Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: How Communists Use Slander in the Chilean Revolution

  1. #1

    How Communists Use Slander in the Chilean Revolution

    German sociologist and philosopher Max Weber once quipped, “The opponents must be slandered.” For the past seven weeks, Chile has borne witness to this infamous communist tactic. In other words, any person who disagrees with the communists, who has economic means, along with all agents of law and order must be slandered. A small documentation of this stark reality could be of interest to the American public that may be unaware of what has been transpiring in the Andean nation.
    Readers of The New American may be aware of alleged reports of massive human rights violations carried out by the Chilean armed forces and national police during the last month and a half of protests piggybacked by bands of violent anarchists.
    Being far removed from the facts, one would find it hard to disprove such claims or perhaps even to be suspicious of them. Indeed, even in Chile the public has been bombarded with such stories from the press and social media, all the while as some of the most famous cases being nothing more than pure fiction or a gross manipulation of the actual events.

    Below are just some examples of alleged human rights violations, in which evidence of slander being utilized has since come to light, but as of yet not publicized by the mainstream media outlets and social media platforms in Chile.
    First is the case of Jorge Ortiz, the head of the financial division of the Chilean-based National Human Rights Institute (NHRI). While serving as a human rights observer during the demonstrations in Santiago on October 29, Ortiz claimed that he was shot seven times in his leg by a Carabinero (Chilean national police officer). Ortiz claimed he was shot by lead rounds that pierced his skin.
    The incident was even more alarming because at the time he was dressed in a high-visibility yellow jacket identifying him as an NHRI human rights observer, distinguishing him from the hooded protesters. News of the attack was broadcast all over Chilean and South American media, including CNN Chile and the Venezuelan state-run propaganda outlet TeleSUR TV.
    Curiously, Karol Cariola and Camila Vallejo, two well-known members of the Communist Party of Chile, both of whom serve as elected members of the Chamber of Deputies in the National Congress, were also with Ortiz when he was shot.
    In front of television cameras, Deputy Cariola held in her hand what appeared like a silver lead round, which she told reporters penetrated his skin. Ortiz was quickly rushed to an emergency medical center.
    Ortiz is also no stranger to communism. In his youth, he was a militant in the MIR (Spanish acronym for Movimiento de Izquierda Revolucionaria, which translates in English to Revolutionary Left Movement) — a militant communist organization dedicated to the establishment of a Marxist-Leninist state in Chile.
    However, when he was examined by medical professionals, it was revealed that he had in fact not been shot by lead rounds but by non-lethal rubber pellets that did not even penetrate his clothes. Doctors diagnosed him with bruises. Nevertheless, the story of the hyper-aggressive police officer firing onto peaceful protesters and wildly shooting Ortiz circulated at full steam, without an apology or retraction and without shame.
    A video detailing the truth about incident was reported by Chilean journalist Teresa Marinovic on YouTube. Although the video is in Spanish, knowing the facts of the case can help non-Spanish speakers understand the footage.
    A second interesting case is that of Javiera Bascuñán. According to police, she was arrested on October 20 by the Policía de Investigaciones (Investigation Police) when protesters were looting a supermarket in Lampa, in the greater Santiago area. She was brought to the police station, but she was neither handcuffed nor restrained in any way out of respect for her. When she arrived at the station she displayed fear about her 10-year-old sister having been left behind. When police went to search for the sister around the vicinity of the supermarkets, officers could only find their mother and not the girl. Finally, the mother learned that her daughter (Javiera’s younger sister) had arrived home safely and the police stopped looking for the child.
    Instead, they brought the mother to the police station, where she was able to talk to her older daughter. At 8:53 PM local time, Javiera Bascuñán was released. Immediately afterwards, she posted on her Facebook an emotional video of herself claiming that her human rights had been violated. “This is Javiera Bascuñán, I am from Lampa. Police are killing our neighbors. They took me, they brought me to the police precinct, they undressed me and kicked me on the ground, they threw water on me, they shot us with their service guns. They have minors, women and men locked and naked. They have eight persons with shots, a 14 year old nobody with her belly open and bleeding,” she says on the now-viral post.
    However, the police had video surveillance of most of her time at the police station, which completely debunks her alleged torment. Police are now suing her for slander.
    And yet the lies of her alleged gross mistreatment and excessive police brutality continue to be propagated. This is a relentless line of attack on the country’s police. Police in other precincts, where similar false accusations have been levied against them, have spoken on social media recognizing that they are under a very intense attack of psychological warfare. Communists are rallying the public against those in uniform who are defending and protecting them.
    On November 26, residents of Calama (a city in Northern Chile) called the police after observing suspicious activity by a small group of individuals before dawn. The officers went and found men at the location reported. Three of the men ran away but were eventually caught by the police and arrested. It turned out they were members of the Communist Party of Chile, including the party’s communal secretary, Ronald Rodríguez.
    Rodríguez and his comrades, according to the police report, were carrying “approximately 35 liters of gasoline, 2 liters of solvent, masks, signs, trash and an arm chair,” most likely for making barricades in the streets to impede traffic and cause disturbance and fear. Immediately after police publicized their findings, members of the Communist Party declared that these facts had been staged by the police in order to criminalize the party. (See here and here)
    Time and again this same type of slander is repeated on social media and by the press. The same was said about the burning of the country’s metro stations, which sparked the crisis on October 18 of this year, and about the lootings of the supermarkets, and so forth.
    At a prominent university in Santiago, communists have staged a photographic display of the alleged victims of state repression, several of which are very outrageous. Communists have shamelessly attributed the deaths of several individuals who died in supermarkets or in storage places, which were burned down by their own activists, to the country’s law enforcement and security forces.
    Unbeknownst to many, communists in Chile have created a very well organized campaign, largely through social media, propagating the urban myth that the arsons are being caused by the country’s law enforcement and security forces with the goal of slandering the revolution.
    This is all the more surprising because one can easily read in the revolutionary publications, circulating throughout Chile, “rationalization” of the unleashed violence. To their own militants they declare that violence is necessary to change the structures of society, even if it is the innocent and the poor who have to suffer the effects (as is typically the case under communist tyranny).
    Yet to the poor and the innocent, the communists declare that it is the police and the military that are destroying the infrastructure of the country in order to slander the revolution. However, the communists do not — nor will they — stop at slandering the police and military.
    When Chilean cities and towns were left defenseless due to the withdrawal of the military presence and lifting curfews, some civilians dressed in yellow vests, as a sign of peace, stepped in to defend their community’s infrastructure that had survived after the initial lootings and arsons. These yellow-vested civilians defended the remaining small shops on their main street plazas, they defended their supermarkets and ATMs — all of which have been routinely ransacked, looted, and burned throughout the country for the past seven weeks.
    There was a grassroots movement of individuals putting on yellow reflective jackets and beginning to clean and rebuild their neighborhoods. (In Chile, it is mandatory for vehicle operators to keep yellow vests stored in their vehicles in the event of a breakdown. Cyclists are also required to wear yellow vests so they are easily seen by drivers.) Soon afterwards graffiti began sprawling throughout Santiago’s streets, reading: “The yellow vests are the White-Guard of the Rich.” As a result of this slanderous intimidation, people are afraid to wear the yellow vests as a sign of peace. Anybody who opposes their own destruction is an enemy of the Revolution and must be slandered.
    All of this lying and slandering is all the more revolting when considering that the Chilean government has seemingly been deprived of using physical force, when needed. Police and the military are now forbidden from even using rubber bullets. Meanwhile, revolutionaries can and have used them on police, hitting them and destroying police cars with stones.
    At a supposedly peaceful march, protesters threw two ignited Molotov cocktails at the unguarded faces of two policewomen, resulting in severe burns. Police are unable to effectively defend themselves because they have been restrained by court orders from judges who have demonstrated themselves over the last two decades to be revolutionaries themselves. Meanwhile, small roaming bands of revolutionaries continue to burn, destroy, occasionally kill, and use all sorts of violence to terrorize the Chilean people.

    More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/world...ean-revolution
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Whenever there's some news about some riot somewhere, one should be rather suspicious. Terms such as "popular," "pro-democracy," or "grassroots" generally mean revolutionary communist. Terms such as "protestors," "activists," or "freedom fighters," generally mean violent terrorists. So, when the "people" (throwing the Molotov cocktails) clash with the "regime" (meaning some government that the reporting agency dislikes for some reason), it's usually a sound bet that the "regime" are the good guys, at least relative the "pro-democracy protestors" (i.e. violent communist terrorists). This was certainly the case in Chile, as per the OP.

    Three cheers for Pinochet, hip hip

  4. #3
    Now, this applies universally: in, for instance, Hong Kong. Certain people may not like that, because those "pro democracy activists" serve certain geopolitical goals (and may even be on certain payrolls), but there it is. It's really pretty funny that people schooled by the British (surging now toward socialism) are protesting former Maoists, liberalizing. The general rule (angry mobs are wrong and to be stifled) remains intact.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-05-2019 at 01:10 AM.

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Now, this applies universally: in, for instance, Hong Kong. Certain people may not like that, because those "pro democracy activists" serve certain geopolitical goals (and may even be on certain payrolls), but there it is. It's really pretty funny that people schooled by the British (surging now toward socialism) are protesting former Maoists, liberalizing. The general rule (angry mobs are wrong and to be stifled) remains intact.
    The ChiComs are NOT liberalizing.
    You are right that in this world no power allows any movement to remain organic that could benefit its interests but that doesn't mean that some regimes don't deserve to be overthrown by the people they rule, we should stay out of foreign intervention for our own good but "the regime is always right" is just nonsense and some revolutions are good while others are bad.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The ChiComs are NOT liberalizing.
    You are right that in this world no power allows any movement to remain organic that could benefit its interests but that doesn't mean that some regimes don't deserve to be overthrown by the people they rule, we should stay out of foreign intervention for our own good but "the regime is always right" is just nonsense and some revolutions are good while others are bad.
    I didn't say that "the regime is always right."

    I said that angry mobs are usually (usually) wrong, and they are.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    I didn't say that "the regime is always right."

    I said that angry mobs are usually (usually) wrong, and they are.
    I didn't say you did.
    But many people here act that way.
    They point to any western involvement as if it automatically makes the regime the "good guys" who should remain in power forever no matter how horrible they are.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I didn't say you did.
    But many people here act that way.
    They point to any western involvement as if it automatically makes the regime the "good guys" who should remain in power forever no matter how horrible they are.
    So, many people here believe the U.S. should not overthrow foreign governments for a number of sound reasons, like the resentment it causes among people who kind of like the idea of self determination. Does that mean they believe all of these regimes 'should stay in power forever no matter how horrible they are'? No. It doesn't. It just means the U.S. has no business interfering, making mistakes, installing puppets, building resentment, spending money we borrowed from communists.

    And here you are lying about people's opinions and motivations. In other words, slandering them. You're slandering people who want the country to avoid indebting itself so much to communist China.

    Are you a communist by chance?
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only want the freedoms that will undermine the nation and lead to the destruction of liberty.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I didn't say you did.
    But many people here act that way.
    They point to any western involvement as if it automatically makes the regime the "good guys" who should remain in power forever no matter how horrible they are.
    And then some other people, while acknowledging that certain regimes are evil, insist that people have a "right to be oppressed," or some such thing, and therefore reject in principle all foreign intervention to topple such regimes, even if it would, ex hypothesi, result in a dramatically improved situation.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And then some other people, while acknowledging that certain regimes are evil, insist that people have a "right to be oppressed," or some such thing, and therefore reject in principle all foreign intervention to topple such regimes, even if it would, ex hypothesi, result in a dramatically improved situation.
    I keep asking you, when are you going to let me manage your affairs, I feel like you are being oppressed by your underachieving self. Lemme into your life and I most certainly promise to improve your income, your rest time and if you have a wife and kid, their well being.

    Something tells me that you would rather run an inefficient household than let me come in and improve your situation in life. Looking at the record of US intervention, I dunno why you believe that the US would do a better job freeing the so called oppressed people of say Chile.


  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    And then some other people, while acknowledging that certain regimes are evil, insist that people have a "right to be oppressed," or some such thing, and therefore reject in principle all foreign intervention to topple such regimes, even if it would, ex hypothesi, result in a dramatically improved situation.
    Maybe you don't trust me but how about a violent US dept child welfare agency that freed the Branch Davidian compoun? they would have enough firepower to make sure every single person in your household is freed. And I know what is going through your head, you think you don't need freeing or that the agency coming to free you have a very bad record of freeing anyone. The last dozen people they tried to free ended up in worse bondage than before the freeing started. Don't worry rev, just leave the fate of your life, property and family in their hands cos they promise to get it right this time

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    Maybe you don't trust me but how about a violent US dept child welfare agency that freed the Branch Davidian compoun? they would have enough firepower to make sure every single person in your household is freed. And I know what is going through your head, you think you don't need freeing or that the agency coming to free you have a very bad record of freeing anyone. The last dozen people they tried to free ended up in worse bondage than before the freeing started. Don't worry rev, just leave the fate of your life, property and family in their hands cos they promise to get it right this time
    Your argument appears to revolve about the risk that the intervening party will make an error or be ill-intended.

    As in, "you shouldn't trust anyone with the power to intervene..."

    So answer me this, if you would; why would you trust anyone with the power to use force in any situation?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Your argument appears to revolve about the risk that the intervening party will make an error or be ill-intended.

    As in, "you shouldn't trust anyone with the power to intervene..."

    So answer me this, if you would; why would you trust anyone with the power to use force in any situation?
    That is not my argument. I am sure in a different world or universe there could exist an intervening power who actually intervenes not for self interest but intervenes mainly for the welfare of the oppressed. One of my points is that the people intervening have a very poor record of intervention and they have no business sticking their nose in any outside country's internal affairs.

    Another point I am making is the argument for self determination. From your non reply to my offer to get involved in your personal life in order to improve it, I can gather that you rather keep your life the way it is than let me bulldoze in for a chance to improve it. You seem to support self determination in your own life and the lives of your immediate family member. I would like to know why?

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    That is not my argument. I am sure in a different world or universe there could exist an intervening power who actually intervenes not for self interest but intervenes mainly for the welfare of the oppressed. One of my points is that the people intervening have a very poor record of intervention and they have no business sticking their nose in any outside country's internal affairs.

    Another point I am making is the argument for self determination. From your non reply to my offer to get involved in your personal life in order to improve it, I can gather that you rather keep your life the way it is than let me bulldoze in for a chance to improve it. You seem to support self determination in your own life and the lives of your immediate family member. I would like to know why?
    1. Do you oppose intervention (of one state in the affairs of another) because it might not work, or regardless of whether it would work?

    2. Do you see a difference between, for instance, stopping a mugging on the street and kidnapping a fatty and making him exercise?

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    1. Do you oppose intervention (of one state in the affairs of another) because it might not work, or regardless of whether it would work?

    2. Do you see a difference between, for instance, stopping a mugging on the street and kidnapping a fatty and making him exercise?
    I oppose all intervention when the intervention involves taking over a nation aka regime change. On the other hand, I may support intervention when it involves saving people from oppressive govt by that I mean taking em away from harm

    I see a difference between the 2. In one case, someone is asking for help (self determination in asking) and in the other case, the fat person is not asking, again self determination by not asking. Even in the case of the mugging, you need to figure out why the person is being mugged to intervene. Maybe its a debt collection going on, you just never know and that is why I may not still intervene in the mugging.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I oppose all intervention when the intervention involves taking over a nation aka regime change. On the other hand, I may support intervention when it involves saving people from oppressive govt by that I mean taking em away from harm
    That's exactly what I'm saying.

    I see a difference between the 2. In one case, someone is asking for help (self determination in asking) and in the other case, the fat person is not asking, again self determination by not asking. Even in the case of the mugging, you need to figure out why the person is being mugged to intervene. Maybe its a debt collection going on, you just never know and that is why I may not still intervene in the mugging.
    In using the word "mugging," the idea was that this was an unjust action, a robbery, not a legitimate use of force as in a debt collection.

    My point was that there's a world of difference between jumping into things to prevent aggression and jumping into things as an aggressor.

    If A is robbing B, you violate no one's rights by punching A in the face and saving B.

    If Fatty is gobbling cobbler, you violate his rights by kidnapping him and putting him on an all-lettuce diet.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 12-08-2019 at 09:04 PM.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    That's exactly what I'm saying.



    In using the word "mugging," the idea was that this was an unjust action, a robbery, not a legitimate use of force as in a debt collection.

    My point was that there's a world of difference between jumping into things to prevent aggression and jumping into things as an aggressor.

    If A is robbing B, you violate no one's rights by punching A in the face and saving B.

    If Fatty is gobbling cobbler, you violate his rights by kidnapping him and putting him on an all-lettuce diet.
    I think the difference between me and you is that I will rescue the oppressed without making the oppressed King and the oppressor the oppressed. For instance, I will evacuate as many Kurds as I can instead of stealing land from the Syrians to give them, I will give free visas to the capitalist Chileans and leave the majority that voted for nationalizing their copper mines and support higher taxes to live in peace.

    I will intervene without killing/suppressing the majority oppressors. This is what I disagree with your position.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by juleswin View Post
    I think the difference between me and you is that I will rescue the oppressed without making the oppressed King and the oppressor the oppressed. For instance, I will evacuate as many Kurds as I can instead of stealing land from the Syrians to give them, I will give free visas to the capitalist Chileans and leave the majority that voted for nationalizing their copper mines and support higher taxes to live in peace.

    I will intervene without killing/suppressing the majority oppressors. This is what I disagree with your position.
    I'm curious as to what role the underlined plays in your thinking.

    If A is robbing B and C, it's okay to stop A.

    But, if A and B are robbing C, it's not okay to do the same to A and B?

    I don't know why fractions matter; aggression is aggression; aggression is wrong.



Similar Threads

  1. 6.8 earthquake strikes off Chilean coast
    By Swordsmyth in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-29-2019, 06:24 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-10-2011, 08:19 AM
  3. Chilean myth.. (How accurate is this?)
    By RileyE104 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-22-2010, 04:09 PM
  4. God and Faith Sustained the Chilean Miners
    By FrankRep in forum Peace Through Religion
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-15-2010, 03:29 PM
  5. Trapped Chilean Miners
    By Old Ducker in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-24-2010, 02:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •