May 12, 2005
PEAS IN A POD
Allende branded a fascist and anti-Semite (Hannah Cleaver, The Telegraph, May 12th, 2005)
Salvador Allende, the socialist president of Chile who was killed during a CIA-backed coup in 1973, was an anti-Semite who held fascist ideas in his youth about race and crime, it is claimed in a book which has split Chile. The book, Salvador Allende: Antisemitism and Euthanasia, will shock many who still revere him as a martyr who was deposed by the right-wing Gen Augusto Pinochet, with the backing of Washington and big business.The disclosures come from Allende's 1933 doctoral dissertation which has been kept secret until now. In it he asserted that Jews had a disposition to crime and called for compulsory sterilisation of the mentally ill and alcoholics.
Allende also wrote: "The Hebrews are characterised by certain types of crime: fraud, deceit, slander and above all usury. These facts permits the supposition that race plays a role in crime."
Among the Arabs, he wrote, were some industrious tribes but "most are adventurers, thoughtless and lazy with a tendency to theft".
"The southern Italians - in contrast to the north Italians - and the Spanish have a tendency to barbaric and primitive crimes of passion and are emotionally unpredictable." The book's Chilean-born author Victor Farias said he had evidence that Allende tried to turn his ideas into reality as Chile's health minister from 1939 to 1941.
The entire leftist worldview is based upon the fiercely held myth that fascism and marxism are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Posted by Peter Burnet at May 12, 2005 5:45 AMA totalitarian is a totalitarian, whether he spouts Marx or some other heartless s.o.b.'s theory. To find that a communist or a fascist is willing to view every individual as merely a cog in the Great Machine (defective cogs to be thrown in the scrap bin) shouldn't be a bloody surprise after the bloody history of the last century.
Geez, I can't even think straight I'm so disgusted.
Posted by: Mikey at May 12, 2005 8:11 AMJust remember, every time the Nazis come up, to refer to them by their actual name, the National Socialist German Worker's Party, or just the National Socialist Party.
Posted by: Tom at May 12, 2005 8:43 AMOne might also ask, What's the difference between Hitler killing millions of people in the name of the slogan "national socialism," and Stalin killing millions of people in the name of the slogan, "socialism in one nation"? (Stalin's slogan once it became apparent that the workers of the world were not going to spontaneously rise up on observing the Soviet example.)
The Left clings to the notion that a party calling itself National Socialist was right wing because otherwise they're forced to admit that every slaughter of millions of people in the 20th century was perpetrated by left-wing governments. The Left NEEDS "there was megadeath by both left and right states."
Posted by: Tom at May 12, 2005 8:50 AMWhat's interesting is to hear people say that the Nazis and fascists (who grew out of Communism to a large extent) cannot be ideologically akin to the socialists and Communists because the two sides often clashed. What, they've never heard of the Trotskyists and Stalinists going at it? How about the Stalin-backed militias versus the POUM in Spain?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at May 12, 2005 9:02 AMMay I suggest you look at yesterday's posting and extensive comments about Yalta?
Jason's POV lacks (ahem) nuance.
Posted by: Sandy P. at May 12, 2005 10:59 AMForget about the communist in-fighting; we're about to see some donnybrooks in the Democratic party as Edwards, Kerry, and HRC herself joust for the nomination. It won't be boring like 2004.
After reading about Edwards' direct slam of Mary Beth Cahill in Boston, I wondered when the attacks will start on Hillary.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 12, 2005 11:57 AMMr. Hamlen;
Your comment brings up an interesting issue: Should President Bush annoint a successor to avoid that kind of fight during the Republican primaries, or should he let that happen on the theory that it will strengthen the party in the long run?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at May 12, 2005 2:29 PMDifficult to tell.
In 1988, Bush (Sr.) was clearly preferable to Dole, who didn't know how to be 'charming' yet. Dole didn't hit his stride until he led the Senate (and the GOP) in opposition after Clinton was inaugurated.
I doubt if he will anoint anyone - by 2008, he'll be eager to leave D.C., and it would probably look a bit sloppy-kiss for Bush to choose one over the rest of the field. Unless Cheney is replaced, I can't see him doing it. But I don't think the GOP race will be nearly as bad as the Democratic contest.
Posted by: jim hamlen at May 12, 2005 3:12 PM