Javier Milei has been elected president of Argentina: Madman or genius?

While we are at it, I share with you an article that explains what happened during and after the last military dictatorship in terms of economy. Maybe this will clear up some doubts as to why we are the way we are with money.

 
I repeat, the country at the beginning of the 20th century was not the rich country everyone says it was. It was sparsely populated, and there was no developed industry. The appearance of wealth is only shown in the capital. The rest of the country was undeveloped and the main source of income was (and still is) the agricultural industry with little or no added value.
There are very wealthy countries today that just export oil, for example, and have hardly any industry. So industry is not necessarily what determines the richness or income levels of a country.

Not sure what being sparsely populated has to do with the richness of a country either. Argentina seems to have had a larger population in the early 20th century than Canada or Australia at the time.
 
There are very wealthy countries today that just export oil, for example, and have hardly any industry. So industry is not necessarily what determines the richness or income levels of a country.

Not sure what being sparsely populated has to do with the richness of a country either. Argentina seems to have had a larger population in the early 20th century than Canada or Australia at the time.

You have to look at it in the context of the time, and the historical events from the early 20th century to date. Again, go back several pages and read what I explained. You're looking at things in a simplistic way and it doesn't help.

Aha let's say that with oil alone you get it. Venezuela is super rich because it has oil right? Now what happened to Venezuela when the US started to blockade its economy? Did you know that a few years ago Venezuela had to import a lot of things because it didn't have its own industry? It didn't even have its fields in conditions to produce, supply internal demand and feed its population without having to resort to imported food. Besides, what happens if the price of oil falls?

What does population density have to do with questions? Look at the situation in Japan and Russia. Japan for example (like many countries in the world) is having a low birth rate and its population is aging rapidly. It is a completely industrial country but if the population is in that dilemma its economy will fall. In the case of Russia something similar is happening. The Russians are aware that if their population does not increase they will not be able to maintain sovereignty over the vast territory they have. And everybody knows that Russia is VERY rich in resources and that the European powers have always wanted to eat it. The conflict in Ukraine is not just a simple denazification. If they can Russia will be balkanized and divided into pieces. You need a population to occupy territory.

Look, I don't demand that you know about economics or politics. But if you come up with these comments at this point in the thread, then you have overlooked everything that has been said above.

And what happens? I have to be reiterative and explain everything again. Guys, the story is there. There are the good, the bad and the ugly. But please READ. You are not doing me a favor. You are doing yourselves a favor.
 
You have to look at it in the context of the time, and the historical events from the early 20th century to date. Again, go back several pages and read what I explained. You're looking at things in a simplistic way and it doesn't help.
I am talking about your claim that Argentina was not a wealthy country in the early part of the 20th century. You present no arguments for that and instead go off on completely different topics.

If there is something that you wrote before on why you think that Argentina was not actually wealthy back then, you can quote it.
 
I am talking about your claim that Argentina was not a wealthy country in the early part of the 20th century. You present no arguments for that and instead go off on completely different topics.

If there is something that you wrote before on why you think that Argentina was not actually wealthy back then, you can quote it.

Served.

Now to politics and economics. Here there are many people in these areas who have good ideas and solutions, have a geopolitical analysis of reality that I assure you has a 90% accuracy in their analysis and estimates, and that even appearing in the media and explaining, are ignored (because it does not suit them of course) to the political-economic structure of the country.

One of them is Guillermo Moreno, a doctrinaire Peronist. He worked as Secretary of Commerce in previous governments, those who have a good memory know that he did a very good job in the internal economic affairs of the country. But he is only one example of many.

And there are solutions. There always are. Among the many conversations among true patriots and nationalists one is simply to return to the gold standard. Get rid of the dollar. The country has natural resources that allow it, but they are always exploited and in the hands of foreigners. This has been the case since the day Argentina became independent. But be careful, please, and I say this to all of you, do not believe the story that Argentina in 1920 was a world power. It is a complete fallacy. You can be sitting on a mountain of gold, and still be poor if you have a population relegated to a quasi-feudal status, a navel-gazing oligarchy, and an incomplete bourgeoisie with no industrial development and little nationalism.

If you see those videos from those years, where they show you a thriving and powerful Argentina. Well, they only show you the portion of that landowning oligarchy and how that wealth was only developed and concentrated in Buenos Aires. The rest of the country abandoned to its fate.

Peronism wanted to change that, and that is why it has (or had) so much presence in people's minds. But in recent years it was infiltrated by social democracy. The same thing that you can observe in other countries and the surrounding wokism. Peronism requires another separate talk, but I have to mention it because since it emerged it was a determining movement for Argentine history in the last 70 years.

Well, I am going to make a parenthesis and I am going to comment in several posts fragments of the reality and political and economic history of Argentina.

Here I will explain one of the causes of inflation in Argentina:




Who was Martinez de Hoz?:




As you can read, this happened during the last military dictatorship. Without that dictatorship these policies would hardly have been implemented.

Here you can read in more detail the financial reform of 1977:


Ok, here I start another post to clarify concepts, and you can know the social and political dynamics of Argentina.

Unfortunately, and due to certain conditioning and programming, we do not investigate the root of some concepts and we let ourselves be carried away by the immediate labels.

This is going to be a long text so I am going to leave inserted a PDF document translated into English using an online translator. So you may find some mistakes.

I asked another user here what he meant by social justice. I know that many will immediately associate it with socialism. In the Argentine case, social justice is a concept inherited from Catholic culture.


Peronism in the Argentinean case picks up social justice from the point of view of social justice described in the Rerum Novarum of 1891. Although this is not a direct quotation from the Novarum Novarum, we see it reflected in the Peronist doctrine in its philosophy.

This is what Rerum Novarum says about Socialism:



Peronism from its origins always stipulated that private property must be respected.

I have to point this out because Peronism is NOT SOCIALIST. The problem is that NOW Peronism WAS INFILTRATED by socialism. And there has been a deliberate confusion of terms and concepts.

From now on, it is necessary to speak and say that "democracy-social" is not the same as "socialdemocracy"

I will start with the introductory paragraph and then the rest of the text in the PDF document, which will include bibliography.




In the next post quoting this one. I leave you the document.

Once again this fallacy of the thriving Argentina at the end of the 19th century. At that time, the landowning oligarchy kept the peasants in a semi-feudal state, to the point that the landowners paid those peasants with their own currency and not with the national legal tender.

The Bialet Massé report.


On April 30, 1904, the first volume of the 'Report on the state of the working classes in the interior of the Argentine Republic', prepared by Doctor Juan Bialet Massé, was presented. This study gave rise to the National Labor Law.

Ok, here is the translated document.

Edit: A last minute correction to the document.

Well, I'm going to make another post, commenting on something I described in the document I shared a few days ago. This with the objective of understanding the political and economic movements of Argentina. One could compare what Peron said about the Synarchy with what Dwight D. Eisenhower said about the military-industrial complex.

I had commented on the Synarchy:



In the following link, which I will leave its content translated here, it explains what is the Sinarchy in the simplest possible way, according to Peron and its 6 internationals.


Introduction




Ahead of his time


Perón was a professor during the 1930s, shortly before the outbreak of World War II. So, this description had to have been made by him between 1930 and 1938 approximately: the synarchic internationals he described more than 70 years ago are practically still the same.

We can say then that Perón was ahead of his time: it is also known that in the early 1970s Perón was already talking about a "globalized" world, 20 years before the beginning of the globalization process.

Description of the Internationals

The following is a description of each International according to the order in which General Perón named them.

Freemasonry

Freemasonry was founded towards the end of the 17th century. Although its main objective was, like the ancient gnosis, the spiritual evolution and learning of man, soon secret societies such as the Illuminati appeared within its bosom, which turned Freemasonry into a true synarchic apparatus. Most Masonic lodges are made up of Jews, both at the top and in the different hierarchies or degrees.

Freemasonry was behind the French Revolution (grandmother of the communist revolution of 1917), the two world wars, and possibly in more recent years, the attacks on the twin towers. Freemasonry has even infiltrated the Catholic Church and vice versa.

Vatican

Perón considered the Catholic Church, more precisely the Vatican, as a synarchical international. Within the Holy Seat he separated the pontificate on the one hand and the ruling hierarchy on the other.

Forgetting the legacy of Jesus Christ, the Holy Seat not only amassed an enormous fortune but also became part of the international synarchy: its messages employ the captiousness and understanding of "citizens of the world", "universal man" or "universal government".

Within Catholicism, Opus Dei stands out, a liberal and Catholic organization considered as a collateral of the existing Masonic lodges. This sect tries to confuse the national liberation movements in order to disorganize them and gain control of them, in a definitive synarchic strategy.

Zionism

The most extremist branch of the Jewish religion is in our days (and also at the time Perón described the synarchies) the most powerful international of all. Although it was founded in 1879 by Theodor Herzl, its plans are earlier. Already from the shadows this movement had been formed, whose headquarters was the United States, where President James Monroe declared that America (the United States) would be the guide, the head of the world. In 1860 the French Jew Cremier, said: "First of all we want to remain Jews and we do not recognize another religion. The Jewish glory must cover the whole Earth".

In 1897 the first World Jewish-Zionist Congress was held and the foundations were laid for what would become - as we said before - the most powerful international: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were written, branded as an anti-Semitic forgery several years later. However, everything was fulfilled just as the Protocols: the communist revolution of 1917 and the following Marxist governments around the world are proof of this. The greatest achievement of Zionism was the usurpation of Palestine, where the Palestinian holocaust has been practiced for 60 years.

Communism

As we mentioned above, communism is the weapon of Zionism: since the publication of Karl Marx's communist manifesto in 1848, its power has been increasing until it blended with liberal capitalism. Its imprint left a toll of about 120 million dead from 1917 to date. Although it "disappeared" in 1991, cultural Marxism never died, but lives on in Western democracies. Today there are several Marxist-liberal countries (Sweden, Venezuela, Norway) and purely Marxist countries (Cuba, Laos, North Korea).

Social Democracy (socialism)

Perón was a great visionary when he catalogued social democracy as a synarchic international: until those years social democracy had only served as a bridge to reach communism (Lenin and Stalin had gone through social democracy before the revolution).

After the Second World War and especially after the fall of the USSR is when it became stronger: most European and American countries went through social democracy or the so-called "Eurocommunism" which is practically the same thing (in Argentina we had the example of the king of inflation Raul Alfonsin (1983 - 1989) or even the Kirchner's government -wokism, progressives, feminism, minorities, etc.-).

International of the "boludos".

"Boludo" in Argentine lunfardo means idiot or imbecile. Perón used the expression "boludos" probably to refer to apathy or ignorance in general.

What General Perón meant is that thanks to the synarchic control of the media and education, the vast majority of people have a bad concept or simply ignore who is behind a good part of the world's problems. It is something very difficult to understand perfectly, but unfortunately the existence of a worldwide synarchic government is sadly real.


He says this as a consequence of having suffered the same in the 2000 / 2001 / 2002 crisis, and the provinces were forced to issue what were known at that time as patacones and lecops.




So this has the potential and very serious effect of dividing the country. He is not suggesting civil war, but these are characteristics and symptoms.

Here are the unpleasant reforms that no one dared to make and that is why, in order for someone to make them, they made Milei win. And probably what will happen in practice is the following:

The deputies of the wrongly called "opposition" are going to make a fuss about certain articles, they are going to let others pass in silence and they are going to raise their hands on everything essential.

Between the cock and midnight they are going to do it when this comes to Congress. They will take advantage of the relative anonymity that exists in every collegiate body and of the bad memory of the public opinion, which after six months will no longer remember who voted for such and such a thing.

And when the hegemon finally comes after Milei to reign over the ruins, the reforms will already be implemented, the hegemon will not have to do anything unpleasant and will not lift a finger to reverse any of the reforms.

How to hold the hegemon responsible for evils that were done before his enthronement? It does not exist.

That is to say, by changing the fuses, the system not only avoids its fall, but renews itself.

This is basically how what we call "democracy" and Perón called demoliberalism works, that republican system of theoretical representation in which the leaders can quietly represent the interests of a powerful minority without the majority that voted for them demanding anything from them.

Later on, it is only a matter of reforming the Constitution incorporating the new laws already consecrated and that's it, there we have the new legal statute of colonialism built by leaders who pretend to fight among themselves and, in reality, they all represent the same interest: that of the brutal force of the anti-people.

This is like 1943 and we will not be able to get out of the infamous decade within its own rules. A GOU* or similar will have to come and hunt the mouse.




Well, here I share with you the thoughts of Eva Peron. They are just a few paragraphs from the book, La Razon de Mi Vida.

The attached images are from the book whose edition was printed in September 1951.



Sound familiar? I mean, with all that we have witnessed from the feminist movement, and its contradictions. Already by the distant year of 1951 you could see what was going to happen.

I see and understand it from the point of view of twitter commentary. Argentina's economy and industry cannot be compared to the European one, so if in Europe there is no double tax maybe it is because they can compete in the market. Protectionism is a line that you move according to your needs and interests. Here in Argentina, in the 90s we had already experienced something similar when we were flooded with Chinese manofacture.


Argentina and China: a very unequal marriage

The relentless growth of trade led China to become Argentina's second largest trading partner. But it is urgent to change the profound asymmetries that characterize this relationship, in which Argentina is limited to being a mere supplier of raw materials and recipient of manufactured products.*



*So not much has changed since the last 150 years. No matter if it is China, Europe, or the United States, economically it is still a prolongation of a colonial system.

When you look at the economic cycles of the country, a Peronist-looking government arrives (because it no longer resembles what it was in its first governments with a great industrialist drive) that more or less fixes the finances, and then another government arrives that turns everything upside down.

Argentina lives its own time loop. ☹️

It's obvious he's screwing everything up and it's nothing like he says it is. He is totally schizophrenic. And no. What he did is not working at all. People, you have no idea how much media censorship there is. The lies propagated by “libertarian” podcasts or youtube channels that confuse people. Even for those of us who live here.

Now... God... why do people from abroad always make the same silly mistake that the country was rich? I already explained it in this very thread, pages ago.
 
I don't know why you quoted all that when you could have simply said that you think Argentina was not really a wealthy country because most people were poor and a small landowning oligarchy apparently skewed the "per capita income" (that everyone is usually looking at) and which was very high.
 
Maybe because you asked for him to quote it. So he did.
I asked him to quote why he thinks that Argentina was never really wealthy (unlike what many people think). The answer to that was in the first couple of quotes, the rest had hardly anything to do with it.
 
I asked him to quote why he thinks that Argentina was never really wealthy (unlike what many people think). The answer to that was in the first couple of quotes, the rest had hardly anything to do with it.
So instead of thanking him for giving the quotes you requested you are going to ask him why he didn't give only the information you think was necessary and nothing else. @Bluegazer you just keep doing what you're doing. It's all good.
 
So instead of thanking him for giving the quotes you requested you are going to ask him why he didn't give only the information you think was necessary and nothing else.
Yes, because the whole interaction up to that point was him either giving pretty much non-sensical reasons ("Argentina was not really wealthy because it was sparsely populated") or going on long diatribes about completely different topics. So then posting a lot of unrelated quotes seemed to be more of the same, when the answer could have been given in one or two sentences.

If you are okay with that, it is up to you. I find this kind of behaviour strange and counterproductive.
 
Thank you Nienna for your intervention.

I want to clarify a couple of things for everyone reading this thread. First that the information I provide I try to keep it within the parameters of current news where if I see it necessary to make a footnote explaining a part of the political and economic history of the country, I do so. That if then someone can't connect the dots and has a misinterpretation of the texts, I simply can't do anything. Besides, I have not been the only one who has shared news or data. Gee, I didn't even start the thread. So if I stay within those parameters it is to not make offtopic.

The second thing is that many topics require a separate thread because the history of not only Argentina, but the whole region is interconnected. Whether from the arrival of the Spanish Empire to these lands, the wars of independence or then the various disputes between the recent countries.

I transcribe here some examples of this history.

For example, the history of the Argentine debt does not begin in the 20th century, but at the beginning of the 19th century.


The history of Argentine public debt begins when the Board of Representatives of Buenos Aires passed a law on August 19, 1822 that authorized the Government to acquire a loan to be used for the construction of the port of Buenos Aires, the establishment of towns in the new frontier, and the foundation of three cities on the coast between Buenos Aires and the town of Carmen de Patagones. In addition, running water was to be provided to the city of Buenos Aires. Manuel José García, Bernardino Rivadavia's Minister of Finance, considered it necessary to borrow 2,800,000 pounds sterling.

The Board of Representatives had authorized the placement at a minimum rate of 70%, but Rivadavia agreed to form a consortium to represent the Government of Buenos Aires for the placement of the loan at the 70% rate. This consortium was headed by Messrs. Braulio Costa, Félix Castro, Miguel Riglos, Juan Pablo Sáenz Valiente and the Parish Robertson brothers, who, by virtue of the power of attorney conferred, entered into the agreement in London with the firm Baring Brothers & Co. As the placement in the market would be easy, Baring proposed to the consortium to place them at 85%, paying 70% to Buenos Aires and sharing the 15% difference with the consortium.

On July 1, 1824, Rivadavia's government contracted a loan of 1,000,000 pounds sterling with the Baring Bank to finance public works. The 15% difference in the placement represented 150,000 pounds; of these, the consortium as a whole took 120,000 pounds as commission and the remaining 30,000 pounds went to Baring.

The State of Buenos Aires for its part “pledged all its effects, goods, rents and lands, mortgaging them to the exact and faithful payment of the said sum of 1,000,000 pounds sterling and its interest”. Consequently, in 1828 the naval squadron was liquidated and two frigates that were being built in England were given in payment. Thus, when the occupation of the Malvinas Islands by the British took place five years later, there was no naval force to counteract it. Ferdinand White, an English spy sent by the Baring to the Río de la Plata, condemned the criminal aspects of this agreement. Of the sum received, only 4% of the agreed amount, 20,678 pounds, arrived at the Río de la Plata in gold, as agreed.

When you begin to analyze the history of Argentina's debt and its actors you will see the pattern. European powers doing what they do best. Economic colonialism.

This colonialism takes us back to the time of Juan Manuel de Rosas:


The Anglo-French blockade of the Río de la Plata, known as the Paraná War, took place between August 2, 1845 and August 31, 1850. During it, the British and French squadrons closed to trade all the ports of the Argentine Confederation and those of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, with the exception of Montevideo.

The British and French diplomacy justified the blockade by the participation of the Argentine Army, dependent on the governor of the Province of Buenos Aires, Juan Manuel de Rosas in the Great War in Uruguay. According to the intervening powers, that participation was a direct attack on the independence of that country, was accompanied by unjustified cruelties, and harmed the commercial interests of France and the United Kingdom in the River Plate basin. In practice, it mattered much more to the aggressor powers to force Argentina and Uruguay to recognize their inland rivers as not subject to their sovereignty and to allow them to trade freely through these rivers.

The Anglo-French military action did not obtain the desired surrender of Rosas, although it succeeded in sustaining the government of Montevideo for five years. Finally, the intervention was lifted by means of the Arana-Southern Treaty and the Arana-Lepredour Treaty.

However, Rosas' victory was short-lived, since in 1851 the governor of Entre Ríos, Justo José de Urquiza, revolted and managed to defeat him and force him into exile in the battle of Caseros in February 1852.

Now to summarize a little more. In all these periods civil wars and wars were fought against countries in the process of industrial development such as Paraguay, which began to be an important metallurgical industry in the region and that threatened... well, the British and their industry.

Argentina in its civil war the battle was between unitarios and federales:
Unitarios refers to an Argentine political party that advocated liberalism. On the other hand, the Federals were an opposition party that fought to maintain power in the provinces of Argentina.

While the unitarios fought for a centralized government, located in the city of Buenos Aires, the federales sought political decentralization to respect the autonomy of the provinces within the nation.

These two political parties clashed from 1828 to 1831, during Argentina's Civil War, which originated after the country's independence. The conflict arose because there was a strong disagreement on how to organize the territory of the provinces.
Who were the Unitarians?

The name “unitarios” was given to an Argentine political party of liberal tendency, founded in 1816, which sought to have unity in the regime.

For the unitarios, the provinces were considered simple internal territorial divisions with little autonomy, because the nation should predominate over them.

Unitarianism arose from independence centralism. At first, it was allied with Great Britain and followed the example of Napoleonic France.

The unitarios made the first attempt to impose themselves in 1826, seeking to implement a form of government in which the provinces lost their authority and their needs were not a priority.

The supporters of the Buenos Aires elite and some provincial capital cities supported the Unitarians, but the rural population only followed the local caudillos.
Who were the Federals?

An Argentine political party, founded in 1818, which proposed the establishment of federalism to defend the autonomy and power of the provinces, is known as federales.

The federalists formed a Federal League, also known as the Union of Free Peoples, taking as an example the constitution of the United States*. They fought against the Unitary Party for the political organization of the country until the second half of the 19th century.

José Gervasio Artigas was the founding leader of the Union of Free Peoples, accompanied mainly by caudillos and people from the provinces. Together they opposed the domination of the central power and the elites of Buenos Aires that restricted the independence of the provinces.

The federalists intended to form a republican and federal country, because, taking into account the extension of the territory, as well as the economy and regional politics, they affirmed that this model was better adapted to the national characteristics.

The thinking of the federalists was traditionalist, they defended the customs of the regions.

*A theme of its own. Nevertheless, elements were taken from the U.S. Constitution and applied to the Argentine Constitution.

Triple Alliance War (Paraguay)

The War of the Triple Alliance or Paraguayan War, known by Paraguayans as the Great War, War against the Triple Alliance or Guasu War, was the military conflict in which the Triple Alliance - a coalition formed by the Empire of Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina - fought militarily against Paraguay between 1864 and 1870.

There are several theories regarding the triggers of the war. In essence, Argentine revisionism and the traditional Paraguayan view attribute a preponderant role to the interests of the British Empire. The classical liberal historiography emphasizes the aggressive policy of Marshal Francisco Solano López regarding the River Plate affairs.

The war ended in 1870 with a defeat for Paraguay, which also led to a demographic disaster in the country: according to different sources, it lost between 50% and 85% of its population and perhaps more than 90% of its adult male population. With almost half a million dead, it is the deadliest war in the history of South America.

The British Richard Francis Burton would praise the Paraguayan educational system saying that “it was in enormous contrast to the British, for free compulsory education for all young Paraguayans was very different from the almost 2 million British young people without access to schools or colleges”.

The degree of development achieved by Paraguay before the war is a source of controversy: revisionism in Argentina and Paraguay attributes to it achievements that other authors question. In the TV series Algo habrán hecho por la historia argentina, created by historian Felipe Pigna, it is said that the Paraguayan railway line was the first in South America, as was its telegraph, and that the Yporá - the first of the steamers produced in the Asunción shipyards - was the first with a steel hull built on the continent. It is also said, in the documentary, that Paraguay was a country without unemployment or foreign debt, that education was compulsory and free with 25,000 children in the schools, and that the textile, iron and steel, paper, ink, earthenware, gunpowder and construction industries were beginning to take their first steps, favored by the protectionist policies implemented. It is presented as positive that the State owned large plots of land, called Estancias de la Patria, which it leased to the peasants to cultivate.

As can be seen, there are many causes that can be attributed to why Argentina and the region are not reaching the wealth that we supposedly had.

Yes, in the sum total we are rich, but as I said before, even if you are sitting on a mountain of gold, if you do not know that you have that gold or you do not exploit it yourself, you will not be rich. Much less if, as history shows, you are constantly being invaded, robbed and manipulated inside and out by colonialist powers.

Colonialism that continues to this day only changing the forms and some of its effects. Many of the last military dictatorships as you know arose almost simultaneously during the 20th century that served to dismantle real progress either economically or socially.

And in the current case, with Milei, we are suffering almost the same as the United States: Zionism.

And as General Peron had already said with respect to the synarchy:

The most extremist branch of the Jewish religion is in our days (and also at the time Perón described the synarchies) the most powerful international of all. Although it was founded in 1879 by Theodor Herzl, its plans are earlier. Already from the shadows this movement had been formed, whose headquarters was the United States, where President James Monroe declared that America (the United States) would be the guide, the head of the world. In 1860 the French Jew Cremier, said: "First of all we want to remain Jews and we do not recognize another religion. The Jewish glory must cover the whole Earth".

In 1897 the first World Jewish-Zionist Congress was held and the foundations were laid for what would become - as we said before - the most powerful international: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion were written, branded as an anti-Semitic forgery several years later. However, everything was fulfilled just as the Protocols: the communist revolution of 1917 and the following Marxist governments around the world are proof of this. The greatest achievement of Zionism was the usurpation of Palestine, where the Palestinian holocaust has been practiced for 60 years.

There are many things to tell about the history of the southern hemisphere...
 
If we know a little about the dramatic issues of colonialism in general, here (from these same countries so colonizers), we know rather poorly their influences and consequences in South America. So this knowledge is essential to see the whole problem.
Thank you for your very valuable and sincere contributions @Bluegazer
 
If Milei continues in this way, ruining the reputation of Libertarians around the world, we will unfortunately see ourselves with him.

Hoppe's harsh warning to Milei.

 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom