On September 11, 1973, General Augusto Pinochet overthrew the Camipinco faggot government of so-called Salvador Allende in Chile, and thereby he saved his country and likely some neighboring ones from the kind of red terror that had already engulfed and destroyed nation after nation. From Europe to China to Cuba, tens and some say over 100 million people have been killed by international Bolshevism. Call it what you will. Some of you think it's idiot to promote this and you must understand as there is no such thing however as Nazbol or national Bolshevism or whatever fantasy meme ideology is promoted on the internet, you will always play only into the hands of your enemies when you promote socialism as socialism. I don't mean one or two policies but socialism as a system.

And of those who it did not kill, the survivors of this is the most calamitous experiment of mankind as Nietzsche already in 19th century along with Dostoevsky predicts would be massive calamitous experiment of 20th century that would lead to the deaths of tens of millions, the socialist regimes. The ones who were not killed lived degraded lives of servitude in nations whose culture and history were in process of being erased, destroyed, where daily humiliations at the hands of apparatchiks who look like Ben Rhodes or the smirking Peter Stroke or other incarnations of the modern aggressive bug man, this was daily life. If you want recent movies that captures late stage socialism reasonably well, I recommend

before the lives of others and the antagonist in that, I don't mean either of the two main but the indubitably worm-like smirking character, the boss of the surveillor. Anyone from socialist country recognizes this, because Friedrich Hayek was right that socialism everywhere would require a grand seigniorial class that would be in charge of the supposed redistribution, the management of the economy, which must by definition enter into the daily life of every man. But whose primary purpose, the purpose of this manager class of socialist regimes, their primary purpose would in fact be censorship, thought control, instilling as a lie in the soul of children. Because ultimately you can't have socialism without a censorship of an especially severe kind.

And on this note, Theodore Dalrymple, also known as Anthony Daniels, is very right to emphasize it's not enough for such governments to lie to you, but they have to force people to repeat the lies themselves, and the more grotesque the lie, the better. To make you repeat it that way in humiliation, you become its sissy sub. They extirpate through that the spirit of defiance and self-rule, and they make you a party to the network of falsehoods. Because what is socialism but a regime of lies, ultimately about human nature. But what every failure then that is encountered because of this forgetfulness of nature it has to be covered up also with lies, whether you blame foreign records or domestic terrorists or whatever the viciousness of the racist.

So now maybe you see why I went on this side here at the beginning, welcome to Caribbean Risms episode 70, because of what America experiencing now is maybe not a red terror, maybe not even yet a light red terror. But what I would say is the prelude to a red terror, which the regime is still supposedly observing the last but feeble strictures of the Constitution, it outsources this repression to plausibly private parties, whether these are the Basijibilisha of the Antifa mobs, For the mobs that are weak pussy cowards like Zukerface or Jack from Twitter, people who I believe don't fundamentally believe in censorship, but they have been cowed, they have been forced to hire these minders on their websites and they cave because they are spineless nerds.

And the repression under which Americans already live is quickly recognizable to anyone who live under a genuine socialist regime in the past, it has both the form and the content, in other words. It has precisely the feel, the same intention also. And the people putting into action for some time are the same generation of Wobblies, or what Michael Savage called the red diaper-dooper babies. These are the boomers of the IWW, or their children. These are the main drivers of this woke revolution you see now. We will see if this ends quickly as a joke or if it ends in blood. I am not endorsing anything. I just don't think this end of will for America, I think, pass forward very dark. Pinochet, he is stepping in 1973 in Chile to stop this insanity because the

Chilean army, unlike as you can see the American military that has been in its upper ranks only but it's been captured by this madness. The Chilean army, however, wanted to save the nation and the people. And the galling part of all this, well there are many galling but one of the most annoying things is when people mainly of the left want to blame much of this obvious dysfunction, they want to blame it on something called neo-liberalism. And I'm not talking about the casual use of this word. I've used it myself and you've used it to mean global homo. Maybe you don't want to say this last word in polite companies so you say neoliberalism. But maybe you should not even use it casually. Maybe when you start

to use it too much you are a little bit like a Vietnam POW who are made to write essays about why America was evil and eventually they ended up believing by repeating the lie. So also, if you were to repeat this word, neoliberalism, and buy into the fake world view behind it, I mean, you'd maybe reach pre-made conclusions of your enemies that are implicit in this word. Because maybe the most frequent use I see, and again I mean by the people who really buy the whole thing, and people think this is their satanic antagonist, it's a way for them to claim that what you're witnessing is a soft cultural revolution and the excesses of the left, they're saying, no, it's not really the left, right? That's the point. They're saying it's neoliberalism.

In other words, it's extreme market radicalism in which, you know, corporations and as a right actually, don't you know, they're all really behind it, all of this. And at other times, they disdain as neoliberal those elements of the left they consider not a left wing enough. So, you know, for example, the Clinton wing, the Pelosi's, much of the DNC establishment because either it's not woke enough or not Stalinist enough, take your slaver. And at other times, maybe in the background this is always, but to them neoliberalism is the very abstract enemy, the same as capital with a big C, right? The same as this word played for commies and for orthodox Marxoids, it plays for the leftists now. neoliberalism has replaced capital. But it's always a deflection, and it can be manipulated to

mean almost anything, because at bottom, it's become a word without meaning. I'm not a fan of scholarly articles. I would never want to bore you with academic article. But this is an exception. And I suggest you look up this article. Let me read you the title, Neoliberalism, From Neoliberal philosophy to anti-liberal slogan by Taylor Boas and Jordan Ganz-Morse from our Studies in Comparative International Development, I think, 2009 article. This on advice of the bureaucrat. I think it's available for full free online. It's a very interesting article written accessible non-academies and its main point it's It's just neo-liberalism has become a diffused slur with no meaning. It's very odd. It's actually used hundreds of times, thousands of times by leftist academics, mainly invective,

but there isn't a single scholarly article from these characters that ever bothers to define it, precisely or not. Now you know how odd this is because if you've ever been around these types, they have an enormous insecurity about their fields, right, an inferiority complex with regards to science. Because of course economics, political science, political economy, right, these pretentious titles, they are not fields, they are not sciences at all. They are opinion, they are a priestly disputation at best. So they often, really because of this insecurity in the face of the hard sciences, they try to ape the precision, uncertainty of, for example, math or physics, and they never can. Taleb is good at mocking the intellectual but idiot, right?

But the most they ever achieve is a kind of cramped reproduction of the aesthetic of the science nerd. But the point is they have a real fetish for this word certainty, for the feeling of it. And if you've ever had the misfortune especially of having a female academic of this type, of having to deal with them. Now you hear that sound, I don't know, some animal from outside. But if you've ever had to deal with a female academic of this type, they always polemically use this word certainty in fact so that if they ever disagree with you politically or sentimentally with anything you say or write, they will hide behind this word certainty and they will claim, oh, you're not being precise enough, or they will pretend they don't understand what you're saying because they want certainty,

they want clear definitions, so then they do, it's this kind of bait and switch, right, where they can try to demand their certainty from your claims or definitions that you demand from a hard science, which is impossible, but they love to hide behind that, maybe without realizing it, because women especially of this kind cannot distinguish a thought from emotion, and often they don't understand content of words. Now, that said, it's these same certainty and definition fetishists who've never bothered even with a plausible and common sense definition of neoliberalism, which again, however, they use indiscriminately as a slur. And it's a nonsense slur that, as you know, encompasses everything from Hillary Clinton, who whined about a vast right-wing conspiracy in the 1990s,

to Peter Schiff, they call him a neoliberal, to Augusto Pinochet. So you figure out the system that includes both Hillary and Pinochet, right, their allies. Of course it will be nonsense. But the article I mentioned to you points out that this word did have actually a limited meaning in its beginnings in the 1960s to early 1970s. And I'd like to talk on the rest of this show, episode, about what neoliberalism meant at its beginnings. quite interesting, and about the cases of Germany after World War II and of Augusto Pinochet in Chile. Because it's interesting history just on its own, but also very revealing into how mendacious are the claims of the, you know, so fashionably edgy people on the left mainly,

who try to frame the world in this way, with neo-liberalism as the shadowy demonic antagonist. I will be right back. That sound of animal from outside sent a chill through me. Was that a crying cat? I don't know. I hope it was not a me-go. I hope they do not send again. But back to, do I need a disclaimer now for fools or for a mean-spirited liar who might listen to this show? If you've read my book and if you listen to show another thing I've written, you know where I stand. I am not for liberalism of any kind. And I will re-read for you, maybe, at the end of this episode, my favorite attack on liberalism, Nietzsche's attack, which denounces liberalism of his day as just another form of modern leveling and of this tension of the human spirit, which should not be distended.

It should be instead taught like a bowstring. But that said, on this show I like to consider history, this historical episode, and I like to consider the majesty of autism and truth and it is then important to make distinctions outside the heat of partisanship, where you know to take for example a different word. If you say that Victor Davis Hanson or John Bolton are not neo-cons, you're immediately assumed to be an enemy, a traitor, then you're either a neo-con or a partisan of Bolton or both an incoherent accusation, but it doesn't matter. And I can dislike both, but I can say Victor Hansen is not a neocon even if he was at times a misguided warmonger, but those are different things. Just like I can say the CIA hated neocons until very recently and probably still does.

But again if you say that, vicious people claim you're one or the other. When in fact you can, as you know, dislike both, but you should not be an idiot and think they're the same or all in on it together against you is all I am saying. And in this same way, liberalism may be one of the causes of modern degeneracy, but it's not the proximate cause. And I mean liberalism here in, let's say, classical liberalism, 19th century, not as a catch-all word for the left, but liberalism as laissez-faire or free market liberalism, together with some of the political program of that. And I can say this, but at the same time, not like myself, not like that liberalism, but it's really not the cause of our problems. I don't believe it's the immediate cause of our problems.

And the point is, the people who use neoliberalism as a slur, this is mostly the point they're trying to make very often, that free market, free trade, deregulation, or corporate power or what they call capital, that this is the antagonist, the cause of problems, and I disagree with this even if I dislike those things usually for other reasons, but it's false to say that this is cause of problems, what I think in fact it's communitarianism, left-wing modern anti-liberalism is much worse and more directly the cause of all of our evils, but in any In any case, when a word becomes diffuse like this, when it becomes a slogan and a slur, when it can mean anything, you should always go to the root, to the first time it was used.

And it's often remarked, for example, that Isaiah Berlin, I think he said that the word nature had more than 200 documented meanings by the start of the 19th century. And to this, maybe what he wants you to do is to throw up your hands and say, well, surely then it's just a polemical, philosophic word that can mean anything, or he means you to say let's just engage in endless disputation and rabbinical hair-splitting about it. But the solution when this happens is always to go to its beginnings and to find out how it was first used. And sometimes this is fruitful, like for example again the word nature, you would just go to see how the Greeks used it in its very beginnings, and no, it did not have 200 meanings.

And you see, well, maybe it referred to something very concrete in a given reality of universe. And at other times, as with the word neoliberalism, when it becomes diffuse, you go to beginnings, you see it refer to very particular limited set of policy recommendations. So that is its meaning. And then for other words, however, like being or to be, if you take those words, they have no beginning that's meaningful because they are just the most, for example, they are the most all-encompassing abstractions, the most all-encompassing concepts. So because they are so all-encompassing, they have nearly no content. I'm sorry, Heidegger. But for neoliberalism, at its beginning, it referred, as this article I suggested to you

point out, it referred to I think so-called Freiburg School of German Economics. So you may have heard of Austrian School of Economics, Keynesian School and so forth. My favorite is the Brazzaville School of Economics, Brazzaville School, very famous, you can be dead, you can be dead, Brazzaville School of Economics. But the Freiburg School self-consciously used the word neoliberalism in the early 1960s. They are the only people who actually refer to themselves in this way. We are team neo-liberal. They refer to a kind of revived free market liberalism that would temper the problems of 19th century laissez-faire. In other words, it would not be as harsh as 19th century fully free market liberalism supposedly was.

It would provide social safety net, protections for the poor and the elderly and so forth. And that's all it meant. That was the purpose of the neo in it, you know, they would provide education, whatever. Otherwise they would have just called it liberalism. And again, remember, outside of the United States, the liberal party is equivalent to what gets called conservative in America or republican. Erich von Kühnelt-Ledding was right that the liberals sat next to the monarchists in parliament. So you know, liberal is seen as maybe a right wing outside the United States. So in any case, neoliberal was supposed to mean this softer version, and it was put actually into action from 1963 to 1966 in Germany when Ludwig Erhard was chancellor.

Actually it was put in action before then when he was run economy under Konrad Adenauer, Konrad Adenauer first post-war German chancellor, West Germany, and it led to the German economic miracle so-called, the incredible economic performance of West Germany after World War II. And it was these so-called self-consciously neoliberal policies that led to this miracle again under Ludwig Erhard who ran economic policy under Adenauer in the 1950s and early 1960s in West Germany. And this incredible economic growth led other countries to try to copy it. And one such country was Chile, okay? They saw what was happening in Germany, so Chilean intellectuals and economists started to promote these same policies, calling it neoliberal.

But after Pinochet took over in 1973, and he started to implement his own free market reforms, I will say more on this in a moment, but they were actually more thoroughgoing reforms than what these neoliberal intellectuals had been proposing. But after that event, neoliberal started to be used in this negative, diffuse, slur-word sense. It was the regime of Pinochet, his takeover, that what triggered this new use of neoliberalism. And it was associated by the academic left, the Chomskyite left especially, with supposed CIA evil interference in the socialist self-determination of brown peoples to depose their governments and replaced with fascist military dictatorship that would serve corporations, man, and that would serve global capital, and laissez-faire market fundamentalism.

But it never meant anything precise. It was just basically, again, an anti-pinochet, anti-Western swear word, and it spread from Latin American left-wing intellectuals and then leftist academic departments. And in that sense, it's similar to the use of the word fascist, right? I say this before, how did fascism spread as a slur word in America? Isn't it odd? Why not Nazism? It's used as a slur far more frequently than the word Nazi. It's fascist, it was very frequently used in the 60s, and it comes from Papa Stalin, right? Stalin demanded that people not use the word National Socialist Nazi to describe Hitler. Why? Stalin's main antagonist at the time Soviet Union and at the time in communist world, his main antagonist was Trotsky, who was an international socialist very much, and Stalin

was the so-called National Socialist opposition to that, not in the Hitlerian sense, but in any case as a matter of semantics, he insisted that the word Nazi not be used and that they They refer to Hitler instead as a fascist, and this usage spread from Stalinist directive to the American Communist Party and the American intellectual left, and from there to wider culture in the 1960s. So that's why fascism became used. So now the really interesting thing about the German example, and I need to give you small history on this, because very revealing to what I talk on this show, right? So I'll be right back. But remember that for such people, I mean for those who buy into the whole neoliberalism as a modern capital Satan argument, please keep this in mind when I talk next segment

about actual German history after 1950 or so. But for these people who believe neoliberal Satan and this, the CIA is the vehicle of neoliberalism. Right? There is only one God, Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. There is only one Satan, neoliberalism, and the CIA is its minister, or call it what you will. But for these people, the CIA is the omniscient, omnipotent organization. It ever worked to spread the interest of neoliberalism that controls all coups, all wars, all thought even, all media since at least 1950. T.C. just 1950. So this is what they believe, CAE spreads neoliberalism and its plutocratic corporation-y fascist American goals throughout the world, serving the cause of a united fruit company

or whatever while working to destroy plucky brown people socialists like Evo Morales in Bolivia or Salvador Allende in Chile or Mossadegh in Iran. In other words, you should worship brown commies. It's always about that. They expect you to blow a lid if brown commies are wasted. That should agitate you more than anything according to these people. Now, keep all this in mind in the next segment again when I discuss a peculiarity of post-1950 German and other history, I will be right back. In World War II, Conrad Adenauer became the first chancellor of Germany. He's a conservative, mostly anti-communist, mostly pro-American. And Ludwig Erhard is his economy guy. And they produce this German economic miracle, okay, with explicitly the name of neoliberalism

as a driving intellectual policy force. Now wait for a punchline because this will make the neoliberalism people head explode if they actually knew the history. Adenauer was what you would call center-right, classic center-right. Democrat is often called this party in Europe. In the German case, it's the Christian Democrat Union. And he was pro-Western, pro-American, you could say. His antagonist in Germany eventually. The antagonist also in particular of his successors like Ludwig Erhard, who was part again of the same Christian Democrat Party. But their antagonist was one Willy Brandt. And Willy Willy Brandt ended up being chancellor from 1969 to 1974, so quite crucial years, 1969. Willy Brandt was a socialist.

He was the socialist, the main labor guy, okay, and he was explicitly against then, he was explicitly against neoliberalism, right, okay, so far so good. So what would you expect? You would expect that the CIA, the demonic minister of worldwide free market neoliberalism conspiracy that they would assassinate Willy Brandt, right, or something, oppose him at least. I mean, here you have at its origin the primal struggle between labor socialism on one hand and the vile neoliberalism that even self-consciously went under that name on the other. Would you then be surprised to learn that Willy Brandt, the socialist anti-neoliberal, was in fact the CIA candidate? Would that surprise you? It would not surprise me.

surprise you because you've been mind warped by these neoliberalism slur polemicists. But that's right, Willy Brandt, who had been mayor of Berlin starting in I think late 1950s, but so okay, right after the war, right after World War II, Richard Helms, he was station chief of OSS in Germany, this is precursor to CIA, and he putting Willy Brandt into mayor of Berlin passed and then chancellorship, this became number one goal of America. Just like James Jesus Engleton in Italy, he spearhead effort to destroy the Italian monarchy. And in these post war years, for example, Meyer Bernstein during time when CA was aggressively funding labor unions, labor organizer Meyer Bernstein, he came to Dusseldorf right after

the war and he set up the big city labor machines that eventually carried Willie Brandt, America's CIA man to power. He set up his big shitty machine politics, his whole labor machine. Meyer Bernstein had a lot of experience with this. Some of you like to think labor unions are a force for good. Who cares if they are in the abstract, I have to ask you, who cares? In practice, you know, it's not exactly guys like Traficant. You might know this economic nationalist populist, or I think James is his first name, Traficant. But most are not like that, most are labor leaders. It's Meyer Bernstein, salt of the earth, labor organizer, funded by CIA to set up labor machine structures abroad that would promote their socialist candidates.

And in Germany, the pro-socialist, pro-so-called Labour magazine, for example, was named Der Monat. Excuse me, if I don't pronounce right, I'm not a Teuton. But the purpose of this magazine, Der Monat, was to attack the Christian Democrats and to promote Willy Brand. Now, who was the editor of Der Monat? It was Melvin Lasky, formerly of the AFL-CIO. And his job after Der Monat was to run Encounter magazine in London which was a known CIA front. So Lasky ran also Alcove Press. It's a publishing house supported other similar salt of the earth labor activists like the Trotskyist Arnold Beichman who ended up being a pro-Algerian, pro-Marxist, anti-French agitator. Why am I giving you all these names? Because this is the CIA, this is what they did.

way of action, especially throughout Europe, was to send AFL-CIO, salt of the earth, working class type like Melvin Lasky and Meyer Bernstein to Europe to set up labor union networks that would then serve as the power base of what were to become the local socialist parties. A reminder that this was not for a lack of better options. In other words, the natural thing would have been to support the Christian Democrats in Germany who had a lot of support or the monarchy in Italy and so forth if they wanted to promote already existing anti-communist traditional structures. But the CA instead set about trying to destroy these and to promote socialism and even erect its local power base where none had existed before.

So Adenauer, here is another example, Adenauer was snubbed on an early visit to America or while they literally made up medals and honors to promote Willy Brandt on his visit. In 1961, Adenauer was snubbed, but one so-called International Rescue Committee, a fake organization, it presented Willy Brandt with a made-up medal. The International Rescue Committee was dedicated to spread worldwide socialism and it was run by Joseph Beutinger, an Austrian exile, and Leo Czerna, and both were CIA agents, International Rescue Committee, this is not conspiracy theory, okay, this is documented and accepted by all sides, International Rescue Committee was exposed as a CIA front in the late 1960s, nobody denies this, so you know, you consider all of this in the context of so-called neoliberalism

of your beliefs about this, should you have absorbed any, regarding things like neoliberalism, CIA, socialism, populism, and all this, this whole fake edifice of words and thoughts. The CIA is not what you have been made to think, okay? Starting at least as early as 1952, actually well before that, because in its OSS incarnation, it was also coming to the pink organization from the beginning, but starting at least in 1952. The explicit policy of the CIA was the promotion of the so-called non-communist left worldwide. And this was not done by Dulles, but it was done with his knowledge and blessing. It was a policy he outsourced to one Thomas Braden. And insofar as Dulles or others genuinely believed that promoting the non-communist

left was a way to undermine the Soviet Union so as to prevent the spread of communism, that it was some kind of a wily, Machiavellian, anti-Soviet strategy, I would say they were too smart for their own good, insofar as they were well-intentioned, if you assume that. Because they found out eventually it didn't work to their advantage. People like Beutinger and Leo Shern, they took advantage of their credulity and they genuinely spread the cause of socialism and of the reds, not of America. It was, in other words, Fabian or gradual socialists taking successful advantage of the few patriots in the CIA, not other way around. And people to whom this policy was outsourced, like Thomas Braden, who was assistant director

since I think 1951 or 52, I forget, they were genuine believing socialists, quote unquote, Marxists actually. They were not wily American neoliberals who sought to subvert socialism to American corporate interests or whatever. And very often, these policies, they led to direct Soviet advantage. As in Vietnam, or in Tunisia or Algeria, or in Germany itself, or under Willy Brandt, he was supposedly anti-communist, but when he was chancellor, red terrorist groups blossomed under him. The left got its foothold also in academia, and even down to small details under him like Soviets becoming primary suppliers of uranium to West Germany over the Americans. But most of all, the meaning of this CIA policy of non-communist left promotion, you can see that whatever nation was targeted,

all the traditionalists, the monarchists, the rightists, or anti-communist factions were destroyed. No enemies to the left, only to the right. They didn't realize, assuming they were well intended, that non-communist does not mean anti-communist, but that in fact anti-communists under all these so-called non-communist left regimes, anti-communists would be vigorously targeted. And this was most true in Vietnam, where the Diem government, another socialist labor creation of the CIA, Diem's brother was a major labor organizer in Vietnam, but the Diem government systematically destroyed all local monarchists and anti-communist factions with CIA money. And whenever this type of leftist was anti-communist, in quotation marks, with very heavy quotation

marks, it was only anti-communist on those points with socialism and communism opposed. But they very often socialism just actually meant a prelude to the entry of communism. And at other times it involved the belief, insane, but the belief that the European common market would serve as the basis of a new world socialist one government state that would mediate and absorb both the Soviet Union and the United States, which is why the officials of the European Common Market Program in Europe itself, they regularly moved in between positions on those commissions and positions at the Socialist International. They moved back and forth. But to return to the case of Germany, again, the supposedly socialist by anti-communist

of Willy Brandt, well, one of his main guys, Gunter Guillaume, he was exposed eventually as a Stasi agent, right? One of the main helpers of this Willy Brandt, the CIA socialist candidate and chancellor of Germany. One of his main aides was literally an East German communist spy. And the response to this from Egon Barr, who was Brandt's secretary of state at the time a very famous phrase, socialists do not investigate socialists, no enemies to the left. It reminds you of something maybe from recent American events the last four years. Think, I will be right back. I find very interesting that right at birth of neoliberalism when it actually meant something real and concrete, CIA is actually its enemy and it's the friend instead of socialism,

The people the CIA sent to West Europe after World War II, the ones I started to mention in previous segment, the labor leaders from AFL-CIO who were not salt of earth working class types but were actually communist socialist agitators, and CIA funded them, sent them to Brussels and other parts of Europe to set up actually what would become the power base, labor networks, the nucleus of power of all future European socialist parties. But like I tell you always, the CIA is a pinko organization. It has always been pinko, whether it soft-promoted Willy Brandt in Germany, or whether it hard-deposed Bao Dai as the Emperor of Vietnam and put Ho Chi Minh in his place, or whether it attacked other monarchies or pro-Western dictators and tried, often successfully, to put leftist

and socialist dictators in their place. And I loved seeing some leftoid complain recently about Lumumba's fall from the Congo. Lumumba was not deposed by CA, and I told you I think on a previous show, Lumumba was installed joint by Soviets and the CA as a fuck you to European colonialism, to the Belgians who they hated, and he was not deposed by CA but by factions native to Congo who had had had enough of his insanity, and they did some of this with the help of outside force, but of the Belgians, not of the CIA. And Tshombe, who came in after this in Katanga, and later he was pro-Western and pro-European, and he was replaced by Mobutu. He was deposed by the CIA, and he was replaced by Mobutu, who had CIA help, but only because he was rabidly anti-European.

They did not want a pro-European, pro-Western ruler in Congo. And one of earliest mandates of the OSS was to fight European colonialism, often joined with the Soviets. Now what you may ask about Chile and Pinochet, so you remember that Pinochet, if anything is the neoliberal boogeyman for these faggots, right, I mean if you or I, we love Pinochet, But for the kvetchers, the very edgy leftoids who invoke neoliberalism as a slur, Pinochet is ultimate evil. Because okay, here you have the screenplay, ideal, you know, military fascist strongmen installed by the CIA who overthrows native plucky Salvador Allende socialism and replaces it with the evil empire of free market fundamentalism and corporation-y neoliberalism, right? And surely this must all be very evil.

And this was no doubt worse for the people of Chile, as these people claim, than a Red Terror would have been under Allende, which would have, by the way, happened as I think Venona paper, if I remember right, show Allende regime was not some native plucky socialism, what was absolutely crawling with Stasi agents from East Germany, which was very aggressive been spreading worldwide communism. I think maybe again I repeat myself, but Allende was riddled with Stasi. But let's look briefly at all these claims from the neoliberalism crowd. So first of all, the article I suggested, beginning of show, it makes some good points that Pinochet actually did not follow the suggestions of the intellectuals who calls themselves neoliberals. His people followed Hayek and Milton Friedman instead.

The article calls his market reforms radical or extreme. He came in and he put free market reform in Chile economy. I don't consider what he did extreme at all, not in a Chilean context anyway, but more of that in a moment. But technically speaking, he was not neoliberal. He was just liberal, again in the old Friedrich Hayek way. And second, he and his people did not call their reforms liberal or neoliberal, but preferred to use variations on quote unquote social market, social this and that. Maybe to copy the way these terms were used in Germany at the time, but who cares? The point is, again, it has nothing to do with neoliberalism as such, but leaving aside this semantic autism, what exactly, I ask you, was wrong with Pinochet,

and what of the claims that the CIA helped him come to power? I think it is not so, not like you think anyway. You have to consider a few things. First of all, a CIA public accepted mandate, the thing for which patriotic Americans supported it at the time, was in fact to fight communism. So they had to at least keep up a pretense of doing so. And also they had to promote American interests. Now most of the time it did the opposite, as I tell you. But it could always prey on Americans' ignorance and credulity to do so. For example, if American newspapers called somebody like Willy Brandt or DM anti-communist, most Americans would believe that. They would not look into it or question it. And they could plausibly make this claim because there was no anti-communist faction that were

showy and known to Americans and so on. Now in the case of Chile, these things did not hold. But the CIA did not want actually to intervene to help depose Allende. And I would argue in fact they never really did. So first of all you must know Allende came to power in 1970, Pinochet coup was not until 1973, the military did not step in until it got very bad. And Allende was a self-declared socialist, an expropriator or you could say a nationalizer of foreign companies. By the way nationalization you could say is a legitimate tactic of a government, but not without payment. In other words, what is morality in country A investing in country B in good faith, and then country B gets new government and nationalizes, expropriates all things without remuneration.

When Perón seized the railway lines from the British, the British had been building all the railroads and many other things in Argentina, but when he seized them, he paid the British, he paid them probably too much, well above market rate. But Allende, no, he simply expropriated. So let me ask you, why didn't CIA step in to stop him before that, before he even got the foothold, before 1970? Why did omniscient, omnipotent, anti-communist, fascist, neoliberal CIA not step in like these guys would have you believe? Let me tell you interesting event. This tailor made for team anti-neoliberal, okay? But what they would think would happen, in fact, did not. In mid-1960s and again in 1970, the head of International Telephone and Telegraph, powerful

company, offered million-dollar fund to have the CIA actually do exactly this, to stop Allende from coming to power in election, because they knew he would expropriate their holdings. And the CIA did what? They refused. Okay, the CIA refused very ostentatiously. Now they shouldn't have because the ITT, this international telephone and telegraph company, the holdings in Chile were enormous. And they were not the only American company with big investments. But its investments were very huge. They were insured by something called the Overseas Private Investments Corporation at about $100 million. Now you think how much that is because this is the 1960s. So in today money much more. But this agency I just mentioned, the Overseas Private Investments Corporation, this was

the agency that insured American foreign investments from expropriations just such as this by governments. You invest somewhere, they seize from you, this is insurance. But when Allende was elected in 1970, he immediately and predictably expropriated American investments valued at around $500 or $400 million in money of time. And the agency in question only had reserves at about 80 million, so actually the Americans who invested there never got their money back. Now tell me what is the purpose of having an intelligence service in the first place? I don't understand. If CIA had tried before he was elected to topple Allende, what would be the moral or political fault in that? What's the point of having an intelligence service if not to have them protect your nation's

and citizens enormous investments just like this. Now forget also the question of saving Chile and other parts of Latin America from a spreading red terror that always accompanies such regimes, but what wrong just with initial question? Shouldn't the CIA do that? Of course they did not. And by contrast, the CIA verifiably interfered in foreign nations to promote Marxism in Algeria, for example, versus France, in Tunisia with Bourguiba, when it promoted Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam or Willy Brandt and so forth. And all of this, okay, is consistent with CIA socialist mission and it met with approval from the media and so forth. It was the CIA, again, that ousted Tshombe in Congo, whereas they did not oust the socialist Lumumba. And this is ever the pattern always with CIA.

But I repeat to you, when ITT guide suggested that they stop Allende, they ostentatiously refused and the press, quote unquote, screamed to high heaven. And the insurance agency I mentioned, the government insurance agency, it tried to renege on the agreement by claiming that ITT had provoked the expropriation or nationalization, call it what you will, with its comments. So this actually is how eager the CIA was to depose Allende. Not at all. Three years passed, the CIA could have stopped him in the beginning or before he even came to power but never did because it did not want to. And as for the 1973 coup that did eventually take place under Pinochet, that was a native Chilean uprising and not the CIA. The CIA had no involvement in that, no substantial involvement at least.

They tried to take credit after. But this is something that was recognized even at the time by certain communists and I quote to you, this is from a prominent commie at the time, the Allende regime, I'm quoting now, the Allende regime died of its own errors, of its own incapacities and its loud talk and not because of any black conspiracy of the CIA. The people had lost faith and that was all. and quote Jean-Edem Hallier, the disillusioned French communist. He wrote this after a visit to Chile, I'm paraphrasing now. So you see, the myth that CA was deeply involved in this was spread in part by the commies who came to power in America in early 1970s, elected from the pinko anti-war movement at the time, which by the way was completely unlike our anti-war movement, and you should

not let these manipulators try to fold you into the left and to neutralize you. Remember, it was the right-wing John Birch anti-communist society, John Birch Society, that was the most genuinely anti-war and anti-communist organization at the time. William F. Buckley, the CIA cipher, he was sent to purge the right and to attack the John Birch Society, not because they were anti-Semitic, but because they were anti-war. And the John Birch Society was viciously opposed by all of the CIA-backed socialist press I've mentioned on this episode. In any case, it was people like John Kerry and such who spread the myth of CIA backing Pinochet coup. Whenever you spread this, by the way, you have to be so suspicious, this rumor about CIA getting involved against Pinochet and Mossadegh. Why?

It aligns so perfectly with the leftist theology. What is the leftist theology? that the march of Marxism is the march of history. That any regime that becomes Marxist cannot possibly revert to anything else, not organically or by nature. Of course they don't use these words, they believe in history, but they believe once that happens only a satanic overwhelming conspiracy by outside wreckers can reverse it. So this is why they blow their heads at Pinochet and Mossadegh and come up with these conspiracy theories that it must have been the CIA because whenever a Marxist experiences a setback it has to be a conspiracy in the same way as you may have met paranoid old men whose lives did not become what they wanted so they think it was their wife poisoning them or sleeping

was their boss and they become paranoid as their life goes on. But as I hinted a moment ago, perhaps CA itself as a matter of public relations within America, it spread this rumor to take credit for Pinochet coup to make the American burgher continue to believe that yes, there were the CIA effective anti-communist fighting force, which they were never, and nothing of the sort. And in Iran, by the way, regarding the Mossadegh coup, the CIA tried to take credit for that when in fact the Iranian military involved later said they got no assistance when they needed it. It's all lies. The supposed CIA involvement and right-wing coup of this kind, all lies. And furthermore, I add even other claims that in 1970s when the governments of Chile, Paraguay,

Argentina and others, they got together to stop the spread of communism in Latin America under Operation Condor, and the CIA again is said to have been involved, but I challenge you to actually go to the documents revealed and show me where and how they were involved in anything but the most, you know, they were monitoring the situation, this all they did. And these were the productive classes of Latin America, of the remnants of white civilization on that continent, they are mobilizing themselves to save their countries. And again, unless you are completely ignorant of South American history, you will know that cycle of populist uprising of the poor followed by the middle and upper class backed military coup. This is something very old.

It's a cycle that precedes the existence of the CIA. Joseph Conrad described these troubles very well in Nostromo again, which I keep recommending to you. But in Chile, it was by this time, the 1960s to 70s, in Chile and Brazil, it was a rising middle class that was just tired of leftist buffoonery and expropriations and economic ruin, and it wanted to save their nations, and yes, their own often hard-earned property, it wanted to save this from being taken. And there's nothing wrong with that. And Pinochet reforms were very successful for Chile. I don't understand this slur of neoliberal. You go to Santiago today, it's very far ahead of any other Latin American country. the nation with the highest rate of growth in all Latin America, or was, in the 1990s

and early 2000s, and now is actually still the nation with the highest standard of living in all Latin America, and that all because of Pinochet. Pinochet reforms were not radical, they were badly needed in a frozen basket case big snood socialist economy. And I will be right back with a very quick closing word on this, because I think we're Look, we got into politics for one reason, immigration, and we're being recruited into fights that are not ours. And the question of economic policy in general is something I never liked. I like to avoid it, you know, because one thing can be good in one country, but not another. I will be right back with a quick word. The liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained.

Later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurors of freedom than liberal institutions. Their effects are known well enough. They undermine the will to power. They level mountain and valley and call that morality. They make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic. Every time, it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism, in other words, herd animalization. These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for. Then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection, it is war that produces these effects. The war for liberal institutions, which as war, permits the illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. In any case, you should read that whole passage, I was quoting Nietzsche,

something I've done before, that very important passage. I say as preamble because of what I will tell you now for one minute will be a very qualified defense of liberalism itself, and this is a huge topic, it deserves its own show, and I wanted to tell you where I'm coming from as an opponent of liberalism, but this, what I talk about now, rather brief, would require its own book. I want to tell you that neoliberalism or liberalism is not necessarily bad and in some cases is good for a country. But it's just not my fight. This is the point. Look in a place like Russia in 1990s, liberalism was a disaster. It was put in action by dumb people like Gaidar and by bad people, many others, people with only extractive and destructive intentions, and both the Russians and their partners abroad

were party to this plundering of that nation, it permanently possibly destroyed the name of liberalism and so on in Russia, where today any liberal candidate will not really get anything above 2-3% popular support, if that. But in Chile it was good, both because it was necessary in a stiff and socialized economy that favoured the dumb and the unproductive, but also because it was put into action with intelligence and vigor by Pinochet and by a class of people who had good intentions for their nation. And to me, liberalism isn't as such a bad or the main antagonist and indeed Hayek, Friedrich Hayek, and you should all read The Road to Serfdom, but he is one of the best critics of Marx and of his hellscape.

He's not as effective, Hayek now, he's not as effective against Keynes, who come about in the 1930s, right? And Keynes is maybe the main economic inspiration for most new left establishment economists, and not just them but much of the establishment, but his main guy. And a very good criticism then of Keynes you find not in Hayek but in Milton Friedman. So you can think this is another concrete meaning of neoliberalism. It's maybe not technically a correct one, but you could think the economic policy of Hayek and then if Friedman put into action again most vigorously and effectively by Pinochet. And I think the results for Chile speak for themselves. It was a country uniquely able, at least until very recent last year or two, it was uniquely

able to rise out of the circular morass of Latin American dysfunction and poverty. And I'm neither for nor against these economists because I don't believe economy determines ultimate goals and I always found it boring, but I recognize that in some places like Chile and very much for example in Argentina, they could do with a dose of well-implemented neoliberalism of this kind. Macri recently tried it in Argentina, but he could not. He could not implement any reforms and I doubt that Macron in France can. But when you have an unproductive, a big-snood nationalist economy, liberalization can actually help you, and further economic nationalism in that case actually hurts some of the best among you. I don't agree with Bannon's excessive focus on so-called economic nationalism, and this

for sure America right now can use more economic nationalism. Maybe that's all he means in particular policies. Like as a general turn of a society, I think it can be just as bad as liberalism and free trade can be bad and non-free trade can also be bad. None of these can address fundamental concerns. In Argentina, for example, economic nationalism of just this kind, it destroyed not just their economy but their culture in ways almost as annoying as the new left academic communitarianism and the college faggotry is destroying America. When you have smart, educated people, white people in a country like Argentina who work hard and they make less than a bus driver and get less social respect than a manual laborer or a bus driver, I must tell you this

is not good. This is not sticking it to the establishment. It's not good for progress, a culture for anything, aside from being morally bad, but it's very bad for a country, and the kind of annoying arrogance that you often get, for example, from unionists and working class big snoot types in Argentina. It's something as pathetic and vulgar as anything you get from college, faggotized people in America. In other words, it just leads to other forms of cultural distortion and stagnation. Economic nationalism does not address immigration as much as you'd think. Again, just to use Argentina as example, it was the economic nationalist Peronist Kirchner, it was her government that busted the doors open to Bolivians, to Peruvians, others, and really flooded Argentina with their own diversity.

And that's because these types of left-wing governments, they always look for clients, for big snood-pours who will support them. And indeed Perón himself, he supported internal migration from the provinces to break up the power base of his upper and upper middle class opponents, but he thereby negrified Buenos Aires to a large extent. And my point is, if you organize a government for and by the poor, it will eventually need more poor. And what I care about is immigration. It is the one matter for which I became interested in Trump and in so-called immediate parliamentary politics, and I think also is your primary concern. It should be. It is also the issue that exposes the imposters. In other words, never forget to keep pressing these leftoids who pretend to speak for you,

who pretend to oppose this establishment bogeyman of neoliberalism. Never stop asking them what they think about immigration, in particular mass third world immigration. Because as anti-racists and fraudsters, they will never speak out really against it. But it is my and your primary concern, and as for free trade or any of the other issues often brought up, I don't understand them as well and don't care nearly as much about them. And surely you can say free trade has fucked over much of America. But that did not happen in a vacuum. Maybe America could have afforded to lose car and fridge factories and washing machine factories to China. Maybe America should be building spaceships instead and hover suits and under ocean biomes

and for me special stiletto made from adamantium and maybe it should be colonizing Antarctica and building bioengineered robot skins for you. Maybe the reason it does not, maybe the reason innovation is moribund isn't because of free trade but because of regulations and socialization of the economy and the culture to begin with. Maybe when you direct social life and economy to the perpetuation of mere life, of what is rightly called the Spick-Nigg cycle, if you don't know it, look it up, Spick-Nigg cycle, when you over-regulate everything to where vital research and manufacturing becomes impossible. Maybe you shouldn't wonder that if factories disappear, there is nothing to replace them but despair. But the despair was already there when America decided to

have actually the largest social welfare master program of any country in history. And anyone who claims the problem of America now is too much capitalism and not enough socialism. First of all, I refuse to think in these two terms, but this is an absurd lie. If you've If you've ever gotten even a small paycheck, you've experienced confiscatory tax rate. You say you're a single man, you get, you know. And you know where that money go, this picnic cycle and where you're being almost literally cucked to support shiboons and their chillens who are raised near a luxury at state expense to hate you and to hate your race in history. That's not free market capitalism. And recently on Twitter people complained about Chinese bullet train and they showed

it as a counter example and to how America had nothing of the sort. And again with the implication that America isn't socialist enough or something like this, that it has a too rapacious oligarch class that refuses to give us our bullet choo-choo infrastructure and instead steals the money or spends it on wars. But what America spends on wars is nothing compared to what it spends on the proliferation of sub-life. You want to know where the bullet choo-choo money went. Go to inner city schools, you go there and you look at the state-of-the-art individual laptops and everything state-of-the-art. Go to medical centers and see one-sixth of American economy devoted to the Sputnik cycle in its full glory. There is an old Mark Faber clip, I'll see if I can find it, all of these have been scrubs

from internets, but he says something, artiste love this clip and I love to play it, it just makes typical white girl liberal idiot go tongue tied with rage, but Faber was on CNBC I think and he goes on this cheerful mini rant, he's always cheerful man, Mark Faber. I forget exactly but he tries to explain the sickness of America and you look at this massive pointless social welfare, at the proliferation of fat, dumb, uneducated people with out-of-wedlock chillins. Okay, he doesn't say what melanin can't they have, but you know, you can also, you add much from so-called black and single woman middle class, okay, and not just the black woman middle class, I mean literally white single woman middle class who have government

jobs or this black so-called middle class that mostly is entirely a product of make-work jobs and other form of welfare. But Mark Faber say, you look at this, it's a mess, this expanse of damaged humanity. And if you're rich, what do you say? You say, you fuck this, I am offshoring my production line. I will inflate the currency and I will put my assets in paintings and whatever, in assets that will experience massive appreciation, but I will inflate the economy. I'm getting out of this demented economy. I don't want to have to make these massive payments to the Spiknig cycle because you're not getting bullet trains and conquest of Mars, you're getting Spiknig cycle. And he's not defending the rich in that, I'll try to find the clip, but he's explaining why wouldn't you do the same?

What do you expect them to do? I don't mean the occasional dementoids like the Sacklers who are possibly motivated by actual hatred and who should be legally redacted after a trial by government, but I think in general Mark Faber is right that this is what motivates many of so-called oligarchs. Would you also not try to decamp? Would you want to donate your wealth to the noble government of Chuckie Schumer so he We can redistribute it to this swamp of damaged biomass. America has the largest social state ever in history, is not free market. And all of the so-called deregulation recently is fake, is an extremely highly regulated economy that serves, however, only large corporations that are clients of this government.

Not all corporations, just those who are friends of interest in government, let me put it that way. And I guess this of what I will end this show on, when you have this swamp of damaged biomass that you must cater to instead of building Mars colony, this what I will end show on here. Examples of Russia, of Chile, of Argentina, America, show you is not form of economy and so on that matters. You can try one thing in one country, it will work, in another it will not. The only things that matter are most of all the human capital, the quality of men in your nation. And second, that the ruling class should be, maybe if not competent and well organized, but they should at least be well intentioned. And I think with these two, but most of all, if you have the human quality, everything

else follows from that. But without the quality of the men, you are stuck in a cycle of big snood or of extraction no matter which way you go. But this is big topic. And so to the question then of what makes for human quality. This a much bigger and harder question and now I must go to Port City and put this out of my mind. I go to Port City and I look for Prosti in my information gathering harem to build it And I will leave all of this to another time until next time from a beautiful cargo area of extreme city Tropical port until next time a BAP out