The Memetics of 9/11 Throughout History and The Legacy of Prussianism from 19th Century Chile to Augusto Pinochet

The Memetics of 9/11 Throughout History and The Legacy of Prussianism from 19th Century Chile to Augusto Pinochet

Originally published on Medium.com. See Dax’s work here: https://www.minds.com/daxrayner/

The date of September 11th seems to hold a special significance in the memetic algorithms of history.

For two thousand years it has been a recurring focal point in the calendar where monumentous civilizational-shifting events have taken place.

The exact dates seem to be up for debate but by some accounts in the year 9 CE (AD 9 in the Julian calendar) the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest began on September 9th and concluded on the 11th, in which an alliance of Germanic tribes ambushed and destroyed three Roman legions, preventing Roman expansion from continuing east of the Rhine river. Historians have generally regarded this battle as “Rome’s greatest defeat.” It was a defeat so catastrophic that it threatened the survival of Rome itself and halted the empire’s conquest of Northern Europe. The battle led to the creation of a militarized frontier in the middle of Europe that endured for 400 years, and it created a boundary between Germanic and Latin cultures that lasted 2,000 years. Some history buffs have even referred to it as the original 9/11, the date on which Germany, in its infancy, was born. The Germans proved the Romans were not invincible and from this date on Rome began its long decline and eventual demise, while Germany began its long ascent into prominence.

September 11th is also a particularly noteworthy day in European-Turkic relations. On numerous occasions it was the date on which the advance of the Ottoman Empire into Europe was halted, in 1565 when the Ottomans retreated from the Great Siege of Malta and again in 1683 at the Battle of Vienna when Polish King John III Sobieski led the largest known cavalry charge in history and repelled the Ottoman invasion, which marked the crucial turning point in the 300+ year struggle between the Holy Roman Empire and the Ottoman Empire.

September 11, 2001 needs no elaboration here. The attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington D.C. represents another seismic clash of civilizations (regardless of who you believe was responsible) and defining moment in history where everything changed in an instant.

There is another event that took place on September 11th, 1973 which was a pivotal moment in the Cold War as well as the battle of ideologies being waged during the 20th Century between marxism, capitalism and fascism. This was the Chilean military coup in which General Augusto Pinochet overthrew the Marxist President Salvador Allende. One of the overlooked aspects of this event is that like the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest, this event was also, to one degree or another, Germanic-influenced.

It is well known that the United States, the CIA and various NGOs helped lay the groundwork for the coup d’etat by working with pro-coup factions within the Chilean military/political system as well as waging economic warfare (sanctions, worker strikes, etc) for a period of time leading up to the coup.

This was done under the context of preventing communist expansion and the USSR from gaining further strategic influence in Latin America. Further reading and source material on that here:

The Fatherland and Liberty Nationalist Front was a far right ultranationalist paramilitary group in Chile that had CIA backing and attempted a failed coup in ’72 and later merged with Pinochet’s junta after the successful ’73 coup. This episode is instructive for gaining insight into how intelligence agencies and colored revolutions work all over the world in the past and in the context of current populist events & movements.

When the Presidential Palace was surrounded and assaulted by General Pinochet’s forces, after giving his final farewell radio address, President Salvador Allende committed suicide by shooting himself with a gold plated AK-47 given to him by Fidel Castro with an inscription on it that said: “To my good friend Salvador from Fidel, who by different means tries to achieve the same goals.”

After his rise to power via military junta in the aftermath of the coup, General Pinochet’s regime initiated a brutal repression of political critics, marxist organizations, socialist activists & leftist academics, resulting in the executions of anywhere from 1,200 to 3,200 people and the internment or “disappearance” of as many as 80,000 people. During this time, the Pinochet regime became famous for what have come to be known as “free helicopter rides” where communists and other leftists were flown over the Pacific or the Andes mountains and thrown out the door of helicopters.

There is a substantial amount of controversy surrounding Pinochet’s rule to this day, especially in Chile, not just in terms of the political persecution that took place but also the economic reforms he initiated.

Under the influence of the free market oriented “Chicago Boys”, Pinochet’s government implemented a wide range of economic liberalization such as removing tariff protections for local industries, banning trade unions and privatizing social security and hundreds of other state-owned enterprises.

Depending on who you ask, these reforms either led Chile to becoming a prosperous free-market economy that it is today… or subjected it to one of the worst economic depressions in Latin America.

I have to admit, I haven’t studied the policies and geoeconomic effects of Pinochet’s rule in much depth at all and would like to spend a lot more time on that, but I have mixed feelings about it. While I’m no socialist (in the sense of the common use of the word, pertaining to a welfare state) I also feel conflicted about Pinochet working as an agent of the same neoliberal corporate world order that is currently working to crush nationalism in America, Europe the other continents.

There is some debate over whether the famous economist and libertarian icon Milton Friedman supported the Pinochet government but he did refer to the reforms that took place under Pinochet, with the help of the Chicago school of economics, as the “Miracle of Chile.”

You can see some discussion on that here:


And in the interest of objective inquiry, here are some counter arguments about how Pinochet’s reforms were a disaster for the country:

Whatever other racial/familial/cultural/legal/economic/social/philosophical/metaphysical characteristics one may ascribe to fascism (it seems somewhat difficult to come to a consensus on what exactly the definition of fascism is no matter who you ask), but whatever else it may be, it is true what the communists say, that fascism has been used as a tool by big business interests to protect private property from revolutionary marxist movements.

However, while marxists have always accused fascists of being the attack dogs for capitalism, they totally deny or ignore their own complicity in serving as a lapdog for capital.

The fact is, big corporate and banking interests have routinely used both fascism and marxism as tools throughout history to restructure and reorganize markets and regional economies.

It may be possible to summarize it this way: Capital has used fascism to protect private property systems and it has used communism to clear the playing field of competition in a given geographic area when needed, in order to make room for big business to monopolize new markets (see Prof. Michael Rectenwald and Prof. Antony Sutton’s work for more on this).

That’s one of the big secrets of WWII and the Cold War. There were elements within American and British political/business circles who heavily backed fascist regimes leading up to and during WWII in an effort to halt the advance of communism throughout Europe. While on the other hand, there were other American and British entities who heavily supported the Soviets. This becomes even more fascinating and controversial when you begin digging into the sectarian war within Judaism itself, the clash between fascist Jews and marxist Jews, those Zionists who collaborated with the Third Reich, e.g. the Haavara agreement, and the bolshevik Jews leading communist movements.

Although marxists accuse fascism of being a tool for big business, Hitler and other leading National Socialists were vocally anti-capitalist in many of their speeches and writings. Which leads to a question some have pondered, if Britain had sided with Germany (as it was on the verge of doing so pre-invasion of Poland) and Germany had gone on to become the dominant power in Europe, would the Third Reich have later turned on their capitalist allies and financiers? It seems Winston Churchill believed so, which is why he opposed Neville Chamberlain and his cohorts. If you read the book ‘In Our Time: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion’ by Clement Leibovitz, it explains how the Munich Agreement which gave Germany territory in Czechoslovakia, was not, as the popular historical narrative goes, an act of failed appeasement on behalf of a cowardly Chamberlain and British government, but rather, a deliberate and successful effort to “drive Hitler east” and encourage a confrontation between Germany and Russia. Which is why I have often referred to WWII in other writings as the largest proxy war in history, with Western powers using Germany as their proxy army to smash the growing Soviet threat.

Adherents to normie history channel versions of WWII find this notion outrageous of course, but it’s really no different from the geopolitical maneuvers the U.S. (and every other great power in history) has employed over and over again. For example, the way the U.S. backed Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war and then later turned on him during the Gulf War, or how the U.S. used the Mujahideen to fight the Soviets during the ’70-80s Soviet Afghan war and then later turned on them after they had morphed into the Taliban.

In any case, I wonder if we might venture to say that Chilean fascism under Pinochet was, in the end, a more free market-friendly version of fascism than Italian or German fascism.

On another side note, it’s very interesting to track the way that the allegiances of the (((international))) media changes and reverses in any given situation or time period. There are competing interests within the media hierarchy, just like there are competing interests within every government or business sector and they will support either right wing or leftists movements, all depending on their objectives, the cycles of the global economy, the unique geographical location and cultural climate at any given time.

For example, in the 1930s fascist leaders and states were wildly popular in Western media (just look up some of the TIME magazine covers and front page newspapers from that period). Then they switched teams during WWII and flung their support behind the Soviets. Then during the Cold War they reversed and communist states were the enemy again. Now today, elements of the global media passively or openly support far left organizations like Antifa and demonize nationalist leaders like Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and of course, everyone’s favorite orange dictator, Donald Trump.

(Just pause for a moment, read that above paragraph again, and then think about the irony of mainstream media enthusiastically supporting fascist leaders in the 1930s and now fast forward to today where they are on a never ending witch hunt to paint Trump as the reincarnation of Hitler himself. It’s kind of like how Cosmopolitan magazine had cover stories in 1913 about how to be a good house wife and now 100+ yeas later they are teaching women how to cuck their husbands and either cheat on them or talk their spouse into doing an open marriage.)

It doesn’t matter whether it’s leftist or right wing, it seems that the common denominator that determines which leaders or states the media hates and targets is nationalism. For example, there have been numerous schisms between western marxists and eastern marxists throughout history during periods of political crisis in France and Russia, in which globalist-oriented western leftists have labelled other communist organizations (such as the National Bolsheviks in Russia during the 1993 red-brown alliances) as being “fascistic” because of their ethno-nationalist and patriarchal components.

I have seen Black Nationalists make similar observations, saying that they are censored on social media while Black Lives Matter is not. In EurAsia/Africa, Pan-Arab Nationalist and African Nationalist leaders like Bashar al-Assad and Muammar Gaddafi are targeted by the U.S./NATO/Israeli military industrial complex.

This has led even some anarchists like Cody Wilson of 3D printed guns fame (with heavy postmodernists influence from the likes of Michel Foucault) to state that protectionist-oriented nationalist power blocs are the primary and most effective counter balance to global corporate governance, in the same way that state governments in the U.S. are supposed to act as a counter balance to the federal government.

But ultimately what I want to draw attention to and will leave as the closing point of the article, is the heavy Prussian influence on the Chilean military and the role that this may have played in the 1973 coup.

From 1879 to 1884, Chile fought a war over territorial claims against a Bolivian–Peruvian alliance in what was called the War of the Pacific. The war ended in victory for Chile, which gained a significant amount of resource-rich coastal territory from Peru and Bolivia.

During the War of the Pacific, many Chilean officers became aware that the army was in sore need of rebuilding and modernization. Organizational flaws and material losses led the Chilean military, along with President Santa Maria and a broad coalition of civilian leaders, to look outside the country for foreign assistance in the development of technical departments and officer schools for the military.

At first Chile hired a French training cadre in 1858 but in 1886 the Chilean military began a large-scale emulation of the Prussian Army with the appointment of Captain Emil Körner, a graduate of the renowned Kriegsakademie in Berlin. Also appointed were 36 Prussian officers to train officer cadets in the Chilean Military Academy. The training occurred in three phases; the first took place from 1885 to 1891 during the presidency of Domingo Santa María, the second was the post-civil-war phase, and the third was the 1906 reorganization.

The effects of this Prussianization of the Chilean army appear to have been far reaching and long lasting (although some historians like William Sater argue that the changes were more superficial). Regardless, it seems that the Prussian influence may have played no small role in Pinochet’s successful execution of the military coup in ’73 and the ruthless and efficient targeting of their communist enemies afterward, in a way that other South American countries may not have been capable of.

After all, during the Cold War Chilean officers were still studying Karl Haushofer, the infamous German geopolitical strategist who is credited with the concept of lebensraum. Haushofer was influenced by Oswald Spengler and Halford Mackinder, known as the father of geopolitics who came up with the Heartland Theory which has been the driving force behind British and American foreign policy for the last 100+ years.

(Has it ever occured to you that “diversity” and the right to “mass migration” is the 3rd World’s codeword for “lebensraum” into the West?)

I’ll end here with some quotations and excerpts about the legacy of Prussianism and military prowess that was carried on by Chile…

“Where some states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state.”


“A 1913-14 Prussian General Staff assessment of South American military establishments described Chile as… “only army in South America with sufficient peacetime cadres.” The General Staff’s overall verdict was unusually glowing: “Most powerful state of the Pacific. Army the best in South America. Numerically inferior to the Argentine army, but qualitatively… still superior; unquestionably superior to the armies of Peru and Bolivia. Capable of offensive operations.

In March 1914 Adm Prince Henry, Kaiser William II’s brother, reported his emotions after attending Chile’s Independence Day celebrations: “The parade itself one can term a miniature copy of the parade on the Tempelhofer Field.” The uniforms were German, as were the parade steps, weapons, sabers, and music. “The Chilean can be described… as the Prussian of South America…” Not only had Chile faithfully copied the Prussian military system, but, more important, it had infused in its ranks “the spirit of the Prussian-German military organization.” Put differently, the Chilean army had become the “school of the nation” (Volkserziehungsmittel).”

-The Grand Illusion: The Prussianization of the Chilean Army by William F. Sater, Holger H. Herwig, p26, 27

“Furthermore, Brahm insists that Prussian influence left a much more enduring imprint: not just the marches, uniforms, and iconic steel helmets that Chilean soldiers still wear during ceremonies, but in the substantive qualities of respect for hierarchy, strict discipline, and devotion to theoretical study. In the 1960s, army officers were still translating articles from Bundeswehr (Federal Armed Forces) and Wehr Wissenschaftliche Rundschau (Scientific Defense Perspective), and German geopolitical theorists like Karl Haushofer remained ubiquitous on the pages of defense journals throughout the twentieth century.

…The Chilean army acquired such a positive reputation that the governments of Columbia, El Salvador, and Ecuador contracted Chilean officers to modernize their own armed forces.

…Frederick Nunn argues that European trainers in Argentina, Chile, Brazil, and Peru did not simply reorganize national armies according to European models; they inculcated a mistrust of civilian leaders and taught that the nation’s politics and economy ought to be organized according to a military ethos of hierarchy, discipline, and patriotism. European officials thus implanted two key ideas: soldiers are more patriotic than civilians, and they constitute a separate caste – priests of the fatherland – who bear the sacred duty to ensure that their countries escape underdevelopment. This is not to say Nunn believed South American militaries had no ideas or traditions of their own, only that European trainers had decisively contributed to an ideological basis for political action by teaching that officers had an obligation to assume control of the political system if they believed the nation’s permanent interests were threatened.”

-The Pinochet Generation: The Chilean Military in the Twentieth Century by John R. Bawden, p19, 20

“In the Western Hemisphere every country entered a new inter-American defense system shaped by Cold War politics and dominated by the United States. This was a new political reality in South America. In the decades to come the Pentagon would influence the Pinochet generation, but domestic traditions alongside older Prussian and British influences proved more important than anything the United States could teach or supply.”

-Ibid., p49

“The military’s constitutionalism and reverence for hierarchy proved historically consequential at several different junctures. The army, navy and air force agreed to launch a coup only after they perceived that the elected President had severely broken the law and the prevailing crisis appeared to lack a legal resolution …In many instances, aspects of military culture predating 1930 – Prussian discipline, reticence, and institutional memory – determined essential outcomes.”

-Ibid., p2, 3

“To understand the Pinochet generation is to appreciate its historical inheritance: Prussian discipline in the army, British naval traditions, victory in war, national heroes such as Arturo Prat, and collective memory of the 1891 civil war …In the armed forces there is a deep veneration of Bernardo O’Higgins and Diego Portales as well as a marked disdain for some of the country’s political elites going back to the late nineteenth century.”

-Ibid., p32

It may seem like a stretch to some, but for those familiar with the events discussed in this article, it may not be too off-base to suggest that September 11th can be traced as a recurring reference point throughout history that marks the ascent and zenith of Germania as a world power. From the Battle of the Teutoburg Forest in 9 AD, which halted the expansion of Rome and shaped the development of Northern Europe for the next 2,000 years and laid the foundation for the historic rivalry between France and Germany… to the multi-centuries long struggle between Europe, the Holy Roman Empire (considered to be the First Reich, followed by the Second and Third) and the Ottoman Empire, with September 11th serving as a decisive defeat for the Ottomans on numerous occasions… to September 11th 2001… which can be viewed as simply a continuation of the Cold War, which never really ended, which was really Part 3 of the World Wars, and as anyone who’s studied that period knows, World War II was merely an extension of World War I (which among other reasons, was partly a result of Germany’s attempted expansion into the Middle East with the Berlin-Baghdad railway system, which threatened Britain’s global dominance)… with the 1973 Prussian-influenced Chilean coup serving as another front and a continuation of the struggle between fascism and marxism… September 11th 2001 of course led to the war on terrorism (which some may suggest is another theater in the ongoing multi-front Arab-Israeli war) which ultimately resulted in the destabilization of much of the Levant, the Near East, North Africa and the destruction of the gateway to Europe (Libya), triggering a new invasion of millions into the West and Germany in particular, which brings us back to the beginning in September AD 9 when Germania repelled their first major foreign invasion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *