New Revelations Concerning Colonia Dignidad

Today, December 12, 2016, roughly 500 pages of previously classified US Government documents concerning Argentina were released to the public on orders of the Obama administration.

They make for interesting reading, especially for anyone who remembers the 1970s and 1980s and the extreme state of tension in the Southern Cone of South America in that period.  For me, however, it was a little more personal.

You know of my trip to Chile and to Colonia Dignidad in June of 1979. (You’re probably tired of hearing about it!)  However, these recently declassified documents shed even more light on the circumstances I faced at the time as the Argentina documents often include information on Chile (and Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil) as well.

One such document contains information that, while corroborating what I wrote in Unholy Alliance and in The Hitler Legacy (as well as in numerous radio and podcast interviews) also provides additional details that confirm what I have been insisting for more than 35 years since that fateful trip:  the Colony was a Nazi refuge, it was the center of the assassination and terror network known as Operation Condor, and that the Chilean secret police – at the time known as DINA although it had other acronyms as well – had a torture and interrogation center on-site and in other sites “nearby.”

Here is the relevant section, verbatim, from a document entitled “A Staff Report concerning Activities of Certain Foreign Intelligence Agencies in the United States submitted to The Subcommittee on International Operations, Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate” and dated January 18, 1979 (and thus six months prior to my trip to Colonia Dignidad):



(1) Chile.  Although no intelligence officer of the Government of Chile apparently is currently stationed in the United States, such officers have visited the United States using false identification, and their activities were not known.  The Chilean intelligence service is a member of a consortium of South American intelligence services, “Operation Condor,” which has, in the past, plotted assassinations in foreign countries and maintained files on anti-regime activists.  This service maintains close liaison with the German Nazi colony of La Dignidad in Southern Chile, which makes its substantial resources available to it.


(this is from page 7 of the report; italics in the original)

Thus, we have several points worth mentioning.  In the first place, our government found it could not keep tabs on Chilean intelligence officers entering the country since the officers used false identification.  Secondly, Operation Condor is identified and Chile recognized as being part of the “consortium.”  Most importantly, however, is the acknowledgement that Colonia Dignidad was a German Nazi colony, and that it maintained a close working relationship with the Chilean secret police.  This was known six months before my visit.  When I returned from Chile with my own, very personal, report, I was told I had to be mistaken.  There was nothing to the rumors, etc. etc.

Further along, on (often heavily redacted) pages 13-15 of the report, we read:



Another element with an uncertain relationship to DINA is the “Colony.”  Located in Parral, Linarest (sic) Province, “La Dignidad” was established by former Nazi Luftwaffe officers at the close of World War Two.  The Colony is registered as a “farm property”

(3 lines redacted)

known in the Colony as “The Commander.”

(several more lines redacted)

residents must leave Chile through Argentina.  The Colony’s leadership maintains good relations with Chilean military officials, particularly officers of the Chilean Air Force, who have close ties to the Colony’s former Luftwaffe pilots.

The Colony maintains complete autonomy over its territory.  Investigations into its activities have always come to an abrupt halt.  The Colony’s primary source of livelihood is a large dairy farm, although it also produces other agricultural products and engages in some mining.  It maintains good relations with the local peasant population, in part because an excellent medical facility maintained by the Colony is open once a week for free medical treatment and medicine to farm families in the area.  (line redacted)  DINA has maintained a detention center inside the Colony and there are allegations that torture has taken place there. Allegations also have been made that German personnel, who are described as ex-Gestapo or ex-SS officers, have given instruction in torture techniques and have actually taken part in the application of those techniques.

(3-4 lines redacted)

The Colony has received large amounts of money over the years, probably from German Nazis.  DINA, which maintains two facilities nearby, makes use of the Colony’s national and international contacts.  Knowledgeable State Department officials believe that they “might very well indeed be part of the so-called network of German exiles in Latin America.”

Precisely what actions have been carried out by DINA and Operation Condor, and what role the “Colony” has played, are unclear.  “Our knowledge of DINA operations is almost nil,” the CIA stated.  What is clear is that DINA and Condor possess both the motive and capability to harm United States residents.  The former director of DINA, Manuel Contreras, has said (redacted) DINA has representatives in all Chilean embassies abroad except behind the Iron Curtain.  These agents, he said, served under civilian cover, and their mission included “hit” Chilean enemies in those countries. “We will go to Australia if necessary to get our enemies,” he said.




There is a great deal to unpack here, but a few points come immediately to mind.

The phrase “residents must leave Chile through Argentina” is revealing.  It is, of course, exactly what happened when Chilean security forces raided the Colony to arrest its “Commander”, Paul Schaefer.  Schaefer fled across the border into Argentina and was finally located there and extradited back to Chile where he stood trial for child abuse charges, among others.

The details about the medical facility are quite true, as I saw myself and as I learned from local police officials in Parral.  The information that former Gestapo and SS officers operated at the Colony was only demonstrated much later, after my visit, but corroborated in details from Luftwaffe pilot Hans Ulrich Rudel’s address book (as published in its entirety in The Hitler Legacy) among other places, including interviews with prisoners who had been held at the Colony.

That the Colony received large amounts of cash from abroad was verified during my own visit when I was told precisely that by the local carabineros the morning before my visit there.

What was a little more terrifying, however, was the information that DINA maintained two facilities nearby the Colony.  In other words, they were torturing prisoners at the Colony but had two more sites in the region as well. I had managed to walk into the dragon’s lair without knowing about it at the time.  Further, the report acknowledges that the Colony was not only part of Operation Condor (as we would discover later, a major node in the Operation) but was also “part of the so-called network of German exiles in Latin America”:  a rather sanitized way of saying ODESSA.

Finally, we learn that DINA and Condor “possess both the motive and capability to harm United States residents.”  We know that they did so with the assassination of former Chilean ambassador Orlando Letelier and his assistant Ronni Moffitt in Washington, D.C. in 1976.  I believe at this point that there was no need to get all Michael Vernon Townley on me at the time because my reporting on this subject was being rejected everywhere, including by the Simon Wiesenthal people.  I was essentially neutralized.  I had no journalistic credentials, didn’t work at any newspaper or other media outlet, and had only my experiences and my research to back up my story.

That was in June-July, 1979.  As mentioned, six months after this report was sent to Congress.  My government knew all about this place and its relationship to DINA, to torture of political prisoners, to assassinations and terror attacks in Chile and abroad.  I had heard about it from reading Ladislas Farago’s Aftermath, and later from rumors heard among Latin exiles in Jackson Heights, Queens.  I had decided to go there, at my own expense, taking a two-week vacation from my job as an export administrator for the Bendix Corporation in New York City.

Finally, fifteen years later, an editor in New York decided to take a chance on me and my story, and Unholy Alliance was published in 1994.

There is much else in these documents, containing as they do presidential briefings, memoranda and other evidence showing what we knew about the human rights abuses in South America at the time.  The Soviet Union was a major threat, and it colored our foreign policy decisions in Latin America. Further, Argentina was developing its own nuclear power program at the time which was a grave cause for concern among Washington policy makers.

And for anyone who believes that only Communist regimes and Middle Eastern terrorists are capable of extreme and hideous forms of torture, one merely has to read the sickening account of one Alfredo Bravo who was kidnapped from a classroom in Buenos Aires where he was a teacher, taken to a remote location, and tortured and interrogated for days on end in ways too graphic to detail here. All because he was suspected of being in league with a union and with a human rights organization.  In one scene, he is being threatened by a colonel who has on his desk a small Nazi flag.

And so it goes.

This is the link to the documents in question:

The Responsibility of Alternative Media

Many people have asked me why I bothered to get into the fight over “fake” news versus  “real” news.  I began to realize that my interlocutors did not have the context that I have.  Remember that my first book, Unholy Alliance, was controversial because it insisted that there was an occult aspect to Nazi Germany.  In order to prove my point, I undertook dangerous travel, researched more than a thousand documents at the National Archives and the Library of Congress, and pretty much dotted my i’s and crossed my t’s.  I provided a bibliography of sources in which I even provided the microfilm record locators for the Nazi files at the Archives so that others could double-check and cross-check my work.  All of this was important to me because I needed to prove the truth of my allegations and not engage in baseless speculation about “satanic Nazis.”  It was an important part of history, and I was dismayed to see that it had been ignored by mainstream academia.  This is at least partially the reason why I became involved in the recent controversies since they seem to point at the very heart of what it was I and people like me are trying to do.  We have a tremendous instrument at our hands in the Internet, a powerful tool for investigation, but we are treating it like a bunch of sorcerer’s apprentices.  So, here is my take on the situation:

The erosion of confidence in what now is called the “mainstream media” or MSM over the past few decades, combined with the explosion of global Internet access and social media sites, has contributed to the growth of alternative media outlets.  There is no agreement on what constitutes the MSM: is it only the venerable city newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post, the major broadcast networks like ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox, or does it extend to cable news shows and to political news sites like Politico and the Daily Beast?  More importantly, does the MSM have to be leftist to be considered “mainstream” or is the mere suspicion of a non-conservative viewpoint sufficient to be included in the pejorative category? No one seems able to answer that last question, because to do so would be to throw the entire binary concept of mainstream media versus alternative media into a cocked hat.

During this period in our history, “alternative media” is almost a code-phrase for right-wing conspiracy sites like Infowars and Breitbart.  To be alternative is to be extreme in some fashion, and usually on the right since the right considers the mainstream media to be pro-liberal and leftist.  It is a handy branding tactic, regardless of how erroneous it may be.

Recently, the Washington Post published a story about “fake news” sites, claiming that many of them are used by Russian interests to interfere in the American political process. The list aroused the ire of right-wing sympathizers who saw it as merely more evidence of the bias of the mainstream media against their preferred sources of “news.”  Others, including responsible journalists, were appalled at the Post’s lack of objectivity in reporting this news since there were no identifiable sources in the story and the criteria for determining what was “fake” news and “real” news seemed totally arbitrary.  Which is ironic, since the Post article would have been perfectly at home on an alt-news site had its slant been more anti-liberal than anti-alt-right.  In other words, a lack of journalistic integrity cuts both ways.

How did we get to this impasse, and what can we do about it?

Obviously, the media is itself to blame.  The pullback of news organizations in the wake of 9/11 to a position of acting as mouthpieces for the Bush administration in the propagation of the ill-advised war in Iraq raised all sorts of questions about the true function of a free press in America.  Secondly, the increased emphasis on profits among the handful of mainstream news outlets at the expense of foreign news desks and field reporters meant that news was “shared” among the outlets with increasing reliance on a handful of reporters who could not be relied upon to cover the whole world in any kind of depth (not that the typical news viewer could accommodate any kind of depth).  In the end it was easier (or at least cheaper) to reprint press releases than it was to do any kind of investigative journalism.  Corporate America was calling the shots, and the “free” press became an instrument of state policy.  Slowly, a kind of fascism was being created – a marriage of convenience between corporations and the state – that was distinctly American in style and substance.

Then, and perhaps most importantly, we have the spectacle of news-as-entertainment. Since news programs have to generate revenue through the sale of advertising space, advertisers want to be assured that there would be viewership for these programs and that meant making the news as entertaining – and non-threatening – as possible.  The distinction between a news medium designed to communicate information and an entertainment medium designed to titillate or appeal to emotions rather than intellect became blurred to the point of non-existence.

And that is where investigative journalism began to morph into conspiracy theory.

We don’t hear much about investigative journalism any more.  For one thing, it is too easy to sue a newspaper, media outlet, or journalist if one doesn’t like what is published.  Legal fees will kill the careers of most independent journalists.  With the rise of the surveillance state in the wake of 9/11 and its legal cover, the Patriot Act, there are other dangers for the independent journalist, no less than the more traditional investigative journalist working for a major or “mainstream” outlet.  This writer for several years found that his airline boarding passes had the dreaded “SSSS” designation, meaning he was pulled off the TSA security lines for “special screening.”  Since he was not a terrorist the only reason had to be his published work. Thus you will not see this writer defending the status quo, or the official government line on what is or is not true (especially as that line shifts with every administration, and with every gust of political wind).  But in the end the real enemy of investigative journalism is the dilution of the very concept of journalism by those who are not trained in journalistic methods and practices (or who are, and then abandon them).

The democratization of access to information represented by the Internet has led to some unforeseen consequences.  When everyone has equal access to media as providers then everyone’s “news” carries equal weight.  While we have the bravery of the citizen journalists in places like Teheran or Baghdad, Myanmar or Brazil, who risk their lives to post photos of anti-government demonstrations, the bombing of civilian targets, or of military oppression generally, we also have citizen journalists who, from the safety of their homes in America or other “first world” nations, post … well … crap.

And somewhere along the credibility versus crap spectrum there is the alternative media and the alternative news sites.

When news became entertainment there were those in the business who realized that entertainment could become news. In other words, there was no real requirement on the part of the consumer to obtain actual data: no information unless it was pre-packaged as something designed to sell itself.  If the marketing was done well, the news programs would attract an audience of consumers who fit into specific demographics.  This had been done previously with regard to sit-coms, police procedurals, and made-for-tv movies, but now it was being crafted as a way to package what appeared to be news in a manner that allowed the same marketing strategies to be employed to maximum benefit. This meant a strategy of appealing to the emotions of the news consumers rather than their intellects.

It is a truism in the industry that one has to communicate to the average television audience at no more than a sixth-grade reading level.  How to “communicate” news that way?  One has to use the same tricks as one does for sit-coms. One cannot stay on one story for too long, otherwise the audience becomes bored and changes the channel.  So a swift magazine-style format is used to move quickly from one story to the next – with lots of visuals, sometimes the same visuals used over and over again – to dazzle and engage and even hypnotize the viewer on a purely gut level. This was done to great effect by entertainment news programs such as ET and TMZ, and a similar approach was taken by the television news programs.

As these same news programs were bending over backwards in an effort to secure as much advertising revenue as possible, the Internet began to compete with the traditional medium in a revolutionary way.  Revenue was generated according to different models, and anyone could set up a website with space for ads and create an income stream through the phenomenon of “click-throughs.”  If one lands on one of these sites and then clicks on an ad to go to an advertiser’s site, income is generated for the owner of the original site.

This meant there was considerable incentive for anyone with an interest in current events or politics or celebrity scandals to create a site that would appeal to the largest number of people with the minimum expenditure of investment in journalistic tools or personnel.  All one needed was an understanding of one’s target audience, and a feel for the “entertainment” side of the news rather than the actual data or information.  One could take a perfectly innocuous news item and spin it any way one wished in order to generate the greatest emotional response in the viewer. This meant the viewer was engaged fully in the transaction and would be mesmerized by the basilisk gaze of the site.  There would be no tendency to check the news stories for sources, and no effort by the news sites to backstop a story in any way with confirmation from multiple sources, etc.  If one knew one’s audience, one knew how to craft a “news” story that would satisfy their hunger.  In effect, it was no longer news.  It was entertainment – masquerading as news – pure and simple.

This contributed to the rise of Internet “news” personalities and to their enormous fan bases.  Political personalities who understood entertainment, branding and marketing more than they did the Constitution or basic civics could generate voting blocs that were composed not of voters in any traditional sense and not of die-hard party supporters, but of fans.  We already had been prepared for this with such television programs as American Idol, in which one “voted” for one’s favorite performer, week after week.  Take that model, and combine it with news-as-entertainment (or more correctly entertainment-masquerading-as-news) and one had a winning strategy for political success.

That this would flower in the United States is no accident. With some of the worst academic standings among industrialized nations in STEM subjects – Science, Technology, Engineering, Math – it is no wonder that the lack of the type of critical thinking so necessary for excellence in science and technology would render American audiences more susceptible to speculation and fantasy.  Further, that this vulnerability would be exploited by individuals and organizations that had mastered Internet technology to such an extent that they could seed fake news into what many considered to be normal news channels is nothing if not ironic.

So maybe “fake news” is the wrong term to be used in this discussion, especially when it comes to characterizing a website as a “fake news” site.  To be more charitable, perhaps we should emphasize less the “fake” aspect of the idea which implies a degree of willful intent to deceive and shift the emphasis to the flawed methodology employed by sites that have been targeted as purveyors of “news” that is simply wrong.

So I propose calling these sites “flawed news” rather than “fake news.”  They do not adhere to basic journalistic standards such as finding corroborating evidence or documentation or other verifiable or credible sources but simply repeat whatever they are told without doing any kind of background research or checking.  They do not vet their sources or the information given to them by their sources.  They employ such techniques as “guilt by association”, “false equivalencies,” and “confirmation bias” and the end result is a “news” story that is more story than news.  What is needed is a refereed system in which news stories are double-checked for accuracy by peers.  This was normally the job of news desk editors and editorial staff.  That is pretty much why they existed, the very concept of “edit.”  Editors made sure that reporting adhered to legal standards (so the newspaper or other medium would not be sued) and to generally-accepted journalistic standards so that the public would consider them a credible source of information.

No newspaper was, or is, perfect however.  Mistakes always have been made and always will be made.  The relaxation of those standards, particularly in war time (where “the first casualty is truth”) and in the aftermath of 9/11 arose because it was much safer – legally and politically if not ethically or morally – to reprint the government’s version of the truth.  After all, one would have to sue the entire US Government if one didn’t like what a newspaper printed if all it printed were USG press releases.  And if one did not take the government’s word on events then one was in danger of being labeled unpatriotic, or worse.

We are told constantly that the United States is at war.  That is an excuse (not a reason) to employ censorship and media manipulation, and with no end to this war in sight we can assume that this state of affairs will continue (at best) or become even more draconian (at worst). The methods that alternative media is using now in promulgating all sorts of unsourced, uncorroborated rumors as fact will be the methods that will be used against more and more Americans by official agencies.  It is almost impossible to prove that one is not a pedophile, for instance.  Any one of us can be identified as a “suspected” pedophile, and it will be a label that sticks forever and which will imbue even the most innocent of our actions with a sinister halo.  It used to be that any one of us could be identified as a “suspected” Communist – a la the McCarthy Era – and in fact J. Robert Oppenheimer, the father of the atomic bomb, lost his security clearance after the war because he was “suspected” of being a Communist.  Soon it will become the new normal that any one of us can be identified as a “suspected” terrorist.  When I had the dubious distinction of winding up on the “selective screening” list at the airport I had no recourse, no way of finding out why I was on the list or how to get off of the list.  I could not even determine which of the many agencies under the Department of Homeland Security had deemed me a risk.  It truly was Kafkaesque; I had stumbled into a road show of The Trial.

This is the kind of world we inherit if we – those of us who research, write and publish on topics that the regular media do not cover – use sloppy and irresponsible methods and rush into publication with rumors and gossip and masquerade as journalists.

Alternative media has the responsibility of speaking truth to power.  It can’t do that if it doesn’t value and cherish the truth in the first place.  What is the point of speaking lies to power? Doesn’t power already corner the market on lies?  By spreading disinformation, alternative media does the work of the power structures for them. There is no bravery, no glory in promoting false or flawed news stories just because the target is your enemy.  The Soviet Union did that for decades.  It was called disinformatsiya which is where we get our term disinformation.  It was an intelligence term of art during the Cold War, and now it has become tactic of choice in our media, both mainstream and alternative.

That has to change, and if it won’t start with the mainstream media it has to start with us.