Light Holiday Reading- Report, National Chilean Commission on Truth & Reconciliation

[Esq.]

Very, very interesting read on happenings in Chile during the Pinochet years. Most interesting in some ways was the back ground on the political, social, economic conditions on the ground prior to the Junta taking power....

Here is one little nugget-


A. Situation in Chile leading up to September 11, 1973

The 1973 crisis may be generally described as one of sharp polarization in the political positions of the civil sphere into two sides-government and opposition. Neither side was able (and probably did not want) to arrive at a compromise with the other, and there were sectors on both sides that believed armed confrontation was preferable to any sort of negotiation. This is not to say that all Chileans were so polarized, nor that there were not to be found on both sides those who favored negotiation over confrontation. Nevertheless, there seems to be no doubt that whatever may have been the reasons, polarization became the dominant feature of political language and interaction, and the more violent sectors in that polarization gradually came to the fore.


Anything look familiar in any of that?

If you have the time/interest--

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/resources/collections/truth_commissions/Chile90-Report/Chile90-Report.pdf

[Esq.]

More:

The Commission understands that all these points can be interpreted in diverse and contradictory ways. It also understands that no side had a monopoly on violence, and that violence flared up because the extent of polarization already underway encouraged each individual to believe he or she was overstepping the bounds of the legal framework only in response to, and defense against, someone else who had already done so. In practice, however, the cumulative effect of these circumstances was that all sectors directly harmed by the prevailing disorder and illegality came up with a common and unvarying explanation: that the administration was not protecting their rights and that when these rights were violated they could not find support in the police, the judiciary, the General Comptroller's Office, and so forth. They concluded that the only defense was self-defense, and thus spread the idea of irregular pressure on the government (strikes) and likewise the idea of irregular armed groups in both city and countryside to defend the ownership of properties and companies and their own personal security. Such ideas unquestionably sank deep roots in small and medium property owners in rural areas and the cities, and also in modest business people in industry, trade, transportation, and so forth and in professional associations. However, such private opposition militias were inevitably seen as leading to a coup, and so they sparked the formation of pro-government paramilitary groups. Moreover, extreme groups of any sort do not need a reason or pretext for becoming armed, and so the fever to do so spread throughout Chile.


Again, any of this ringing any bells? Decent, middle class people arming up because their property was being destroyed or "occupied" and government was completely un willing to respond?

[ABNAK]

Now if we can just start the helicopter rides.......

[Esq.]

The paper talks about the creation of armed militias and their role-


"Moreover, besides claiming to be ready for military struggle, some of these groups criticized the armed forces and police forces directly; they urged that they be dissolved or radically changed; they declared that they planned to infiltrate them or even that they had already done so; they urged lower ranking officers and troops to disobey orders."


Gee, it's almost like there is a manual for this shit-- "Defund the Police" anyone?

Do you really understand WTF is going on in this country? Since "the sports ball" has largely been curtailed I was hoping more people would wake the hell up.....