…and the American (and other) idiots who admire him:
Che’s comrades and associates were equally ruthless. Venezuelan-born Ilich Ramírez Sánchez, also known as Carlos the Jackal, was trained in one of Che’s guerrilla camps outside Havana. He emerged from his studies a monster and became the most wanted terrorist on earth. “Bin Laden has followed a trail I myself blazed,” he said following Al Qaeda’s assault on New York and Washington. “I followed news of the September 11 attacks on the United States nonstop from the beginning. I can’t describe that wonderful feeling of relief.”
He is serving a life sentence in the French penal system for murder.
And yet anti-establishment young people all over the world have Che’s face on their walls and their T-shirts. Most of them don’t know anything real about the man they admire. They have no idea he was one of the most violently illiberal establishment figures in the Western Hemisphere’s history. They admire the image, which is and always has been a fraud.
Fontova quotes a Cuban exile who goes by the moniker Charlie Bravo who says Che’s fans in the West need a kick in the ass by reality. “I’d loved to have seen those Sorbonne and Berkeley and Berlin student protesters with their ‘groovy’ Che posters try their ‘anti-authority’ grandstanding in Cuba at the time. I’d love to have seen Che and his goons get their hands on them. They’d have gotten a quick lesson about the ‘fascism’ they were constantly complaining about—and firsthand. They would have quickly found themselves sweating and gasping from forced labor in Castros and Che’s concentration camps, or jabbed in the butt by ‘groovy’ bayonets when they dared slow down and perhaps getting their teeth shattered by a ‘groovy’ machine-gun butt if they adopted the same attitude in front of Che’s militia as they adopted in front of those campus cops.”
Of course, that’s not the only subject on which they need a kick in the ass by reality.
Read the whole thing, and be sure to hit Michael’s tip jar.
There are very few countries where it is “Safe” to protest the actions or policies of the
Political class.
Chile under Pinochet was killing and torturing people.
Spain under Franco was torturing and imprisoning people for political crimes.
China and Russia have always had bad “Free Speech” environments.
The police beat defenseless protesters in Bangladesh http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=093_1368152573
And here in America, they turn the IRS on critics of Obama. They don’t kill anyone, they just make people’s life a living hell.
Whenever I see a moron wearing a Che shirt, I can only assume that either:
a. He’s a idiot who didn’t know what a murderous thug Che was, or
b. He approves of murderous thugs and would do the same to others if possible.
In the USA, Democrat protesters don’t have to get permits or follow any laws because free speech but any time someone wants to protest against Democrats they have to get permits and follow all the laws regarding private property and hygiene.
We have seen the unequal application of the law regarding political groups so when Obama announces new rules for IRS targeting, we know Democrats will continue getting preferential treatment while everyone else gets the shaft.
This type of corruption has no place in a Democratic society. I await the day Democrats allow everyone to enjoy freedom of free speech and not just themselves.
DN-guy…
And your point is… what? That Che and his ilk aren’t all that bad because all regimes brutally crush dissent? That it’s cool for him to be an iconic figue because, you know, you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelette, or something like that?
I don’t hold Che Guevera up as a noble figure, but, I also recognize that it’s a pretty
nasty world out there and power in most parts of the world is held at the point of a gun.
The Point of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was to create
a structure for regular change of power, and to allow individuals fundamental protection
from the “State” for expression and speech.
If I admire people it’s the non-violent leaders, Gandhi, King, Randolph, Kyi, Dalai Lama, etc.
That is a good response as long as you recognize that your party idolizes mass murderers. Not just people on the fringe but people who hold the highest powers in the party. Socialists are an accepted and powerful faction of the Democrat party. The socialist iconography has been present from the beginning of Obama’s first campaign and even Obama’s own presidential portrait mimics Che shirts and those dear leader pictures plastered on every billboard and open wall space.
Also, while you may like the peacful leaders, you should recognize that Democrats habitually use violence and physical intimidation for political reasons. Remember when the FRC was shot up? Another great example is the first Tea Party protests on Obamacare. They were all peaceful, with Tea Party people following all the rules and regulations. Then Obama ordered the unions into the streets to counter protest and people were getting fingers bitten off and old ladies were getting shoved down stairs. Could go one and one with examples of pro abortion Democrats fire bombing pro life protesters, unions burning down homes, and environmentalists killing people, damaging property, and engaging in piracy.
“I don’t hold Che Guevera up as a noble figure, but, I also recognize that it’s a pretty
nasty world out there . . . ” Was the sound of a weasel distracting anyone else from reading this part of Mensa Kid’s post?
So dn-guy is a pacifist? I guess he must be some kind of Kropotkinite who advocates only voluntary socialism and would NEVER advocate collectivism at the point of the State’s gun.
Not to put words into Ghandi’s mouth, but he would just as soon have stood up to those holding power “at the point of a gun” and killed Che Guevara (not Guevera) and his ilk than have cowered before them or run away in fear, and he would have rather others done the same, as well.
In fact, I’m not sure that it’s even appropriate to put Dr. King, Mahatma Ghandi, and the Dalai Lama in the same category as each other, let alone label them all “non-violent leaders”. Dr. King was protesting against segregation of blacks within a free society by advocating for equality for all people. Mahatma Ghandi was leading the people of British India against the colonial oppression of Britain and then attempting to sow peace between the Hindus and Muslims after the creation and division of India and Pakistan. And the Dalai Lama is a figurehead title in Tibetan Buddhism who, until recently, was also the political leader of Tibet.
Were they all leaders of one sort or another? Yes, but on vastly different scales. Were they all non-violent? See above, re: Ghandi. Are they all individual people? Not unless you specify which particular Dalai Lama you are referring to.
Chairman Mao shirts are also popular, as are ones with Castro and Lenin. Progressives don’t wear Hitler shirts because Hitler violated his pact with Stalin.
Progressives might wear an ironic murderous dictator shirt without realizing that their Che shirt lacks the irony.
dn-guy is already ordering his! Not that he advocates murderous dictatorship–but, hey, it’s a pretty nasty world out there. Sometimes murderous dictatorship is the only alternative!