John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
You very bad lama!
Che=Rabid, Sociopathic Killer
- Thread starter John Uskglass
- Start date
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
Leadership Cults
Leadership Cults
The 'Che' image or icon has been 'used and abused' by the full spectrum of marketeers. Whatever commercial or political ... pirates, we care to dignify with our respectful attention.
The 'populist' side of the --- American War For Independence ---
was sanitized by the MYTH MAKERS, the writers of histories.
So, we 'study' the 'forefathers', as if biblical patriarchs, the leadership icons, of the, American War For Independence, a polite, politically correct, middle class coup, and not a pure and noble, flag waving, blood gushing down the streets, """"""REVOLUTION""""""""".
Oh, 'reds' like Thomas Jefferson are de-fanged by the DNA detectives as just another honkey pleasuring his lust in the 'slave quarters'.
The 'populist' uprising in New England is credited, solely to the likes of Sam Adams and Paul Revere (especially Paul, for we always blame the messenger).
As if the self supporting farmers and merchants of New England didn't have a clue that the militias they formed to keep the RED Indians away might be an answer to RED Coats throwing out their elected officials and enforcing a Crown appointed government.
No, it's the leaders that 'do it all ', as if they weren't just lucky to be riding the horse in the direction it was going.
So we ""pop"" this balloon of 'the cult' of Che' and the communist boogey man vaporizes, and ends up in the 'rag bag' of history..... or donated to a faith based homeless shelter.
If YOU are willing to cast aside the marketing of CHE, will YOU be able to
cast aside other propaganda, other MYTHS?
Or will you pick apart my meager example of histories retold, repackaged, regurgitated for the wolf pups of the moment?
Liars or propagandists, from what world view do you base your moral judgments?
How do lies support a greater truth?
If YOU WIN!
One can lie, even needlessly, and even futilely and still receive the licks of ones running dogs, ...., this media farce about the free press and leaks of CIA employees is a real beauty of spin, ... in motion.
Will I be seeing --- Karl Rove --- T-shirts on the trendy, pierced, beer bellies of the Republican Revolutionaries in these daze of HISTORIES?
See you at the MALL!
4too
Leadership Cults
The 'Che' image or icon has been 'used and abused' by the full spectrum of marketeers. Whatever commercial or political ... pirates, we care to dignify with our respectful attention.
The 'populist' side of the --- American War For Independence ---
was sanitized by the MYTH MAKERS, the writers of histories.
So, we 'study' the 'forefathers', as if biblical patriarchs, the leadership icons, of the, American War For Independence, a polite, politically correct, middle class coup, and not a pure and noble, flag waving, blood gushing down the streets, """"""REVOLUTION""""""""".
Oh, 'reds' like Thomas Jefferson are de-fanged by the DNA detectives as just another honkey pleasuring his lust in the 'slave quarters'.
The 'populist' uprising in New England is credited, solely to the likes of Sam Adams and Paul Revere (especially Paul, for we always blame the messenger).
As if the self supporting farmers and merchants of New England didn't have a clue that the militias they formed to keep the RED Indians away might be an answer to RED Coats throwing out their elected officials and enforcing a Crown appointed government.
No, it's the leaders that 'do it all ', as if they weren't just lucky to be riding the horse in the direction it was going.
So we ""pop"" this balloon of 'the cult' of Che' and the communist boogey man vaporizes, and ends up in the 'rag bag' of history..... or donated to a faith based homeless shelter.
If YOU are willing to cast aside the marketing of CHE, will YOU be able to
cast aside other propaganda, other MYTHS?
Or will you pick apart my meager example of histories retold, repackaged, regurgitated for the wolf pups of the moment?
Liars or propagandists, from what world view do you base your moral judgments?
How do lies support a greater truth?
If YOU WIN!
One can lie, even needlessly, and even futilely and still receive the licks of ones running dogs, ...., this media farce about the free press and leaks of CIA employees is a real beauty of spin, ... in motion.
Will I be seeing --- Karl Rove --- T-shirts on the trendy, pierced, beer bellies of the Republican Revolutionaries in these daze of HISTORIES?
See you at the MALL!
4too
Who cares?
Hasta siempre, Comandante! *waves ché-flag*
I want some of what 4too has. Seriously, I can understand him...to a point. The rest is lost in the waxing poetic tone he takes.
Shit, I'd wear Che T-Shirts just to piss people like John Uskglass off...
welsh
Junkmaster
John- now you are an apologist for Batista? That's fucking hypocracy.
I agree with Bradylama in the sense that I think this whole idol worship shit goes to far.
Do we do it in the US, in Europe- oh shit yeah.
When was the last time you had a Sam Adams beer? I got to the University that Jefferson built and we glorify him. Others in my state glorify Lee and Jackson although those two were both religious whackos who felt religious justified in fighting a war to perpetuate human slavery. We remember the Alamo- but neglect to mention that the Texans were fighting to keep slaves.
In Europe there are people who thought highly of Napolean although he unleashed a war that killed how many hundreds of thousands of people. There are Italians who think fondly of Mussolini.
There are quite a few Russians who miss the good old days under the Communist Party. That might be true in China as well if Mao hadn't gone nuts in the last few years and people weren't making so much fucking money. In Vietnam they uphold Ho, in parts of the middle east they think highly of the Ayatollah Komeini, and if you look close enough to some communities of muslims who live in some shitt parts of the middle east or in Europe, and maybe in America, you may find a few who think of Osama as hero.
4too is right, you can construct a myth of a man, and that myth becomes its own form of slavery. Instead you can know the man and appreciate what he did and what he stood for.
And we constantly revise history, we tell as story of today as we want to believe it, we tell a story of the past to make sense of our present and our future. We constantly revise history.
And yeah, that sucks. But history is always political.
How many people tell a story that FDR actually provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a means to get the US into the war. How many people tell the story that the reason the US fought the Cold War was not to protect the world from totalitarianism, but to assert its control and protect its ability to access foreign markets and to extract as much as possible from the recently independent colonies.
(and before you go off screaming "no we fought the bad guys" one had better take a look at the poor corners of the world and at least recognize that their poverty feeds your zealous consumerism.)
So don't get me wrong- Che was a prick.
But it's not about what Che was. It's about what he represents.
And while John might look back at the fall of communism as the end of the most evil tyranny ever- perhaps he shouldn't forget that for a long time that ideology was damn popular to a lot of folks all over the world.
Why-
Because they lived in countries where there was no rule of law, or where there was it was ruled by an exclusive elite that was protected in its predatory extraction of society.
- Because they believed that people had a right to a better life, and the one country that might have supported the notions of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was supporting those dictators that were constantly fucking them.
- Because the corporatist military strong men who ran dominant party state (if there was a party) were a hell of a lot more like facism than we like to remember.
And you know, a lot of those folks so the rise of the US as a hope that they might have the same type of American dreams that we do. That they might have a champion for individual life, liberty and happiness. But we screwed them when we decided to allow military despots to stay in power.
Shall I run a list of those fuckers? Yeah, Che tries to start a revolution in Congo- but against Mobutu- a man who virtually destroyed his country while he was building mansions in Europe. How many people did Mobutu kill. How much blood is on the pavement in Latin America. How many people screamed as they were being tortured in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Guatemala....
You want less revolutionaries? Fuck. Maybe we should have had more.
And that was perhaps the great mistake of the US. YOu argue that we supported military strongmen as an alternative to communist dictatorships. But why didn't we support democratic politics in lieu of military authoritarians. How many people might we have saved had we stuck with our virtues and values that you so strongly seem to advocate. Instead you apologize for supporting military tyrants. Man, your morality is up your ass.
John, you know I have a lot of respect for what you think but sometimes you're zealous ideology comes with a lack of empathy. Yeah, communism fails- and the liberal world that we have created is causing more inequality across the world than ever. This is a victory?
Seriously, for once- get off your fucking high horse and go out and see how most of the world lives. It's pretty fucking rotten. And I hope that when you go off and say "but its not our fault" I hope you get slapped around- because it is. 100% your fault- no. But how much blood has to be on your hands before you become guilty.
So yeah, Che was a dick.
But so what- he was also a symbol to a lot of folks who were getting constantly fucked over by the military strongmen we kept in place that individual could rise up and resist. That corrupt dictators (hey- how many interventions in Latin American did the US undertake or how many coups did we support?).
Oh yeah, maybe they are better off now- yeah, maybe not. And if so, well its so good that you can look back at history with 20/20 vision.
Perhaps you might be a little more empathetic with the poor fuckers whose misery you would have been comfortable tolerating.
US policies during the Cold War in most of the world were a fucking disgrace. We should have stuck to our values, instead we sold out for security and profit. That's fucked.
But yeah, Go Reagan (aka Ronbo!)
I agree with Bradylama in the sense that I think this whole idol worship shit goes to far.
Do we do it in the US, in Europe- oh shit yeah.
When was the last time you had a Sam Adams beer? I got to the University that Jefferson built and we glorify him. Others in my state glorify Lee and Jackson although those two were both religious whackos who felt religious justified in fighting a war to perpetuate human slavery. We remember the Alamo- but neglect to mention that the Texans were fighting to keep slaves.
In Europe there are people who thought highly of Napolean although he unleashed a war that killed how many hundreds of thousands of people. There are Italians who think fondly of Mussolini.
There are quite a few Russians who miss the good old days under the Communist Party. That might be true in China as well if Mao hadn't gone nuts in the last few years and people weren't making so much fucking money. In Vietnam they uphold Ho, in parts of the middle east they think highly of the Ayatollah Komeini, and if you look close enough to some communities of muslims who live in some shitt parts of the middle east or in Europe, and maybe in America, you may find a few who think of Osama as hero.
4too is right, you can construct a myth of a man, and that myth becomes its own form of slavery. Instead you can know the man and appreciate what he did and what he stood for.
And we constantly revise history, we tell as story of today as we want to believe it, we tell a story of the past to make sense of our present and our future. We constantly revise history.
And yeah, that sucks. But history is always political.
How many people tell a story that FDR actually provoked the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor as a means to get the US into the war. How many people tell the story that the reason the US fought the Cold War was not to protect the world from totalitarianism, but to assert its control and protect its ability to access foreign markets and to extract as much as possible from the recently independent colonies.
(and before you go off screaming "no we fought the bad guys" one had better take a look at the poor corners of the world and at least recognize that their poverty feeds your zealous consumerism.)
So don't get me wrong- Che was a prick.
But it's not about what Che was. It's about what he represents.
And while John might look back at the fall of communism as the end of the most evil tyranny ever- perhaps he shouldn't forget that for a long time that ideology was damn popular to a lot of folks all over the world.
Why-
Because they lived in countries where there was no rule of law, or where there was it was ruled by an exclusive elite that was protected in its predatory extraction of society.
- Because they believed that people had a right to a better life, and the one country that might have supported the notions of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" was supporting those dictators that were constantly fucking them.
- Because the corporatist military strong men who ran dominant party state (if there was a party) were a hell of a lot more like facism than we like to remember.
And you know, a lot of those folks so the rise of the US as a hope that they might have the same type of American dreams that we do. That they might have a champion for individual life, liberty and happiness. But we screwed them when we decided to allow military despots to stay in power.
Shall I run a list of those fuckers? Yeah, Che tries to start a revolution in Congo- but against Mobutu- a man who virtually destroyed his country while he was building mansions in Europe. How many people did Mobutu kill. How much blood is on the pavement in Latin America. How many people screamed as they were being tortured in Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Guatemala....
You want less revolutionaries? Fuck. Maybe we should have had more.
And that was perhaps the great mistake of the US. YOu argue that we supported military strongmen as an alternative to communist dictatorships. But why didn't we support democratic politics in lieu of military authoritarians. How many people might we have saved had we stuck with our virtues and values that you so strongly seem to advocate. Instead you apologize for supporting military tyrants. Man, your morality is up your ass.
John, you know I have a lot of respect for what you think but sometimes you're zealous ideology comes with a lack of empathy. Yeah, communism fails- and the liberal world that we have created is causing more inequality across the world than ever. This is a victory?
Seriously, for once- get off your fucking high horse and go out and see how most of the world lives. It's pretty fucking rotten. And I hope that when you go off and say "but its not our fault" I hope you get slapped around- because it is. 100% your fault- no. But how much blood has to be on your hands before you become guilty.
So yeah, Che was a dick.
But so what- he was also a symbol to a lot of folks who were getting constantly fucked over by the military strongmen we kept in place that individual could rise up and resist. That corrupt dictators (hey- how many interventions in Latin American did the US undertake or how many coups did we support?).
Oh yeah, maybe they are better off now- yeah, maybe not. And if so, well its so good that you can look back at history with 20/20 vision.
Perhaps you might be a little more empathetic with the poor fuckers whose misery you would have been comfortable tolerating.
US policies during the Cold War in most of the world were a fucking disgrace. We should have stuck to our values, instead we sold out for security and profit. That's fucked.
But yeah, Go Reagan (aka Ronbo!)
Welsh, I agree with you but...maybe it is time to get the stars out of those eyes.
Idealism is great for seeking to bring about change, however, as a directive of politics it is quite dangerous. All ideologues stray from their original intentions, and the support of this or that political revolutionary is merely a cycle of existence that we seem to constantly embrace. Revolutionary thought, stabilization, stasis, entropy, and overthrow. The ideals of any revolutionary in the world are hardly different from one another once you get beyond the thin trappings of supposed doctrine.
America is a microcosm of the world in some ways: the concentration of disparate people from all over into a landmass and bound by the supposed rule of law. We have a pretty whiz-bang Constitution, and something called the Declaration of Independence. I appreciate what AMERICA stood for, and I am damn proud to consider myself partly belonging to that heritage. Does my country stray from those very ideals it seeks to promulgate? Of course we stray, but that does NOT mean that people throughout this country don't seek to change this, and seek to return to our ideals, in whatever form they are interpreted thereby. How alike the world is, seeking to bind itself to international law, and a vague notion of 'human rights', something appallingly MODERN in outlook.
Yes, Che is a symbol, so are many other symbols. All are constructions, because beyond the skin of ideology you find that people are basically similar, highfalutin words aside. They want control, they want security, they want a 'better' life in however they define it. Idealism is great in small doses, but "we can change the world" it isn't, not exactly. It is nothing more than seeking to put mere human desires under new labels. So perhaps, maybe, we should stop seeking out all sorts of divisive "symbols" of idealistic power, and sit down and actually talk to one another as human beings on that dialogue. We all starve, we all bleed, we all think and dream and desire. Finding the golden mean is a start, and for that, you don't need revolution. You need some pretty fucking frank discussion, and see that maybe:
'Hey, these bastards are as miserable as I am. Maybe we can work together and figure out how to get along in this horrid mess called life. Share the good times, share the wealth, and not be such a godamn selfish prick. Maybe I shouldn't be on his/her ass about what he/she believes, so long as he doesn't impress on me. Why the hell should I tell them how to live their life, so long as my own is not subtracted from, or anyone else's?'
What a fucking novel concept. I don't think we need Che and Adams and Mao and all the other supposed paragons of humanity to put such words to action. Maybe it is time to stop looking for role models, and start looking at our own actions.
Idealism is great for seeking to bring about change, however, as a directive of politics it is quite dangerous. All ideologues stray from their original intentions, and the support of this or that political revolutionary is merely a cycle of existence that we seem to constantly embrace. Revolutionary thought, stabilization, stasis, entropy, and overthrow. The ideals of any revolutionary in the world are hardly different from one another once you get beyond the thin trappings of supposed doctrine.
America is a microcosm of the world in some ways: the concentration of disparate people from all over into a landmass and bound by the supposed rule of law. We have a pretty whiz-bang Constitution, and something called the Declaration of Independence. I appreciate what AMERICA stood for, and I am damn proud to consider myself partly belonging to that heritage. Does my country stray from those very ideals it seeks to promulgate? Of course we stray, but that does NOT mean that people throughout this country don't seek to change this, and seek to return to our ideals, in whatever form they are interpreted thereby. How alike the world is, seeking to bind itself to international law, and a vague notion of 'human rights', something appallingly MODERN in outlook.
Yes, Che is a symbol, so are many other symbols. All are constructions, because beyond the skin of ideology you find that people are basically similar, highfalutin words aside. They want control, they want security, they want a 'better' life in however they define it. Idealism is great in small doses, but "we can change the world" it isn't, not exactly. It is nothing more than seeking to put mere human desires under new labels. So perhaps, maybe, we should stop seeking out all sorts of divisive "symbols" of idealistic power, and sit down and actually talk to one another as human beings on that dialogue. We all starve, we all bleed, we all think and dream and desire. Finding the golden mean is a start, and for that, you don't need revolution. You need some pretty fucking frank discussion, and see that maybe:
'Hey, these bastards are as miserable as I am. Maybe we can work together and figure out how to get along in this horrid mess called life. Share the good times, share the wealth, and not be such a godamn selfish prick. Maybe I shouldn't be on his/her ass about what he/she believes, so long as he doesn't impress on me. Why the hell should I tell them how to live their life, so long as my own is not subtracted from, or anyone else's?'
What a fucking novel concept. I don't think we need Che and Adams and Mao and all the other supposed paragons of humanity to put such words to action. Maybe it is time to stop looking for role models, and start looking at our own actions.
Fireblade....
1. america was built on war, from the first prez to the current, america has always been involved into some conflict and there have always been complications..
2. 'Hey, these bastards are as miserable as I am. Maybe we can work together...' after the cold war, Gorbachev I believe said something about living under mutual friendship setting aside differences. forgot the word.
1. america was built on war, from the first prez to the current, america has always been involved into some conflict and there have always been complications..
2. 'Hey, these bastards are as miserable as I am. Maybe we can work together...' after the cold war, Gorbachev I believe said something about living under mutual friendship setting aside differences. forgot the word.
welsh
Junkmaster
Fireblade said:
Honestly Fireblade, I don't have much sympathy for idealists who fail to consider the real implications of what they say. Often idealists fail to consider the negative implications of what their ideals will lead to, or can blindly dismiss those consequences as justified for a greater good. This is what makes idealogues dangerous- the blindness to their own ideals and the willlingness to spread those ideals and perpetuate them at the expense of others.
Are all revolutionary ideals the same. I think if you look beyond the high ideals of the US revolutionary war you will find loyalists fleeing to Canada because of the terror against them by victorious revolutionaries. If you look beyond the ideal of uniting the nation and freeing slaves you might find some of the alleged abuses of the Union against the South in the US Civil War.
Are today's terrorists that different from yesterdays revoluntionaries? I am not sure. That said, I believe that terrorism is more about means than cause. A person who terrorizes based on an ideal of middle east autonomy...
One can approve the cause but not the method, love the sinner but not the sin.
Terrorism by nature is random, it strikes the innocent. It kills the child to terrorize the adult (as in Russia or todays bombing in Iraq). Terrorism hurts the helpless to get attention. No matter the nobility of the cause, the methods are wrong. The terrorist choses the bullet and the bomb because to give up those weapons they become ordinary politicians and must struggle with the mundane problems that politicians face- issues of unemployment, economics, public health, education. But by picking up the bomb and the bullet they to transcend those conversations to get to their ideals by drawing attention to themselves.
Terrorists are attention whores. Pricks.
So yeah, Che was a dick. Give him credit for helping Castro run a successful revolution against another prick Batista (who was in power merely because the US allowed it) but his idea- that a small group of dedicated revolutionaries can create the vanguard of a revolution against tyrants- advocates the spread of revolution. He was unrealistic in this- revolutions are more complicated matters than Che considered.
But were those revolutions warranted? Look at the lives of those people he urged to revolt. Poverty, repression, military authoritarians in corporatist states. Looks damn facist to me.
(and incidently, many of the successful resistance in Europe against the Germans were communist organizations- France, Italy, Yugoslavia).
But back to ideals-
What are you if not representative of the ideals and morals that you abide by? What kind of character do you have if you don't live by your ideals? How will others view you if you advocate high ideals but sink to selfish interests, speak in terms of humanity but cover your hands in blood? How do you value the good or the bad if you don't uphold those ideals you are supposedly so proud of.
If we are to get to that conversation about what's better or what's best, one needs to uphold those values, those ideals. They are what defines us. If you breach that, you have only yourself to blame if your name is in disrepute.
We could have done much better during the Cold War, if we had stuck to our values. Instead we preferred to be secure than to support freedom, we preferred out strategic interests over our ideals. I agree that the US made a better world than we found after World War 2. But we didn't make as good a world as we could have. Maybe because we got lazy, or turned out back, or looked to do it cheap. I don't know. So yeah, Americans can be proud of their accomplishments, but they should also be mindful of their failures. Perhaps it is those failure that is coming back to haunt us.
You're right Fireblade. Some Americans want to uphold the values that we believe make the US great. Yet how easy for those values to be twisted or forgotten. Did we stage of coup in Guatemala because of the principles of freedom and democracy, or because United Fruit wanted to protect its assets. Did we depose Allende because he was a commie or because he threatened US mineral companies. Did we stage a coup in Iran against Mohammed Mossadeq because of our oil interests and strategic concerns?
If you press most Americans on these issues the answer is often a knee-jerk nationalism. The US did right because we are the good guys. OK, and I agree the US has done a lot more good than others have or would have. But that's not the question-
Rather it's - did we do enough? Did we forsake the ideal which are supposed to represent us as a country.
The world is full of leaders and followers. Without those leaders, often those ideologues, perhaps most people would not have anything to endeavor for, their expectations would not be raised.
But the problem is that we begin to mythologize the heroes of the past and present. People become symbols because of how the masses of society think. They become rallying points, points of reference for inspiration or guidance. Perhaps because most people are so busy living their lives they need those symbols.
And as for your dialogue- the history of the world is about the struggle between people to take what others have. It happens at national levels (because the history of the state is a consequence of the willingness of localize tyrants -kings- to expand their terrotorty against their neighbors). We see it clothed in religion- (the KKK dresses in the clothes of good protestant christians just as the witch trials in Salem were more about a land grab between competing families). We see it in discrimination- keep them negros in the back of the bus, don't let them go to school, don't let them live in my neighborhood because they might threatened my wholesome white american livelihood. Affirmative action- is it blacks taking from whites who deserve their gains, or is it about making the ground level for blacks and whites?
States, law, politics, institutions, policies- are a consequence of social groups fighting over their share of distribution of material and then trying to hold on to what they got. It is the history of man.
So perhaps your wish for a fair ideologue is, what's the word, idealistic?
See what I mean- your ideals define you. When you shy away from them, you may be more realistic in dealing with your world but you also tarnish something that was decent and good. That was the mistake of the US during the Cold War.
Bradylama
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
The ultimate problem with symbolism is the fallibility of the symbol. When one investigates the story behind the figurehead, they'll more often than not find things which reduces the symbol from larger-than-life status. That's because symbols were often real, and in the case of men, still men, despite their ideals.
Revisionist history digs at the truth without investigating it's context. My friend's Government teacher goes on about how the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racists and sexists, which is something to be understandably mad about.
But all of this fails to put anything in their proper context. When people discover that the people they believed in were less than ideal, it leads to disenfranchisement. If the man behind the words was less than great, does that invalidate his message?
No, it doesn't, and people need to realize that. So what if Jefferson owned slaves and commited infidelity with one? That doesn't make his words or his ideals any less significant, because all men are products of their times, and all men are human.
We're educated to recite capitals and states, the names of the Presidents, and for what? Memorization? We're never taught true history when we're most impressionable. We receive abridged versions. "Dumbed down" and made palatable, so when the realities of history become known, it becomes more than most can handle. Disenfranchisement and apathy.
No effort is made to learn the message. No effort is made to investigate the trends. We're spoon-fed cold, hard facts, as if we'll learn something. All we learn are facts, but we don't learn a lesson.
Revisionist history digs at the truth without investigating it's context. My friend's Government teacher goes on about how the Founding Fathers were a bunch of racists and sexists, which is something to be understandably mad about.
But all of this fails to put anything in their proper context. When people discover that the people they believed in were less than ideal, it leads to disenfranchisement. If the man behind the words was less than great, does that invalidate his message?
No, it doesn't, and people need to realize that. So what if Jefferson owned slaves and commited infidelity with one? That doesn't make his words or his ideals any less significant, because all men are products of their times, and all men are human.
We're educated to recite capitals and states, the names of the Presidents, and for what? Memorization? We're never taught true history when we're most impressionable. We receive abridged versions. "Dumbed down" and made palatable, so when the realities of history become known, it becomes more than most can handle. Disenfranchisement and apathy.
No effort is made to learn the message. No effort is made to investigate the trends. We're spoon-fed cold, hard facts, as if we'll learn something. All we learn are facts, but we don't learn a lesson.
Don't Be A Hater --- Be A Liberator!!!
Don't Be A Hater --- Be A Liberator!!!
Free your mind.
""Relax and float down-steam"", in true, Lennon-ist, ""give peace a chance"" jingoism!
Relax and embrace the vision of the origin of ""The Karl Rove" T-shirt ...
So what's good for the editorial content of "Time" magazine 1960, can be exploited as a conceptual template, by 4too, as a means to an end, a tasteless but not odorless CONNECTING OF THE DOTS.
In this cinematic remake:
---- The ""'Republican Revolution's"" division of labor would feature Karl Rove as the "brain" and George W. Bush as the "heart" and John Cheney as the "fist" ......
Marketeer 1: Got to get those 'Rove' belly shirts out before low riders are out of style!!!
Marketeer 2: No rush, we can sell'em as 'child' sizes if we miss the window (of opportunity).
Marketeer 3: Would ""a finger"" of 'Spirit le Cheney"" be administered orally or as a suppository?
John Uskglass as the honored and esteemed "thread bearer" shall be awarded 15 minutes of FAME! As a more tangible reward we seek an appropriate
ANTI- icon of the moment. One that would be in lock step with the percussion of the Forum ...
Until we find the REAL product on the virtual shelves, or a suitable Chinese manufacturer and a Walmart distributing contract ...
This:
PLUS
This:
Will have to be the only 'De-us Ex' placebo for relieving one's radical chic (or radical Che') affliction.
Roll your own Che Guevara BOP BAG (TM) ......
4too
Don't Be A Hater --- Be A Liberator!!!
Free your mind.
""Relax and float down-steam"", in true, Lennon-ist, ""give peace a chance"" jingoism!
Relax and embrace the vision of the origin of ""The Karl Rove" T-shirt ...
So what's good for the editorial content of "Time" magazine 1960, can be exploited as a conceptual template, by 4too, as a means to an end, a tasteless but not odorless CONNECTING OF THE DOTS.
In this cinematic remake:
---- The ""'Republican Revolution's"" division of labor would feature Karl Rove as the "brain" and George W. Bush as the "heart" and John Cheney as the "fist" ......
Marketeer 1: Got to get those 'Rove' belly shirts out before low riders are out of style!!!
Marketeer 2: No rush, we can sell'em as 'child' sizes if we miss the window (of opportunity).
Marketeer 3: Would ""a finger"" of 'Spirit le Cheney"" be administered orally or as a suppository?
John Uskglass as the honored and esteemed "thread bearer" shall be awarded 15 minutes of FAME! As a more tangible reward we seek an appropriate
ANTI- icon of the moment. One that would be in lock step with the percussion of the Forum ...
Until we find the REAL product on the virtual shelves, or a suitable Chinese manufacturer and a Walmart distributing contract ...
This:
PLUS
This:
Will have to be the only 'De-us Ex' placebo for relieving one's radical chic (or radical Che') affliction.
Roll your own Che Guevara BOP BAG (TM) ......
4too
John Uskglass
Venerable Relic of the Wastes
No fucking way. Batista was a terrible ruler who was terrible to Cuba, but in no crucial way can his administration be compared unfavorably to Castro, who has run Cuba into the ground.
Never. Only beers I've ever had are imports, and even then generally not when they are imports.
Jackson was neither a slaveowner nor a 'religious whacko', and spent a lot of time fighting for Afro-American literacy.. Lee does not seem to have supported the institution either: look at Custis' slaves.
Jesus welsh, I fucking hate the Confederacy, but I know that much.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/Williams/williams1.html
True, but the French are the only ones who think highly of Napoleon, and they are almost all insane. And the only people who like Mussolini are above the age of 50 or the Prime Minister.
Most people who support the CP in Russia are just anti-Putin. And it's natural to want to return to something that saw one's nation a massive paper tiger rather then just paper.
People hate Mao because he was the biggest sociopath in the history of the 20th Century and also it's worst leader. There can be no apologies made for him.
No diffirent from the portraits of Mao in Beijing. South Vietnam is coming back and coming back hard, China-style, with no love of Chi Minh.
Generally people not effected by the regiem or lack any kind of education.
And they happen to be evil people who kill their sisters for fucking out of wedlock and plan terrorist attacks. What is your point welsh?
You forgot to add:
and these people happen to be idiots.
Uh....no. If anything, the poverty of people in Africa harms America and the global economy as people living on a dollar a day tend not to buy American products.
So he represents a beautiful, romantic idealist who faught for an ideology who's only speciality was autogenocide? That's no fucking better.
Sorry, either way, he's total shit and does not deserve to be considerd higher then Mao, Pol Pot or Hitler.
These people happened to yearn for the mass slaughter of the upper class so as to enter some kind of Millenialist paridise. I feel about as much empathy for them as I do for hardcore Nazis or Hutu nationalists.
Read The Black Book of Communism welsh. It's a fantastic book.
Welsh, you should know better. These fascist regiems do not just pop up by themselves. There is a reason the 19th Century saw nations like Argentina blossom into first world nations: no threat of communism. The threat of Communism was a massive, galvinizing threat that did no good for anyone in the entire world, and I have little pity for anyone injured under a Red Flag.
I want less people killing people and more democratic progress. I want a world devoid of poverty with universal respect within rational bounds for the culture and religion of their fellow man, where any man, woman or child can trade their nation's goods for another nation's and bring wealth to all.
Communism never did anything positive for anyone, and never established any of the above over a period longer then two months.
Frankly, it's the most disasterous ideology ever, and I don't understand how anyone could have sympathy for it beyond some kind of far flung dream similar to the Christian Millenium.
I hate Authoritarians, all of them, but there are shades of gray. Pinochet was not Mao, Batista was not Castro. Capitalist Authoritarians are better then the alternative, leftist authoritarian governments that never accomplish anything positive.
I was'nt anything more then some stains on my dad's sheets when most of this went down, and I'm largely for aid and helping the poor, just not bullshit socialism.
I largely agree with you, but unlike you I recognize where these people where coming from, as every rational, God-fearing and compassionate person had every right and reason to loathe and fear communism.
http://www.che-mart.com/
*sigh* I'm really beginning to find this blind and obtuse hatred for communism of yours tiring. It was communists who saved the entire world from Nazi Germany and her allies. It was communists who instituted free healthcare, social security and education for everyone. It was communists who rejected segregation by race and nation, a practice embraced by republics and monarchies throughout the world. The autogenocidal practices you speak of, though commonplace under certain communist regimes, aren't inherent to communism as a political system. In my country, for example, communist partizans were liberators - a barefoot army of peasants who took up arms and, under the banner of the Communist Party, with no regard to their own safety and solely noble goals of liberty and equality on mind, defeated the nazifascist aggressors and their quisling allies. Three of my grandmother's brothers died in that noble struggle, viciously murdered by brutes in service of a racist and imperialist regime, and both of my grandfathers were injured. To portray communism as an infernal menace and straight-facedly state that you "have little pity for anyone injured under a Red Flag" is not only incredibly moronic, it is also a blatant display of disrespect for thousands of common people who bled and died so that your opinionated middle-class American ass could sit in front of a computer and spout bullheaded nonsense.
I have no idea what you are talking about right there. If you dislike my argument, be a LITTLE bit more in depth about exactly why you disagree, rather than hurrahing for one side or the other.
Communists were oppressors in my own family, Ratty. Quisling allies? Go to hell, the Soviets were as brutal to the satellite states as any other group, including the Nazis. This is precisely the point of the argument. My grandfather was drafted into the Hungarian army during World War II, which, incidently, supported the Nazis. However, he did his best to escape said draft, and considers himself (and is) a socialist at heart. Communism only brought woe to our family during the Hungarian uprising of '56 when people such as my family were driven from their homes across godforsaken swamp to escape to America. My grandmother's back was permanently injured by working in the coal mines of Tatabanya for the Soviets. I have suspicions others in my family suffered, but my grandparents and uncle don't really talk about it.
Communists and socialists are NOT the same thing, Ratty. A lot of people push for equal rights, equality, fairness, justice, and freedom. They attribute all sorts of labels to themselves, but none of the ideals are *new". Nor does calling yourself a Red or a supporter of Socialist International suddenly make you a "liberator". Any more than making the world safe for democracy suddenly makes you incapable of wrong. Hence, the discussion between CCR, myself, and Welsh.
Welsh: I can't really argue with you, as I said I agreed earlier. yes, I am an idealist, because despite it's flaws idealism is all that really holds society together, in some ways. We believe that law can be crafted to support justice, that people can be equal politically, that pluck and determination can have someone succeed. Whether we succeed or fail in that regard does not mean we should abandon the ideal altogether.
I look to those idealists and their flaws and merely say this: "How much more glorious then, that they accomplished such things despite being flawed human beings." I don't need to psychoanalyze idealists and heroes to determine motivation, any mroe than I want someone else tearing through my own life to see how I tick. I just see the fact that somehow, amazingly, we are painfully working our way forward to a generally better future.
Hovercar Madness
Still Mildly Glowing
Yugoslavia was never a Soviet satellite. Geo-politically it fitted in the neutral block along with Egypt. I find it very dubious to compare Tito's rule with that of the Ustashe. He consistently cracked down on nationalists, which I'm sure Ratty will agree with me, cannot simply be downplayed as "evil oppression". As long as we're all using personal loss as a tool of backing up our arguments, I might as well mention that without the civil war my uncle wouldn't have stepped on a mine and died. The world just isn't as simple as authoritarian equating evil. The oh so liberal Germans didn't feel bad about recognizing Croatia the moment Tudjman reared his flabby head and starting the entire shitheap of a war. As Ratty mentioned before, Tito did a lot of good, and it's no wonder most people are looking back with nostalgia.
Hovercar Madness said:
I was referring to Hungary, Hovercar. Hence why I qualified that with the story about my family and so on. Obviously, different memories arising therein.
Hovercar Madness
Still Mildly Glowing
You ask "Quisling allies?" (with which Ratty meant Ustashe)"Go to hell, the Soviets treated their satellites...."
I understand now, but just so you know where I'm coming from.
EDIT: it might also be worth mentioning that post-56 Hungary is not comparable to the days after WW2. I believe it got the "goulash communism" moniker at some point.
EDIT 2: I'm not a motorcar.
I understand now, but just so you know where I'm coming from.
EDIT: it might also be worth mentioning that post-56 Hungary is not comparable to the days after WW2. I believe it got the "goulash communism" moniker at some point.
EDIT 2: I'm not a motorcar.