Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Remembering the revolutionary

Yesterday, apparently, was the 40th anniversary of the death of this man:

While driving home from work yesterday evening, Melancholicus listened to a feature on Guevara’s life and times on Newstalk 106. Even though George Hook and Jim Fitzpatrick were talking about a dangerous revolutionary, they treated him like a celebrity — as though Guevara were one of the great humanitarian figures of the twentieth century, which he was not.

The moral of the story is this: it happens that men often commit acts of bloodshed and mayhem for a political cause. If a man carries out these acts in the service of the politics of the right, he will be universally reviled as a murderer and a terrorist. But if the same acts are carried out in the service of socialism, the perpetrator is extolled in the press and on the airwaves as a hero and a freedom-fighter.

Is there not a strange double-standard at work here? But Melancholicus will not say any more, since this says it better:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary ... These procedures are an archaic bourgeois detail. This is a revolution! And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate. We must create the pedagogy of the The Wall!" — Ernesto 'Che' Guevara

"The Wall" meaning the wall that Che Guevara so happily put people up against to shoot them.

But Che didn't always bother with the wall. One of his favored methods of killing was to tie his victim to a chair, gag him, walk around the room a bit ranting at him, and then slowly walk up, pistol in hand — and splatter the victim's brains and skull across the room while his companions watched.

Why do I bring all this up? Well yesterday, I noted Val Prieto's piece on Che's cheerful everyday execution of Christians during his "glorious revolution" in Cuba. In response to that, some faux-liberal left-wing twit posted an incoherent rant on his blog about me, Fulgencio Batista, George Custer, Ariel Sharon, and King David.

Yeah, you got it. Instead of just acknowledging that Che was a sadist and a mass-murderer, the guy changed the subject to the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOZ!!!!!

What is it about totalitarian hate-freaks that whenever they're confronted with the monstrous crimes against humanity committed by one of their heroes, they think they can make it go away by changing the subject? And what is it with their creepy fascination with Jews, anyway?

Mind you, I can sort of understand bringing up Batista, the man who Fidel and Che toppled. Batista was a gangster, a thug and a thief. He killed political opponents and cracked down hard anyone objecting to his thuggish regime.

On the other hand, anyone who's looked at what's happened on that island over the last 50 years knows the truth: Fidel has killed and tortured and imprisoned far more people than any dictator in Cuban history. He has also created more poverty and suffering than any other Cuban leader in history. Yet still people make a hero out of his buddy, the sadistic murderer Che Guevara?

Oh thank you Che! You helped replace a brutal thug named Batista with an even more brutal thug named Castro! And in the process you helped make the poor of Cuba even poorer, helped further suppress free speech, and were proud to institutionalize torture and terror for everyday Cubans! On top of all those glorious things, you wrote poetry!

Che, you looked so handsome and dashing on your motorcycle! But you were even more handsome and dashing when you were terrorizing Cuban peasants, blowing their skulls to bits with your personal sidearm! You romantic Stalin-loving poet you!

The twit anti-semite apologist for Che also had the audacity to say that Che was a "symbol" for "Latin Americans." Yes, certainly he is, and the Latin Americans at Cubanet will be happy to tell you just exactly what that symbol means to them: Just click here to read what these Latin Americans have to say about the "symbol" Che.

And here's what some other Latin Americans have to say about the symbol Che.

Che Guevara was a murdering pig. If you're an apologist for him, you're an apologist for a murdering pig — and an enemy of human rights.

Now I wonder what Messrs. Hook and Fitzpatrick would have to say about that?

No comments: