Spanish – The metropolitan region of Santiago, Chile, and four other areas are in a state of emergency. A curfew has also been imposed in the city during the night.
The images of the events in Chile look like they are straight out of a horror film. Rioters have burnt metro stations and buses; they have set fire to buildings with people still inside them and plundered businesses and shops. Urban terrorism is burning the country down, and it has already killed more than ten people and injured dozens.
“We are at war against a powerful and relentless enemy that has no respect for anything or anyone and is willing to use limitless violence,” Chilean President Sebastian Piñera said on Sunday.
The president is right about everything. The vandals in Chile are not a group of dissatisfied young people. Contrary to media claims, we are not talking about a spontaneous movement of people who want a better country and have taken to the streets to proclaim it. Chile is facing a powerful enemy: internationalist communism.
Is it possible that a regular person, an ordinary citizen, one day gets angry because the subway fare rises by 30 Chilean pesos (0.041 USD), and goes out to burn buildings with people inside?
Chile is the most prosperous country in the region; it has one of the most successful poverty reduction stories in the world, and the standard of living is comparable to developed nations. Does anyone reasonably believe that people in this country spontaneously go out to steal and destroy what they find in their path, ever resorting to killing?
Of course, none of this is spontaneous! Ordinary people don’t get angry and burn buildings that have people inside. They don’t go out and destroy stations and burn cars when transport costs 30 pesos more.
It is necessary to tear apart the ridiculous discourse of the mainstream media that uses the term “protest” to describe the urban terrorism that has Chile in flames. It is imperative to clarify that there is no such thing as “social discontent” among the majority of Chileans. We are talking about communist cells that are organized and directed from outside the country.
What is happening in Chile is not a new issue. Socialism – which has always been internationalist – has handbook guidelines to mobilize minorities as armed terrorists. They use sectors of the population that don’t understand the real scope of the events to cause chaos and create the impression of “widespread social discontent.”
It is pertinent to revisit “Caracazo” in this context. On 27th February 1989, protests in Venezuela quickly escalated and left Caracas engulfed in absolute chaos. There are striking similarities between the images from Santiago, Chile today, and those of Caracazo. Venezuelans lived through fires, hundreds of deaths, and plundered neighborhoods.
Caracazo was the genesis of the Bolivarian revolution in practice, as recognized by several leftist historians. They managed to make many believe that a country with excellent economic indicators was in bad shape. They managed to sway public opinion towards the notion that there was widespread “social discontent.” And they left an extremely debilitated president, who ended up backing off and sitting down for a “dialogue” with the opposition.
Similar to what is happening in Chile right now, many Venezuelan publications at that time spoke of spontaneous protests and not terrorism. They insisted that this discontent was provoked by some economic measures announced by President Carlos Andres Perez. Specifically, just as the case in Santiago today, Caracazo supposedly began with an increase in transport fares.
Today, everyone knows that what happened in the Caracazo was planned from Cuba.
Thays Peñalver says about the supposedly spontaneous terrorism in Caracazo: “motorcyclists would enter supermarkets, shops, and provision stores in general to incentivize the looting of the passers-by who were going to work. Those in Venezuela, who copied the destabilizing model, decided to persevere with the deplorable slogan of “popular pillages.”
Fidel Castro was in Caracas for Perez’s inauguration of 2nd February 2989. According to Carlos Peñaloza, the army chief of staff at that time, Castro took advantage of this visit to prepare for the uprising of Venezuelan civilians and soldiers who sympathized with the Cuban regime. Peñaloza says the weapons included sniper rifles that weeks later clashed with soldiers and law enforcement officers during Caracazo.
Also, during those days, hundreds of foreign detainees were reported and immediately deported. The media notes statements of witnesses who spoke of the “Caribbean accent” of the people involved in the “protests.”
None of this is a coincidence. It is not surprising that what is happening today in Chile is so similar to what happened in Venezuela in the Caracazo. Nor is it accidental that Cuba is currently in the same situation as it was in 1989 when the Soviet Union could no longer support the island, and the “special period” began. Castroismo today, as it did in 1989 with the Soviet Union, sees Venezuela as a country that will soon have nothing to give it.
And it’s no mere coincidence that like Chile today, Venezuela at the time was the most prosperous country in the region. As Venezuelan writer Antonio Sanchez says, the left has “gone for the jugular against Latin American liberalism.”
Hopefully, when the Chilean president speaks of a “powerful and relentless enemy,” he will explicitly mention Cuba and Venezuela. Those countries have already publicly acknowledged the accusations in this case.
“It is the union of progressive and revolutionary social movements across Latin America, the Caribbean and the world beyond. The Forum has received a fresh impetus, and this is how we must persistently coordinate the progressive political parties. We are doing better than we thought, and something much better is coming our way. I can’t say more,” said Nicolas Maduro about the protests taking place in Chile and Ecuador.
“What is happening in Peru, Chile, Argentina, Honduras, Ecuador, is just the breeze. What’s coming now is the hurricane,” Diosdado Cabello said.
We’ll see how much longer it is for Piñera, and if he can handle this situation the right way. Regarding how the Caracazo was handled, Orlando Avendaño writes in Dias de Sumision: “One could say that the slaughter is the result of the inability of the state security forces to control the situation during the first hours. By letting it pass, it spread, and more force was needed for compliance.”
As it happened to Carlos Andres Perez, the matter has gotten out of hand for Piñera. There shouldn’t have been a single death; not a single building burned down; the state forces should have acted much earlier. Now, we have to see if Piñera can put an end to the chaos and how he does it.
Perez was weakened after the Caracazo. He decided to partially withdraw the measures he had announced and sat down to talk to his enemies. Unfortunately, Piñera is doing the same now.
Perez even got to ingratiate himself with Fidel Castro in a kind of tacit agreement so that Cuba would not get into Venezuela in exchange for the Venezuelan president mediating internationally in favor of Castroismo. We all know the result: Cuba now owns Venezuela.
It is time to react forcefully to this attack perpetrated in the region by internationalist socialism. There is no “generalized social discontent” that led to “spontaneous protests.” This is a coordinated and planned attack by Castroismo and Chavismo to take down the most liberal and prosperous country in the region and then proceed with the others. All wrapped up, as always, in the false veil of social struggles and springs.
It is obvious and evident: most Chileans are at home waiting for order to be restored. They are not in the streets, destroying the subway, setting fires, and killing people.
We don’t have time. It’s imperative to respond.