll meet you half way on this although, in the future i will refer to neolib/neocons as neofascist or military industrial intelligence corporatists.

    Fair enough.

    One of the problems today is that words have different meanings in people’s brainspace.

    So, when you say Fascism it means something to you and something different to me.

    Ne0-Fascism is a way out, but may still confuse normies, as they don’t know what fascism is. They have been trained to knee-jerk.

    Corporatocracy, or deep state are two terms that are gaining in the public mind. Any sort of use of the word Fascism is blank slate projection, with negative connotation, something like “Hitler.”

    It is a term that has been tortured beyond its original meaning.

  65. gatobart says:

    Latin America is devoid of global importance

    Tell me why that is such a bad thing. The Middle East, Eastern Europe and Japan are considered to be of global importance and see how much good it has done to them: wars, invasions, genocide, eternal mayhem, political instability, that is what “global importance” usually brings to you. There has been no major war, one involving most of South America, in two centuries already.

  66. @Mefobills


    Thanks for this insight, Mefo.
    After over 100 years of open talmudic power, exercised chiefly through the Square Mile as you say, and the war, ruin and slaughter generated, those neural pathways are now well established. Reinforced by the Lügenpresse owned by the same entity.
    Not to forget its many other dupes and useful idiots.

    Agree on your assessment of the British Civil Service, and how “clever” of the Hyena to use this body, renowned for efficiency, impartiality and incorruptability, as a front. To extract wealth globally and to exercise power. It is my impression that UK, though widely regarded as a spent force, still exercises a quiet sort of authority in much of its old Empire because of the memory of that honourable body of men (mostly, although unknowing dupes in reality) plus the charisma/pomp of a monarchy that has consistently betrayed its own people. As you imply, UK so-called govt is just a rubber stamp for Mr Rothschild’s “City”.

    Though I’d have to say their parasitism is now close to killing the host.

    • Agree: Mefobills
  67. gatobart says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    “It’s understandable that people can be embarrassed on realising that they have been fooled into fighting for their own enemies, or at least not opposing them.
    But what to make of those who have some knowledge and come across e.g. that “communism” was funded by Jacob Schiff, a Jewish banker in a Jewish Bank in NYC ?
    Maybe refusing to believe it … or ask Why ?
    Maybe refusing to look further into the history/nature of “communism” ?”

    Given that the subject in study is Latin America and Latin American politics and Socialism I guess you are referring to our continent and thus falling into the same mistaken belief held by many outsiders, in great part due to the propaganda from the U.S., that there is a vast pool of Communist activists and militants in the sub-continent waiting in the wings for the occasion, ready to pounce on those millions of unsuspecting peasants and urban workers, ready to take their minds and hearts hostage, to use their added social muscle to take power and then to lead them to their own Marxist paradise on Earth. That is one more of the most popular myths foreigners hold about Latino countries, especially those in South America.

    The fact is, Marxism has never been very popular in Latin America, let alone Communism, and this is a misconception that started, or took off, with the onset of the Cuban Revolution. Contrary to popular belief, the guerrilla force that started fighting the Batista dictatorship from Sierra Maestra could have been considered anything but Communist. In fact Fidel Castro had at the time many sympathies in the U.S. as many people saw him and his band of desperadoes. or rather barbudos, as a modern version of Robin Hood and his merrymen, a little army of idealistic fighters for freedom and democracy against a brutal dictatorship. The kind of story Hollywood loves, and so did Life, which sent a journalist to make a full report with color pictures which made them, Fidel and his barbudos, household names around the world. Those who have researched the JFK assassination may remember also that Jack Ruby used to run guns to Cuba, to Fidel Castro, as the Amerrican mob was already buttering him up in case he would take power. The only Communist at the time in his little band of barbudos seem to have been an Argentinian they used to call Che Guevara. As for Castro himself he is assumed to have become a Communist by force, only after he saw no alternative but to turn to the USSR for help, in 1962, as he saw that Cuba alone couldn’t possibly withstand Amerrican multifaceted aggression. Before that, he really thought the new Cuba could be accepted by Washington as he thought also that Amerricans would see his own struggle as a Cuban version of their own Revolution, but that wouldn’t happen of course. And that is because he started expropriating American property, specially the sugar cane industry, and that is what made his name mud for Amerrica, and a “Commie”. Also, the Sandinistas who took power in Nicaragua in 1979 weren’t Communist by any stretch of the imagination. They were a Left wing democratic coalition where Social Democrat Daniel Ortega was the undisputed leader. In fact they had to carry out a 10-year struggle to defend Nicaraguan democracy from the vile attacks from Washington backed, financed and sponsored pro-Somoza terrorists.

    This is what happens in the real world, what happens also in Latin America when a new leader, party, takes over, especially after a revolution like the Cuban in 1959 or the Sandinista in 1979. They know, they have known beforehand, that the first thing they have to address is the economy and their first measures are related to it. As they are usually informed, educated people, they have already a good idea of what has to be done to fix the problems in their society. That is not Mensa material, as the greatest problem in most of Latin America is the incredibly unfair distribution of wealth; and in rural societies, land distribution, peasants who want their own piece of land. So when a leader wants to change things for the better in his country he doesn’t need to take a look at The Communist Manifest or to read what Lenin advised to do in a similar situation, but to simply do was it is obvious to improve the lot of the vast majority of his people. That is what Daniel Ortega did, and Evo Morales, and Hugo Chavez and what Fidel Castro did once he took power (event which didn’t take place immediately after him entering Havana in Jan. 01, 1959 as many believe but much later) and what every other “Commie” leader has done in recent History. Which means they have never followed Marx’s writings as their guide for their political action once in power because they don’t need it. One even more telling example is that of Chile. In 1964 the U.S. financed in good part the candidacy of its poster boy in Chile, Christian Democrat Eduardo Frei, to prevent eternal presidential candidate Salvador Allende from taking La Moneda. Once installed in power, Frei started waging a vigorous land reform that naturally enraged to an extreme the traditional land owning elite (the latifundistas) and which in the course of time intensified, to the point of causing bloody confrontations and even a military revolt against him (providing the irony that the first military revolt in Chile in the era wasn’t the one against Allende but against his predecessor, Frei, Washington’s pet in Latin America…! In fact many agree that if Frei had stayed in power after 1970 he would have been the one overthrown by the military, as his land reform had made him deeply hated by the rural elite so a sworn enemy of the Right. Which shows one more that being backed by Washington would become useless for a Latin American president if he becomes hated to that extreme by the local elite). Now, the reason why Frei started confiscating land from the rich landowners wasn’t so much for social justice, to give the land to the peasants, but because there was a lot of arable land that was being lost, as it had been left abandoned, unproductive, while the country had to spend millions of dollars importing wheat from abroad. In 1970, when Allende took power, he deepened that land reform. Here you have an example of two politicians, one on the right and the other one a Marxist, who did the same thing, taking land from landowners, because they saw the need for it for economic reason. And that has been the norm for most if not all situations of the kind in Latin America. Leaders and presidents don’t take this or that measure for ideological reasons, because that is what Communism doctrine says, but simply because it is something they think they have to do for social, economic, development reasons, etc. And there are no exceptions to the rule, except of course in the cause of the traditional puppet dictators like Somoza or Batista who simply let US MNs own and control the national economy. As for Fidel Castro, even if he wanted the best possible relations with the U.S. he also considered that for the sake of Cuban economic independence he had to expropriate the sugar cane industry, thus killing in the egg his short-lived honeymoon with America.

    In any case, Communist parties have always been a very small minority in Latin American politics. Their highest point I think was reached in Chile (which had the biggest Communist party of the Americas at the time with something like 300.000 militants) during the municipal election of April 1971, when they barely reached above 17% of the popular vote. No other Communist Party in the continent has ever reached that number. As for the Marxist Left’s total, Communists and Socialists (which got about 23%) they totalled about 40% which may constitute a never beaten record in Latin American History.

  68. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Yes, National Socialism is superior to both Wall Street type Capitalism and Marxist Communism because they both are purely materialist ideologies/systems while NS is spiritual. Materialist systems may work in the short term but they lose out to the Spiritual system in the long term.

    I know next to nothing about Savitri Devi’s esoteric views.

    One of the best book’s to read is The Lightning and The Sun

    PDF file:
    The Lightning and The Sun by Savitri Devi
    Pharoah Akhenaten od Egypt was the sun, Ghenghis Khan was lightning (sheer willpower). Adolf Hitler was both lightning and the sun.

    One more book worth reading is Gold in the Furnace: Experiences in Post-War Germany about how the enemies tried to spiritually destroy Germany.
    Pdf below

    • Thanks: Arthur MacBride
  69. Malla says:
    @Arthur MacBride

    Savitri Devi, who was considered the priestess of Adolf Hitler wrote a book against animal cruelty, The Impeachment of Man. Many practical tips to remove animal cruelty completely from human society.
    Opening epigraph of the Book is
    “Thou shalt love God in all things, animals and plants” —Alfred Rosenberg

  70. @Malla

    Thanks for links to Savitri Devi books, Malla, which I have downloaded for later reading. I’ve seen both titles before and read reviews etc on them but somehow other material has crowded them out, so now I can rectify that. As you say, a purely materialist ethos such as capitalism or “communism” — as somebody said, two sides of the jewish coin — can never satisfy.
    Since your reference to Miguel Serrano and after watching his speech I did some online research on this excellent chileno. Long story short I ordered his “Vinland” book and intend to pass it on to friends after reading. Have previously read into this thesis (Vikings in N America) and reviewers gave this volume high praise —

    • Thanks: Malla
  71. Lemming says:
    @Sin City Milla

    “Diversity is a capitalist death sentence.” FIFY. Wasn’t communist regimes who brought immigrants from all around the world to get cheap labor at the expense of the native working class, buddy.

    “The entire world takes advantage of America’s dysfunctional government to meddle in our internal affairs” -> ahahahahahahahahahaaa.
    No, really, you’re serious. The one exceptional government who has 1000+ military bases all around the world, whose CIA has murdered and regime changed so many leaders in other countries, and whose criminal drug trade business has destroyed hundreds of millions of lives in China, Mexico, South America, Afghanistan. And now that you have an unstable country as a result of Empire, you’re blaming “the world”. You deserve what’s coming for you.

    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  72. Lemming says:

    ” Italy and NSDAP Germany did not start WW1 or 2.” -> to be fair, Germany DID invade Poland which had its independence publicly guaranteed by both France and the UK. Although the new Entente was chomping at the bit to attack Germany, Hitler knew full well what would happen. I would definitely call that “starting WW2”.
    As for WW1, Austria’s secret service is the party responsible for starting it, by having a false flag assassination by Bosnian terrorists blamed on its rival Serbia in order to subdue it.

  73. @Malla

    And thanks for the link on her work against animal cruelty.
    I think you will know that NS Germany was the first country ever to enact law, in 1933 almost immediately after assuming power, on animal welfare and ecology.
    This was basically an initiative of Hermann Goering and there was an amusing poster in which all sorts of animals were saluting HG …

    Here are some links for further details on these laws —

    Animal Protection


    Jai Hind.

    “am Ende steht der Sieg”

    • Agree: Malla
  74. @Lemming

    No argument here. Global empire has not only collapsed the Constitution, which was suitable only for an isolated homogenous society, but created a Uniparty that has solidified into a gated elite. But my previous statements stand. This elite is globalist n global in nature, having much more in common with elites around the world than with the American peasants whose taxes support them. The American military is little more than a police force for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, South Korea, Germany, Britain, the list goes on n on. Proof? Trump tried to make elections real again n was run out of DC by the globalist corporate oligarchy that owns the place. Heck, even the digital records of Dems in Congress were stored in Pakistan, yet another meddler in our domestic affairs.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Oliver Boyd-Barrett Comments via RSS