Versión Español
Ibero-America observed in awe the ultimate escalation of continental violence, right in the region’s most prosperous economy. The origin is external. The violence was initiated and promoted by the far-left at the service of Castrism, via the Sao Paulo Forum – and only a complete idiot would doubt that the escalation was dictated by Havana and planned at the Sao Paulo Forum. Likewise, the escalation in the late 1980s and early 1990s came out of Havana. Besides, the left is not hiding this fact. They are boasting about it.
And that explains a lot, but it doesn’t explain everything. The socialist agitation and propaganda are controlled remotely by Castrism and its satellites, which are in power, the opposition, and organized crime groups. They require three things for this:
- A far-reaching and profound ideological spade that, in its broad sense, makes socialism -as it submits to Castrism- cultural hegemony.
- A sense of dissatisfaction that is caused or worsened by moderate socialist policies and mobilizes a trained intelligentsia and disoriented masses as a framework for low and medium-intensity urban terrorism.
- The absence of a political or cultural response to the first spade. Additionally, there is confusion when the politicians who face attacks are openly or covertly moderate socialists. They are sufficiently moderate to pass off as the “right” and socialist enough to be devoid of their discourse in the face of the Castrist cultural hegemony.
These three requirements explain the current and upcoming events in Iberoamerica. In Chile, we can see a far-left force along with the moderate left trying to “Argentinize” Chilean politics. They are protesting in the streets and agitating violently to overthrow any president who resists them. That’s their first step to the Argentinization of the Chilean state. They want to destroy the individual capitalization pension system and the Chilean model of openness, free markets, savings, and investments: the model that has resulted in an improved standard of living for all, especially for those who rose out of poverty through employment, finances, and limited state power. The imposition of the Argentine model would imply 20 million people dependent on subsidies funded by less than eight million taxpayers. The economy would be over-regulated, dismantled, and under-capitalize. Poverty, inequality, and dependence would be prevalent.
The left has an agenda for Chile: Argentinization as the road to Venezuelanization. Submission to Havana. Hunger and misery. Dominion of the axis of organized crime, revolutionary Marxism, and international terrorism. The local political-criminal groups are destructive, but they are few in number. The criminals who spontaneously reinforce them by “fishing in a troubled river” are not too many either. However, there are many parallel protests, manipulated by the conspiracy, and there is a great deal of discomfort that serves to justify or excuse violence.
What are Chileans complaining about? I’m not talking about the few at the service of Havana. Nor about those who set the country on fire. Not even about the opportunists who seek political gain by attacking the police and the armed forces, who, when confronted with criminal violence, fulfill the only legitimate function of the state, if one exists. I don’t refer to those who pretend to overthrow Piñera to trigger extortion and turmoil in the streets when they lose elections. What the other ordinary Chileans? From the poor to the middle classes (the majority), what are they complaining about?
Wages in Chile are the highest in the region – which is why the country attracts immigrants. But the standard of living is better; there are more opportunities, fewer stifling regulations, better institutional quality, and more personal security than in the rest of Ibero-America. However, in the region of Araucania where the senseless weakness of the state in the face of low- and medium-intensity terrorism was the fuel of the current fire – Chileans complain of insecurity, “starvation wages” and high cost of living, in the safest country, higher wages, and lowest inflation in the region.
Indeed in recent years, the economy has been growing more slowly. As a result, wages stagnate. They enjoy the best services in Latin America, but in a country, on the verge of development, they are sub-par and expensive. And although too many don’t want to accept it, they complain about the effects of the socializing reforms of Bachelet’s second administration. They are paying for a state that has rapidly reached a size that the Chilean economy cannot afford without suffering the consequences. And these would be very legitimate complaints if they did not demand more poison as a cure for the poison, and if Piñera had not surrendered ideologically, hoping to avoid being forced to resign politically. That’s the result of not knowing the enemy.
That’s what some Chileans complain about. Sometimes they have no reason; other times, their complaints have some validity, and sometimes they have many good reasons. Depending on what everyone complains about in Chile. And above all, what they defend as a solution to their anguish. It is difficult to understand outside Chile. Incomprehensible, for example, for Venezuelans with a minimum wage of two dollars a month, the price of a liter of milk a month – and nothing else – amid hunger – although it costs nothing to travel on the dilapidated subway in Caracas. They don’t understand why people complain so bitterly in a country with a minimum wage of more than 400 dollars a month. And believe it or not, one of the keys to Ibero-America’s future is at stake in Chile.
