[Pants-of-dog]

I think "technologists" agree or disagree with Fascism at the same rate that anyone agrees or disagrees with Fascism. Making your whole point moot.

Not quite. I corollary to my point is that due to this disagreement between fascism and everyone else (including those who should be doing your R&D), fascist states will lag behind their liberal counterparts. Consequently, this point is not moot, at least not for those who are looking at fascism realistically.

ALL regimes persecute individuals whom they see as a threat. Just take a look at what happens to scientists who speak in any way outside the limits of political correctness about race or historians about Jews in liberal regimes. They're not killed, but they're shunned, they're fired from their place of work, and possibly lose any means of working ever again. Which has the same result. The rest of the scientists fall in line with the politically correct model of science, and claim that this is the correct science while there is ideological motivation to do so.

I am not discussing what other regimes do.

A documentary you should watch relevant to the above is Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0192335/) See what happens to someone with some authority and a "technologist" who flouts political correctness.

People find out he was pretending to be an engineer even though he had no qualifications? Is that what happens?

[telluro]

I am not discussing what other regimes do.

Doesn't matter what you're doing. It is relevant if this is behaviour that belongs to all regimes, not specificall Fascist. And it does.

People find out he was pretending to be an engineer even though he had no qualifications? Is that what happens?

One either is or isn't an engineer, qualifications notwithstanding. But that's not the point. Further you can look at clearer cases, of Holocaust revisionists who get life sentences, for example.

[Orestes]

of Holocaust revisionists who get life sentences, for example

Life sentences ? Where and when exactly were such sentences actually issued ? Ernst Zündel did something like 5 years IIRC, and he is THE Holocaust Denier.

(For the record - I think he should have done 0)

David Irving even had the nerve to do guided tours around Nazi sites in Poland a year ago

[Pants-of-dog]

Doesn't matter what you're doing. It is relevant if this is behaviour that belongs to all regimes, not specificall Fascist. And it does.

Please give me one example of a liberal democracy putting people into jail or executing them for unorthodox research or scientific claims. Thank you.

One either is or isn't an engineer, qualifications notwithstanding. But that's not the point. Further you can look at clearer cases, of Holocaust revisionists who get life sentences, for example.

If you are testifying in trials, you better have qualifications.

As Orestes said, even Zundel only served five years, and even that was non-consecutive.

[Fasces]

So you understand the problem and why your link does not count as evidence. Glad we could discuss it.

My link is evidence. Your failure to visit it does not negate that. It is telling, however, that you put more faith in an encyclopedia article that agrees with you, and disregard the validity of an empirical, peer-reviewed study, published in an academic journal.

Helen Fein is a highly reputable individual, especially in the study of human rights. Her study, and this is said clearly in the abstract, supports the claim that transitional regimes, and she specifies democracies which I did not, have higher human rights violations that entrenched regimes.

And when the Nazis closed the Bauhaus down, what ideological plank was being fulfilled? Does Fascism have an ideological problem with multi-disciplinary approaches to modern architecture?

To be clear: I ask whether an example exists of political repression by the Nazi regime following the transitional stage of their regime. Your example is the shutting down of Bauhaus in 1933, for subversive politics within the institution, during a period which I have already described in this post. More humorous, of course, is the fact that three years previous, under the transitional democratic government of the Weimar Republic, the head of this institution was asked to stand down for the same reason, and affiliates of that man barred from study at the institution. Somehow, though, this is proof that fascist regimes, and not transitional ones, are exclusive in their use of political repression.

Do you think that Iran's strict social mores that hinder social and scientific research are partly the cause of Iran's brain drain? Yes or no?

No. I believe that Iran's relative lack of development and educational infrastructure is a far greater factor in the failure to consistently produce quality scientists. Any political exiles would have occurred during the transitional period of the Islamic regime, long-ago, and the future of Iran's scientific research depends on the ability of Iran to create a new crop. The power of student movements in Iran demonstrated in the past few years - and the fact that there is no great influx of Iranian professionals into the West, and that the Iranian regime, if not Ahmadenijad, enjoy widespread support among these youth, lead me to believe that politics has little to do with Iran's brain drain.

I understand that Iran still leads world rankings in brain drain, though the absolute number is fewer. This can easily be explained by poor domestic economic conditions, a disparity between living conditions in the West and Iran, and perhaps by Western government efforts to poach Iranian scientists.

Nonetheless, Iran continues to place highly in international competitions on technical issues. This goes against your central claim that strict societies are unable to compete with liberal ones, and is the point I want to highlight. Iran has a highest growth rate for citations in journals in the World, and ranks in the top tier of countries on sectors such as nanotechnology. More telling, Iran is now ahead of India, Taiwan and South Korea in engineering performance.

They are simply fewer in number and less able to work with the rest of the international scientific community.

Please provide evidence. Iran, for example, has over ten times its share of the global population in scientific citations.

Please give me one example of a liberal democracy putting people into jail or executing them for unorthodox research or scientific claims. Thank you.

Please give me one example of a fascist regime putting people into jail or executing them for unorthodox research or scientific claims.

[Pants-of-dog]

My link is evidence. Your failure to visit it does not negate that. It is telling, however, that you put more faith in an encyclopedia article that agrees with you, and disregard the validity of an empirical, peer-reviewed study, published in an academic journal.

Helen Fein is a highly reputable individual, especially in the study of human rights. Her study, and this is said clearly in the abstract, supports the claim that transitional regimes, and she specifies democracies which I did not, have higher human rights violations that entrenched regimes.

This is your link:

http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals ... 1fein.html

This is what it says:

Helen Fein - More Murder in the Middle: Life-Integrity Violations and Democracy in the World, 1987 - Human Rights Quarterly 17:1 Human Rights Quarterly 17.1 (1995) 170-191 More Murder in the Middle: Life-Integrity Violations and Democracy in the World, 1987 Helen Fein * Text [Figures] [Appendix] I. INTRODUCTION Current US foreign policy goals put great stress on extending democracy, and US legislation -- never systematically enforced -- has banned aid to gross violators of human rights for two decades, making exceptions for aid which benefits needy people. Gross violations of human rights which are criminalized in international law include genocide, extrajudicial executions, and torture. These violations are labeled herein as violations of life-integrity. Based on a coded content analysis of Amnesty International Reports for 1987 and Freedom House rankings, this article will examine the relationship between life-integrity violations and freedom in 145 states during 1987 and will probe two alternate hypotheses. Our findings support the second, which asserts that there will be more conflict mobilized and incentives for repression -- i.e., worse violations of life integrity -- as democracy is extended before it is fully institutionalized (More Murder in the Middle). This article further examines the effects of ethnic discrimination, war, development, and inequality (and the linkages among them) on life-integrity violations, and considers the implications...

It does not clearly say anything about transitional democracies. There is a bit in there that could be interpreted that way if you already had that idea in your head, but without the actual article (to which you have not linked) it is impossible to say.

Your exact claim "is that transitional states are violent due to a plurality of power.". The quoted text supports the idea that transitional states are more violent, but it does not say anything about the cause being a plurality of power.

To be clear: I ask whether an example exists of political repression by the Nazi regime following the transitional stage of their regime. Your example is the shutting down of Bauhaus in 1933, for subversive politics within the institution, during a period which I have already described in this post. More humorous, of course, is the fact that three years previous, under the transitional democratic government of the Weimar Republic, the head of this institution was asked to stand down for the same reason, and affiliates of that man barred from study at the institution. Somehow, though, this is proof that fascist regimes, and not transitional ones, are exclusive in their use of political repression.

Wow. Those goalposts must be on wheels. Now it seems to be about violence but only after the "transitional" stage, whatever that means. You are trying to make this about "all transitional governments are like this". This is not the case. Egypt is a very recent example of a government in transition that has not erupted into violence. Chile was certainly violent as it moved into dictatorial rule, but the Allendistas who took over when they regained democracy did not institute a regime of violence.

You allude to Meyer, who was fired for various reasons, including the fact that he was an outspoken communist in an era when the Nazis were coming into power. In that regard, he was what the modern vernacular would term a "heat-score". But he was also fired because he fired two other people he should not have fired, as well as being directly opposed to the whole point of the Bauhaus. You know what he did after he was fired? He went to the Soviet Union. The USSR kicked him out in 1936. Such a warm reception from an authoritarian government.

No. I believe that Iran's relative lack of development and educational infrastructure is a far greater factor in the failure to consistently produce quality scientists. Any political exiles would have occurred during the transitional period of the Islamic regime, long-ago, and the future of Iran's scientific research depends on the ability of Iran to create a new crop. The power of student movements in Iran demonstrated in the past few years - and the fact that there is no great influx of Iranian professionals into the West, and that the Iranian regime, if not Ahmadenijad, enjoy widespread support among these youth, lead me to believe that politics has little to do with Iran's brain drain.

The bolded statement is simply wrong. The mass immigration of Iranian professionals to the West is well documented.

http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Ha-La ... icans.html

I do not think the authoritarian nature of Iran is the biggest reason (that would be the war with its associated factors of lackluster training and conscription) but it is a large one. And do not forget that the authoritarianism is what has led to the "relative lack of development and educational infrastructure" that you mention. Nor do I think you are correct when you claim the Iranian government has widespread support among the youth.

Nonetheless, Iran continues to place highly in international competitions on technical issues. This goes against your central claim that strict societies are unable to compete with liberal ones, and is the point I want to highlight. Iran has a highest growth rate for citations in journals in the World, and ranks in the top tier of countries on sectors such as nanotechnology. More telling, Iran is now ahead of India, Taiwan and South Korea in engineering performance.

You make a lot of claims without providing evidence.

Please provide evidence. Iran, for example, has over ten times its share of the global population in scientific citations.

From your link:

Consistent with the previous survey, the aim here was to examine a group of nations with roughly comparable scientific output. The region’s higher-producing nations, such as Turkey and, notably, Israel, were again left off.

As it happens, in recent years Iran has moved rapidly toward parity, in terms of scientific output, with Israel and Turkey. In fact, graph 1 (to the right), which tracks the year-by-year output of Thomson Reuters-indexed papers from the five most-prolific nations in this survey, shows that Iran produced nearly 15,000 papers in 2009. This compares to Israel’s 2009 total of roughly 12,000 papers and Turkey’s total of around 22,000. Although Israel accounted for a greater number of papers during the collective five-year period from 2005 to 2009—approximately 58,000 compared to Iran’s 45,000—clearly Iran is ascendant in output.

So, Iran is improving drastically right now. So much so that it has almost caught up to its more liberal neighbours.

More from your link:

As was the case in 2003, none of the nations has yet reached the world impact average, although progress is discernible: In the previous survey, which tracked impact from 1981 through 2002, the majority of the countries charted no higher than 0.4 of the world average, with many lingering in the region of 0.2. In the present graph, the trend for most is clearly toward 0.4 and above.

So, from this we can see that Iran is below the worlds average in terms of the impact of their scientific papers.

I did not find anything in that article that confirmed your claim that Iran "has over ten times its share of the global population in scientific citations."

Please give me one example of a fascist regime putting people into jail or executing them for unorthodox research or scientific claims.

Why should I bother finding evidence for claims I did not make?

[noemon]

Why should I bother finding evidence for claims I did not make?

Ofc why would you bother with addressing the argument. As if it was ever an option for you.

So you agree that Fascism does not have any meat with technology.

[Fasces]

It does not clearly say anything about transitional democracies. There is a bit in there that could be interpreted that way if you already had that idea in your head, but without the actual article (to which you have not linked) it is impossible to say.

The actual article is available there, if you have a Muse account. Using the abstract only, however:

Our findings support the second, which asserts that there will be more conflict mobilized and incentives for repression -- i.e., worse violations of life integrity -- [b]as democracy is extended before it is fully institutionalized[/b]

Egypt is a very recent example of a government in transition that has not erupted into violence

More than 1,000 people injured in the worst clashes between protesters and security forces since the spring revolution.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... unded.html

Egypt's government has announced a series of security measures to curb religious violence after 12 people died in clashes in the Cairo suburb of Imbaba, sparked by rumours that Christians had abducted a woman who converted to Islam.

The country's army also pledged on Sunday that 190 people would be tried in military courts over Saturday's violence.

The fighting was Egypt's worst interfaith strife since 13 people died on March 9 after a church was burned, and poses a new challenge for generals ruling the country since the ousting of former president Hosni Mubarak in February.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middl ... 92384.html

Allendistas who took over when they regained democracy did not institute a regime of violence.

The Chilean transition to democracy was overseen by Pinochet, who had a monopoly of force, with institutional procedures, and can be said to be a single regime. The transfer of power for Pinochet to Aylwin can be said to be no different from the transfer of power between Bush and Obama, as there was no disruption in the monopoly of violence by the state apparatus. That being said, IIRC, some violence did occur between the indigenous population and the government.

You allude to Meyer, who was fired for various reasons, including the fact that he was an outspoken communist in an era when the Nazis were coming into power.

Meyer was fired three years before a Nazi government was established. At the time the Nazi Party became a government, socialist and communist parties had a greater share of the votes - so we cannot pretend this was a highly anti-communist environment, publicly.

It is also disingenuous to say he was a poor director of the school.

Meyer brought the two most significant important building commissions for the school, both of which still stand: five apartment buildings in the city of Dessau, and the headquarters of the Federal School of the German Trade Unions (ADGB) in Bernau. The school turned its first profit under his leadership in 1929.

So, from this we can see that Iran is below the worlds average in terms of the impact of their scientific papers.

Among the main fields of science, Iran is currently most concentrated in Engineering, as gauged by the nation’s percentage of Thomson Reuters-indexed papers in the field during 2005 to 2009—more than 7,500 papers, and 1.71% of the field. Not surprisingly, Iran’s growth in Engineering over the last decade, from 178 papers in 2000 to more than 2,600 in 2009, marks its greatest increase in any one field. Iran’s next-highest percentage is in Chemistry, at 1.68%, followed by Materials Science, at 1.19%.

With Iran's population being a tenth of a percentage of the global share, one sees that, respective to their national population, Iran is overproducing.

However, let's focus on something else from that article.

As it happens, in recent years Iran has moved rapidly toward parity, in terms of scientific output, with Israel and Turkey.

If we were to believe you, this would not happen. In fact, we would expect to see the opposite as:

Even if what you say is true, there is no way you can pretend that N. Korean tech is still comparable. Obviously, any tech advantages that do come with fascism do not last very long, and are eclipsed by other problems

If anything, the gap between the West and Iran should be widening as the regime goes on, not closing, should it not, PoD?

Why should I bother finding evidence for claims I did not make?

So why ask for evidence of a liberal democracy doing something fascist states have not done either?

[Pants-of-dog]

The actual article is available there, if you have a Muse account. Using the abstract only, however:

"Our findings support the second, which asserts that there will be more conflict mobilized and incentives for repression -- i.e., worse violations of life integrity -- as democracy is extended before it is fully institutionalized"

Exactly. Please note that it does not discuss plurality of power being a cause of the violence.

Quote:
More than 1,000 people injured in the worst clashes between protesters and security forces since the spring revolution.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... unded.html

And none of that supports your claim that the violence is due to a plurality of power. What it shows is that authoritarian governments will use violence when they feel like they are losing power. This is consistent with Helen Fein's findings concerning transitional regimes, and my claim that authoritarian governments will use violence against those they feel are a threat to their power.

The second article is about sectarian tension and does not seem to have much to do with regime change.

The Chilean transition to democracy was overseen by Pinochet, who had a monopoly of force, with institutional procedures, and can be said to be a single regime. The transfer of power for Pinochet to Aylwin can be said to be no different from the transfer of power between Bush and Obama, as there was no disruption in the monopoly of violence by the state apparatus. That being said, IIRC, some violence did occur between the indigenous population and the government.

As long as we are clear that the transition from Pinochet's dictatorship to the current democracy was non-violent.

Meyer was fired three years before a Nazi government was established. At the time the Nazi Party became a government, socialist and communist parties had a greater share of the votes - so we cannot pretend this was a highly anti-communist environment, publicly.

It is also disingenuous to say he was a poor director of the school.

The Nazis were obviously coming to power during the time that Meyer got fired. He was a crappy director.

And none of this has anything to do with the fact that the Nazis forced van der Rohe to close down the school when they came to power.

With Iran's population being a tenth of a percentage of the global share, one sees that, respective to their national population, Iran is overproducing.

Yes, they are putting out a lot of papers in one single discipline. But not very good ones. Also, please stop using the term "global" as your study only compares Iran to other ME nations in the region, not the rest of the world.

Look at this graph from your link:

http://sciencewatch.com/sciencewatch/an ... r2_575.gif

From this we notice that Cyprus, a country that produced far less papers, has had a far greater impact than Iran with its many papers.

However, let's focus on something else from that article.

Quote:
As it happens, in recent years Iran has moved rapidly toward parity, in terms of scientific output, with Israel and Turkey.


If we were to believe you, this would not happen. In fact, we would expect to see the opposite as:

Please note that the text you quoted shows that Iran (even though it is growing rapidly) is still not as good as its liberal neighbours.

Iran's rapid growth is probably due to the fact that they are easing some of the strictures in education. From my previous link that you ignored:

In 1992, more than 100,000 Iranians had returned to their homeland since 1989, due as much to the economic recession in the United States as a state-sponsored campaign that urged reconciliation with the "secular experts." One Iranian questioned pointed to the reversal in the government's attitude toward secular experts as a recognition that the Iranian economy will never recover under the direction of religious experts alone.

Read more: Iranian Americans - History, Modern era, Immigration to the united states, Interactions with settled americans http://www.everyculture.com/multi/Ha-La ... z1SeXGfSld

If Iran had continued with its authoritarian treatment of educated professionals, I highly doubt we would see this growth in scientific output.

So why ask for evidence of a liberal democracy doing something fascist states have not done either?

If you are having trouble following the conversation I had with telluro, please reread the posts more carefully.

[Fasces]

Please note that it does not discuss plurality of power being a cause of the violence.

Yes - it does. What do you think is meant by incentives for repression?

What it shows is that authoritarian governments will use violence when they feel like they are losing power. This is consistent with Helen Fein's findings concerning transitional regimes, and my claim that authoritarian governments will use violence against those they feel are a threat to their power.

You have not demonstrated the former point, because you have yet to show continued levels of violence past the transition phase.

The second article is about sectarian tension and does not seem to have much to do with regime change.

Plurality of power is, by definition, sectarian violence.

As long as we are clear that the transition from Pinochet's dictatorship to the current democracy was non-violent.

There was no institutional/regime transition. Pinochet oversaw the implementation of Chile's modern constitution. In effect, Pinochet was the first leader of democratic Chile.

The Nazis were obviously coming to power during the time that Meyer got fired. He was a crappy director.

They came to power three years later.

You know what. Fuck this. Whatever you say, PoD. The imbecility of your claims have been made clear and are self-evident to just about any reader, as they were from the beginning.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes - it does. What do you think is meant by incentives for repression?

By that I think it is meant that the authoritarian state feels like it is losing control and therefore has an incentive to use violence against its own people as a means of repression.

You have not demonstrated the former point, because you have yet to show continued levels of violence past the transition phase.

I do not see how my claim implies in any way that there must be continued levels of violence past the transition stage. Also, please define "transition stage".

Plurality of power is, by definition, sectarian violence.

By sectarian, I meant religious. You seem to have a different definition of sectarian.

There was no institutional/regime transition. Pinochet oversaw the implementation of Chile's modern constitution. In effect, Pinochet was the first leader of democratic Chile.

No. Patricio Aylwin was the first democratically elected leader after Allende. But this is still unimportant. You agree that not all transitions from one regime to another are violent.

They came to power three years later.

Again, Meyer has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no idea why you are focusing so much on him. This does not change the fact that the Nazis forced the Bauhaus to shut down.

[Fasces]

By that I think it is meant that the authoritarian state feels like it is losing control and therefore has an incentive to use violence against its own people as a means of repression.

Yet, it explicitly says that democracies are the worst offenders.

I do not see how my claim implies in any way that there must be continued levels of violence past the transition stage. Also, please define "transition stage".

Prior to the state apparatus gaining a monopoly on violence.

Your claim implies that fascism is unique in its use of violence, which it is not. You have no demonstrated fascism continuing to use political violence past the transition stage.

By sectarian, I meant religious. You seem to have a different definition of sectarian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism

You have the different definition of sectarian.

No. Patricio Aylwin was the first democratically elected leader after Allende. But this is still unimportant. You agree that not all transitions from one regime to another are violent.

I did not say Pinochet was the first democratically elected leader of Chile. I said Pinochet was the first leader under the constitution of the modern Chilean state - in effect, the first leader after the military regime and its constitution. Hence, the transfer of power from Pincohet to Aylwin can not be said to be a regime change.

Again, Meyer has nothing to do with the discussion. I have no idea why you are focusing so much on him. This does not change the fact that the Nazis forced the Bauhaus to shut down.

Meyer is evidence of political repression by a transitional, democratic, regime. It supports the idea that political violence and repression are characteristic of transition regimes, regardless of their ideology. The Nazis shut down Bauhaus in 1933, at the time of regime transition.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yet, it explicitly says that democracies are the worst offenders.

Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thank you.

Prior to the state apparatus gaining a monopoly on violence.

Your claim implies that fascism is unique in its use of violence, which it is not. You have no demonstrated fascism continuing to use political violence past the transition stage.

I still do not see how my claim implies that there should be violence past the transitional stage. Nor how it implies that fascism is unique in this regard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarianism

You have the different definition of sectarian.

Great. What does this have to do with the discussion?

I did not say Pinochet was the first democratically elected leader of Chile. I said Pinochet was the first leader under the constitution of the modern Chilean state - in effect, the first leader after the military regime and its constitution. Hence, the transfer of power from Pincohet to Aylwin can not be said to be a regime change.

Whatever. This still does not change the fact that ac Chile went from a dictator under Chile to a democracy under leftists, it was not a violent change.

Meyer is evidence of political repression by a transitional, democratic, regime. It supports the idea that political violence and repression are characteristic of transition regimes, regardless of their ideology. The Nazis shut down Bauhaus in 1933, at the time of regime transition.

No. Meyer is evidence of Gropius being fed up with a director that undermined his movement.

In his own words:

Meyer's open letter in a left-wing newspaper two weeks later characterizes the Bauhaus as "Incestuous theories (blocking) all access to healthy, life-oriented design... As head of the Bauhaus, I fought the Bauhaus style"

To me, the political violence enacted by fascist governments on their own people is a tool of repression that is used to solidify their control. It is therefore logical to assume that this violence will increase as the fascists feel their power slipping and therefore need more repression. This dynamic does not in any way invalidate my claim.

[Fasces]

Please quote the text that supports your claim. Thank you.

I assume you mean from the abstract.

Our findings support the second, which asserts that there will be more conflict mobilized and incentives for repression -- i.e., worse violations of life integrity -- as democracy is extended before it is fully institutionalized

What it shows is that authoritarian governments will use violence when they feel like they are losing power. This is consistent with Helen Fein's findings concerning transitional regimes, and my claim that authoritarian governments will use violence against those they feel are a threat to their power.

How many people died in Egypt due to sectarian violence in 2010, or even during the Arab Spring, per day, compared to after the resignation of Mubarak?

As long as we are clear that the transition from Pinochet's dictatorship to the current democracy was non-violent.

That is a fact. It is meaningless without context. The context is that the last leader of the military regime was Pinochet and the first leader of the democratic regime was Pinochet. There was never an institutional vacuum of power, and the monopoly of violence was not in question.

Great. What does this have to do with the discussion?

Jesus Christ, you're the one who brought it up, sweetheart.

Meyer is evidence of Gropius being fed up with a director that undermined his movement.

I thought democratic regimes were supposed to allow free-thinking and deviation from norms?

It is therefore logical to assume that this violence will increase as the fascists feel their power slipping and therefore need more repression.

Back it up with empirical evidence. Show that political violence increases or stays the same when a fascist regime has a monopoly of violence, and that the same does not occur in democratic states. To make it easy, use Nazi Germany, which has an established period during which the Nazi totalitarian regime was transitioning from the Republic.

[Pants-of-dog]

I assume you mean from the abstract.

Quote:
Our findings support the second, which asserts that there will be more conflict mobilized and incentives for repression -- i.e., worse violations of life integrity -- as democracy is extended before it is fully institutionalized

That does not, in any way, "explicitly say that democracies are the worst offenders."

How many people died in Egypt due to sectarian violence in 2010?

How many died at the hands of the pro-democracy forces?

That is a fact. It is meaningless without context. The context is that the last leader of the military regime was Pinochet and the first leader of the democratic regime was Pinochet. There was never an institutional vacuum of power, and the monopoly of violence was not in question.

Whatever. Since we have no record of violence by the hands of pro-democracy forces in Chile, we can say that it does not support your point.

:| Jesus Christ, you're the one who brought it up, sweetheart.

Actually, you brought it up in the context of your claim that the recent Egyptian regime change was violent. I am waiting for you to show that this sectarian violence is in any way relevant.

Back it up with empirical evidence. Show that political violence increases or stays the same when a fascist regime has a monopoly of violence, and that the same does not occur in democratic states.

As soon as you explain how your weird claim here is somehow related to my claim.

[Fasces]

I'm done, PoD. You are a waste of time as any ever existed. Your idiotic and contradictory claims have been laid bare and are self-evident to any reader. Bye bye.