Fascists in Palermo

Lucas said:
worldaudit.org...Publisher's Overview

This is the Eighteenth world audit report of the millennium, in which we review the state of public corruption; current practice in human rights; political rights; free speech; and the overall state of the rule of law in 150 nations (all those exceeding one million population). By reference to these, we compile the world democracy table with its subsidiary statistical tables. We recommend that readers check out our methodology (button on left hand sidewalk of democracy table) to make the most sense of these results and the commentary below.

We also recommend readers who seek more in-depth, regular information, to our sister website, www.newnations.com This offers updated monthly analytical reports currently for 45 'nations in transition' (emerging or submerging); many polemical, geopolitical 'special reports',all archived since 2002. www.geopolemics.com is the u-tell-us blog for both newnations and worldaudit. It also lists all current newnations country reports often at a reduced length, as well as our ‘prescriptions’ relating to some of the wide spread of geopolitical analysis we offer. All three sites interlink and are free.



Questions...

Who owns? worldaudit.org

Who supports? worldaudit.org

Who runs? worldaudit.org

Who are they? worldaudit.org

It's easy to quote this "org" "in which we review the state of public corruption;".....

Who are "we"?

Anybody knows well this organization and can explain what are they intentions and agendas?

Thanks
Ok, you don't like this source how about freedom house which ranks Argentina even lower at number 100.

The link is
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=442&year=2008

As far as freedomhouse is see the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House


Of course if you can provide any objective information on the state of press freedom in Argentina to the contrary I would be happy to read it.

Thanks
 
gouchobob said:
I don't want to discuss this with you as it's obvious you are member of the looney left and cannot be swayed by logic or facts.
And you are not part of the looney right? Please let me hear how you think having one company own all media is not undemocratic.

Merlinova said:
I'd really want to read your reasoning about Hugo Chávez not being an authoritarian leader (aka dictatorship)

are you Venezuelan? Do you feel you have enough knowledge or better yet, facts to claim something like that? Have you lived in Venezuela the last 5-7 years? If so I will respect your opinion, (just because I will know at least you have some basis to refer to, not because I think Chavez is not authoritarian).

Whether I am or have been living in Venezuela is irrelevant. I have never met an American telling me I cannot criticize the USA if I have never been there. Yet, every time when I get into a discussion about Hugo Chavez, I hear that argument.

I do not think Hugo Chavez is, what he is often criticized of by his opponents, a dictator. You would have to tell me why you think he is authoritarian, I cannot guess. Although gouchobob gave me some examples. The problem is that most of what is said from the opposition are blatant lies and are easy to respond to, the hard part is that they are so many.

Ruling by decree
Not sure what you mean by this since there are frequent public referendums on major matters. Unless you want to be a hypocrite you should direct your criticism towards the US government. Who, for example, passed the Patriot Act I and II without anyone actually have read it, let alone had a referendum about it.

Shutting down critical media outlets
This is blatant lie, but an effective one. I think what gouchobob is referring to here is RCTV's cable TV license being revoked. They were not shut down, but lost their license due to numerous violations of their contract. Probably done on purpose to discredit the government. The same TV station publicly gave their support to the 2001 coup, hours after it happened. And they are still broadcasting to this day, although not longer on cable. How authoritarian huh?

Abolishing term limitations
I think you mean changing the constitution to allow the president to remain longer in power? Excuse me but don't you do exactly the same in the United States? If you want to change the constitution you just add amendments right? That is exactly what they did in Venezuela, but the only difference they actually had a referendum about it. Therefore making it more democratic than in the United States.

Harassment of opposition politicians and elected officials
Que? The people responsible for the coup attempt in 2001 are not being bars are they? The opposition bashes Chavez all the time and they are still allowed to be on air, have their demonstrations, etc. Who exactly is being harassed by the government?


I recommend you watch this documentary, made by two Irish filmmakers who got caught up in the 2001 coup. It gives you a clear insight what is going on in Venezula:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revolution_Will_Not_Be_Televised_(documentary)
http://www.mininova.org/tor/42290
 
gouchobob said:
Ok, you don't like this source how about freedom house which ranks Argentina even lower at number 100.

The link is
http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=442&year=2008

As far as freedomhouse is see the following link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_House


Of course if you can provide any objective information on the state of press freedom in Argentina to the contrary I would be happy to read it.

Thanks

From Wikipedia:
"Freedom House receives the majority (66%) of its funding from the U.S. government through the National Endowment for Democracy, USAID, and the State Department. It also receives some funding from foundations such as the Bradley Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Dutch government, and a list of others."

If your sources are going to be the CIA, we won't be very impressed. You know that right?
Washington Times: Freedom House denies CIA, terror ties. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-1465332/Freedom-House-denies-CIA-terror.html

How about you tell us what is so bad with the press freedom in this country?
 
Thanks, at least now I have an idea, although I imagined something similar to that.
Citing sources backed by "who knows" not always mean they are correct or not biased to certain interest.
 
orwellian said:
And you are not part of the looney right? Please let me hear how you think having one company own all media is not undemocratic.

The only way only one company can own all the media (or all any other sector for that matter) is through government intervention.

In a truly free market, or even in a slightly free market, no one company can monopolize a whole sector. That can only happen with gov help, or in the rare case that the company is actually genius. In the latter case, like with Microsoft Internet Explorer, it is only fair to let them dominate a sector they created, and the best way for true competition to arise.
Google Chrome, or Firefox did not need the Gov to sue bill gates for the "crime" of giving away Explorer with the purchase of Windows. It served no one but some gov officials who forgot they are our servants.


Gov intervention can disguise itself as "left-wing" or Materialism or "right wing" or Spiritualism (be it the spirit of the nation, race or religion), but the results are the same: the obliteration of the individual - and hence of all society.

The Soviet Union (Russia) and the Islamic Republic (Persia) or even our "allies" the Saudi Kingdom are examples of both kinds of gob intervention: be it in the name of "the people" or in the name of G'D. Notice that both "people" and "god" are both unidentifiable, undefinable, concepts.

As for the "Ley de Medios": It is the same MO as in Venezuela for RCTV.
The truth is that while Grupo Clarín is big, it is not a monopoly. La Nación for example has nothing to do with it.
Let's say, Nacion is to Clarin what the New Yorker is to The New York Times.

During the First Peronist "Administration" (it was actually a semi-coup like Mussolini's March on Rome) the same situation happened when they closed the newspaper "La Prensa" for not being party-loyal. To this day there is no paper La Prensa.

As for the Fascists in Palermo, well, they are everywhere not just palermo. They are called "Vanguardia Nacionalista" and are some really misguided useful idiots who have a crush on military juntas. They are basically the main reason why I don't like the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".
 
Moxon said:
Erm, no, it's still around but nobody reads it.

hehehe, alright, but let's say closing down a paper for not sharing party policy is not moving forward in the Democratic way.

By the way "ni marxistas ni liberales" is a direct reference to Peron's Third Position. It is also the exactly the war that Italy and Germany fought against the Marxist USSR and the Liberal Anglo-Americans some 70 years ago.
 
During the First Peronist "Administration" (it was actually a semi-coup like Mussolini's March on Rome)

Could you explain what you mean by a 'semi-coup' and how this applies to Peron's first government?
 
Matt84 said:
The only way only one company can own all the media (or all any other sector for that matter) is through government intervention.

I would paraphrase that in: The only way only one company can own all the media (or all any other sector for that matter) is without government intervention.

Matt84 said:
In a truly free market, or even in a slightly free market, no one company can monopolize a whole sector.

Utopia. Try to win a poker game to someone that has all the chips, in time you will end loosing all. More than 50 years of Friedman's ultra-free-market-economics should prove you wrong.

Matt84 said:
Google Chrome, or Firefox did not need the Gov to sue bill gates for the "crime" of giving away Explorer with the purchase of Windows.

Netscape. ¿Rings a bell?

Matt84 said:
As for the "Ley de Medios": It is the same MO as in Venezuela for RCTV.
I've read the full law project, you are simply misinformed. You should read it in full extent before giving such an opinion, its misleading.

Matt84 said:
The truth is that while Grupo Clarín is big, it is not a monopoly. La Nación for example has nothing to do with it.
Let's say, Nacion is to Clarin what the New Yorker is to The New York Times.

Again misinformed. La Nación & Clarín are partners in many media conglomerates.

Matt84 said:
They are called "Vanguardia Nacionalista" and are some really misguided useful idiots who have a crush on military juntas. They are basically the main reason why I don't like the saying "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

I couldn't have expressed it better.

You can find some nice graffitis here: http://www.callebsas.com.ar
 
Moxon said:
Could you explain what you mean by a 'semi-coup' and how this applies to Peron's first government?

Moxon said:
Could you explain what you mean by a 'semi-coup' and how this applies to Peron's first government?

It'll be my pleasure! But remember I'm not a historian, and that it's always better to go to the sources.

The Nation had experienced its first sadly successful military coup since Constitutional times in 1929 or 1930 by Colonel J.E. Uriburu. It was a restoration of the previous 1880s oligarchy after the first 3 freely elected administrations were deemed disappointing by both the immigrant masses and the threatened criollo upper class.
Peron was a military colonel (self appointed general), but a military man "of the people". In that laid his success.

To understand Peronism one must first understand two things:
The Caudillo culture (that's easy to understand as it applies everywhere, the worship or general trust in a powerful-looking warlord ) and what Fascism actually means. This deserves a short explanation.

Fascism does not equate mass murder, and it's philosophically very far from German Nazism. It is said that Hitler was more akin to Stalin than to Mussolini. Taking into account that the man liked war rather than peace it is only understandable that he liked his enemies more than his allies. Hitler praised Stalin's steel policies, but looked down to his peacemonger ally of the south.
Furthermore when Germany "annexed" Austria (a good example of a semi-invasion), it was a fascist led country he was invading: Austria was ruled by E. Dollfuss a Clerical Fascist.

Fascism is
- Nationalist on the social sphere, uniting the crowd under a single flag like a bundle of sticks tied to an axe, a fascio. Force through unity" (and unity through force)

and

- Corporativism on the economic sphere: using and uniting all syndicates under a National Council and in the end under a single leader in order to control from top to bottom all productive forces, thus the Nation becoming a Corporation in its strict sense a body (in which its individual cells are disposable). Under a Corporativist government no one can work independently but has to be enlisted into a syndicate. Eventually one can only work if it's a member of the party, and in extreme cases only if one's a loyal member of it. Private property still exists in paper, but not in reality. De lex but not de facto. You can own property but you can't dispose of it how you like - only under permission of the government. In that it differs from Socialism.

Because Fascism takes over a man's profession, his mind, it is worse than Communism which is brutally materialistic and only regards man as a collection of bone and muscle to be remote-controlled from a ministry. In its brute dumbness, Communism allows for a healthy black market to sustain its starving population. Fascism controls all productive activity, so even if fed, your mind is a slave. Some people like the Austrian economists go so far as to say that in fact the most successful fascist leader was FDR. But FDR was democratically elected! you'd say. True, but so was Hitler and every single other fascist leader - for you see, fascism is actually very democratic (but not the least Republican) and I'm not talking about political parties but political philosophies: Rule of the majority and rule of law respectively. But FDR was not a tyrant like the others! you'd say. Well it depends on how you regard the myriad of gov agencies he created, and what's your opinion on drafting thousands into cannon fodder to save European ass (or to consolidate new markets). On a personal note I thank all American soldiers who saved my parents' homeland from the hell they got into 70 years ago.

Now back to Argentina and Perón, and why I say it was a semi-coup and not a full blown coup:

1929: The Conservatives ask the Army to protect their interests. Although literal, they don't know they are playing with fire, and they wouldn't know it for another 15 years. The first coup since the foundation of the Republic goes smoothly with almost no casualties. The army hands the power to a conservative political party no one would have voted for, and then back to the army, on and off. Gradually the once professional, legally-bound institution of the Army deteriorates as power greedy factions begin to form.

One of that factions was a secret society called the United Officers Group, GOU (grupo de oficiales unidos). Within its ranks Juan Peron is a charismatic Colonel trained in fascist Italy and nazi Germany. To the Army he is a Colonel, but within the GOU he is appointed (maybe self-appointed) General.

In 1943 the GOU leader, Arturo Rawson takes power in a coup - by all definitions. Peron is appointed minister of labor or something like that, and begins working ties with the major syndicates. Eventually the power of the alliance between the syndicates and Peron grows to the point that he can overthrow his own leader, and that's when he's imprisoned.

Massive demonstrations staged by the syndicates push for his excarceration and he is democratically elected.

Once in power he suppresses directly or indirectly all opposition and begins a program of actively buying of general populace, and particularly a group that had been left forgotten by the criollo aristocracy and the immigrants: I'm talking about the pre-existing NOT aristocratic criollo population, the "cabecitas negras" as blonde Eva referred to them.

His main tactic consisted of handing out a lot of free fish, while making fishing illegal (unless in the frame of a government approved and controlled syndicate - which is not fishing but wasting time and resources).

So, while he was a military man who betrayed his oath during the Rawson coup, he technically rose to head of state through democratic elections.

By the end of his destructive first two administrations more than half the Argentine population was happy with their free fish and unconcerned with the lack of fishing rods, and so they would keep voting for him indefinitely.

Another coup followed the "Revolución Libertadora" that forbade Peronism all together and then called elections.

When he came back during the 70s he sowed the seeds for 10+ of state sponsored terror.

Viva Peron Carajo!
 
Back
Top