Posted by
Gavin
• 03.22.13 08:00 pm



With the passing of Hugo Chávez, we got a lot of crocodile tears from liberals claiming we had “lost a friend” who “lifted the poor and helped them realize their dreams.”

Jimmy Carter told us that he “never doubted Hugo Chávez’s commitment.” The Nation lamented that “he wasn’t authoritarian enough.” I haven’t seen this much love for a Latin American tyrant since Che Guevara became a T-shirt.

But if we’re going to perform oral sex on every despot who can’t pronounce the letter “J,” why not Pinochet?

In 1973, Augusto Pinochet was faced with a dilemma: Let the communists control his country or stand and fight. McCarthyism and the Cold War get a bad rap these days, but communism was responsible for millions of deaths and was spreading all over Central and South America like a red plague.

Pinochet chose Door #2 and led a military coup against President Salvador Allende that was nasty and brutal but pretty much the norm as far as coups go. He killed thousands of people, but so did Che. Where’s Augusto’s T-shirt? Why did The Nation call him “murderous” while acting as if Che and Chávez were the greatest things since sliced tortillas?

Where Allende had taken land from the rich in a Castro-like redistribution program, Pinochet gave it back. He traveled the world talking to economists, politicians, and academics. Critics of libertarianism call Milton Friedman a “Pinochet sympathizer,” but all Milton did was take a meeting where he told Pinochet that dictatorships don’t work in the long run. He also explained that Chile would thrive if the market were given free rein.

He was right. Chile’s GDP is soaring, and it’s mostly because of the policies Pinochet enacted in the 80s. When he met with Margaret Thatcher in 1982, she told him she’d like to set up a military base there so Britain could better protect the Falklands. They became best pals, and rumors abound of backroom copper deals made with Britain due to his cooperation.

Yes, Pinochet enforced curfews where nobody was allowed to be on the streets from midnight to 6AM. So what? This happens in Glasgow every time there’s a crime spree. Besides, having a curfew doesn’t mean you can’t party. All it means is that at 11:30 you have to decide if it’s worth staying all night at this party. If the curfew ruined your party, it wasn’t a good party. And isn’t that what’s behind all this whining about Pinochet? People who didn’t have much going on are blaming the guy who kicked out a communist dictator and turned Chile into a civilized, clean, wealthy, and prosperous nation. If you wanted to make money in Chile, the doors were open. If you didn’t, well, that’s your fault. He may have started out as a dictator, but he left voluntarily when he was voted out of office in 1990. That’s not a fascist. That’s a great guy.

This theory looks great on paper, but it behooves a writer to do a last-minute check with “the people” before sending his essay off to the editor.

I started talking to Chilean expats here in New York. Raving homosexual Mauricio Santelice is an executive pastry chef at the Dream Hotel in Chelsea. He came here in the 1990s after spending his entire childhood and adolescence under Pinochet’s rule. When I told him my theory about the parties, he told me to go fuck myself. “If they caught you on the street at night they would beat you bad,” he told me angrily. “They’d knock out your teeth and break your bones. They’d even pull your hair out. And if they caught you more than once it would count as a felony and you’d be off to jail without a trial.” Mauricio said that the curfew also meant no nightlife, which ultimately meant no youth culture. I told him Pinochet had to be strict because he was up against the communists, and Mauricio looked at me like I just took a shit inside his head. “My sister would protest him a lot growing up,” he said. “They would spray the protestors with water cannons filled with sewage that had permanent blue dye in it. When the police saw someone on the street who was blue, they would beat them worse than someone out past curfew.”

READ THE REST OF THE ARTICLE HERE.

 

—GAVIN McINNES

 


Comments
  1. Fuck yes. Fernando Alessandri was once a visiting Fellow w/ the Cato Institute. He basically said Pinochet was a badass who only was authoritarian to the extent of preventing a Civil War. Conservatives and Judge Napolitano make this case with respect to Lincoln.

  2. zig says:

    Hmm, this must be what real investigative reporting is all about. Go in with a notion and learn a new one. Good job Gavin, you once again prove how grey black and white is.

  3. I liked this. It’s unfortunate that the real conclusion goes unsaid: that all forms of government tend to abuse whatever power they can get their hands on, including democracy, which is why the founding fathers were so intent on balancing the various arms of government and creating the Bill of Rights. Government is nothing to celebrate. It’s a necessary evil and should always be regarded cynically and suspiciously and the people involved in it as worms rather than heroes.

    As for Allende, it’s very likely, on the one hand, that he would have been pushed out of power. He was re-distributing land and so on with only 30-some-odd per cent of the popular vote. Of course he would likely have cancelled elections eventually.

    If Cuba ever has an election, it will be celebrated as a great event and the ultimate statement of Castro’s love for the people etc etc but like you say, Chile has had lots of elections. Where’s the love for Pinochet as a great reformer and man of freedom?

  4. popfop says:

    Your articles have been getting much better. This one and the one on the leftist ruination of anthropology are top notch.

  5. chiy says:

    While being anti-communist sounds admirable, in fact many reasonable nationalist political movements where lumped into the Bolshevik-Communist bucket because doing so benefited some powerful group. Much of the political turmoil in Latin America was not the same clash as Bolshevism in Europe was; the turmoil in the south was the natural reaction of a large disenfranchised people versus a very small landholding elite (caudillos). Think of it as a reaction against feudalism. Some sort of German-Scandanavian market-socialism solution was what Peron, Allende, Castro, and others were proposing. They were certainly not Bolsheviks. BUT because the powers that be lumped them in with the communists, these political movements were unable to get economic support from the US, and hence in some cases (Cuba) had to reluctantly turn to the USSR for economic support. Viet-Nam is another example of this.

    Gavin, may i suggest another topic for you: Who were the people involved in the Bolshevik revolution in Russia, attempted revolutions in Germany, and other european countries. Who paid these people. Who did these people put into power in their conquered territories (Hungary, Czech, Poland, etc).

  6. Straight outta Santiago says:

    Gavin, I think I get where you’re going with this… PINOCHET T-SHIRTS!!!

  7. lester says:

    Fascism is kind of idealized in some circles as being nominally free market capitalism without the tolerance for minorities and leftism and so forth that generally goes along with capitalism. In practice it didn’t work .

    https://mises.org/store/Vampire-Economy-Doing-Business-Under-Fascism-P371.aspx

    The Vampire Economy: Doing Business Under Fascism was an economic analysis done of Nazi Germany as it was happening. The government controls were huge, arbitrary, and pretty much insured the country would go to war.

    Chile did not have these problems under Pinochet though.

    What would we do if a General fomented a coup, killed a few thousand people they didn’t like, then left us with an amazing economy? Probably they’d have a bit of a mixed legacy

  8. q says:

    go here, it answers all questions you must ask: http://www.blogjam.com/despot_or_sexpot/

  9. chiy says:

    Check out the big successes General Stroessner did in Paraguay.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyI0MJXbFX4

  10. D says:

    Actually it’s “Para-gay”

  11. […] Gavin McInnes: “…if we’re going to perform oral sex on every despot who can’t pronounce the letter ‘…“ […]

  12. Gay chef changes Gavin’s mind about Pinochet. Funny stuff.

  13. vjaraliveson says:

    Hey Gavin,

    What’s wrong? Can deal with me calling you a piece of shit? Because you’re a piece of shit! A piece of shit! The kind that falls out of an asshole—and you’re an asshole, too!

    You’re also a pseudo-intellectual. I know this because I engage in a high level of discourse, seeing as my entire “argument” revolved around calling you a piece of shit!

    NOW what, you piece of shit? Huh? Right! Didn’t think so! You shithead. You fucking shithead.

    “Shit.”

  14. vjaraliveson says:

    Gavin

    I’m a bitter brainwashed leftist maroon, and I think you’re a piece of shit, because my ideology teaches compassion—sometimes ridiculous, unwarranted compassion—well, at least for everyone who agrees with us. And I’m-a stalk you, bud. And I’m so fucking brave, I won’t even tell you my name.

  15. vjaraliveson says:

    Gavin,

    I like to own up to my views but am scared shitless to reveal my identity. That’s how I roll.

  16. vjaraliveson says:

    Gavin,

    My identity is top secret bud because I’m a coward.

    Oh, and you’re a piece of shit.

    So there

  17. vjaraliveson says:

    Soy demasiado estúpido para darse cuenta de por qué fue tan fácil para los hombres blancos para conquistar mi patria.

  18. vjaraliveson says:

    Somos tontos y supersticiosos por naturaleza. ¿Puedo cortar el césped, señor?

  19. vjaraliveson says:

    Contamos con muy alta autoestima pero coeficientes intelectuales muy bajos. No, el hombre blanco, es lo que nos impide.

  20. vjaraliveson says:

    Estábamos comiendo plátanos y jugando con el culo cuando los conquistadores llegaron. Ellos dijeron: “Esto va a ser fácil”.

  21. vjaraliveson says:

    Yo vengo de una tribu de baja estatura y poca inteligencia.

  22. vjaraliveson says:

    Sabemos cómo criar, pero no a leer. Siempre estará en la parte inferior.

  23. vjaraliveson says:

    Hey Jim or Gavin, or whatever the fuck your name is,

    Are you up for some literary jostling? How ’bout maricon?

  24. vjaraliveson says:

    Come out, come out, where ever you are..

  25. vjaraliveson says:

    Oh shit, don’t tell me you’re scared now.

  26. vjaraliveson says:

    Yeah, go ahead and erase all my posts, go ahead you punk!

  27. vjaraliveson says:

    OK, you can’t deal with the truth, I can understand that, catch you later asshole!

  28. vjaraliveson says:

    I am a real fake screen name, and don’t you forget it. So there!

  29. vjaraliveson says:

    Hi, I make violent threats and promise to stalk people! I’m from a trailer park and bash “white trash” to hide my humiliation for living in a trailer park!

    Roberto Estupido Nacen Sin Cerebro Verga Pequeño Aburto
    7908 Rancho Fanita Drive, Spc # 25 (best space in the whole fucking trailer park, and don’t you forget it—in fact, I’m willing to bet the trailer on it!)
    Santee, CA 92071

    But, um, Texas in la casa, yo! And, uh, La Raza! No matter how short and stupid and ignorant and backward we are! PRIDE, motherfucker! The dumbest pride there is! Taco Bell chihuahua up in your ass, bitch!

    You know why I’m an unknown comic? Because I’m not funny! Get it? HAW!!! Hola? Hola?

  30. vjaraliveson says:

    I talk about white people like they’re subhuman. But I’m not the racist—they are! That’s just how stupid I am—I don’t see the contradiction in that! Is it any wonder La Raza is so poor and willing to work for peanuts? Awareness of our inferiority is what causes our rage!

  31. vjaraliveson says:

    Jimbo!

    I actually think calling you a “racist” would scare you. Because it’s, like, a scary word! It means you’re naughty! It’s, like, evil ‘n’ shit! Like, evil times two! Like, ooga booga! At least to people who watch, um, TV ‘n’ shit! It’s, like, callin’ someone a witch ‘n’ shit! And who wants to be a witch, right? Not me, yo!

    I mean, fuck, it’s not like tribalism is a normal and natural instinct among all human ethnic groups, but it’s only called “racism” when los gueros express it or anything! It’s just that white people were more successful at it! And it honestly scares the shit out of me what will happen when they aren’t scared of being called “racist” anymore! We’re fucked when that happens!

    Seriously—I’m THAT fucking dumb! Dumb as an empty taco shell! SPEEDY GONZALES LIVES ON!!!!

  32. vjaraliveson says:

    ALTHOUGH THERE IS NOTHING LATIN ABOUT ME (LATIN PEOPLE WERE IN ITALY), MY PEOPLE’S VERY SHORT LEGS MAKE ME INCAPABLE OF HAVING A LEG UP ON ANYONE.

  33. angela says:

    Ciao! Vorrei solo dire un grazie enorme per le informazioni che avete condiviso in questo blog! Di sicuro’ diverro’ un vostro fa accanito!


Leave A Reply