MUH PINOCHET SAVED THE COUNTRY

Why would you have a South American puppet dictator as a historical hero?

...

>>>Holla Forums

You are trying too hard, Benyamin.

thank you for correcting the record

Mr. Serrano, what is the present situation in Chile with regard to the National Socialist movement?

Miguel Serrano: The National Socialist movement in Chile is following events very carefully. The international conspiracy has its own archetypes and in South America will apply the same methods employed by World Zionism and transnationalists. The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank will continue to impose on us their plan for the Third World. Pinochet represented these international powers, and the current democratic regime will continue to carry out the same policies to the end. We will resist and fight with all the means at our disposal.

The Chilean military junta was called “fascist” but let in the global corporations and adopted the free-market economics of Milton Friedman. How did you view the Junta?

Miguel Serrano: The Junta was a disaster for Chile, as all professional military are. Hitlerism and Nazism are completely the opposite of a military dictatorship. Franco was a traitor who destroyed the Falange, Gen. Vargas destroyed fascist “Integralism” in Brazil; Antonescu destroyed the Iron Guard in Romania; the military in Chile helped to kill the young Nazis in 1938, and Pinochet helped the Jews coming into Chile as well as Friedman’s liberal super-capitalism. I was always openly against Pinochet’s regime, totally separating Hitlerism from his dictatorship. Hitlerism is a cosmogonic conception, a totalitarian and theocratic Weltanschauung, in opposition to the totalitarian and demoniac cosmogonic conception of the Jews.

blacksun-sole-nero.net/esoteric-hitlerist-interview-with-miguel-serrano-national-socialism-blacksun/
archive.is/OblKl

Pinochet is a prime example of CIA style "nationalism" . They force Jewish corporations and (((Chicago school of economy))) on your country, completely pillage and destroy it, while parading faux militarism and strong leader rhetoric.

His junta was the equivalent of ISIS.

And you can see how carefully did the kikes try to infiltrate Holla Forums by subtly inserting him along Hitler etc., hoping that no one will notice. This is a good way to detect neocohen shills.

And all the controlled (((civic nationalism))) opposition roleplaying nationalism that's shilled on Holla Forums daily as the savior of white race belongs to the same "kitchen"

This, there is "right wing" and "free market". The only right thing pin8 did was killing fiestas and degeracy, this is why we have better crime statistics than Usa.

Killin' commies for one.

Why is this a bad thing?

This thread feels like thinly veiled Holla Forums Allende-apologist D+C

sage in all fucking fields

It's the same kind of shills that call modern liberalism and SJW "leftism"

what happened to the greentext?

Based Helicopter Ride Merchant is the sole reason why Chile is not nearly as shit as all the socialist shitholes it shares a continent with.

...

Allende and his supporters were godless commies, you idiot.

takimag.com/article/reconsidering_pinochet_gavin_mciness/print
archive.is/6zetb

...

Are you trying to help OP prove his point?

That doesn't refute my point that you call literally everyone who is not a neocohen or a lolbergstein a commie

Nor does it mean that Pinochet is good, if his system is just another form of kikery.

No, Merino was full Inquisicion mode, see this please:

But now our teens are a bunch of degenerates like the average spaniard, just yesterday a 14-15 years old girl was puting her ass on me (public transport) and her friends were laughing about that, move to other seat and she sat next to me, call me a faggot, but i cant allow that

Holla Forums-tier shitposting isn't helping your case. But yes, it doesn't take a genius to figure out Pinochet was a tinpot dictator when he invited kikes in to run his economy instead of nationalising the central bank, preventing Jewish control of policy through currency speculation, and establishing a wrok-based currency.

Fuck off national bolshevik, I've got a beautiful 30,000 foot drop waiting for you and all your roach minded socialist friends.

im not a socialist

criticizing the alt-right by attacking Pinochet is like trying to hurt Holla Forums by killing frogs. Pinochet's helicopter rides are a meme, that's all it is.

Oh lolberg, how does it feel that you have to take up Fascist aesthetics to shill your failed abortion of an ideology?

reported

No, they actually like him. Mike Enoch was even trying to get the TRS forum to work together to make an epub of some shitty old book about the "miracle of Chile".

Maybe they are anarcho-monarchists or some other joke that only Americans can take seriously

(((Pinochet))) and (((alt-right))) are the same subversion tactic of the nationalist movements, just on a different scale.

You see, even shillbot has arrived to prove me right once again.

Pinochet was just a dude wo played all parts
We can also grant, for example, his use of good old 4th reich imagenery in his army units, like uniforms and doctrines
He also granted a shitload of asylum to arab couuntries, most notorious the Palestines. Along with Venezuela until a few years ago (reason obvious), Chile has the highest amount of palestinians outside of their land, and ironically, like Arafat said, more christian palestines than all arab countries combined
He also was notorious for slapping commies

Those 2 things don't play together unless you move in both waters for some reason. That reason might be to avoid Chile being humped by a single party

> THEIR economic policies

kek

kill yourself, d&c shill

I heard you wanna build a strawman?

I don't like Pinochet in general but I do think the idea of throwing pinko commie faggots out of helicopters and watching them bounce on the pavement is hilarious

I'm pretty sure its the faggots over at TDS who popularized this narrative of Pinochet in our sphere which spilled over to Holla Forums

Hell, learning about what a "CIA" stooge Pinochet was was one of the first le red pills I got before I was jew wise.

Mr. Serrano put it the best, and his analysis of Chile is very detailed in TUA.

Just because you're right doesn't mean you're not a massive faggot for making a thread with 0 sauce and only a picture of someone with jews to back it up. That's what "jewtin"posters do.

Links to stuff mentioned in Miguel Serrano:
es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergio_Melnick

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ministerio_de_Desarrollo_Social_de_Chile

es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frente_Nacionalista_Patria_y_Libertad

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_FUBELT

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#Latin_American_policy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_intervention_in_Chile#1970_election

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#Chile

I don't give a shit if you whine about wikipedia or you can't right click and translate a webpage. I get tired of spoonfeeding newfags.

Allende couldn't balance his own fucking checkbook.

Feels good tbh

Salazar was much better

On a related note, what's the general feeling on The Brazilian Integralists?

Lolbergs and ancaps get upset when people don't play by the rules

Fascists are big guys

So Chile was kind of like Wiemar Germany except economic experimentation rather than cultural experimentation. Of course Germany would get a lot more attention and resistance so they learned their lesson and tested in South America.

Hmm. "They conduct their business everywhere."

Fuck no, at least not in that sense, check this please:

Abortion is still banned thanks to Pin8 and Merino and our woman are (still) less worish than the average argie.

ITT: triggered lolbertarians spouting:
Pathetic tbh.

Kudos to the other anons who provided sources, Im a lazy faggot.

You shills remind me of the anti-Trump shills who want Trump to crash his campaign by going full 14/88. Everybody ITT knows that Chile was at the full mercy of massive globalist giants like the USA or Soviet Union, they could have been wiped off the map in ten seconds. He didn't "invite" the CIA into his country, they were forced on him and the alternative was full communism. There is no option, they are a small powerless country. For the circumstances he was dealing with he did a very good job toeing the line to remain in power while still maintaining some semblance of nationalism and anti-communism in his country that the major powers would have been happy to wipe out (and did as soon as he left office.)

Of course, context is irrelevant to shills. There was no third way of full NatSoc, there was get steamrolled by the USA and become a degenerate parasitic hotbed of leftism or do your best to remain in power and maintain nationalism as best you could with the restraints placed on you. He did a great job of that.

>>>Holla Forums is that way, kike

Weren't they all just a less-open version of the Cold War's proxy wars? The US already had Cuba down there, they didn't want any more commies if they could help it.

I agree. The Holla Forums world view is too simple, too fickle. One article pointing Pinochet as something else would make Holla Forums swing a decent 180. Too many USA fanbois here, and it shows.
I have more identity when I go to a Sauna than when I compare myself to niggers.

That said, commie removal is good.

It is, it's just more D&C bullshit by Holla Forums. They've been LARPing NatSoc for quite a while now trying to CTR with bad arguments about how Germany had UBI under Hitler and other stupid shit.

They seem to think that by simply substituting "proletariat" with "goyim" and "bourgeoisie" with "kike" or suggesting that wartime/depression measures are good for general policy they can promote every facet of gommunism unopposed.

Hi, CTR.

That's clearly a leftist meme.

>>>Holla Forums

Daily reminder that Strasserists are cancer.

All this misery when you free market from regulations, all that wealth created, oy vey! Choose socialism instead, you must think about shiftless, goy.

FUCKING THIS. Death to ALL socialists. Yes, I mean ==ALL SOCIALISTS!!! PHYSICALLY REMOVE!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE==

thecommentator.com/article/3749/the_chilean_miracle_shows_that_economic_liberty_is_the_best_way_of_helping_ordinary_people

What about National Socialists? D:

Personally i have mixed feelings about South American dictatorships. Latinos generally lack discipline and order to set up a proper regime, and most of those regimes were USA-puppets anyway.

Peronism is somewhat cool though.

Incoherent populist movement that was really neither left nor right wing. Fun fact about Vargas, he was the one who popularized stuff like samba and carnivals, to appease the population with bread and circuses. And samba has African roots, from slaves brought to Brazil.

It's just a lolberg made meme when they realised their individualist utopia can't be realised without going against their core ideals.

I doubt these faggots know much about history in general.

Whay can't you just be nationalist?

Nationalism is collectivist ideology, which means there will be Socialist elements in it by default.

this
socialism is inherently retarded and incompatible with the United States

not really, there's national libertarianism

Who gives a shit about "wealth created", when it all goes to abroad (((inwestors))). Oh wait, i know (((who))). And useful idiots yelling "whatever but not the damn commmies!!!".

It doesn't have to be "collectivist". The nation should be a tool to preserve the life and freedom of the individual, it should serve the individual, not the other way around.

TOP KEK!
You still didn't realise how dumb and contradictory this sounds?

Yes, really, it's a collectivist ideology where your nation is the collective group where you work for the best interests of this group as a whole.

"I don't want to own means of production, banking etc, let jews take care of them"

Check your economic situation and possibilities, then choose economic systems that works in your best interest.

Not a very good argument.

Is this the TRS Containment thread?
I mean so many lolbergs responding to the clear bait.

KEK this

You still didn't realise how much of a leftie shill you are?

If it isn't collectivist, than it isn't Nationalism. In Nationalism, your nation is a collective group.

Confirmed for knowing nothing about Nationalism like that other retard. Body does not live for the individual organs, but different organs cooperate to ensure the health and survival of the body.
Individual in Nationalist country should strive to develop his full potential in order to serve his Nation as best as he can.

nice try chicago boy

We went along with nationalism for the sake of unity against the hard left, but all this Strasserist garbage is just too much.

Wow, you sure showed me, lolberg. Meanwhile, Nationalism is still collectivist and nothing that you say will change this fact.

Pinocho=ZOG
get over it helicopter pinocho fag

Yep, look at the retards spouting left-right dichotomy

...

That's only in your retarded definition of nationalism.

Oh, I know about your bullshit version of nationalism. It just sucks.

If you had the most basic knowledge of evolutionary genetics you would understand why this is a shitty analogy. Why do you think social insects like bees and ants act so much like your dream model of human society? I know the answer, let's see if you do.

Again, only in your retarded quasi-commie bullshit version of nationalism. There's a better nationalism, one that protects freedom against foreign hordes while physically removing socialist cancer like yourself.

It's funny how you larpers defend Hitler's redefinition of "socialism" for his own purposes, while you try to ban non-Nazis from using the "nationalist" label.

...

YOU = CTR

Not from Chicago, not even American WTF!

And YES, the enemy is the left, always has, always will. Population replacement is just its latest strategy.

Replying to yourself will not help you , This board is aware that jews play both sides. There is no good jews

Strasser and his marxist minions got purged from NSDAP, right after it became obvious that they're a threat to the party and the Reich, so I don't really understand the point that you're trying to make.

No, it's a metaphor based on Nature's Law/reality, it's how things actually work. I guess your binary mind just can't comprehend what I'm saying.
Individualism and Collectivism always work together, and they work best when in balance. Again, in Nationalism, your collective group is your Nation where everyone works together in the best interest of the Nation as a whole.
In order for individual to serve in the best interests of his collective group - Nation, he should be encouraged to develop his full potential.

Your individualist utopia never worked in practice, never will and can't be observed anywhere in nature. You should call your lolberg "version" of Nationalism, Isolationism, because it's simply not Nationalism.

what kind of retard outsider are you?? not getting the chicago boys reference, fucking get out!!!

whatever you say chaim

This thread is CTR D&C. Hands off our sacred memes, shills.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

It doesn't matter how much of a good goy he was.

What matters was the symbol he was.

fucking wasted trips

Stop this KIKE PINOCHO worshipping bullshit

If you don't recognize your Nation being your collective group, you're not a Nationalist, it's as simple as that.

Strangely introspective, lolberg

still falling for the left/rigth false dichotomy..

some day you will grow up kid

Let me guess you like that traitorous yid Franco too? Ask Chilean nationalists what they think of your "hero"

...

...

Fucking retard newfag you missed great deal of what Holla Forums is, fucking lurk moar faggot

this

Lemme guess… You've been here the whole summer?

Pretty gud actually.

Nice projecting

Stop zog pinocho bullshit now, lurk moar

She's kinda right though. Betas like you is the main reason our race goes extinct.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Your posts.

>>>/plebbit/

friend i think you belong in >>>/4chan/

? ? ? ? ?

What's next? Claim that smugs were never part of a chinese cartoon forum's culture?

...

...

...

Strasserism is just the end stage of the socialist cancer that plagued National-socialism. From the beginning, Natsocs tried to attract "former" commies by adopting their talking points, rhetoric, terminology and even colors. Strasserism is what happens when you do that.

Also, IIRC from old "Holla Forums parliament" threads, there's a substantial number of self-described Strasserists in here.

OK, I'll spell it out for you. Bees, ants, eusocial insects in general, are genetically cucked to their queen. They act selflessly because they can't spread their genes on their own. Humans, in contrast, can spread their own individual genes, just like other mammals. Therefore, it makes no sense for humans to behave like ants and bees, like selfless and mindless "organs of a body", because that's simply not what they are. Sure, humans can cooperate and work together with a high degree or organization, but only to the extent that every member's interests are served in the process.

Division of labor under the free market is still the best example, by far, of how people can work together for the benefit of all, precisely because people are not urged to sacrifice their individual interests. Instead, those interests are naturally aligned with each other in this context.

Yes, but the nation should not be an end in itself. The nation is valuable to the extent it serves its individual members. That's why you can perfectly make a nationalist argument from a libertarian perspective.

The key difference between "collectivistic" forms of nationalism and "libertarian" nationalism is that the former are content with mentioning "the interests of the nation" as a justification, leaving them unexplained, presumably to be sorted out by the fuhrer or something like that. Libertarians only accept "the interests of the nation" as a shorthand for the interests of the individual members of that nation. When it comes to defending ourselves against foreign hordes, indeed no further analysis is needed, but when you are restricting the freedom of some members of the nation for the sake of others in the name of "the nation" we call bullshit. More often than not, interested parties wrap themselves in the mantle of "the nation" to shamelessly take advantage of others.

Sometimes there'sjust a factual disagreement about the consequences of certain policies, like it happens, for instance, with free trade. Threads upon threads have been devoted to this debate, so let's just say that being for free trade doesn't mean we want national workers to starve, go on welfare or work under third-world conditions.

What do you even mean by that? What is a "collective group"? Isn't that redundant?

I have been on this board for close to two years now, no idea what you are talking about.

Let me get, your a Jew and you purposefully talk obscure, so you don't have to explain anything, did I get that right?

Nope. A population of social animals with individuals that demonstrate selflessness and altruism towards their tribe have a greater chance of survival and passing down their genes than a pack of sociopaths.

Lolbergs are just the genetic outliers with no sense of social responsibility that their genes survived by parasitizing on fellow Whites altrusim and trust. You are like cuckoos from a genetic perspective.

You think this makes Pinochet look bad, but it only makes Nazi larpers look increasingly retarded.

...

Lolbergism is not compatible with nationalism in any possible way. Because for them, and their kike mindset, wealth is the primary concern. They are trying to mold nationalism to their petty interests, instead of molding their interests for the nation (the goal of NatSoc is to unite all the classes under a common interest instead of them fighting each other over shekels) Libertarianism is practically opposite to NatSoc in every possible way. Why do you people even try to fit in? The very creators of your religion are kikes for fucks sake.

Your nose is showing

You didn't look at graph, do you?

That's a whole lot of nothing that essentially boils down to "socialists reeeeeeeeee". Hitler supported more liberty than all the kikes who call themselves Libertarians today put together. What he didn't do is replace all systems of value with empty materialism, that judges success and the "preservation of Liberty" by the value of the stock market - which is what makes him a terrifying socialist authoritarian by the standards of free market advocates.

(checked)
Sure, that minarchist Third Reich…

First, you are wrong. A society of selfless sheep is just not stable from a Nash equilibrium POV. Selfish individuals who only pay lip service to the nation while pursuing their own interests will always take it over.

The practical evidence is also overwhelming. Mindless collectivism is the hallmark of third-world shitholes, while individualism and critical thought go hand-in-hand with white Western success.

Second, you are lying. You support nationalism because you think it's good FOR YOU and YOUR children. You don't want foreigners to take over YOUR country beacuse that would be bad for YOU. If you deny it, you are just a hypocrite. If you look at every argument made by nationalists (or any other political movement for that matter) it ultimately boils down to convincing the audience that nationalism is the better choice FOR THEM. No one cares about abstractions (like "natiion") unless they can somehow connect them to the stuff they actually care about, which is themselves and their families.

No need to be sarcastic when it's the truth. The Terrible Socialist liberalized gun laws, trained the youth in their use, called for revolution against governments that don't act in the interest of the race, privatised industry and nationalized little even at the highest levels, ended the globalist central bank and created an independent currency, removed the foreign debt and the crippling repayments and so on.

That's actual liberty, not the faux-Liberty commonly advocated, where you can only be truly free if you surrender your broader sovereignty as part of society to corporate Jews and banks.

This is exactly the principle that the NatSoc rejects

Not true, Strasserism differed from National Socialism and was never implimented in NSDAP.

That's just your observation and not an argument, it has nothing to do with NatSoc or Nationalism.

Are you just acting like a dumb autist or you really just don't get it? This has nothing to do with my metaphor.

No one said that the individual should have no freedom, individual in Nationalist country is recognised and his freedom not suppressed as long as he doesn't work against the interests of a Nation as a whole.
However, in order for the individual to work in the best interests of the Nation as a whole, he himself needs to be physically and mentally developed, that's why this is encouraged by the state.

The rest of your post is just babbling about individualist "Nationalism" that doesn't exist. Individualists in Nationalism work towards the common goal of ensuring the prosperity and survival of their Nation.
It's as if I'm explaining an alphabet to you. Do you not see how Nationalism works? Just from the 14 words you should realise that its about common struggle for survival where we are bound by race or ethnicity.

There's a reason why your Individualist society never existed you know. It's because we are both individual and social creatures. Individualists always exist within some form of collective. And your artificial ideology cuts that fact away, just like communism did with the individual.

Now if you still don't get it, you're probably retarded or don't want to get it. Either way, you're not a Nationalist and don't even fully understand the term.

You must know some other libertarians then I.

Ugh, Pinochet just sided with the right-wing people who wanted commies out of the country.
Remember that the country was divided in two and both halves wanted to kill each other. Since the army joined the right-side, the battle was quick. The only hope for lefties was getting support from other Commie countries (Cuba, Russia) which never really arrived.
To be honest, the right-wing did played dirty (they were getting killed and their country was headed into hell, so I don't blame them) and they created this retarded propaganda about lefties making tunnels to connect Chile with Cuba (Plan Z). They also hid a lot of food (even Hermógenez Perez de Arce admitted this, although he implied that lefties also hid food. Keep in mind that lefties had neither the intelligence nor the resources to do this in the scale the right-wing could).

So although the coup is understandable, there is no way to justify a rule that would last for 17 years (keep in mind that Emperor Palpatine ruled for 20 years too). Three years should have been enough to fix the country before giving it to the right-wing politicians.

Here's the interesting part: to all people who don't trust in democracy, Pinochet's dictatorship is equivalent to a monarchy.
You have your king: a stupid redneck guy who inspires fear and respect and that's it.
Then you have the royal advisors: Since the generals had no idea of how to rule the country from an economical perspective, they incorporated a lot of right-wing politicians (Chicago Boys) who are the real heroes of the "Chilean miracle". Sure, the american influence is undeniable (Milton Friedman was obligatory lecture) but they also had a very unethical perspective that helped things stay floating even when the whole world was sinking.

...

That's a wrong picture of libertarianism. We are all about principle and moral right. For decades the left and the progressives have been eroding freedom with bullshit ecomic-theory justifications, which libertarians have been thoroughly debunking. The enemy picks the battle ground, no way around that.

We don't try to "fit in", this has always been our home. Strasserists are the invaders.

the real question here is:

Can OP ever stop sucking cocks?
answer: Never.

No, it's just an inevitability of the free market system.

You can't control the central bank because that's regulation, you can't control the banks because that's regulation, you can't control corporations because that's regulation, and because you can't control any of these things, you have no means of preventing the system we live under from growing even worse, and more bloated.

Esoteric Hitlerism is 100% opposite of autism. Autists are rational and literal. Esotericism is irrational and metaphorical.

An autist cannot be an esoteric Hitlerist. But an autist can be a judeo-capitalist like Pinochet

And you think you know something about libertarian positions? Fucking leld.

Pick one

Ant that was the joke.

...

You are taking the use of the word "autist" quite literally, you know &)

Do you use words without understanding their literal definition?

No wonder you are a lolberg.

So your Libertarianism is against the existence of central banks? Great. Now criticize the substance of the argument rather than a strawman.

Natsocs may have paid lip service to altruism and selflessness, but their talking points always revolved around the actual individual interests of the audience, such as unemployment, debt, inflation, poverty, loss of territory, the future of their children.. even the most abstract nationalist arguments are all about national pride, which boils down to "I FEEL bad about being German, I WANT this pain to go, I WANT to be proud of MY nation again!".

Do you always interpret words in their literal definition? No wonder you are an autist.

...

Are you a nigger?

Not just mine, it's by far the predominant libertarian position. I haven't heard a single libertarian defend the freedom of the Fed (America's central bank) to do as they please. They either ignore the whole topic, or want to end the Fed. As a compromise position, they occasionally demand more regulation of the central bank while it exists. For instance, Ron Paul has been pushing for a Fed audit.

Yes, retard. That's how fucking nature works, not with magic invisible hands and shekel grabbing. Your egopathic genes can only survive in a genetic background of fellow Whites you sociofucks can exploit and parasitize on.

Capitalism is left wing, mate. By definition.

Doesn't mean he's wrong

hellenicnationalist.blogspot.ca/2006/12/pinochet-zionist-junta-leader.html?m=1

Could you back it up?

So they either want to keep it or limit it. Here's the Cato Institute (by all regards a big name) arguing for the latter.
cato.org/publications/commentary/debunking-myths-about-central-banks
Sure sounds Libertarian to me.

Now back to the salient point, that you're evading. Free market economics, by definition, can not stop market collusion, instead shifting the burden onto consumers. Who exactly is out-compete Intel, who design chips, produce them, pay and threaten OEMs into quota systems aimed at their competitor, corrupt benchmarks to unfairly prejudice their competitor's hardware, and finally pay the media to never talk about any of these things?

How does the free market fix that? How does the free market prevent a company who to the top, fairly, through competitive practices, from following the exact same path as Intel?

Insults apart, you are making my point.

The term "left wing" comes from France. It described the liberal-capitalist-republican third estate politics.

The right is opposed to capitalism (the rule of capital).

Does a White man enlisting and catching a bullet with his head to protect his family, country and people equal being a shekel grabbing hoarder that would sell his own mother equal forms of "self-serving"?

Maybe in 18th century meaning.

Anyway, socialism is further left.

Are you trying to make some kind of point here? Honest question.

Market collusion is often used as a boogeyman by which market losers demand help from the govt to fuck over the best market players, to the expense of the consumer. I only see some merit to this argument when the govt is actively involved in protecting the alleged cartel.

Just because some market development deviates from the mythical "perfect competition" model, doesn't mean that's indisputably a bad thing. These "imperfections" have the beneficial effect of rewarding innovation. More below.

What's your proof that Intel isn't doing a better job at serving customers than its competitors? If Intel's chip are so shitty, why do people buy them? If benchmarks are fake, who is stopping others from providing their own benchmark measurements? Show me those competitors who are supposedly being held down, and I'll try to see what's going on there.

Again, I don't see the big deal with Intel, but I'll tell you something. Much of the perceived problems with modern tech companies, their alleged abusive and monopolistic practices, are caused by the high differenciation of tech products. The free market lets companies behave like this for a while after each new product is released, and this is good, because, as I said, that's how innovation is rewarded.

If you think this temporary advantage goes too far and lasts for too long, there's a clear culprit to point out long before you indict the free market: patents. Patents are a government monopoly, not a product of the free market, and they are one of the main factors preventing small players from challenging the big guys in the tech field. Most libertarians nowadays (unlike, or with the notable exception of, objectivists) are against patents. Rothbard was against patents, for instance, even if he didn't oppose copyrights. Now most libertarians oppose both.

What part of libertarianism discusses the sale of one's mother?

The 18th century right was aristocratic. Fascism, like all forms of populism, would be clearly on the left.

And as a result Chile is both the least leftist and most developed country in South America. The horror.

Not really. Fascism wasn't populist. Don't mistake rhetoric for reality, mate.

Not particularly, I was just referring to your statement on Libertarian acceptance of central banks.

So it both isn't the free markets fault and and the monopoly doesn't exist? Top kek, as they say.

Here's the proof, time for the mental gymnastics.
web.archive.org/web/20050715010754/http://www.swallowtail.org/naughty-intel.html
theregister.co.uk/2014/10/31/fifteen_whole_dollars_on_offer_for_cranky_pentiums_4_buyers/
reuters.com/article/us-eu-intel-ruling-factbox-idUSTRE54C3II20090513

The whole tech industry is guilty of this by the way. MS/Apple duoply, ATI/Nvidia paying developers to be allowed to "help" them program and cripple competitors performance, iOS and Android no longer competing, but effectively offering you a choice of who you want to get screwed by, etc.

and needless to say, the boogeyman of government propping up noncompetitive entities is nowhere to be seen.

Strasserism never dominated the NSDAP, but it was indeed a faction inside the NSDAP for quite a while, until it was violently purged.

You are not paying attention. You questioned my use of the term "Strasserism" ITT. I explained to you that there are self-described Strasserists on Holla Forums, which makes the term 100% relevant.

It proves that your metaphor is shit.

And you still haven't described what those "interests of the nation as a whole" actually are, if not something that can be construed as the interests of its individual members.

That's where you sneak in the socialism as if it were part of the nationalist concept, which is clearly is not. A nationalist libertarian simply rejects the yoke of the state as a tool to advance either his own or his nation's interests, because he doesn't think the state is the right tool for the job.

The 14 words describe a general demographic goal. They say nothing about the political means to achieve it. They are not an endorsement of a totalitarian socialist state.

Never existed? Even the present-day West, with all its problems and its Marxist contamination, is a reasonable aproximation at its core. What never existed is any of the long list of socialist utopias.

Well, don't mistake the ideology itself for what its promoters actually did. Here I was discussing the ideology.

White trash detected.

Not exactly. I said there's some truth to the "ebil monopolists" claim, but

1) There's a possitive side to it. The market dominance is the only achieved through innovation, and "abused" afterwards. This temporary "abuse" (departure from the "perfect markets" model) is therefore a reward for innovation. After a while, the product becomes "commoditicised" and you see a fall in prices with numerous competitors. This happened, for instance, with smartphones.

2) It's not some crippling problem. Look around you. Products work, they keep getting better and/or cheaper. Compare this to what happens in any socialist country. Compare to Venezuela.

3) Without patents (which are not a free market feature), this temporary advantage would only happen through secrecy and/or a very fast time to market. Products would enter the "commodity" phase much sooner, and the tech market would look much more like the "perfect competition" ideal.

Of course, then the critics of the fre market will say that innovation is not rewarded enough and we need the state to create patents so that innovators can subsist, and so on.

Yeah, nice links. Mostly anecdotal, though. I'll take the "corrupt" Intel over any EU-blessed manufacturer, thank you very much.

Which part forbids it?

I think "selling your mother" involves some form of slavery.

This is like a cult. Here's the court decision for those who are actually interested in the truth instead of burying their head in the sand:

>It also made direct payments to a major retailer on condition it stocked only computers with its x86 CPUs. This effectively prevented customers - and ultimately consumers - from choosing alternative products.

Intel gave rebates to computer manufacturer D in 2007 conditional on this manufacturer purchasing its CPU needs for its notebook computers exclusively from Intel.

And to it off, blatant lying. As we all know, when (2) courts come to decisions we dislike, it's a result of government cooking up anecdotal results and not free market entities screwing free market entities using means entirely permissible within the free market.

Bullshit. Planned obsolescence is fucking everywhere and is starting to affect even former mid to high level manufacturers of a variety of goods. More and more stuff is deliberately built in ways that are not economically repairable and fail shortly after the expiration of the warranty.

...

Have you actually read my post? Doesn't look like it.

Putting the blame (if any) where it belongs.

Evidence of what, that patents are a monopoly? That's their very nature. You want something more tangible? Look at the disastrous effects of software patents, particularly on small independent developers. An earlier example is the industrial revolution. Contrary to popular belief, patents almost killed it:

levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm

Oh, really? And what prevented customers from buying from another retailer? Did Intel "own" every single retailer? Was it impossible to buy product with any other processor brand? Don't be ridiculous.

Who is Chilean here?

Who #InstitutoNacional?

Sure I did. The only thing Intel innovated on was the sheer scale on which bribery and corporate threats became possible.

inb4 you actually start arguing for a defective monopoly because states don't like it
anandtech.com/show/9483/intel-skylake-review-6700k-6600k-ddr4-ddr3-ipc-6th-generation/23
This is over an approximately five year period. The only thing the free market fixed here were Intel's prices, i.e. they could charge whatever they like for desktop processors, let quality (thermal paste) fall apart and even divide them into arbitrary feature sets (overclocking vs usable VT) without AMD having the slightest chance of competition, because they're still corrupt as fuck.

Evidence that patents are or were in any way involved in industrial bribery, user. I wasn't aware Intel held on a patent on the concept of subverting the supposedly independent media.

Didja miss the sales quotas at the other OEMs user? Or is that alright because at least one guy got his AMD chip, regardless of the fact that Intel were effectively controlling the consumer market and making irrelevant how competitive AMDs chips actually were?

Yeah, everybody knows libertarians believe that parents can sell their children, not the other way around. And those 1488 LARPers wonder why nobody takes their Uncle Adolf-worship seriously.

hail mi general Pino

And yet you somehow missed the main points.

That's massive hyperbole, Intel's tech innovations are well known, but I won't bite because the point you keep missing is that I did NOT engage in blanket denial. I won't repeat my nuanced answer. Just read it again. TLDR: planned obsolescence and other deviations from the "perfect markets" (possibly including the elleged "collusions") are a real phenomenon, yes, but they are not crippling, the advantage they procure for each product is only temporary, they have good aspects to them and they would be far less prevalent without patents.

And how do you think the alleged scheme may work? If a customer insists on buying a PC with an AMD processor, did they tell him to go buy somewhere else? Unless you have evidence to the contrary, I'd say the 80% figure was accepted in the deal in the first place because it approximates actual market demand. Honestly, I keep hearing the same about AMD processors, and this is from techie friends, not Intel salesmen: Intel is better, if only because of lower heat emissions. That's why people buy Intel even if AMD looks superficially like better value-for-money.

Your entire post is blanket denial. You're running mental gymnastics like this is the olympics because you have resolutely failed to prove anything wrong.

You're claiming that monopolism rights itself or rather would without government, cannot perpetuate itself and that backdoor sales deals actually reflect market demand, because the free market ideology demands that be the case.

It quite literally isn't. Read
extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-with-1-45-billion-fine-in-europe-for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd
if only due to the summaries of the full findings.

Such as this
>At one point, a Dell executive notes that Intel executives “are prepared for an all-out war if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ‘investigates the details’ … We’ll also have to bite and scratch to hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti, they cut it to

Not at all. A blanket denial would be to claim that all companies behave according to the "perfect markets" model, and that all counter-examples are lies.

Yes, it is. Your link is about the alleged deals, not about Intel innovation or lack thereof. The well-known innovations of Intel are summarized here:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Intel

That's another wild exaggeration. Intel had some money to expend on rebates for Dell, but only if Dell stayed loyal to Intel. If Dell was courting Intel's competitors, it seems only fair for Intel to respond by courting Dell's competitors with the money they already had ready to spend. That's a far cry from trying to put Dell out of business.

And again, the main tool of market dominance are patents. For instance, in Intel's case:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel#Litigation_issues

(CONT)

(CONT)

Furthermore, even if those "market failures" are real, it's far from settled that the "cure" isn't far worse than the disease. For starters, it's not at all clear where normal competitive behavior ends and "abuse of market dominance" begins. In practice, successful companies who serve the customer better than anyone else, thereby gaining amarket share over 70% are bound to be sued by a competitor. Oh, yes, the vast majority of these trials are not initiated by either the state or customers, but by disgruntled competitors. If customers are so harmed, why don't they ever complain? That's the second point, antitrus law protects inferior competitors from well-deserved bankrupcy. So much talk about collusion, but the collusion of small players against the big one in never mentioned, not to speak of the more than likely collusion with state actors. Since these "investigative commisions" are also run by the state, it's no wonder that the state is eventually absolved of all such accusations.

And that's exactly my point, that products have a limited lifetime because a constant stream of better and cheaper products keep coming. So, from the customer's POV, the troubles and risks of getting the most clearcut, vicious, infamous monopolist (the State) involved as an arbiter of obscure manufacturer disputes where both contenders (and also the State) are fighting for their own interests rather than those of the consumer clearly outweights the alleged benefits.

Yes I have. Do I have to repeat it? Fine! The benefit is that EVEN ASSUMING that the market-dominant company reaps extraordinary benefits from these "shady" market practices, all the "additional money" it gets can be seen as a reward for the innovation that allowed this company to become a dominant player in the first place, and therefore a motivation for other companies to follow its example and innovate. Get it? In a free market, the only way for a company to rise to the top is to serve the customer better than its competitors, either by quality, price or both. So what if, once on top, they can benefit from imperfect markets? Good for them, they earned it!

I explained above the obvious role played by patents in protecting Intel from its competitors, allowing it to achieve market dominance in the first place, without which the alleged "market dominance abuse" is impossible.

Those pics only show a variation of Intel Vs AMD market share from 2004 to 2005.

You didn't answer the question of how exactly could retailers prevent users from buying PCs with AMD processors if that's the processor they wanted.

Oh, and since you provide your TLDR links, I'll give you some of my own. Bon apetit!

web.mit.edu/merolish/Public/books/libertarian/antitrust.pdf

independent.org/multimedia/detail.asp?m=20&c=31

dsems.unile.it/mosca/Nizza.ppt

I could write out a huge tl;dr argument where I'd respond to each of your points for the third or fourth time, but I really don't see the point.

You're arguing in bad faith, by seeking minutiae to be offended over and blowing them out of proportion to distract from the point put forward, mistaking economic models for economic reality in insisting that sustained market dominance has been good for consumers when so much at looking at a comparative feature list and benchmarks show the opposite, and putting forward doctrine as evidence by asserting that unappealed conclusions by a high court amount to sour grapes. Lastly, you just plain do not like evidence that runs counter to your world view - court decisions fobbed off as "alleged wrongdoings" and/or evidence of state conspiracy, transcripts of executives ignored, underperformance of the superior product airbrushed, etc.

The crux of your arguments is redirection and spin ("patents", "the State", "innovation", etc.) in a circular fashion to a point of inviolate dogma, and in all honesty, you make it seem like those people who consider Libertarianism simply another semitic ideology like Communism have quite the point. Feel free to strawman the whole thing into "I called you a Jew, therefore I win", but I honestly hold few firm views on economics at all.

>Lastly, you just plain do not like evidence that runs counter to your world view - court conclusions fobbed off as "alleged wrongdoings" and/or evidence of state conspiracy, transcripts of executives ignored, underperformance of the superior product airbrushed, etc.
and without bothering to put forward counter-evidence, you dismiss them outright.

Ha,ha, reverse Godwin, every fucking time. Relax, m8, I won't take your sheckels. :^)

Why, because I don't agree with you? because I won't let you drag me to the dilemma of either becoming an expert on x86 processors or concede all your points about Intel and, by extension, about the free market and the need for antitrust law? Don't you see you are not playing any fairer than I am?

The devil is in the details. So you forced me to wade through a pile of "he said, she said" bullshit between Intel, AMD and the EU, and you complain when I raise objections and puntualizations? Did you expect me to concede the point out of lazyness? Sounds pretty Jewish to me.

Offended? me? where? Did I call you names or something? Are you using a template here?

The validity of those benchmarks is under dispute, as you can see in the reader comments of the relevant links. Besides, do those benchmarks include details like the prevalence of heat dissipation problems? It's only common sense that if product A is cheaper and demonstrably, undisputably better than product B in every practical sense, then product B will have a very hard time competing, to put it lightly, at least when both A and B enjoy comparable brand recognition. In my experience, that's rarely the case, and certainly not when it comes to Intel Vs AMD products.

Yes, I'm no bootlicker of the judiciary. They actually are a monopoly, in the fullest and worst sense of the word. But that wasn't even my main point.

Weasel words. If I disagree with your choice of culprits or your description of the events, it't "redirection and spin". Right.

Here you are carelessly mixing up all my arguments, which is unfair. I presented patents and the State as alternative culprits, while I presented innovation as evidence against the gravity of the alleged "crimes". My points were pretty clear, It's not like I dazzled you with mumbojumbo and gobbledygook.

I neither used anything remotely like circular reasoning, or invoke anything remotely describable as dogma. In fact, I mostly left aside the principled case against antitrust law (which is pretty robust, BTW) and focused on practical matters such as mitigating factors, alternative causes of the alleged "illness" unintended consequences of the desired "medicine" and indeed, the selfish motivations of the "doctors". I provided evidence and sound reasoning about all those points.

lolno, it doesn't prove a thing, but it's still funny. Why would I want to win anyway? I have no user name. I'm mostly honing my skills and gathering data. If I can make you (or others) have a second look at these issues, then great, but I'm not holding my breath.

Does that mean you could reconsider, or does this one happen to be one of the firm views?

The only point I'll bother to correct is

>Read [Link] if only due to the summaries of the full findings.
In case you're illiterate, what this means is I never expected you to read some 540 pages of arguments, premises and conclusions - I expected you to read a single page.
extremetech.com/computing/184323-intel-stuck-with-1-45-billion-fine-in-europe-for-unfair-and-damaging-practices-against-amd
Else, of course, I would have linked them
ec.europa.eu/competition/sectors/ICT/intel_provisional_decision.pdf
to begin with.

I did read it. I read (or at least skimmed through) all your links. For instance, my remark about people objecting to claims about Intel performance refers to this link:

forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2014/10/31/fifteen_whole_dollars_on_offer_for_cranky_pentiums_4_buyers/

The comment is titled "Pentium 4 didn't suck. ". It seems to make a substantial case, although I didn't bother following the link provided in the comment. I mean, eventually you would call me a lying kike anyway.

But I actually skimmed through those as well. It was the only way to see Intel's defense allegations. Otherwise I would have to take extremetech's word for it.

Not in this context. If the Pentium 4 were equivalent or superior to the competition and the market perceived the same, thus justifying the market share during the 2001-2006 period, then the exact same argument should apply to the Sandy Bridge vs "MOAR CORES" fiasco, where there was again an instance of software not being made for hardware and market share should have broadly normalized. Needless to say, that didn't happen.

Are you talking about this fiasco, or something else?:

infoworld.com/article/2625204/processors/intel-finds-design-flaw-in-sandy-bridge-chipset.html

Mostly out of genuine curiosity. My point in bringing up those reader comments is that even "hard data" such as benchmarks leave plenty of room for debate and interpretation. And that's assuming consumers only care about performance.

Everyone knows that both chile and argentina are the jewish nest of spic land.
Nothing knew here. Just nuke both, in fact remove all spics.

That's a bit out of left field, but no. I'm talking Intel relying on developer inertia in topping out on quadcores and focusing on per-core performance, whereas AMD went pie-in-the-sky with a weak octocore that was outperformed by chips a generation behind in any software that wasn't significantly multithreaded.

I'm pretty sure that the people who buy "gamer" prebuilts or straight components are the performance market.

Fuck off Pinocchio

Just get a boned and scare her next time

Thank you for correcting the record. 0.20 USD has been deposited in your account.

...