7.9 C
Friday, March 31, 2023

Sturzenegger and the model to impose

Must read

- Advertisement -
Comes from Tapa

biemita and adds: “For some, it is essential to close the crack: to move forward with the reforms, basic consensus is needed and avoid blockades.”

- Advertisement -

The only truth
it’s reality

The intervention of the ex-president of the BCRA is notable and cynical. Sturzenegger says nothing of anything relevant: Dromi’s advice was followed to the letter, starting a real hunt with the Indalo Group with one caveat: instead of an expropriation, what the Cambiemos government sought was first the disempowerment of the companies of Grupo Indalo -including C5N-, to later keep it and give it to a friend or acquaintance.

It was, if you think about it, a methodology similar to that used with Oil Combustibles. Through YPF, the former Macrista judicial operator and fugitive Fabián Pepín Rodríguez Simón used the state oil company to keep the assets of Oil Combustibles and later, using the state structure, to do business with friends. If you think about it, “Pepín” was the executor of that decalogue of Dromi evoked by Sturzenegger. For the same reason, Pepín Rodríguez Simón is, today, a fugitive from justice.

- Advertisement -

But what is surprising about Sturzenegger is his strong forgetfulness, almost intentional forgetfulness.

In an act that could surprise the most perverse and criminal of political referents, the economist takes his heightened cynicism even further when he states in the article: “That is why when I hear that this is going to be resolved by “closing the crack”, I remember that dinner with Dromi. Today, her recipe does not seem so crazy or far-fetched to me. Sometimes I think that it is the only possible path”.

The truth and the attempt to hide it

Although the persecution of Grupo Indalo covered numerous task forces from different departments of the Macrista State, as far as Sturzeneger himself is concerned, and sticking only to the mention he made in his article published in Perfil, perhaps it is worth mentioning some points that he seems -conveniently- to forget: as president of the BCRA, back in 2016, Sturzenegger was part of the maneuver that sought to affect -and did- financially affect the companies of the Indalo Group, in this case, in particular, bankrupt the Banco Finansur, whose controlling shareholder was the same Grupo Indalo. It was Sturzenegger at the head of the BCRA who executed and implemented various decisions that affected the normal functioning of the entity. After the attacks of macrista journalism for Banco Finansur, the erosion of its image and public trust and the strategy of increasing the distrust of the main companies that had accounts and investments in the entity, between 2016 and 2017, the BCRA defined the co-administration, to then promote the intervention of the bank.

In November 2017, it was Sturzenegger who, taking a further step in the persecution of Grupo Indalo, suspended the operations of Banco Finansur “due to non-compliance with the deadlines in the recapitalization plan agreed with the entity.” According to the BCRA, the decision adopted at that time by the entity it led was framed “in the need to defend the rights of its depositors.”

In March 2018, Banco Finansur was intervened by the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic, which began the special liquidation process. Curiously, at the end of March 2018, two weeks after Finansur’s inhibition was lifted to allow another bank to absorb its deposits and employees, the head judge of the National Commercial Court requested the bankruptcy of the entity. According to the publications of that time, this measure “was suggested by the Central Bank” led by Sturzenegger, who had approved a purchase offer from Banco Galicia, after obtaining the agreement of the legal observers of the businessman’s group, and whose shareholders were illegally detained in Ezeiza. It goes without saying that this financial institution was the one used for the employees of Grupo Indalo to collect their salaries.

The attack on C5N

But in his article, Sturzenegger returns to the C5N issue, the supposed idea of ​​expropriation. Should we notify you that in the persecution of the Indalo Group, all attempts were made to destroy the channel? Should we tell him that instead of expropriating it, an attempt was made to seize the company and then hand it over to a group of friendly businessmen or macrista front men? Does Sturzenegger have any idea that Cambiemos did not achieve its goal, not because they have not tried, but because there was a human group convinced of their task, their role, their commitment to the people, their courage in the face of the lowest actions carried out by the state in their set? What responsibility could then lie with the Executive Power, the sectors of the Judicial Power and the complicit silence of the Legislative Power, both government representatives and those who represented the Front for Victory?

corner the
Indalo Group

A simple enumeration of what were the initial attacks to suffocate C5N during 2016 and 2017 is enough to realize Sturzenegger’s cynicism. In order to achieve the expropriation of C5N, this channel was the only one that was denied the right to exchange advertising guidelines that were available and valid for the rest of the grid. The same with the practically null national advertising schedule that the channel received in that period despite the audience levels that grew substantially. Of course, during this time, the shareholders of the Indalo Group remained illegally detained and to this was added the irregular decisions made by the commercial court that heard the cases.

the dangerous vocation
for the lie

During these weeks, the voices of those who appeal to our forgetfulness begin to be heard. They present themselves as promoters of new ideas, although they are the same ones who left power in 2019 with a country with high levels of poverty, deindustrialization and indebtedness. The offending thing is that in cases like the one mentioned above, impunity is also appealed to, the risky task of trying to legitimize a criminal action in the effort to achieve the supposed necessary consensus to put aside the “crack”. Isn’t that more dangerous than anything else? What kind of totalitarian, fascist, low-intensity democratic proposal can be camouflaged under the supposed idea of ​​rejecting the crack? What is a group of political leaders capable of to impose their way of thinking over the voices that diverge from them? How do you go about silencing a media group? How do you silence a person who has a different opinion? A past to which we do not want to return.

Source: Ambito

- Advertisement -

More articles


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -

Latest article