0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Is he a hero? Was he acting somehow in self-defense? Is it justified to take his actions when the revolution is directed against tyranny? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 He was an egomaniacal murderer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordr Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 He was a savage butcher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myself Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 He was a swell guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMERICONORMAN Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Someone should write a book about him one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 It turns out that Rand never wrote about him specifically. He belongs in the same hall of shame as is occupied by Stalin, Mao, Attila the Hun and Castro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordr Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Someone should write a book about him one day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tito Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Every dictator is a mystic, and every mystic is a potential dictator. A mystic craves obedience from men, not their agreement. He wants them to surrender their consciousness to his assertions, his edicts, his wishes, his whims—as his consciousness is surrendered to theirs. He wants to deal with men by means of faith and force—he finds no satisfaction in their consent if he must earn it by means of facts and reason. Reason is the enemy he dreads and, simultaneously, considers precarious; reason, to him, is a means of deception; he feels that men possess some power more potent than reason—and only their causeless belief or their forced obedience can give him a sense of security, a proof that he has gained control of the mystic endowment he lacked. His lust is to command, not to convince: conviction requires an act of independence and rests on the absolute of an objective reality. What he seeks is power over reality and over men’s means of perceiving it, their mind, the power to interpose his will between existence and consciousness, as if, by agreeing to fake the reality he orders them to fake, men would, in fact, create it. -Ayn Rand That is the Objectivist stance on Che Guevara. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted January 25, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Could somebody please extend? Isn't it an act of self-defense to rise against those who rule by force? Why is he a villain then? Edited January 25, 2009 by 0096 2251 2110 8105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ordr Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Could somebody please extend? Isn't it an act of self-defense to rise against those who rule by force? Why is he a villian then? Not when the "act of self-defense" is greater than or equal to the brutality of the rule one is trying to oppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Could somebody please extend? Isn't it an act of self-defense to rise against those who rule by force? Why is he a villain then?Even if we assume that the existing regime was violating his rights, that would not justify him kicking them out if he was going to violate rights in their place. That would be like someone killing the mafia boss and becoming mafia boss himself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 Isn't it an act of self-defense to rise against those who rule by force? Why is he a villain then?For one thing, he was actively involved in Castro's dictatorship and was involved in multiple post-overthrow murders. He also engaged in murder in South America and Africa. His conduct was not that different from that of the Khmer Rouge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kainscalia Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Book: Exposing the Real Che Guevara: And the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him by Humberto Fontoya Book Blurb: "Nearly four decades after his death, it’s impossible to avoid the image of Ernesto "Che" Guevara everywhere from T-shirts to cartoons. Liberals consider Che a revolutionary martyr who gave his life to help the poor of Latin America. Time named him one of the one hundred most influential people of the last century. And a major Hollywood movie is about to lionize him to a new generation. The reality, as we learn from Cuban exile Humberto Fontova, is that Che wasn’t really a gentle soul and a selfless hero. He was a violent Communist who thought nothing of firing a gun into the stomach of a woman six months pregnant whose only crime was that her family opposed him. And he was a hypocrite who lusted after material luxuries while cultivating his image as a man of the people. Fontova reveals that Che openly talked about his desire to use nuclear weapons against New York City. Such was Che’s bloodthirsty hatred that Fontova considers him the godfather of modern terrorism. Exposing the Real Che Guevara is based on scores of interviews with survivors of Che’s atrocities as well as the American CIA agent who interrogated Che just hours before the Bolivian government executed him." Read the book and draw your conclusions- I am merely pointing it out as a possible source of interest, as I haven't bought it yet (heading to the bookstore to buy it now, actually). Edited January 25, 2009 by kainscalia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexL Posted January 25, 2009 Report Share Posted January 25, 2009 (edited) Is he a hero? Was he acting somehow in self-defense? Is it justified to take his actions when the revolution is directed against tyranny? In evaluating a person or a movement, you should check not only against what is he fighting, but also - and even more importantly - for what. Is it for freedom and individual rights? or to replace a dictatorship with another? Besides, this method will allow you to objectively distinguish between a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Regarding material on Guevara: besides the book which was already mentioned, Humberto Fontova wrote a lot of articles about Cuba, Castro and Guevara, which you will find through his site and in particular on FrontPageMag.com, for example Fidel's Executioner. His articles are archived here Sasha Edited January 26, 2009 by AlexL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0096 2251 2110 8105 Posted January 26, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 This is a response I got somewhere else: A man who fights for the poor is not a murder, he is messiah. Yes, he killed, but to get the oppressors out. If Alexander had not kill as many people as he did, he would not be remembered as "Alexander the Great". Innocent people die in every war, and it doesn’t make one side bad and the other side good. He died fighting for what he believed in, willing to sacrifice his own life to ensure the liberty of his beloved Latin-Americans; not cowering behind his billion dollar army. You Americans are murderers. Is Bush any better? So, capitalism is free, but to whom? The rich yes, but not the working class. The United States and its embargo ruined Cuba, not Che; stop watching Fox News and read some books. It would be great to have a second opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 This is a response I got somewhere else: It would be great to have a second opinion. Uh, where did you get that opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James I Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 A man who fights for the poor is not a murder, he is messiah. Yes, he killed, but to get the oppressors out. If Alexander had not kill as many people as he did, he would not be remembered as "Alexander the Great". Innocent people die in every war, and it doesn’t make one side bad and the other side good. The person who wrote this seems to say that force is justified to overthrow oppressors and innocent casualties are a regrettable consequence of war. Objectivists would say this is true in the context of wars like the American Revolution and WW2, but obviously the person who wrote the text above believes that it is good in the context of the Cuban Revolution and probably other socialist revolutions. Why are America's founding father's glorified by capitalists and hated by socialists, and why are Cuba's revolutionaries glorified by socialists and hated by capitalists? It's not just one arbitrary faction fighting another; it is a war of ideas. One group fought for individual rights and the other fought for collectivism. The ideas that motivated Che were false and his attempts to put them into action were evil. Why were they evil? Decide for yourself and, to quote the author of the above quotation "read some books". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nacirema Posted January 26, 2009 Report Share Posted January 26, 2009 That "opinion" (which is better described as bastardized, unintelligent rhetoric) doesn't deserve any lengthy response (if at all), so I will sum this up with my own study of history. Firstly, I would like to deal with the two prime examples given of why Che shouldn't be blamed for the people he killed. If this person believes that Alexander the Great is truly a "great" person to look up too because of how many people he butchered in his imperialistic conquest, I submit that this person have thier head examined. Islamic fundamentalists die for what they believe in, too. Does that justify them flying planes into towers or bombing subway stations (I actually shudder to think on the answer this person may actually give, either to justify the arguement already made or if that is actually the comentor's belief system - not sure which would be more evil)? Now, onto the actual issue of Che... Che himself was an oppressor of the people, so I wonder how one can fight for "the liberty" of his "beloved Latin-Americans," unless their "liberty" is defined as changing hands from one brutal dictator to another. Also, I'm giving the poster the benefit of that doubt that when the term "Latin-American" is used this is in reference to South America and not some PC, leftist tripe (if Cuba were in Europe, for example, I would point and laugh). As for his points on capitalism, it is a non-issue in this debate, as this discussion (at least, in-as-far as this thread goes) is about Che's own actions and motivations, and not whether capitalism is the best moral system. Of course, I will point out the irony that the "working class" is even more poor under the rule of Communist Cuba than they ever were beforehand. You may feel free to cite my post as a source. If the person should ask where I get my facts from (since he is so insistent on book reading, apparently), you may inform him that I've done extensive research on the topic, including questioning the members of my family who emmigrated from Cuba when the revolutions were taking place, specifically to continue living in a free society with free markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.