Critical Analysis
Jack Posobiec picture top, Jack and Joshua Lisec in the second picture
A Critical Analysis: A comprehensive examination of historical claims
The book claims that the American left seeks to terrorize and dominate the United States under a communist dictatorship. The authors indicate that the American left are “unhumans”.
The book has a foreword written by Steve Bannon (long time friend and advisor to Trump) This book first caught my attention, after hearing that J.D. Vance had endorsed it.
“Even as, without irony and not as a joke, “progressives.” For the purpose of this book, we will call them the unhumans…With power, unhumans undo civilization itself. They undo order…. They convert, and that which they cannot convert, they destroy… They just want to destroy everything. They want an excuse to destroy you.
Notes from the book
I took notes on the Salvador Allende and Pinochet section of the book.
Chapter: Red Hot Cold War
Marxist Chile (1970–1973) (p. 163)
Never trust a communist to tell you the truth. In Chile, the election of Salvador Allende in 1970, with help from the KGB, brought into power a Marxist determined to seize totalitarian control. He had close ties to Fidel Castro and the USSR, visiting Cuba and Russia and hosting a month‑long tour of Chile by Castro. Way back in 1933, Allende had co‑founded Chile’s Socialist Party, which would eventually embrace violent revolution as a means of taking power in 1967. Allende prepared to seize control of Chile by building a militia of 30,000 men—larger than the Chilean Army—and amassing caches of weapons all over the country supplied by the USSR. To take power, Allende’s supporters planned to plunge Chile into a civil war that would cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 lives, the higher estimate being 10% of the country’s population. (p. 163)
Then came the 1970 election. Allende won no authority from “the people,” as he only received 36.6% of the vote in a three‑way election. But he lied to Chile’s Congress, claiming he fully supported the Constitution, so they would be persuaded to break the tie and choose him as president. It worked. In power, Allende did as he pleased—the usual robbing and killing these revolutionaries always do. Ignoring Congress and court decisions, all his policies led to runaway inflation, shortages, strikes, protests, violence, and lawlessness. Allende “stole” businesses—both foreign and domestic—and land, calling his thefts “nationalization” and “land reform.”
All this chaos provoked Chile’s Chamber of Deputies, the lower house of its bicameral legislature, to prepare a resolution comparable to articles of impeachment for Allende that asked the military to remove him from office. Responding to pressure from the people and Chile’s Congress, Chile’s military did their duty and launched the uprising on September 11, 1973. Allende refused an offer of safe passage and killed himself during the attack. A military council chaired by General Augusto Pinochet took control of Chile to restore order—which they did—and prosperity (which they did, the latter by hiring economists trained at the University of Chicago in the free‑market economic principles of Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman). Chile put in place a new constitution in 1980 that laid out a path for future elections and a peaceful transfer of power, which occurred after Patricio Aylwin defeated Pinochet in the presidential election in 1989 and Aylwin took office in 1990.
Allende pictured above
Pinochet offered reciprocal punishment to the communist revolutionaries, demoralizing their cause and diminishing their ranks. All outliers of anti‑civilization were ruthlessly excised from Chilean society. The story of tossing communists out of helicopters hailed from Pinochet’s elimination of communism during the mid to late 1970s. Wherever Pinochet was, there was no communism. And the globalist intelligentsia didn’t like that—not one little bit. In a matter of days after the successful military rising, human rights (p. 164)
Organizations that had taken no interest in the “atrocities” of Allende pounced on human rights violations committed in the process of purging Allende’s “red minions” from positions of power and influence, from which they had intended to slaughter Chile’s unsuspecting citizens. Since then, in an effort to discredit the free‑market policies that made Chile thrive, leftists have been ceaseless in their references to hide both Allende’s crimes and Pinochet’s successes. (Also consider the day that Allende himself made Pinochet commander of the army, the day after the Chamber of Deputies passed their articles of impeachment and had the military take Allende out; Pinochet does not seem to have planned the military rising, as has been alleged and implied. Leftists also used lawfare to harass and discredit Pinochet after he stepped down from power, to terrorize future leaders in South America and abroad from putting up effective resistance to communism.)
Amnesty International connived to create a new legal principle of “universal jurisdiction,” which was used by a leftist Spanish court to have then‑Senator Pinochet arrested on October 16, 1998, while in London for back surgery. In a speech to the British House of Lords on July 6, 1999 former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher summed up the dangers of the Left’s vengeance campaign against Pinochet for defeating communism:
“My final point concerns the implication of the Pinochet case for the conduct of international relations, which are essentially based on trust between nation states. This trust has now been shattered by the prospect of the courts in one country (Spain) seeking the extradition of former heads of government from a second country (the UK) for offenses allegedly committed in a third country (Chile). Senator Pinochet is, of course, being victimised because the organized international Left are bent on revenge. But on his fate depends much else besides. Henceforth, all former heads of government are potentially at risk; those still in government will be inhibited from taking the right actions in a crisis, because they may later appear before a foreign court to answer for it…”(p. 165)
In a final iconic twist, those who do wield absolute power in their countries are highly unlikely to relinquish it for fear of ending their days in a Spanish prison. This is a Pandora’s box which has been opened—and unless Senator Pinochet returns safely to Chile, there will be no hope of closing it.
Pinochet was held from October 1998 to March 2000 under house arrest in London, when the British Home Secretary, Jack Straw, declared him unfit to stand trial for human rights violations on health grounds and allowed him to return to Chile, where he (and his family) were again pursued by lawfare until the end of his life. He was never convicted. Pinochet died on December 10, 2006.
From this episode in the global war on communism, we receive this succinct takeaway: The mandate that led to Allende’s downfall came from the people of Chile. He caused suffering to gain absolute power, as communists always do. He had the men and weapons ready to defeat Chile’s military and kill upward of a million of his countrymen to gain absolute power, but Chile’s Congress—and Pinochet, with Chile’s military leaders and police—struck first. Communists hate it when you do that, so when you do and they lose, they write the history from their perspective; as in the case of Franco in Spain, the loser’s version is the one remembered. Pinochet did not allow communism to take over his country.
Key problems with Jack Posobiec and Joshua Lisec’s writings
This section of the book is a polemical piece that replaces hyperbole and propaganda for accurate history. It works as coup apologetics. It brings together multiple distorted or unproved premises including ; KGB “engineering” of Allende’s victory, a large 30,000 man militia with caches of weapons, a pending civil war that was poised to kill up to a million Chileans, and a Chamber resolution actin as de-facto “articles of impeachment”. These items are provided as a moral justification for the 1973 military coup and subsequent repression. The Soviet Union did provide financial support to Allende (typical Cold War influence), but the Andrew & Mitrokhin source they cite The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World documents funding, not ballot tampering or causal influence of the 36.6% plurality that voted for Allende. The claim of a government-controlled militia larger than the Chilean Army lacks credible sourcing in history scholarship; armed left groups like MIR were a lot smaller. The 1973 Chamber of Deputies resolution was a political denunciation claiming constitutional breaches, not a constitutional impeachment trial or legal instructions for a coup. Having built a fictional existential threat, the passage in the book reframes state sanctioned terror after the coup of September 11, 1973 as “reciprocal punishment,” It justifies the well-documented pattern of torture, disappearances, and executions and downplays the credible claims of human rights abuses as mere partisan revenge.
The authors claim Economic “restoration” without noting the deep 1982-1983 recession, inequality, or that prosperity measurements do not counter forced disappearances. In summary, their arguments rely on manufactured fear, source misapplication, while minimizing human rights abuses. They fail to even highlight the role of the United States and the CIA in the coup.