Chile’s Protesters are Tools of Neoliberalism

But a short time later the protests escalated as a large group of hooded protestors began to loot a church in the area known as the La Asuncion and removed almost all of the iconography inside. Pictured: Two demonstrators run through the streets with a statue of a priest

The social uprising which has occurred in recent weeks in Chile has made unanimous news: rising living costs, soaring inequalities, privatised public services, poor pensions — these are the reasons Chile’s masses are on the streets. The average salary in Chile is $778 a month, while the cost of living is comparable to Western Europe! 1% of the country’s population owns 26.5% of the wealth. So, there is no doubt about the necessity to radically reduce inequality in the country.

But is this social movement part of a revolutionary uprising in Latin America against capitalism? I will argue here that it is most definitely not. First of all, we must clarify who the protesters really are; what exactly is driving their ire at President Sebastian Pinera’s administration, and who exactly in the international arena are their allies. What follows is not so much a defence of President Pinera but rather a critique of the ideology and political objectives of the oppositionists.

Who is Pinera’s enemy?

President Pinera said that his government was confronted by a “powerful enemy.” To whom was he referring? The mass media have all implied that he was referring to the Chilean people. I doubt it very much. I suggest rather that he is referring to the Foro de Sao Paolo, or Sao Paolo Forum (FSP). The FSP was formed in 1990 as a Latin American think tank which would promote grassroots organisations agitating for social justice. However, the focus of the organisation has been more about opposition to neoliberalism than formulating a radically alternative political economy. Although far-right critics call the organisation “communist”, it is a Trotskyist and left-globalist forum: what that means is that it uses left-sounding slogans to advance elite interests. Other than the Chilean Communist Party (Proletarian Action) who are proposing the nationalisation of public transport and a new constituent assembly, the thrust of the movement appears to be more in line with the petty-bourgeois agenda of the FSP.

Why Trotskyist? Anyone who knows Latin American politics will tell you that Trotskyism has always been extremely influential in the Left. The FSP was formed as a response to the fall of state-bureaucratic capitalism in the former USSR and Eastern Europe. The overriding interpretation of the USSR and its contribution to socialism is negative and conforms perfectly with the criticisms of Trotsky — that it was never “really socialist” anyway, which is false.

That is why the FSP, contrary to what the far right believes, is not technically a communist organisation, nor does it propose an alternative to capitalism. Rather, its focus is on promoting capitalism with a human face or in perhaps Maoist terms, capitalism with “social characteristics.” But even the social characteristics it claims to promote have nothing to do with an alternative to capitalism. In recent years, feminism, gender confusion, indigenism and ecologism have become dominant discourses among the Latin American left. These agendas are heavily financed by the most ruthless and ambitious capitalists on the planet.

For the feminists and gender confusionists, this means that the destruction of the natural family is the focus of their policies. For the indigenists and ecologists, the promotion of the idea that cannibalistic savages in the Amazon jungle should be protected from the “contamination” of Western civilisation, and that man is destroying the planet, is dear to them. Many of these ideas come from the Franz Boas and Margaret Mead schools of cultural anthropology. Mead famously faked much of her research which portrayed Samoan savages as some form of uber-civilised utopia.


So, what’s going on in Chile? Why is Pinera getting such bad press? Readers of Spanish should consult Mr Pinera’s webpage and read his political programme. You will notice that he refers to the family quite a lot. In fact, “familia” seems to be the focal point of his political rhetoric — access to cheaper credit for families, improving income for families etc. There are many pictures there to drive the point home, and they are not just happy bourgeois families; there are some pictures of single-mother families too. Pinera wants to increase the country’s declining birth-rate. He also opposes abortion and gay marriage. Now, these are a problem for the FSP. Remember, they do not have anything like a coherent Marxist analysis of capitalism; their focus instead is on promoting the agenda of the global oligarchy.

For example, Marxist-Leninists always considered homosexuality as a manifestation of bourgeois decadence, something which proliferates in capitalist societies where profit corrupts human nature. It was a view of sexuality which was not too different, mutatis mutandis, from the Roman Catholic Church. In the Soviet Union under Stalin and Socialist Albania under Hoxha, the family, though not seen as the basic core of society, was nonetheless protected and homosexuality was illegal. The communists promoted population growth as youth is a key factor for the socialist development of society. All of that is gone now; now these “communists” want to destroy normal gender identities and the idea of the natural family itself.

This is where the real opposition to Pinera is coming from. Oppositionists are calling for a new constitution. But what do they really want? They want to change article one which says that the family is the core of society. They also want to remove the article which protects the life of the unborn. There are, admittedly, other articles in the constitution which should probably be modified to permit more freedoms. For example, articles restricting the dissemination of “totalitarian” ideology are a violation of freedom of expression.

However, the European Left, who are allied to the FSP would probably agree with the necessity of banning certain types of ideology. After all, they are trying to make it illegal for someone like me to actually write these words, and like all “radical” anti-neoliberals, they have generous backing from neoliberal Big Tech.

So, Pinera is being targetted for his Catholic views? He was formerly an economics lecturer in the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, Latin America’s most prestigious university. His uncle is Bishop Bernardino Pinera, former President of the Episcopal Conference of Chile. Although 103 years old, Bishop Pinera is currently under investigation for sex abuse by the Vatican. But the Papal Nuncio in Chile Ivo Scapolo has himself been accused of attempting to cover up child abuse cases. The case being brought against Bishop Pinera is extremely bizarre. Apparently, one person claims he was abused fifty years ago. It may be politically motivated. Pinera has instituted reforms which would make it easier to prosecute corrupt clergy. But is that really what Pope Francis and the Vatican mafia want? Cardinal Vigano has accused Pope Francis of protecting paedophiles.

Christian humanism?

St. Alberto Hurtado - YouTube

Bishop Pinera was a member of Catholic Action and a follower of Saint Alberto Hurtado. Hurtado wrote many important books condemning capitalism: Social Humanism (1947), The Christian Social Order (1947) and Trade Unions (1950). Many of his works are difficult to find today but he had a tremendous impact in improving the lives of Chile’s working class, setting up important institutions for orphans and homeless people.

President Pinera quotes Hurtado in his political programme and describes his own philosophy as Christian humanism. However, Pinera has also addressed Free Masons in Chile and praised their “achievements”, which proves that even if he claims to promote Hurtado’s work, he nonetheless defends the enemies of Catholicism and the working class! That said, the very mention of Catholic social doctrine would probably send left globalists into paroxysms.

Pope Francis should be promoting Hurtado’s work, given the fact that he claims to be opposed to capitalism. However, Pope Francis is also openly supporting liberation theology which is officially a heresy. Liberation theology states that the Church’s role is to liberate the masses from poverty, joining forces with leftist movements. The Church’s role is to save human souls, not to promote social revolution.

That does not mean that the Church’s role is to defend the ruling class against the poor. On the contrary, Catholic social doctrine is radically opposed to finance capitalism. It was defined by the Papal encyclicals Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragessimo Anno (1931). When these documents were published, their content was so radically anti-capitalist, many leftists thought the Church had converted to communism. But this is not the agenda being pushed by Pope Francis. He is an alt-globalist who says Catholics should obey the United Nations and worship nature!

The “social justice” being promoted by the FSP is not Hurtadoist. In fact, the term social justice was first coined by a Jesuit scholar Luigi Taparelli in the 19th century. The FSP philosophy is permanent revolution, permanent subversion, permanent opposition to the natural order — all under the guise of social justice and to the benefit of financial oligarchs.

What then should we say about neoliberalism? It is certainly the case that Chile is a most unequal country and it would be absurd to suggest that billionaire Pinera is some kind of radical anti-capitalist. In fact, he has already been asked by the media if he is aware of groups such as Bilderberg, who are plotting global government against the interests of the world’s people. Pinera said he was unaware of the group but that if they did exist, they were attempting to reduce the world’s population to slavery.

It is hard to believe a man of his position would be unaware of such a group. But Fidel Castro also claimed to have been unaware of their existence and even invited an expert on the group to visit Cuba to give lectures. The existence and pernicious influence of Bilderberg in world affairs were discussed by French media back in 1977, as Margaret Thatcher was receiving her orders to destroy British industry, but nowadays it is, of course, conspiracy theory. That is not the opinion, however, of many officials in the European Parliament who have held conferences to discuss the matter.

Whatever Pinera’s true agenda is, what concerns us here is the idea of promoting the family. The survival of the natural family is not what capitalists want. Is not the natural family routinely denigrated, mocked and scoffed at by the left bourgeois media? Gay marriage and gender confusion are the principle values of the current neoliberal order; and if any of those “anti-neoliberals” had a smattering of Marxist culture, they would see them as the perfect representations of hyper-capitalist relations of production, where narcissism and egotism proliferate. But we will not insult poor old Marx by associating him with the FSP.

Pinochet was a disobedient US puppet

But what about Pinochet and the horrible dictatorship he brought about after his US-backed coup in 1973? General Pinochet was put in power by former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger with help from the CIA. There is no doubt about that fact. There is no doubt either about the fact that leftists were rounded up, tortured and murdered. I strongly recommend the book Killing Hope by William Blum for the gory details of the crimes against humanity committed by the CIA in Latin America. I would also suggest sending a copy to the European Left who seem to think it is perfectly moral to support the CIA when they claim they are overthrowing a “dictator killing his own people” in Libya, Syria, Burundi, Iran and a host of other countries.

So the brutality of the Pinochet dictatorship does not seem to be in doubt. But why was Pinochet not tried for his alleged crimes, and didn’t Sebastian Pinera oppose his extradition to Spain for trial? Pinera claimed it was a violation of Chile’s sovereignty which is, in fact, true. There have been many allegations of fraud in the numbers of people murdered and tortured.

The Spanish judge responsible for the extradition of Pinochet, Juan Guzman Tapia, had links to Amnesty International. Amnesty International is not a credible organisation. In fact, it has been one of the chief purveyors of lies and manipulation justifying Western policy in recent wars such as Yugoslavia, Libya and Syria; and it has a long history of lobbying on behalf of imperialist interests.

In an interview he gave to Chilean television towards the end of his life, Augusto Pinochet was asked about some of the brutal murders that took place under his rule, in particular, the assassination of Chilean leftist opposition leader Orlando Letelier who was murdered in a car bombing in Washington on 21 September 1976. Pinochet denied allegations he ordered the murder and said it was curious how the Americans were immediately aware of who was responsible. He said they had not even resolved the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King. The Circuit Court in Shelby, Tenessee in 1999 judged that US agencies had ordered King’s murder.

Letelier’s son told the Chilean media in 1995 that there was no evidence implicating the Chilean secret service (DINA) in the killing of his father. There are many other accusations against Pinochet whose veracity cannot be determined here.

But some things need to be clarified. The Chilean economy did grow exponentially under the Pinochet dictatorship. Pinochet allowed Chicago school economists to ruthlessly privatise the entire economy. It created a ruling oligarchy and massive inequalities. For example, by the end of his reign, over 40% of the population lived in poverty, compared to just 20% in 1970.

This is the “great success” Reaganites like to brag about. But it was the way Pinochet dealt with the mess he had created which made him an enemy of Washington, who would use all its soft-power to overthrow him in 1990.

Pinochet jailed many of the financial oligarchs after the financial crash of 1981. Few people are aware of that fact. It was the same financial oligarchy who backed his overthrow in 1990. He then proceeded to behave, at least in the eyes of Washington, like a “communist”.

To save the nation’s pension system, Pinochet nationalized banks and industry on a scale unimagined by Communist Allende. The General expropriated at will, offering little or no compensation. While most of these businesses were eventually re-privatized, the state retained ownership of one industry: copper.

So Pinochet, like all historical leaders, democratic or otherwise, is complex. He was also believed to have been a member of Chile’s right-wing Free Masons.

Since the fall of the Spanish Empire and perhaps long before it, politics in Latin America has been a constant war between right-wing and left-wing Free Masonry, to the detriment of the poor, most of whom are Catholic. It shows that there has never been a separation of Church and State. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church has been replaced by an ugly, superstitious cult whose god is power and money.

Democratic dictator?

It should also be pointed out that Pinochet asked the Chilean people to vote whether they wanted him to continue as dictator or to have a democracy. 44% voted to have Pinochet stay. The US was heavily involved in his ousting, using the National Endowment for Democracy, a front organisation of the CIA, to swing the vote against him.

In the interview mentioned above, Pinochet said that he believed Allende’s supporters were about to murder their right-wing opponents before the coup. This was his justification for seizing power. Again, these allegations should be investigated. I am not attempting to defend Pinochet’s actions, but we should try to be objective in assessing the actions of political leaders, and ideological rightists and leftists rarely value objectivity. Allende was close to Castro who executed thousands of supporters of Battista after the Cuban revolution. It would, therefore, be disingenuous to suggest that Pinochet’s supporters did not fear the same treatment.

Pro-Pinochet supporters point out that Marxist guerrillas were very active throughout this period and that was the reason for the military curfews. This is also true, and it is never mentioned by left-wing analysts. Nor do they ever mention the fact that Salvador Allende was a Free Mason. Free Masonry was outlawed in the USSR and no one was allowed to become a member of the French Communist Party if he was a Free Mason, because Freemasonry is, as French intellectual Vincent Peillon, has put it, the religion of the bourgeois state. Any leftist who defends Free Masonry is a fake!

Nonetheless, the legacy of Allende is not all bad either. Much of it is very good. I visited Salvador Allende hospital in Venezuela in 2010 and spoke to Cuban doctors there. I saw for myself the excellent facilities provided for the poor by a socialist state. The problem with the right is that they don’t understand that socialism works in many important ways. The problem with the left is that they don’t understand is that only works when societies maintain the traditional family. You can build all the hospitals and schools you want, but you will have a sick and poorly educated society if you oppose the moral law.

Michele Bachelet and the Human Rights mafia

Former President of Chile, Michelle Bachelet is now the UN Commissioner for Human Rights. A former leftist guerilla, she has been under investigation in Chile for murder. A key witness in the case was found dead in extremely suspicious circumstances. His brother said it was definitely not an accident. Mrs Bachelet is now “concerned” about human rights violations in Chile. Bachelet has links to billionaire financier George Soros and the Rockefeller family — stalwart fighters for the working class! She has also addressed Free Masons in Chile, assuring them of her fidelity to their cause.

The anti-Catholic nature of the protests is proven by the fact that the rioters stormed a Catholic Church, looting its statues, smashing a statue of Christ to pieces and burning Church furniture in the streets. These Trotskyist hooligans should be rounded up and imprisoned.

The protesters have also set fire to a university. It shows that they are nothing more than tools of the globalist oligarchy.

Unfortunately, the anti-imperialist media are not seeing the full picture. The ineptitude of political analysis is exemplified by an article in Iran’s Kayhan International newspaper which claims that the US is backing Pinera against “peaceful protesters.” It is unclear which side the US is on, given the fact that Pinera is said to be pro-Bolsonaro and pro-Trump and the US Deep State is doing everything to undermine the Trump presidency.

US deep-state elements may be involved in fomenting the protests. The important trade talks between the United States and China which were due to be held in Santiago this month had to be cancelled because of the unrest. This will not help Trump’s election schedule. He would prefer to have some cosmetic success in dealings with China before his presidential election campaign.

The afore-mentioned Kayan International even accuses the Soros-funded propaganda organisation Human Rights Watch of not doing enough to highlight abuses against the rioters. The reality, however, is that Human Rights director Kenneth Roth has been busy posting and pontificating on social media, condemning the violence against “peaceful protesters.”

We are now being told that two feminist “communists” of the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ilk are setting the agenda in Chile.

These alt-globalists will bring the country to a standstill. They are simply paving the way for the destruction of the last real obstacle to a global government which is the natural family. Forget all that vacuous rhetoric about inequality, the protest movement is about putting alt-globalists in power so that there will be more talk about abortion and less about increasing natality; more talk about legalising drugs and less about killing the drug pushers; more talk about homosexualism and ecologism etc.

José Mujica T-Shirt

The protesters are looking for a Jose Mujica style president. José Mujica, the president of Uraguay, is in favour of abortion, has legalised drugs, is said to live in poverty himself ( though I doubt that much) and, most important of all, doesn’t wear a tie! He has said Pinera lacks glamour. In other words, Pinera is just uncool! He’s a favourite of the Soros school of open, drugged and dumbed down societies. The rioters want Pinera to step down and so do the bourgeois liberal media, and their fake “radical left” oppositionists.

Same game, same players, same leftist destruction

In over ten years of seeing how countries such as Venezuela, Belarus, Eritrea, Libya, Syria have been assaulted or destroyed, I have come to recognise the telling signs and symbols of a most degenerate ideology which disguises itself as “revolutionary” and “radical”, while hiding its myriad accounts in High Finance. The mocking and destruction of Christ in Chile are symptomatic of everything that bourgeois left stands for; it proves that neoliberalism’s greatest achievement is the opposition it created for its perpetuation.

Pope Francis and the homosexual cult he protects in the Vatican were up in arms a few weeks ago when a truly heroic and revolutionary Catholic from Austria went into a Church in Rome, grabbed statues of the idol Pachamama and threw them in the Tiber. Predictably, Pope Francis had nothing to say about the desecration of churches in Santiago. Today’s youth are being force-fed the failed ideology of the last century, which they laughably call “progressive.”

The protest movement in Chile was started by high-school students who are in no way affected by the meagre rise in public transport costs. As the Greta Thunberg sect has shown, ignorant youth all over the world are being used by elites to brainwash the masses into submission to a global carbonotocracy where CO2, the basis of life itself, will be measured and traded. Given the fact that thousands of the world’s scientists have exposed the fraud behind global warming and the religious cult it has spawned, bankers have now turned to mentally ill children to do their bidding. Something very similar is happening in Chile.

China’s Latin American hub

Chile is the word’s leading copper producer with 28% of the world’s supply. China is its main consumer. The chaos in the country will greatly reduce copper output, putting further pressure on both Chile and China. Given the fact that Pinera’s apparent defence of China against US-backed protests in Hong Kong has not gone unnoticed in Washington, and the US/Chinese trade talks in Santiago have been cancelled, cui bono is perhaps not an inappropriate question. China has proposed making Chile into its economic hub in Latin America. Pinera told an investment forum in China last April that “We want to transform Chile into a business centre for Chinese companies, so that you can, from Chile, reach out to all of Latin America.” 

To conclude, the Chilean chaos is about a dubious Christian humanist facing off even more dubious “socialists”. When the leftists are finished smashing up the country, the working class will clean up the mess with little if any gain in wages. If the leftists get into power, Chile’s working class will be “liberated” from the Church, can smoke pot, eat plants, kill their babies; join the gay parade and worship mother nature. ¡Viva la revolución!’

About Gearóid Ó Colmáin

Gearóid Ó Colmáin is an Irish journalist and political analyst based in Paris. His work focuses on globalisation, geopolitics and class struggle.

Check Also

Iran’s Defence of Women

Is the Islamic Republic of Iran being punished for defending the idea of a woman? …


  1. Pinochet: Did you read PCR’s takes on him?

    There may be, indeed, no doubt that he was put in power by Washington, as you say.
    But the reasons for that would be different from those commonly assumed. The real reason would be in that people are dogmatic in either believing or disbelieving it. In an exceptional case, when the now famous anti-imperialist author of a scholarly study on Pinochet, Paul Craig Roberts, was challenged about it, he argued against the thesis.

    That was here, in the _comments_ section. It may also be in his book on Chile, which I haven’t read, and two articles on ‘the general’ : “If Pinochet is guilty” and “Power of propaganda.”

    Also, are you familiar with Gonzalo Lira’s take on Pinochet?

    On the other hand, I thank you for pointing out Chile’s doubled poverty rates during his reign.

  2. Sir ,

    If you have a spanish translation for Latinamerica, we’d be very interested to publish it (sorry for not be able to do it ourselves)


    Red Internacional Admin

  3. – Margaret Mead famously faked much of her research which portrayed Samoan savages as some form of uber-civilised utopia…

    That’s what I thought as well. Then, last year, I read a professional anthropologist’s commentary that seems to ignore that fact. In response, I forwarded to the anthropologist an article about Mead’s gross misportrayal, this one, and got a reply that made me think:

    Helga Vierich: “The Samoan islands were Christianized and subsequently embarrassed and reactionary against any hint of a sexually more permissive behaviour. The contrast Mead made was between the sexually repressive codes current during her own youth in the the USA ( esp. New England) and what she was told about by her informants. Don’t think they even lied to her. The fact that sexual behaviour – especially in teenagers – is highly variable due to cultural factors is hardly even questioned today, since the “sexual revolution” of the 1970s in the USA; and that was a mild kind of premarital “dating” behaviour compared to the “hook-up” culture and group oral sex that appears to be common among young teenagers today.
    So whatever was done to Mead was far more about trashing anthropology than t was about her making things up. The same must be said about the more recent accusations of romanticization of “primitive” society in terms of peacefulness or economic adequacy. I have read EOWilson and StevenPinker and so on. I have battled the ridiculous ideological fads spun out feminist fantasies, as well as the sad attempts to “prove” the perfection of Marxist paradises, and even had shouting matches with post-modernists who couldn’t follow a scientific method if it led them on a leash. None of these is anthropology; none of them qualify as the application of empirical testing to hypotheses about causes of human behaviour, especially of differences between cultures.
    As for EvoPsych and sociobiology, they are rooted in a sad combination of over-romantic and out-dated ecological modelling about the way evolution works, as well as about how it has happened in the human species. Both approaches were practically designed to appeal to popular misconceptions that are deeply embedded in the paradigms typical of stratified states; ideas about competition and progressivism totally at odds with the Darwinian model, let alone the synthesis model, of natural selection. H”

    The e-mail ended right there, with the letter H. :)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.