45 years ago today. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Mexico to Argentina.

Moderator: PoFo Latin America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#14945687
    My friends,

    Surely this will be the last opportunity for me to address you. The Air Force has bombed the towers of Radio Portales and Radio Corporación.

    My words do not have bitterness but disappointment. May they be a moral punishment for those who have betrayed their oath: soldiers of Chile, titular commanders in chief, Admiral Merino, who has designated himself commander of the Navy, and Mr Mendoza, the despicable general who only yesterday pledged his fidelity and loyalty to the government, and who also has appointed himself chief of the Carabineros [national police].

    Given these facts, the only thing left for me is to say to workers: I am not going to resign!

    Placed in a historic transition, I will pay for loyalty to the people with my life. And I say to them that I am certain that the seed which we have planted in the good conscience of thousands and thousands of Chileans will not be shriveled forever. They have strength and will be able to dominate us, but social processes can be arrested neither by crime nor force. History is ours, and people make history.

    Workers of my country: I want to thank you for the loyalty that you always had, the confidence that you deposited in a man who was only an interpreter of great yearnings for justice, who gave his word that he would respect the constitution and the law and did just that. At this definitive moment, the last moment when I can address you, I wish you to take advantage of the lesson: foreign capital, imperialism, together with the reaction, created the climate in which the armed forces broke their tradition, the tradition taught by General Schneider and reaffirmed by Commander Araya, victims of the same social sector which will today be in their homes hoping, with foreign assistance, to retake power to continue defending their profits and their privileges.

    I address, above all, the modest woman of our land, the campesina who believed in us, the worker who labored more, the mother who knew our concern for children. I address professionals of Chile, patriotic professionals, those who days ago continued working against the sedition sponsored by professional associations, class-based associations that also defended the advantages which a capitalist society grants to a few.

    I address the youth, those who sang and gave us their joy and their spirit of struggle. I address the man of Chile, the worker, the farmer, the intellectual, those who will be persecuted, because in our country fascism has been already present for many hours — in terrorist attacks, blowing up the bridges, cutting the railroad tracks, destroying the oil and gas pipelines, in the face of the silence of those who had the obligation to protect them. They were committed. History will judge them.

    Surely Radio Magallanes will be silenced, and the calm metal instrument of my voice will no longer reach you. It does not matter. You will continue hearing it. I will always be next to you. At least my memory will be that of a man of dignity who was loyal to the workers.

    The people must defend themselves, but they must not sacrifice themselves. The people must not let themselves be destroyed or riddled with bullets, but they cannot be humiliated either.

    Workers of my country, I have faith in Chile and its destiny. Other men will overcome this dark and bitter moment when treason seeks to prevail. Go forward knowing that, sooner rather than later, the great avenues will open again where free men will walk to build a better society.

    Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!

    These are my last words, and I am certain that my sacrifice will not be in vain, I am certain that, at the very least, it will be a moral lesson that will punish felony, cowardice, and treason.

This is the last speech by Salvador Allende, democratically elected President of Chile, deposed in a CIA backed coup. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Ch ... oup_d'état)

In a certain sense, he was correct.

We are still here. We will not relent, we will not stop, we will not give up the struggle until we smash capitalism to its very foundations, and then destroy those foundations.
#14945702
Pants-of-dog wrote:This is the last speech by Salvador Allende, democratically elected President of Chile, deposed in a CIA backed coup. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Ch ... oup_d'état)

In a certain sense, he was correct.

We are still here. We will not relent, we will not stop, we will not give up the struggle until we smash capitalism to its very foundations, and then destroy those foundations.


Communists are enemies to all mankind, but all the salt in this post; its delicious. Pinochet Approves.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image
#14945705
Pants-of-dog wrote:I did not think you would provide an intelligent criticism.

My prediction was correct.


What is there to criticize? You didn't make an argument, you made a proclamation of your solidarity with South American communists and the international workers movement through some grand standing.

My post was made in direct proportion to the seriousness of the OP.

Pants-of-dog wrote:This is the last speech by Salvador Allende, democratically elected President of Chile, deposed in a CIA backed coup. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Ch ... oup_d'état)

In a certain sense, he was correct.

We are still here. We will not relent, we will not stop, we will not give up the struggle until we smash capitalism to its very foundations, and then destroy those foundations.


What argument is here? I see none.
#14945707
Forum-lite juvenile memes aside, in all seriousness, Pinochet's regime tortured, mutilated, and murdered many thousands of people, most of whom were not communists. Pinochet's Chile was a reactionary military dictatorship where soldiers and officers alike did what they wanted to the civilian population with impunity. The vast majority of people had no recourse or defense against the worst abuses the soldiers took from women and children alike, and the country served to benefit the junta's members and their families. In contrast to the Baathists in Syria today, there was nothing enlightened or noteworthy about Pinochet's regime, and there was nothing admirable about a Washington stooge like Pinochet.
#14945714
Bulaba Jones wrote:Forum-lite juvenile memes aside, in all seriousness, Pinochet's regime tortured, mutilated, and murdered many thousands of people, most of whom were not communists. Pinochet's Chile was a reactionary military dictatorship where soldiers and officers alike did what they wanted to the civilian population with impunity. The vast majority of people had no recourse or defense against the worst abuses the soldiers took from women and children alike, and the country served to benefit the junta's members and their families. In contrast to the Baathists in Syria today, there was nothing enlightened or noteworthy about Pinochet's regime, and there was nothing admirable about a Washington stooge like Pinochet.


:lol:

I don't think anyone is making a serious argument for pinochet in this thread per se; though I haven't seen much of any serious argument made for anything by anyone as of yet. If POD wants a serious intellectual debate about Chilean history or political morality regarding the instituting of fascists in order to prevent communists, then he should make that argument instead of posting his own version of a nostalgic "Workers of the World Unite!" recruitment poster.
#14945718
Pants-of-dog wrote:In a certain sense, he was correct.

We are still here.

Aren't you living a life of bourgeois domesticity in Toronto?

Bulaba Jones wrote:Forum-lite juvenile memes aside, in all seriousness, Pinochet's regime tortured, mutilated, and murdered many thousands of people, most of whom were not communists. Pinochet's Chile was a reactionary military dictatorship where soldiers and officers alike did what they wanted to the civilian population with impunity. The vast majority of people had no recourse or defense against the worst abuses the soldiers took from women and children alike, and the country served to benefit the junta's members and their families.

In all seriousness, all of these things can be said about the Soviet Union's proxy regimes in the Cold War as well.

I think it's past time that we stopped acting as though Cold War support for Pinochet's Chile, or Apartheid South Africa occurred in isolation. The overthrow of Allende happened just 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all.

The fact that we continue to prop up similar regimes (e.g. the Gulf Monarchies) in the absence of a similar existential threat is a far more pressing problem.
#14945726
Heisenberg wrote:The fact that we continue to prop up similar regimes (e.g. the Gulf Monarchies) in the absence of a similar existential threat is a far more pressing problem.


Agreed. Well said.

Heisenberg wrote:In all seriousness, all of these things can be said about the Soviet Union's proxy regimes in the Cold War as well.


But that was "necessary" for liberating the proletariat, so it doesn't count. :lol:

Heisenberg wrote:I think it's past time that we stopped acting as though Cold War support for Pinochet's Chile, or Apartheid South Africa occurred in isolation. The overthrow of Allende happened just 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all.


Exactly, the U.S. didn't seem to care if the regimes it backed were fascists, nationalists, juntas, etc., so long as they opposed to soviet union and international socialism.

We can judge the morality of this program one way or the other, but its ironic that the highly pragmatic and consequentialist socialists on the forum think they have the moral high ground in critiquing the "unprincipled" Americans. I doubt any of the communists who just posted about these "atrocities" on here even believe in any objective standard of morality to begin with. I know Pants has outright denied such and I wouldn't be surprised if @Bulaba Jones rejected such either.

If you don't believe in an objective standard of right and wrong, how can you judge the Americans for being "unprincipled" in their pragmatic foreign policy in the cold war? You can call Americans hypocrites, but did American foreign policy in the cold war ever really rise to any higher value than "stop communism at all costs"? I don't think so.

So what are we complaining about again? Nothing.

The OP is pamphlet for rallying Chilean commies, its not an attempt at discourse.

This is why Pants should stick to Sea-lioning. Otherwise, his future seems to be destined for the propaganda wing of a hispanic labor union where he can write-up posters and placards while sipping his cappuccinos in between changing diapers.
#14945734
@Victoribus Spolia

You tried to troll me.

It failed.

Move on.

———————————

The international opposition to Pinochet was immediate and included some beautiful stories of worker solidarity.

This is my current favourite:

    If Vietnam was the first “television war,” then September 11, 1973 was arguably the first televised coup. Images of the brutal overthrow of Salvador Allende’s socialist government in Chile were beamed around the world in the days that followed, with few symbols of the CIA-backed assault on democracy proving more resonant than that of low-flying Hawker Hunter jets bombing the presidential palace. The body of Allende would later be pulled from the building, while his supporters were rounded up, tortured, and executed in their thousands.

    Among those following the faraway events was Robert Somerville, a member of the Communist Party and a union shop steward at a Rolls Royce plant in the Scottish town of East Kilbride, ten miles south of Glasgow. A few days after the coup, Somerville brought a motion condemning the military junta to a union meeting in his workplace, where it was passed. There was nothing unusual about this in itself, with the coup sending shock waves around the world and rapidly spawning an international solidarity movement.

    But there was an important difference about the East Kilbride plant: the factory was, by that time, the only one in the world that serviced the engines of the Hawker Hunter jets that were the mainstay of Chile’s air force. In the coming months the plant’s workers would organize a remarkable boycott that grounded most of Pinochet’s air force for years. For years, the story of their refusal was forgotten — but a new movie by the son of Chilean exiles aims to tell their tale.

    Nae Pasaran

    When a consignment of engines from Chile appeared in the factory in March 1974, the East Kilbride workers had an opportunity to turn their opposition to Pinochet’s junta into more than just words. After an engine inspector refused to let the consignment through, it quickly came to the attention of the factory’s union committee and within hours, an official boycott was underway. All 3,000 workers at the plant would maintain the “blacking” of the engines for four years. Their stand was widely celebrated by the Chilean solidarity movement, and proved a major cause of consternation for Rolls Royce, the British government, and the Chilean regime. When Hortensia Bussi, the deposed president’s widow, visited Glasgow in 1975, she praised the boycott as a “beacon of light to those in Chile.”

    For the workers, though, it was easy to feel that their actions had little lasting effect, with the engines’ presence becoming part of everyday life at the factory while debates raged in the background. In any case, the engines were spirited away in a mysterious pre-dawn raid one day in August 1978, with the workers and union left feeling powerless. What became of them was never known, with even the license plates of the vehicles used to remove the engines turning out to be fake. Military involvement was suspected.

    The full story of that boycott, and the ultimate fate of the engines, has now been told for the first time in a crowdfunded, feature-length documentary, Nae Pasaran. Directed by Felipe Bustos Sierra, it premiered recently at the Glasgow Film Festival. It builds on a short film released in 2013, which is available online, and explores the impact of the workers’ stand in both Britain and Chile.

    Growing up in Belgium as the son of a student journalist who had been forced to flee Chile, Bustos Sierra was attending Chilean solidarity events from a young age and remembers the Rolls Royce boycott as part of the “mythology” of that movement. But with information on events in Chile and elsewhere being passed through convoluted networks of exiles and supporters, it was often second or third hand by the time it reached his family, making it hard to distinguish fact from fiction.

    “Because this story related directly to the Hawker Hunters, which was the most iconic image of the coup, it left a strong image,” he tells Jacobin. “But back then we heard that it wasn’t the engines, it was the planes, and that the Hawker Hunters were stuck in a factory and the workers had erected barricades around them and were preventing the police from getting them back. It was great when I was eight years old but as I got older, I thought this must be either very exaggerated or completely made up.”

    Moving to Scotland as an adult, he began investigating further, which would prove to be the first step on a long journey. “I met the guys, and that was the big turning point, realizing that this was real and there was a way to try and tell the story in a more truthful way and find relevance with struggles happening now,” Bustos Sierra says.

    That journey is still ongoing, although along the way it has seen three of the workers — Somerville alongside Bob Fulton, the first to refuse the work the engines, and John Keenan, another senior shop steward — awarded the highest honor given by the Chilean government to citizens of other countries. They are, at a reasonable guess, the only East Kilbride pensioners who are also Commanders of the Republic of Chile.

    The film is a triumph, an inspiring story of cross-border solidarity that deserves to be retold, with the detail of the boycott beautifully interwoven with archive footage and interviews. While an initial plan to take some of the workers involved over to Chile proved impossible — Fulton is now 95, while Somerville is 82 — the narrative instead relies on showing those in both Scotland and Chile footage, and testimony, from the other country, as it delves into the impact of the “blacking,” and films their often emotional reactions.

    Tracking down members of the Chilean air force who rejected the coup and were jailed, the film recalls how they would secretly tune into Radio Moscow and hear updates about the boycott. Also interviewed is General Fernando Rojas Vender, a former Commander in Chief of the Chilean air force and a Hunter Hawker pilot who was involved in the assault on the Moneda palace during the coup. He denies having an airborne role that day, although it is probably for the viewer to judge whether they find his testimony convincing. Pressed on why workers on the other side of the world would find their actions objectionable and feel compelled to take action, he seems confounded, only offering a one word reply: “politics.”

    Rojas Vender bluntly describes the sorry state that the Chilean air force was in by the late 1970s, isolated on the world stage and unable to secure the servicing of their main fighter-jet engine. With most of their aircraft grounded, they were forced to scrape together spare parts from wherever they could source them. Israel and South Africa were a big help, Rojas Vender notes.

    Potentially a consequence of this, we also hear from the son of an air force pilot who died in a Hawker Hunter crash, the result of a faulty jet. It leads to one of the biggest reveals in the film and then to what turns out to be the ultimate emotional crescendo of its ninety-six minutes, as one of the blacked engines returns to Scotland to “resume its struggle against the Scottish weather.”

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2018/03/nae- ... solidarity

——————————

Heisenberg wrote:Aren't you living a life of bourgeois domesticity in Toronto?


No. We live in Edmonton, working mostly on anti-colonial politics.

The fight against capitalism is one of those where you have to think globally and act locally.

In all seriousness, all of these things can be said about the Soviet Union's proxy regimes in the Cold War as well.

I think it's past time that we stopped acting as though Cold War support for Pinochet's Chile, or Apartheid South Africa occurred in isolation. The overthrow of Allende happened just 10 years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, after all.

The fact that we continue to prop up similar regimes (e.g. the Gulf Monarchies) in the absence of a similar existential threat is a far more pressing problem.


The spectre of communism in Latin america was often used to justify US intervention in Latin America. In reality, the USSR did not significantly supoort Allende.

And the US and the UK have not stopped this and willl not stop this because the material conditions that lead to neoliberalism and neo imperialism have not changed in the last 45 years.
#14945749
Victoribus Spolia wrote:We can judge the morality of this program one way or the other, but its ironic that the highly pragmatic and consequentialist socialists on the forum think they have the moral high ground in critiquing the "unprincipled" Americans. I doubt any of the communists who just posted about these "atrocities" on here even believe in any objective standard of morality to begin with. I know Pants has outright denied such and I wouldn't be surprised if @Bulaba Jones rejected such either.


I didn't use the word "unprincipled," but I would describe America's foreign policy as one akin to barbarism. In any case, it doesn't matter how it's described. I'd say it's silly for you to actually attempt a moral high ground (I was not, in criticizing Pinochet's regime and American foreign policy, indicating an opposition of reactionary regimes on the basis of morality): none of the libertarians, liberals, and people belonging to any ideology actually adhere to any sort of objective morality, regardless of what they claim. Everyone has made a post expressing an opinion that it's OK to harm or kill people or deprive people of certain freedoms and choices, often outside of conventional laws, if there's a "good reason" for it, etc etc. Implying socialists/communists/Marxists here are worse than the plethora of people who support opposite ideologies is pretty silly.

If you don't believe in an objective standard of right and wrong, how can you judge the Americans for being "unprincipled" in their pragmatic foreign policy in the cold war? You can call Americans hypocrites, but did American foreign policy in the cold war ever really rise to any higher value than "stop communism at all costs"? I don't think so.


You should really refrain from putting words in people's mouths, like this fixation on "unprincipled" or "objective morality." American foreign policy has been a malignant effect on global development in many countries. Throughout the 20th century, whenever we set up a banana republic in Latin America, it was often in reaction to the efforts of that country's people and government to use their natural resources and labor to develop their infrastructure and standards of living. Each time we militarily intervened or used proxy rebels to do the work for us, we not only set back both in an ever-expanding region of countries we forcibly regressed, we also caused an ever-greater proportion of their wealth to be channeled upwards into the hands of families connected to their respective regimes, rather than being used to develop and progress forwards.

We weren't simply fighting a Cold War against the Soviets: the underlying factor was our need to continue to dominate foreign markets at the expense of their own countries and peoples. Our wars throughout Latin America, many being quick coups and installations of pro-Washington stooges, were ultimately on behalf of certain industries and very powerful people who stood to lose a lot of money.

We have been using Islamist militants since the 80s to destabilize every independent country in the Middle East as we possibly can. Every country that tries to nationalize usually gets a taste of this. Every country that does not align with us gets the same treatment. Regionally, it benefits Israel, but ultimately it's for us. It's easier to dominate the region when the countries that don't align with you are reduced to the point of having to focus on their own instability.

Anyone who says morality doesn't matter is lying. The reason Marxists criticize American foreign policy is because it has been setting back development in many countries and benefiting oligarchs who remain in power because we can control them. Unless you are in politics and get a golden parachute, or you are very wealthy, none of this actually benefits you even if you slap bumper sticker pictures of helicopters and guns to your car or not, if that makes sense.

It's more complex than what I've described, but I've essentially boiled this down to simple concepts and terminology.
#14945752
The US has engendered or supported right wing regime change in Central and South America since the eighteen hundreds.
Here is a list of these countries during the twentieth century. Many countries had a US regime more than once. lol
Panama
Honduras
Nicaragua
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Guatemala
Brazil
Cuba
Bolivia
Chile
El Salvador
Granada

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_ ... ime_change
#14945764
Bulaba Jones wrote:Forum-lite juvenile memes aside, in all seriousness, Pinochet's regime tortured, mutilated, and murdered many thousands of people, most of whom were not communists.

Yea, yea. Lots of communists deny they are communists.

Bulaba Jones wrote:The vast majority of people had no recourse or defense against the worst abuses the soldiers took from women and children alike, and the country served to benefit the junta's members and their families.

Women AND children? Not just women, or just children? Well, say it isn't so! Where was Serena Williams when they needed her?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:We can judge the morality of this program one way or the other, but its ironic that the highly pragmatic and consequentialist socialists on the forum think they have the moral high ground in critiquing the "unprincipled" Americans.

Well, they always wax on about "democratically elected." They never say this when it comes to Hitler, who was also democratically elected. Trump was democratically elected, and the Democrats are doing their level best to try to overthrow the US government too.

Allende, like all commies, was a crook. He was overthrown after he started nationalizing foreign-owned companies--effectively stealing them by using US tax laws that allowed companies to file returns that understated their income and assets. Allende knew what he was doing, and so did the people who overthrew his government. He had it coming.

Pants-of-dog wrote:No. We live in Edmonton, working mostly on anti-colonial politics.

It's probably safer there for you than Beijing or Brazzaville.

Pants-of-dog wrote:The fight against capitalism is one of those where you have to think globally and act locally.

I'm sure your comrades in the trenches, down for the struggle, feel re-assured by your laments about capitalism from Edmonton, Canada.

Bulaba Jones wrote:We have been using Islamist militants since the 80s to destabilize every independent country in the Middle East as we possibly can.

Such as? Afghanistan was invaded by the Soviet Union. It was hardly independent.

Bulaba Jones wrote:Anyone who says morality doesn't matter is lying. The reason Marxists criticize American foreign policy is because it has been setting back development in many countries and benefiting oligarchs who remain in power because we can control them.

Rubbish. They whined endlessly about Operation Ajax. The Shah was a modernizer. Mossadeq was just another crook trying to steal foreign direct investments, in this case investments made by treaty--which made Mossadeq's actions effectively an act of war. Mossadeq declared an emergency, suspended the secret ballot and held an election without a secret ballot where he won 99%+ of the vote, because anyone who went to the poll to vote against him essentially disappeared shortly thereafter. Mossadeq was an aristocrat himself. He was just interested in making himself the next Shah for all intents and purposes.

The yankee way is good for us and it's good for you.
#14945771
Red_Army wrote:Speaking of trenches, how are those in your legs from gout @blackjack21 :lol:

No gout. I quit drinking in January. Sadly, I have a lonely $800+ bottle of Ballantines 30-year scotch, bottled about 40 years ago that is the last of my stash. The wine chiller is off. Do you know anyone in the SF Bay Area that wants to buy a 166 bottle wine fridge?

I'll have to do something about the rich foods next. It's hell getting old. :violin:
#14945774
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Communists are enemies to all mankind, but all the salt in this post; its delicious. Pinochet Approves.


I'm going to venture a serious reply here (although, I really know I shouldn't). It's not about communists and fascists. It's about leaving the people the fuck alone, and letting them solve their own problems, failing or succeeding on their own terms.

Pinochet didn't just wake up and decide to stage a coup. He was supported with money, arms, and intelligence through ex officio CIA channels and NGO front organizations. The same thing is going on now in Venezuela.

Killary Klinton bamboozled a feckless Obama into a similar disaster in Libya, but the count on failed interventions is so high nobody is even counting anymore.

In fact this crap has been going on for decades in dozens of countries. The US has already paid a high price, and the ultimate price will be incalculable. People have long memories and they don't forgive.

The same people who whine about the Feds in Waco or Ruby Ridge don't give a damn we are doing exactly the same thing to entire countries. It shouldn't matter to you if Chile chooses a communist or fascist government, as long our government hasn't got its damn thumb perpetually on the scales of the process. Either way it turns out, you will end up with millions of people hating your guts - and their children, and grandchildren hoping for a chance to die in order to pay you back.

Wouldn't it have been better to let Allende mess up on his own, and have the people blame him instead of us?
#14945814
quetzalcoatl wrote:Wouldn't it have been better to let Allende mess up on his own, and have the people blame him instead of us?

That wouldn't have been better for Chileans. The people "blaming" are commies and shills of commies who are going to "blame" anyway so fuck 'em.

Pinochet spent the early part of his career defending the country from marxist terrorists so when he realised that one just got elected that was his wake up call. He would have done what he did without the US help but given they have a common enemy it makes perfect sense to ally with each other. You have no problem with commies aiding commies I guess but if anti-commies team up that is supposedly bad. That's a double standard.
#14945816
Pants-of-dog wrote:The spectre of communism in Latin america was often used to justify US intervention in Latin America.

Perhaps that had something to do with a communist Latin American government bringing the world to the brink of nuclear war in 1963.

Pants-of-dog wrote:In reality, the USSR did not significantly support Allende.

...not for a lack of trying by Allende's government, of course.

Bulaba Jones wrote:Anyone who says morality doesn't matter is lying.

I think the problem here - and I'm not accusing you of this - is that morality magically seems to matter when it's the USA or the West doing something questionable. We have plenty of people on this forum who are only too happy to make excuses for Lenin's Cheka or Stalin's NKVD by pointing to western intervention in the Russian Civil War (which was actually far more complicated than the anti-communist crusade it is presented as being). And they often happen to be the same people who present the 1973 "9/11" as though it were a simple case of the USA actively being as evil as possible.
#14945822
quetzlcoatl wrote:Wouldn't it have been better to let Allende mess up on his own, and have the people blame him instead of us?

Commies believe what they want. They aren't into empiricism, or they wouldn't be communist.

SolarCross wrote:The people "blaming" are commies and shills of commies who are going to "blame" anyway so fuck 'em.

I know. Right? I'm always puzzled by the deep seated need for approval and avoidance of criticism. That's why I hate RINOs as much as Democrats. Why would you want people who hate you to approve of you? It makes no sense to me.

SolarCross wrote:You have no problem with commies aiding commies I guess but if anti-commies team up that is supposedly bad.

Another great point. I don't see why we can't just sort out the commies and give them a country with sufficient resources where they can fuck themselves over and leave the rest of us alone.
By Sivad
#14945824
Heisenberg wrote: as though it were a simple case of the USA actively being as evil as possible.



The US is actively evil, nothing excuses its support of Pinochet.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 9

In the 1995 film Clueless, does capitalism tell so[…]

@One Degree No, you did not answer the questio[…]

There is no constitution requirement to have pres[…]

2018 US Elections

Trump couldn't get anything done Nearly[…]