Why The Left Is Suppressing The Truth About Argentina’s Military Junta

The mainstream media narrative about Argentina in the 1970s goes something like this: (1) Argentina was governed by a brutal, merciless military junta from 1976 to 1983; (2) the dictatorship conducted an unprovoked campaign of extermination against leftists that left tens of thousands dead; (3) the leftists were innocent students.  This story—in one form or another—is what has become part of the accepted narrative of this period of Argentinian history.

But the more documentaries I saw on this period, and the more I read about it, the more I was convinced that the entire story was not being told.  It seemed to me that the country’s recent governments have had a vested interest in fanning the flames of resentment that have been stirred up since the 1990s.  I have not been to Argentina, but I have spent much time in Brazil, a country that was also run by military governments in the 1970s and 1980s.  The conversations I’ve had with older people in Brazil about this period track very closely with the interviews of Argentinians I’ve read about this period in their history.

Chile, as we have seen, also was ruled by a military dictatorship during the same time.  So were some other countries in Central and South America.  I began to ask myself whether this was pure coincidence, or whether there were good reasons why the countries in the region needed a firm hand at the reins at that time.  The more I read, the more I began to see that the conventional wisdom has expunged much that needs to be told.

The first thing that seemed open to question was the alleged number of victims.  In Argentina, the press frequently tosses around the number of 30,000.  But declassified US documents put the figure at half that, around 15,000.  It is true that governments regularly falsify data, but so do lobbying groups and private organizations.  No one has yet explained where the number of 30,000 was arrived at.   President Mauricio Macri himself seemed to have doubts about the number during a recent interview with Buzzfeed, where he said:  “I have no idea [how many were killed].  That’s a debate I’m not going to enter, whether they were 9,000 or 30,000.”

Part of the problem is that the issue about the so-called “Dirty War” is heavily politicized in Argentina.  When President Nestor Kirchner came to power in 2004, he apparently was willing to use the issue to score political points with the leftist press and with international human rights organizations.  Kirchner nullified the amnesty laws that had protected military men from prosecution for events that had happened 30 years before.

By this single foolish act, he threw open the gates of political factionalism and vendetta.  Amnesty laws have proven to be very effective in enabling societies to move on from civil violence; they have worked wonders in Algeria, allowing that country to move beyond the horrific events of the 1990s.

Flag of the Argentinian communist rebel group “People’s Revolutionary Army”

But Kirchner and his successor wife did not stop there.  They converted former military interrogation and detention centers into “monuments.”  They glorified the guerrillas of the 1970s—many of whom were out-and-out terrorists—and gave no thought to the victims of leftist violence.  What has been forgotten is that communist and communist-inspired insurgencies were threatening a number of countries in South America during the 1970s.

These groups, funded by interested parties abroad, specifically intended to establish socialist or communist societies, and employed bombings and assassinations to further their goals.  There certainly were a large number of innocent students caught up in the excitement of demonstrations and strikes, but behind this were dedicated revolutionaries.  And the only way to defeat an insurgency is to hunt down the insurgents and remove them from circulation.  This is the hard reality of counter-insurgency warfare.

In a recent article in The Guardian, one professor made this statement about the so-called “denialist” groups:

Mario Ranaletti, professor of history at Tres de Febrero university, has specialized in the mindset of Argentinian denialist groups. “They consider military repression was a good and morally unquestionable act,” he says. “To them the cold war was a religious war.” Even today Ranaletti overhears Argentinians who argue that “they should have killed them all.”

But Dr. Ranaletti misses the point.  It is not so much that people are denying a nasty counter-insurgency war took place, it is that the media is absolutely refusing to acknowledge that the military government had specific reasons for doing what it did, and that—in the final equation—the country was better off in the long run for repressing the guerrillas.  No one wants to say this openly, but I encountered the sentiment over and over again when I spoke with older people in Brazil.

Some voices are beginning to speak up.  Attorney Victoria Villarruel heads an organization called the Center for Legal Studies on Terrorism and Its Victims (CELTYV).  According to her estimates, about 1100 people were killed by leftist guerrillas between 1970 and 1979.  But there is a serious double-standard at work.  While the victims of government violence are allowed to bring claims in the courts, the victims of leftist violence are not.

“They were not idealists, they were terrorists” says a family member of a victim of leftist violence

Since 2006, about 500 cases have been brought on behalf of government victims.  None have come from the other side.  Whenever Villarruel has tried to petition the government for recognition that the leftists killed people, her petitions have been denied.  She also challenges the narrative that rebels were “fighting a military dictatorship.”

In fact, she notes that the majority of the victims of communist violence came in the years before the dictatorship took power.  The bottom line is that the military was dealing with an urban insurgency, and had to take severe measures to prevent civil war from breaking out.  For her stance, Villarruel now comes under frequent threats and intimidation from leftist sympathizers.

Victoria Villarruel

I’ve had a few opportunities to talk about the military years with older friends in Brazil who were politically aware in the 1970s.  The answers I’ve received to my questions convince me that the mainstream media’s narrative is grossly skewed to favor the leftists.  I will say that my friends worked for state-run companies at the time, and I suppose could be seen as favoring the government.  But here are the kinds of things they always said:

Look, the real story of those years is not told in the books.  The military never bothered anyone unless they were leftist agitators or were committing violence.  Even our president now [Dilma] was detained for participation in making bombs.  Why doesn’t the media talk about that?  They don’t, ever.  There were demonstrations all the time.  One day we woke up and there were tanks in the streets.  That’s how it was.

But I can tell you one thing:  the military in those days were actually less corrupt than the rats we have now.  They cared about power and order, not so much about getting rich.  And those stories about pregnant women in Argentina in detention centers?  Let me tell you that a lot of them deliberately got pregnant because they thought it would get them released.  So a lot of it is propaganda.

There was a real war there.  To win a war, you have to be ruthless.  It’s fashionable to hate the junta, to hate Pinochet, and our own dictators, but the economies we have now we owe to them.  And that is the reality.  The real mistake the junta in Argentina made is that they lost a war to Britain.  Nobody has anything good to say about those who lose wars.

Read More: The Real Legacy Of Chile’s Augusto Pinochet

107 thoughts on “Why The Left Is Suppressing The Truth About Argentina’s Military Junta”

  1. Leftists are schizoid when it comes to the Falklands War of 1983. Somehow, at the same time, the junta was a bunch of evil fascists but also bravely liberating Las Malvinas from ‘colonialism’. Which is it guys?
    If my memory is right, we fought Argentina for territorial reasons, not political/ideological.

    1. Was going to point out the same thing: whatever praise Quintus has for the Argies of that era, they got their teeth kicked in by England’s Ronald Reagan: Margaret Thatcher.

      1. Who later became the Godmother of Global Warming and screwed us all.
        Back in the 1980s, neocons at least did some good.

        1. I find much of the anti-British sentiment on this site amusing: it’s almost a complete parrot of the same things leftists are saying. “War for oil” and “evil colonialism” are the same arguments you can guarantee your average SJW will use in any war not waged by someone with a “D” next to their name.
          This site has a significant population that would love to see the world burned to the ground to start anew. This is a sentiment I must say I have some sympathy for.
          However, this is also a sentiment that many leftists have also advocated: completely destroying America so they can rebuild it with a socialist state.
          Sometimes I wonder if many of you are simply flipsides of the SJW coin: for them, it’s whites, Christians and men. For you, its Jews, rich people and the media. At times, I’m not sure who thinks the West is more evil.

        2. Well, during the height of the British Empire, some historians say people had a similar loathing that I see here for Britain that was largely based on Empire-size envy.
          We were arrogant assholes, to be sure. The British Empire was the Donald Trump of empires: the largest, and most successful which also didn’t apologize for being what it was.
          The only legitimate critiques I’ve seen on the site are from the globalist angle. This has some merit, but forgets that a significant portion of those colonials were about spreading Christianity or getting rich themselves. Some were probably thinking of a “world order”, but it wasn’t the same world order the leftists have in mind: it was a white, Christian world order in the spirit of the White Man’s Burden.
          I think some of the genuine white supremacist alt-righters here can’t decide if white imperialism was good or bad. They just tailor their position based on the situation and change it when politically convenient, which is exactly what the corrupt politicians they claim to loathe do.

        3. Anti-British sentiment? I suspect it is more anti-neocon/liberal sentiment.
          For myself though, I can’t rule out a bias based on how disappointed I am with Britain’s continued “self-cucking” from WW2->today.
          Historically, most every western european nation had its era of ruling the world, but off all such nations, Britain rose the highest and sank the lowest…and did so the quickest.

        4. The British Empire was the Donald Trump of empires: the largest, and
          most successful which also didn’t apologize for being what it was.

          Unfortunately, the British have spent the past 70 years (at least) apologizing for the British Empire.

        5. Buddy, theres no stupid alt in front of my ‘catagory’ and you can rest assured, Ill ALWAYS go to bat for the home team.
          Ive seen the alternatives.
          The human condition is what it is and Im glad to be part of the standard bearers of humanity.
          White people, Christian people, Western peoples all built this society and its head and shoulders above any that have stood before it.
          The fact that a decadent and stupid underclass roil changes nothing.
          We led the motherfucking way and everyones wanted a piece of it ever since.
          Defeat of globalism can only be accomplished by Whites protecting their interests. Christians, protectingntheir interests.
          American Patriots protecting their interests.
          And making no apologies for it.
          There is no racism and guilt in supporting your society and your people. White, Christian societies have always been the most tolerant of outsiders.
          I dont care what the Dims say.
          They peddle lies. I do care that people are being guilt tripped by morons into suicide!
          It doesnt make a fuck what race you are, what nation- that is some seriously retarded science fiction BULLSHIT.
          To think millions of ‘educated’ cucksters have been conned into believing they are inherently evil and must perish.
          Where is the sanity in that?

        6. It was only after the vile Clement Atlee Ministry. As I’ve said before, my respect for the Empire is from 1800-1945.

        7. What’s with people trying to remove the “alt” from “alt right?” Two years ago, most alt right commentators embraced the title.

        8. I didnt just appear teo years ago.
          Its also an attempt at factionalism.
          Theres no good reason to seperate the ‘right’, dilites the cohesion and gives the RHINO cucks a sense of owning part of the movement that is seperate from ‘them’ when all they should feel is overwhelmed and totally absorbed.
          Divide and conquer isnt to be allowed.

    2. Yes its funny how Castro is such a romantic figure – even Lenin, Stalin and Mao (worlds biggest butcher) get a pass – but go the the militaristic right and they are all the most evil men. Pinochet fixed Chile – and the reason there were military govts in Lat Am was to keep the commies out – else everything south of El paso would look like Venezuela does today.

    3. Worst thing is the falklands was a bunch of ethnically British sheep farmers. It’s like a Yorkshire village got planted near Antarctica.
      The Argentines were willing to kill over something that benefitted nobody. Even strategic value was nonsense because the Brits only had a tiny force there.
      Bless Margaret Thatcher for defending the rights of Englishman.

      1. It’s got oil now though which is nice. And I’m fully behind Falklands staying under British sovereignty. Argentina has zero claim besides being near to it in the same sense that France is near to Jersey but has no rights over it as well

        1. & Saint Pierre and Miquelon is only about 25 miles of Canada , but has no rights over it as well??

        2. Argentina has zero claim? Actually, Argentina controlled the islands (briefly) twice during the 19th Century, right after Argentina gained independence from Spain:
          Either way, you don’t need a good reason to have “claim” over a certain territory. You simply invade and take over if it is physically possible for you to do so. Argentina tried to do this and failed, so it is pretty stupid that they maintain their “claim” over the islands. Also, the fact that the people living on the islands are ethnically British makes the Argentinian claim even stupider.
          And that’s coming from an Argentinian.

        3. That’s not how claims work though, the islands were discovered uninhabited (never had been habited) by the French I think, or was it the Spanish, and were then transferred to the British who settled the islands but later evacuated them temporarily. The islands never stopped being British. Let’s also remember that Argentina didn’t only invade the Falklands but also places like the South Georgia islands etc, can you explain the ARgentine claim to those islands and Antarctica?

        4. Well, they have no claim now. They lost the war.
          I suppose you can claim any territory you want, but if you don’t actually control the territory, then the claim is worthless. Kind of like Ukraine’s claim of Crimea.
          I always wondered what is the point of countries maintaining “claims” to territories they haven’t controlled for decades, and likely will never control again. I guess it’s all about public appearances.

        5. They never had any claim by diplomatic rules….they never had any claim by historical injustice either, like for example Germany does on Prussia. Argentina *never* had any legal right to the Falklands. It was an uninhabited territory (had never been habited) settled by the British.

        6. By that logic, whites have no “legitimate” claim over America, since it was previously inhabited by native Americans. Russia has no claim over Siberia since it was originally inhabited by Mongolians and Eskimo tribes.
          Anyone can claim any territory they want. You can claim the entire world if you want, and if you actually manage to win enough wars to take over the world, then your claim is valid.

        7. You don’t understand the diplomatic framework.
          Also what you are saying now differs from what you said first which is what I was responding too (You claiming Argentina had a diplomatic/historical claim to the Falkland islands).
          The ownership of America can obviously be in question, at least the historical claim, this however does not exist for the Falklands, since the islands were never inhabited until Europeans discovered them. Neither the legal/diplomatic or historical right of the islands in British hands have ever been in question.
          Or any of the other islands that Argentina claimed, such as South Georgia.
          Also, we have to consider when this diplomatic framework came into effect etc, it obviously was still in place when Germany was forced to hand over a third of it’s landmass to Poland and Russia, and Germans were expulsed, and so on.
          Fighting a war and taking a piece of territory does not make your “claim” valid in the diplomatic sense.

      2. I love how easy it is to tell who the British commenters are.
        I’m an “Argie,” and I’ll admit that Margaret Thatcher was right to send in the military and reassert British control over the islands. That doesn’t mean the Argentine military government was evil, though. They just fucked up and got themselves into a war they couldn’t win.

        1. Ha! You’re wrong but not too far off. I’m an American but my father was in the RAF (exchange officer) when I was growing up. I think I imbibed a little British nationalism from our time there.

  2. I’ve just had a massive realisation, triggered by this article. I was a teenager back in the 1980s. My country, the UK, was deeply divided into pro-Thatcher people (like me) and democratic socialists. They actually were democratic socialists in those days: they believed in the ballot box even if they didn’t like the outcome. We fought against undemocratic socialists in the proxy wars of the Cold War, including the war described in the above article, but we debated (vigorously) the democratic socialists. It seems we are in an era in which the socialists in the West are no longer democratic socialists: they do not respect the results of elections. Undemocratic socialists need to be fought against, literally, and I mean literally.
    When socialists respect the ballot box, they can be debated with. When they don’t, they can only be fought against.
    This means civil war — unless and until leftists come to respect the ballot box again.
    Of course, if the civil war breaks out, most of them will melt.

    1. My father always said the first book leftists burn is the dictionary. That’s what’s behind redefining hate speech, violence, etc., to include “everything that keeps me from power”.

      1. I’m not into using nasty words against the people protected by ‘hate speech’ but that’s because I’m a decent human being and not because of hate-speech laws. The problem is that criticising the self-appointed protectors of such groups is what they really mean by hate-speech.

  3. We saw what a spectacular mess became of Argentina given its folly with socialism and so forth-friends of mine from there despise Kirchner and are avowedly pro Junta. In addition, in my old country the Junta there did an absolute bang-up job and prevented the nation from falling into the tentacles of socialism and communism and other leftist sickness.
    I don’t care whom I upset but the Juntas were great-Viva Franco, Viva Pinochet and Ζήτω η Χούντα.

    1. Salazar was kind of a peach too. He ran a “ruthless dictatorship” that killed hilariously few people. Our Feds kill more people by accident in a year.

      1. Got to love the Leftist lying. They say nothing about the tens of millions murdered by such angels as Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot yet seem intent to portray nationalists as ‘ruthless’. It is to laugh.

        1. Bill Burr has a special on Netflix where he delves into this topic. You have to ignore some mild anti Trumpery in the beginning (very mild), which was probably there just to lull people into a false sense of security before he them have it.

        2. I may look into it. I don’t have Nexflix given their racist agenda being anti-white and other agendas I find despicable.

  4. Exterminating leftists doesn’t sound too bad to me at the moment…….I’m probably on some kind of watch list now….

    1. It sounds like a bit of a lark. If they persist with provocations it could very well devolve to that and you may yet sate your desire for a little carnage in the name of preserving the ethnos 😉

  5. The dictatorship was horrible because it didn’t allow stuff like this. For what price would y’all bang the Indian one?

  6. quintus is a smart guy but his articles have fewer readers than a dyslexia convention ..this history stuff just is not enticing to most people..posts about ‘game’ and women get far more comments

    1. What the article maybe lacked was a bit more content (yeah a bit longer and more descriptive) but to me it looked good. I guess that since most of the public is American, there is a lack of interest in the topic…the article in itself is not bad.
      By the way don’t forget the “race-immigration” related articles, those are the most commented, far beyond game and historical topics.

  7. Fuck Argentina of that era. They tried to take the Falklands against the will of the inhabitants (literally with people out of 1500 wanted to leave the British and go to Argentina).
    Thankfully, a conservative nationalist named Margaret Thatcher sent in the Royal Navy and kicked the crap out of the Argies.

    1. The Falklands was an oil war – lots of deep sea oil drilling rights in that area. The brits wanted the argies to make a push so they could go down there and then make a larger than normally allowed boundary around the islands. Its not what it seems. Good men died so the Birts could have an extra 100kms of exclusion zone (aka. Maritime mineral rights). Passive agressive geopolitics / petro economics at its finest.
      Dirty business.

      1. The Argentines were nice to cooperate then.
        What seems to me is that the Argentines wanted a quick win to bolster themselves and grossly underestimated Maggie. Not everything is a conspiracy, sometimes it’s just a fuck up.

      2. It was a play between the English and the Americans. The United States praised the Argentine military, even decorated Galtieri. When the islands are taken by Argentina, very easily since it was practically not defended and with few dead, the intention was to leave in the islands 50 POLICEMAN and begin the diplomatic negotiations in which United States, supposedly, would SUPPORT to Argentina. The Argentine military never assumed a war, only react to the departure of the British fleet, there was never a preparation for that war that in the British mentality was an easy ride. In reality it was not so easy, the reminder are all the ships sleeping at the bottom of the sea due to the change that missile technology meant for war at sea.

    2. I disagree. It was a pretty close one. The Brits did win, but they looked pretty vulnerable.

      1. IIRC, the Argentinians managed to hit & sink a British warship with a missile.
        That’s a military embarrassment even greater than 0bama losing a US military jet over Libya.

      2. It’s really a case of one side winning, but not by as much as commentators and armchair generals were expecting. The air and ground portions were undoubtedly won the British, but the sea battle was significantly closer in terms of casualties inflicted.
        The loss of the Sheffield might be more akin to the loss at Isandlwana, which was avenged at Ulundi when the Zulu were basically destroyed as a nation.

    3. It was a war of ego, pure and simple. Falklands were the last bit of the disintegrated British Empire, and the government couldn’t stand to see it go. PLUS, Maggie Thatcher needed a war to boost her public standing.

    4. ” Margaret Thatcher sent in the Royal Navy and kicked the crap out of the Argies”
      Uh, have you actually read the history of the falkland island war?
      The British Navy had the crap kicked out of it. Argentine air to sea missiles mauled their boats badly, to the point where Thatcher went to the French and demanded codes to deactivate the exocet missiles in the argentine arsenal. She threatened to nuke argentina if the French didn’t comply.
      On land, the British forces routed the Argentines, but the naval battle was a clear victory for Argentina.
      Amateur historians shouldn’t make grandiose claims.

      1. Admittedly, I haven’t read much about the Falklands War. However, the British undoubtedly won the war as a whole, which is what really matters in the end. As Napoleon himself said, all his previous victories were essentially nullified by his loss at Waterloo in that France had lost almost all of its territorial gains.
        If Thatcher did harass the French for the Exocet codes, good for the UK. The only unfair war is the one you lose.

  8. Good article Quintus. Allow me to clarify on the part of a native: the number of missing / dead is about 8000, said by the largest Trostkist party at this time, the Partido Obrero (Labor Party PO). The fight against the guerrilla began many years before and was finished by the end of the 70’s. It was never a popular movement, for a correct comparison you only have to look at your own university libtards. They were the basis of this movement foquista. The guerrillas received funding/weapons from Israel and Britain, something that is not mentioned but is well known and involves the gunning of an English ship with weapons by the Argentine navy during the government of Isabel Peron (before the military coup) . Another interesting fact is that Montoneros, the largest organization at that time that carried out attacks, extricable kidnappings and bank robbery deposited several million dollars in the name of the organization in the United States under the Carter government, money that remains there since no There are those who claim it. The military government meant a deindustrialization for Argentina, since it accentuated the liberal policy and of international indebtedness, less corrupt perhaps, but not better. And lastly the Malvinas war was a trap orchestrated from London and Washington based on a set of geostrategic interests. The British navy faced a reduction of the fleet due to a strategic change, businesses of Tatcher and its husband as well as its low popularity and this war was the perfect excuse to militarize the islands. As a result of the war, the army ended up demoralized and practically depleted, currently Argentina does not have a single operating supersonic aircraft.

      1. Thank you Quintus. I forgot to mention where the number of 30000 disappeared, said Luis Labraña, ex montonero: “… 30000 people we said in Holland, to obtain the subsidy for the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo because they advised us that there was very little Which they brought in a folder with 3800 people and is still lying, lying … ”

  9. I think what really did the junta bad was its war with the Brits over the Falklands. Although to give the Argies merit, they demonstrated how much military technology has advanced. Hundred years earlier, the Brits would have taken Buenos Aires easily.

  10. A lot of China influence that could spread especially with all the chaos in Venezuela right now. I’m sure China won’t be leaving anytime soon and may try to find better allies.

  11. Many of the victims were ordinary college students. Yes, agitators, yes, leftists, but no, not existential threats to the Argentine order and way of life. The military response was to kidnap them off the street in green Ford Falcons, “process” them in safe houses, and then throw them out of airplanes into the ocean, drugged and bound hand and foot. That was an extreme overreaction, and it was a war crime.
    Please don’t apologize for war crimes.

    1. No one excuses war crimes and war criminals, but it’s important to question the narrative. A war is hardly ever fought between heroes and monsters. It’s important to recognize that otherwise instead of learning from history we are reduced to ignorance.

    2. I don’t see any apology. The point is that one side of the story (the threat of a communist takeover) is completely missing. Reading comprehension helps

  12. I’m Argentinian but I wasn’t even in my father’s balls in that period. Nevertheless It’s known that “(1) Argentina was governed by a brutal, merciless military junta from 1976 to 1983; (2) the dictatorship conducted an unprovoked campaign of extermination against leftists that left tens of thousands dead; ” It’s true but change “leftist” for “left-wing terrorists” and also it’s true that many of those victims were innocents, they were killed only because they were in some terrorist/leftist’s address book.

  13. Coming from the barrio, I’ve only heard one-sided stories regarding these right wing dictators. None of which were good stories. Then when I saw how the community behaved when Trump came through town [setting cop cars on fire, attacking police, etc] and overwhelmingly voting Hillary a month later, the epiphany hit me that these people were the leftists.

    1. “setting cop cars on fire, attacking police, etc”
      The commonly held view in the manosphere is that the right is now winning the culture war because the internet un-censors rightist messaging.
      But I’m actually starting to think it’s just the opposite.
      That the right is now winning because the internet un-censors the left!
      You see, before the internet virtually all leftist messaging was carefully managed by professional media people acting in their best interests (and they’re still around obviously).
      But now everyone can see the leftists for who they truly are.
      If this is true then it means that showing leftist violence and their general insufferable nature in videos is more important than the other stuff.

  14. And another thing you likely don’t know.
    You heard about the Spanish civil war and the Spanish dictatorship? But what you probably don’t know is that the elections that happened several months before were openly rigged (some cases up to the point that the left party took the ballots to their headquarters to make to “count” there) and that a first level right politician (imagine Bannon in US) was killed point-black in his house by a kind of left political Police.
    Let’s be honest, the dictatorship after the war was quite brutal (and I have family, good people, who suffered it). But it was not a simple good boys and bad boys story…

    1. Was the Francoist regime brutal before or after the war and how exactly was it brutal?
      Frankly, dictatorships a.k.a. extra-constitutional regimes are never Care-a-Lots, because all the traditional institutional and corporate particularisms are suddenly fully and centrally aligned and have no sense of their own limits. But in the case of the Spanish Civil War I am not sure there was any other alternative.

  15. Actually Pinochet is the best example of the good that a period of military government can make to a country. When he took power Chile was a poor country on the verge of a communist insurrection. When he decided to leave power and rebuild democracy, Chile was one of the richest countries in South America.

  16. I rarely if ever talk about this but my hatred for Communism/Socialism/Leftism is from a very personal source in that they murdered a great uncle of mine whom was an Army officer,a lieutenant if I am not mistaken, and they beat my grandfather, rubbed salt into his wounds and then had him dig his grave with his bare hands and were going to bury him alive.
    Between that and the collaboration of the Leftist scum with elements that wanted to partition the country that were part of the Warsaw Pact, this only fuelled my hatred for them and I take an extremely dim view of treason-were it up to me the gallows would have had a real gala affair.
    It is one thing to have an opposing worldview or perspective but those animalistic acts among others endowed me with a visceral hatred for all ‘progressivism’ and any who espouse it. The only -ism that is ever good and ever worked is ‘patriotism’ and ‘nationalism’, everything else is garbage and should be treated as such and those who peddle it should be dealt with with the maximum of contempt.

      1. That’s what I used to think.
        But in light of recent events it’s looking more and more like a grass roots reaction to leftist violence and agitation.

        1. You should continue to think that, since fascism is in fact a Leftist ideology, created out of the anarcho-socialist movements prior to the 1920’s. They welcomed commies into their ranks because they saw *very little real difference*, and as long as the Marxist renounced revolutionary violence, then they were welcome in a good kommeraden
          Fascism is a lie. It is not good, it is not pretty, it is nothing but nasty ass ownership of everything in your life, by somebody else whom you don’t even know. Fuck that noise.

        2. Fascism or Naziism? There is a universe of difference between Hitler and Mussolini (not to mention Dolfuß, Salazar, Franco…)

        3. Nope. Same.
          The commies equated these two failed ethos with Nationalism in order to attack it.
          Nationalism is the only decent form of society.
          Fascism and nazis are the same old regressive 19th century ideas who have failed 100% of the time.

        4. True. Hitler was a leftist. It’s called “National Socialism” (key word: “socialism”) for a reason.
          The Nazi government in Germany even encouraged women to have casual sex (only with white men, of course), get pregnant, and hand the babies over to be raised by the state:

  17. I’m really happy you wrote an article on this Quintus, your work is amazing as usual. I’ve been trying to get more info on ‘The Dirty War’ for ages, but all of the info is insanely biased in favor of the left. Not condoning the torture of leftist political prisoners, but they are most certainly hiding the whole story. Makes you wonder about other major historical wars that occurred before the internet.

    1. The info out there is so extremely biased in favor of the leftists that even Pope Francis (a native Argentinian, and a leftist SJW extremist), when he was elected pope in 2013, was criticized for “having ties to the military dictatorship during the Dirty War years”, or something like that.
      Of course, all that criticism disappeared when it became clear he was a leftist who would advocate for “gay rights” in the Church, and (literally) kiss the feet of Muslim migrants.

  18. Very glad to see an article of my countre here in ROK. Kirchnerism wanted us to be Cuba or Venezuela. Sorry for them, they couldn’t. Besides, they are pro guerrilla terrorist, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez were heroes for them. Thank God Argentina could get rid of communism

    1. I’m also Argentinian on my mom’s side, and I’ve lived in Argentina.
      The current Argentine government isn’t exactly right wing and anti-leftism. President Macri backed Hillary Clinton in the U.S. election. Sure, he’s better than Nestor and Cristina Kirchner (essentially the Bill and Hillary Clinton of Argentina, only more corrupt), but he’s no Donald Trump.

      1. True, It’ s more like a libertarian government. And It is also true that chancellor Malcorra backed Hillary Clinton. It’s a classical center right government.

  19. Any “narrative” should be revisited with a more objective eye.
    The socialists took over Germany, wrecked it completely, and made socialism the bad guy.
    ALL LEFTISTS are liars and enemies of humanity.

  20. Unlike his predecessors in Chile and elsewhere in the continent, Pinochet avoided the trap of seeking more power than he had initially acquired. His willingness to make major reforms in the economy, by letting ‘the Friedman gang’ go to work, creating a strong, stable business environment ceding power to a market system, that was able to change. And finally, when the plebiscite he held voted against him, then he, like De Gaulle, stepped down and left. The contrast with Argentina could not be clearer.

  21. Neo-masculinists are supporting Latin American fascism? Let me guess. You’re being funded by the American Enterprise Institute?

  22. Thanks for the article – it is very rare that someone speaks up for the victims of terrorism in Argentina in the English speaking press. I am currently in Argentina. I did all the official tours and I also had the feeling that something was missing. So I started researching and I am pretty shocked – I had to read peer-reviewed law journals to find out what is happening as the actual, wide-spread media will not cover Argentina truthfully. “Bad military killing innocent kids” is a better headline than “left-wing guerrilla declaring war on state and military fighting back” – who cares if it is fake news or not?!
    There were nearly daily terrorist attacks including bombs, kidnappings and other killings in Argentina by 1975 – and I first heard about this from a left-wing former activist. Of course the military were brutal, but the guerrilla was internationally trained and continued to fight with the aim of defeating the military and establishing socialism. The last attack on a barracks was in 1989 by former ERP and there are alleged claims (I have not looked into it to confirm or dismiss) that the terrorist attacks in the 1990s on the AMIA and Israeli Embassy included potentially former guerrilla members. Argentina is being denied its history by current movements and also by international press.
    Also the men of the military are being prosecuted against national and international law, i.e. retrospectively which is against the Argentinian consitution and against the UN human rights charter. I do not understand why this is not headline news across the world? But maybe something for others to look into. The average age of the prisoners is over 73 years and they are illegally held.
    For me, these things are far more important than the Falkland/Malvinas War (which is interesting, I admit).
    So thank you again for actually looking into this but please write more on this. This needs to be across the big news channels around the world. Let us all help and spread the real history and the news of the current illegal trials. Every little bit helps
    Gracias and thank you. By the way – I am from the left and I took the side of the military as there is no other option in Argentina.

Comments are closed.