ITT historical figures who literally did nothing wrong

Because it makes money. Are you saying Pinochet is evil user? Do you also hate Franco?

>he defended his country and the faith
>selling your country to foreigners is defense
Gee, I wonder who's behind this post.
>defending the Catholic faith in Chile.
The Church in Chile was extremely divided between those for and against Pinochet.

>supports communists that want to murder the clergy
>The Church in Chile was extremely divided between those for and against Pinochet.
No shit it was, and they were allowed to be because harming the clergy is wrong.

They could have killed the clergy if they wanted to, like in Russia.

But did they?

They would. Look at civil war Spain. Those fucking "republicans" murdered clergy members and hated God like an atheist degenerate.

>setting back chilean education because of fear of both new and older ideas being spread.
>reforms Chile indirectly leading to the biggest income disparity that a liberal democracy has ever seen.
>“just fuck my justice up"
>his supporters say that his integrity lead to the plebiscite of 1980 and 1989 while in reality he only jumped into the democratic wagon when he saw that his acts and overall stupidity made him lost support of western liberal democracies, US included.
>authoritarian figure with the ability to kill anyone in the country, even those who supported him.

Yeah. Nah.

>being a communist that wants the country to fall to people who want to ruin the nation
Yeah. Nah.

Chile =/= Spain, Russia, whatever
Pinochet supporters today are
>Old rich sexless bitches
>Illiterate taxi drivers
>College turbovirgins nerds
>''Dude pinochet lmao'' underage memesters

Jumping to the conclussion that i am communist and that i want to fuck Chile up because i criticize Pinochet.

Nice non sequitur my friend.

You're a protestant aren't you?

I ask you again, did they?

And also, if you think Pinochet actually 'defended' Chile or that he was a nationalist, you're deluded as fuck. Pinocho was a neoliberal, neoliberals give 0 shits about the nation, they only care if money is coming in.

>if you're not an hypercapitalist you're a communist

I'm a true Catholic, my homosexual friend
youtube.com/watch?v=FrogJTWNUng

Neoliberal is better than socialism.
So you like the Pope?

>Neoliberal is better than socialism.

On what basis? Efficiency? State survival? Because i can only suspect that those are not in any way universal points of reference for anything...

From the left or from the right, a puppet is still a puppet.

Pinochet is not right wing, if he had any love for his nation he would not have flogged it like an old prostitute to global financiers. There is a reason Thatcher and neoliberals loved him

>the biggest income disparity
I love this meme. Gommies literally think countries are better off when everyone is poor.

The truth is that Pinochet is the only reason Chile doesn't look like Venezuela right now.

On the fact that it's still "left-wing" and helps create more jobs and pump money into the economy.
I take it you're not from America.

>I ask you again, did they?

No. They were thrown from helicopters before they were allowed to go that far.

See that, that's why people like Pinochet, he removed the cancer that is Anarchist rebellion mixed with Soviet rebellion troops.

>the right
>caring about anything else than the economy
>you can either be a free-market fundamentalist or a ultra-socialist
Of course not. If I was I would be a globalist shill like everyone else.
Believe it or not, Allende was in presidency for 3 years.

Anarchism is about as close as you can get to Pinochet's regime

>Gommies

See:
And no. Wealth distribution is not about being equally poor. That's just logically wrong, a misformulation. Just see the US for instance: huge income inequality, but still both richer and more equal than Chile.

Then what country are you from?
I didn't know they removed clergy?

>I didn't know they removed clergy?
yes, they actually killed some
Now, go back to bed, timmy, you have to go fresh to middle school

...

Proofs?
Oh. Why the po?

>Proofs?
tip top kek, can you be this ignorant.
Obvious underage. Just stop it

>tip top kek, can you be this ignorant.
No, I'm asking for evidence, why are you offended by someone asking for evidence?

well, since this is Veeky Forums
>Joan Alsina
>Miguel Woodward
>Antonio Llidó
>André Jarlan
>Gerardo Poblete

So freedom and wealth generation. Disregarding the fact that they are far from universal constants i actually agree that both are pretty good for a society, it's just that historical antecedents have shown that in every country in which neoliberalism has been applied tends to create also income inequality for instance that actually undermines the effectiveness of both, for most of the population that is.

Funfact: you want to know where was the first time that a country tried to implement neoliberalism in its purest form until the date? Pinochet's Chile.

Want proof of how neoliberalism may ruin a society, starting by its educational system? Just look at the guys defending Pinochet in this thread, who are probably mostly middle class or uneducated upperclass chileans...

I'm not saying that neoliberalism is universally bad or evil. In fact under some circumstances it may actually work, just as communism, just as socialism, just as liberal democracies. An interesting questiong about the subject woul be: what of those systems actually require less specific conditions to work well? I don't know enough to know the answer.

>Antonio Llidó
No see the problem is that once you start doing shit in politics, it doesn't help your cause.
Other than that, well rip.

...

>Want proof of how neoliberalism may ruin a society, starting by its educational system? Just look at the guys defending Pinochet in this thread, who are probably mostly middle class or uneducated upperclass chileans...
So the middle class is evil because they support someone who'll help them?

>niggas don't know about Jaime Guzman

His political and social reforms were more important for Chilean prosperity than the Chicago Boys economic reforms.

The only thing Pinochet did wrong was that he didn't enforce a cultural reform. Chilean cultural sphere is still dominated by communists, so they create the myth that Allende was a saint and Pinochet was some evil tyrant. This communist domination of the cultural sphere ensures that in the long term everything Pinochet and Guzman did for Chile will be ruined. We already see people who want to change the Constitution, which is the only thing that has prevented Chile from going to the same path as Venezuela even though it had 20 years of left-wing government.

>Liking Guzman

Non sequitur.

Also misinterpretation of what i said.

Also there's no evidence that Pinochet ever helped the middle class. At most he might have practiced charity, and even that is not necessarily helpful.

>At most he might have practiced charity, and even that is not necessarily helpful.
Anything is helpful user.

It's used in informal speech.

It has no real meaning.

You also forgot that it implements consumerist values into the masses and therefore replaces any sense of national identity with globalist values.

>greentext and second paragraph
Seems right

>third paragraph
. . .

Seriously though. My father always teached me to remain silent if i had nothing good to say. Some wisdom from him may actually suit you well.

Too much autism in this thread

So why do people say it?

Even if you give money to a beggar who you know without a doubt that will use the money to buy booze to 12 year old schoolgirls to rape them while drunk?

I'm not saying all beggars are rapists though. Any good reader would know that, but i doubt of the existence of good readers on this particular thread...

They may or may not. It depends on the person, you can't piss on a deed because of the result is bad if the deed of giving something was good.

The key part of my hypothetical extreme case is:
>that you know without a doubt

Again, it's the fact that you voluntarily gave him money on the basis of good will.
Are you against voluntary charity because one bad egg in the system?

Also: just today i gave money to a street musician. That may be relevant too.

It's not what i said. What i implied is that charity is not always good, not that we shouldn't give charity money.

The act of charity is always good. It's the results of said acts and the people who abuse said acts of kindness that are utter trash.

>implying charity actually does anything
I presume you live in a middle to upper-middle class suburb. Don't you?

Middle-middle class suburb that's almost close to becoming lower-middle class.

Also: the person giving money to my ficticious beggar may be just as evil as him, and may actually want him to rape those girls. The guy giving money to the beggar may be also behaving irrationaly, for whatever reason.

I agree with everything you said after the first period.

So again, it's the people who abuse it that are bad.

>where i live somehow invalidates the logic behind what i say

I think it was you who just said that giving money to charity is always good, that is: intentions don't matter, as long as you give money.

It may have other user though.

Ah, and yes. Charity does at least one thing: it gives money, goods or services from one entity to another.

The act itself is fucking fine. Charity is charity. How is it not getting through you? If the person who's doing bad is giving money to another person that is doing bad it's still charity, but fucked up.

It's just that you didn't say that. You said that charity is always good, no matter the intentions.

...

Negro, it's all about cause and effect. If the cause is good, then the cause is good. It's the effect that is up to being good or bad.

You are contradicting yourself.

Either charity is always good or it is sometimes good, which is what i claim.

The action of Charity is always good. The act. The verbage of Charity in of itself is always good.
If the result is bad. Then the result is bad. If someone is giving money to the poor, and knew he was going to do something bad, it's still charity, because the act of giving is always good. Goddamn arguing with people from Veeky Forums is going to make me get an aneurysm trying to explain a simple point.

Napoleon

>losing

See:

Then it isn't charity. Fuck it, going by my logic, the act isn't charity, it is paying him to do something bad.

It was his intention since he first stepped into power. He wasn't wrong, but right in a way that killed millions in the process.

By the way: it's a joke. Take it as you please

Now i can see where you are coming from, and for my thought experiment yoy are actually right. Congratulations. You made me learn something new user. Most anons can't.

not being an absolute idealist is not hypocrisy.

About Napoleon though... he was the main cause of why most latin american countries claimed independence, so even if i regard him as indirect and sometimes direct responsable of the daths of millions i recognize that he had a huge impact in the shaping of the modern world.

Hey, a man can be morally wrong. Indeed, in this case: VERY wrong, but that does not erase him from history or make his contributions necessarily less worthwhile.

>You made me learn something new user.
Can you tell me what I taught you?

Acrually something very simple, but crucial: that charity is defined by intention.

I mean, i could have read the fucking wikipedia article on charity all along and find the definition of charit in probably the first paragraph, but you were here first for me to teach me it, so... yeah

>I taught something about charity
Pinochet still did nothing wrong.

t. American

You bet your sweet ass I'm American.

That's another matter altogether. Probably related in some obscure way in which i don't want to think right now, but that doesn't necessarily make your take on Pinochet less wrong.

No wonder you support traitors then.

No I support people who support me.
That's why Israel has got to go. Oh and get rid of Saudi Arabia and just conquer it.

Well, i have to go to sleep. I am in Germany. It's 3 am here.

God night user.

Night you kraut.

>I support people who give up their national integrity because muh capitalism
Traitors then.

Would you rather have it be communists, po?

Communism has never existed at such. It would be a nice utopia. But no. I'd rather put in place a working liberal democratic republic or a social democratic republic. Now, if i had to choose between either Pinochet's regime or an authoritarian socialist regime, shit would be pretty hard for me.

Where did I imply that the socialists weren't just another superpower-backed puppets?

That's some black-and-white thinking right there.

Because that's how it works.

>only 2 political ideologies exist, existed and will ever exist

Pinochet could have been god tier pretty easily.

All he had to do was depose Allende and return power back to Congress.

It's pointless talking about Allende v. Pinochet, when Pinochet was the one who made those the two options.

meant to reply to

This

Sort of glad what's happening to Britain for being perfidious for its entire history. It's a shame it's also happening to France.