In general, as a convinced anarcho-capitalist, I agree with most of what Mr. Hornberger said in his video linked here about the JFK assassination:
Except mainly for one brief glancing comment about Salvador Allende. Not his fault, necessarily, though, considering the totality of the news blackout on certain aspects of the way things were then.
That said, once you learn some facts that are publicly available, and some that aren’t so much, there is no way one can say that Salvador Allende wanted a peaceful coexistence. There are other aspects of those events that say different, most of which were suppressed by the international press cartel for its own reasons, or for the reasons of those who run it. If the same sequence of events were to happen today, there would be a LOT of facts coming to light on all sides of the issues.
If I had doubt about that before, they were all blown away during 2009, when the entire force of the international news cartel Establishment threw its entire propaganda machine into supporting the same story line about events in Honduras, contrary to the truth. Every single official representative of every single member of the United Nations supported the s
ame story color-coordinated story line as the Media Cartel.
In Honduras there were even large demonstrations outside the offices of CNNE (CNN Espanol) demanding they remove their reporter and stop telling lies about events there.
That’s why I did some research about Allende. Most of what’s in the public libraries is tilted in one direction but even between the lines in the leftist shill press there is some truth to be had.
ALLENDE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE.
One connection I discovered between the Honduras and the Chile stories was Jose Miguel Insulza, the Secretary General of the OAS. He was the chief political adviser to Salvador Allende in that regime, which had declared itself loudly as a Marxist government. Not just socialist, but Marxist. They saw the existing economic system of Chile something to overturn.
Allende brought not only Fidel Castro to visit, but he invited Castro-sympathizer revolutionaries from all the countries around Latin America. This was the 1970s when it was clear, without even believing government press, that Cuba was sending material support to violent leftist insurgencies across the country, and that was also with Soviet support.*
Okay, as socialism is ruinous on any economy, and catastrophic if administered as a shock treatment, Allende’s policies and its effects did just that. I can believe they had help from the CIA, but this process needed no CIA help. Socialism did the same thing that government interference has always done throughout thousands of human history, including the Soviet Union, only faster in the industrial age (which would have collapsed within months from 1917 without help from Western banking capital).
As libertarians SHOULD know but always forget to point out, when the CIA brings down a socialist regime it is only accelerating a political process that occurs naturally, the same as to the USA regime. From what I understand, that’s just simple Austrian economics.
Anyway, Allende and his administrators (including Insulza) was already into his plan to build his own alternative military structure, just like Obama promised he was going to do in 2008. (Remember that?)
Allende’s regime was stockpiling weapons in government warehouses maintained by political appointees. He was importing experienced (violent) revolutionaries from all around outside his borders. Cubans were invited in (like they were to Venezuela even BEFORE Chavez).
THEN THE SAME CHILE CONGRESS that put the winner of the plurality into power of the general election (well below majority) , finally DEMANDED that the military take action to stop the runaway regime. So they did.
What follows was not pretty. But Chile is in a better condition now that it would have been had the military left Allende to execute the remainder of his totalitarian plans.
JFK somewhat before and toward the end sought peace. Apparently Krushchev did too, in my opinion, his removal being one piece of evidence.
But I doubt that of Allende. I also KNOW that Manuel Zelaya of Honduras in 2009 received the same (better even) coverage that Allende got in 1973. I also know that Roberto Michelletti got the same vitriol (worse really) spun at him that Pinochet got for so many years.
And in the usual leftist shill web sites supported by the usual socialist billionaire-foundation suspects, they still use the same lying rhetoric as back then.
(NOTE: Were there atrocities back then? No doubt. There were also full-blast shootouts between revolutionaries and military troops at those clandestine arms depots. The violent revolutionaries wanting to support the planned totalitarian regime change were called “resistance” against the coup, and the military “golpistas”.
Portugal had a peaceful coup. Libya had a peaceful coup and the West blasted away the ONLY middle-eastern nation and its leader that had denounced its own previous policies, and was a blue ribbon success for peaceful change among Arab countries. The ONLY one where Christians felt safe, women were lifted up in public view, prominently.
Honduras restored constitutionality, which you could call a “coup” but only if you count the stopping of a counter-coup that was already in progress, or restoration of constitutional continuity in power rather than presidential continuity in power.
I am an anarchist, but there things that are worse sometimes that the regime that rules in your land. Ask the Cold-war era refugees from Eastern Europe.
*–Remember it didn’t take long for the Soviets to remove Khrushchev after that rapprochement either. (And speaking of facts kept out of general public view, the current Rockefeller patriarch of the day had visited Moscow between both events.
It seems both sides of the Cold War (or their manipulators) wanted to keep the threat levels and military production up, but without actually letting any missiles fly.