About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Saturday, May 3 - 4:55amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
In "White Nationalist Terrorism" Michael Dickey asserted that Allende's government in Chile was responsible for the deaths of 300,000 people.  I have not been able to validate that. I have found these:

It's time to bury the myths
Carlos Alberto Montaner
The first hammer blow against the sugary memory of a heroic Allende came from Chilean historian Víctor Farías, the author of Salvador Allende: Anti-Semitism and Euthanasia. Farías unearthed the dissertation written in 1933 by Allende to get his medical diploma.
[...]
The late Chilean president was a KGB collaborationist, who received money, transmitted information and contributed to Soviet plans for the conquest of Latin America.
Fascism and communism were not extremes that resembled each other, as has often been said, but close branches emerging from the same socialist trunk. Allende came from that authoritarian and cruel tradition. He did not believe in freedom or democracy, although he did use them to achieve power.
[...]
Both sides face a clear history lesson: The nation's redemption and reconciliation are possible only through democracy, tolerance, the rule of law and a humble public admission that neither Allende nor Pinochet was a leader that the country deserved. Neither matched the image his supporters attempted to create.

It is time to bury all the myths.
http://www.firmaspress.com/564.htm


"Mark Falcoff, resident scholar at  the American Enterprise Institute, expert on Latin American history and politics, and author of "Modern Chile, 1970-1989: a critical history", has written an article titled "Who killed Latin democracy?"
[....]
Allende's Socialists -- a somewhat sui generis party made up of social democrats, anarchists and Trotskyites -- were far closer ideologically to Fidel Castro's Cuba, which, by the way, maintained a remarkably outsized diplomatic and military mission in Santiago, and also the principal source of illegal weaponry that poured into Chile during these years. Intoxicated by their own rhetoric and ideology, and also deluded by the apparent proximity of total power, the Socialists and their allies on the farthest left (the so-called MIR) were impatient to move to a final confrontation with the "bourgeoisie". During 1972 and 1973 they actively took the initiative, seizing factories and farms, far exceeding the government's own program of reform and forcing the president to recognize their audacious strokes as faits accomplis."

"George's Views," 05 March, 2000 -- Author: George Irbe  http://pages.interlog.com/~girbe/chile.html




Post 1

Friday, May 9 - 10:03pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Is there some reason why this had to be started as a new thread, rather than continuing in its original context here?

This seems like an argument ex silentio, a rhetorical trick.



Post 2

Saturday, May 10 - 5:34amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ted, the other thread was about domestic terrorism.  Michael Dickey's post took a different direction, being about Salvador Allende Gossens.  Furthermore, I tried to validate his numbers,  accepting his assertion prima facie and seeking to substantiate it.  Otherwise, I would have cast this in the negative and challenged him to provide sources. The two citations were the best I could find.  This is not something widely known, apparently, not even among the conservative bloggers.

As for the argumentum ex silentio, I had to look that up.
Argumentative silence is the rhetorical practice of saying nothing when an opponent in a debate would expect something to be said. Poorly executed, it can be very offensive, like refusing to answer a direct question. However, well-timed silence can completely throw an opponent and give the debater the upper hand.
An argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is an argument based on the assumption that someone's silence on a matter suggests ("proves" when a logical fallacy) that person's ignorance of the matter. In general, ex silentio refers to the claim that the absence of something demonstrates the proof of a proposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silence

Are you suggesting that by posting this and not getting any replies, I have attempted to prove a point? 

The way I see it, if no one replies, it means that no one else is interested.  Do you perceive something else?

Do you have any citations about the atrocities under Allende?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/10, 5:36am)




Post 3

Saturday, May 10 - 3:28pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Michael, there was a programmer at the local Pacifica station, KPFK, by the name of Carlos Hagen, a Chillean ex-patriot and exile, who opposed both Allende and Pinochet.  Hagen was, I believe, considered a major intellectual and artist in the worldwide Spanish language and Chillean culture and had been with the station since the early '60's.  When KPFK - and most of Pacifica nationwide - was briefly taken over by the most radical of the leftist radicals, Hagen refused to go along with their promoting Allende to neo-Marxist 3rdWorld man-hating feminist racist luddite sainthood, and spent one of his program hours discussing the sins and attrocities that occurred under Allende.  For his effort to stick to the absolute truth, he was naturally purged.  You might want to google on him...



Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.