che guevara killed people :'( (boo-hoo)

Post Reply New Topic

Then it sounds like you only like revolutionary aesthetics, the beauty of the struggle itself rather than the end goal. This is exactly what attracts people to Che Guevara tee shirts and Keffiyahs. The difference between Bush the man and the Bushman is only the birth lottery. They both use whatever power they have at their disposal to change society. Bush a had lot more power than any insurgents he faced, but it was also a different type of power. He couldn't change that, he had to work within the structure he was born. Him taking a gun into his hand would have been counter productive.

As for anarcho-primitivism. I don't see how it's an ideology. We've been slaves to work since agriculture was invented, but it's not like we can go back. Humanity has to wait for technology to progress to give us back our leisure. That will come with Liberalism, which Bush tried to spread (despite naiivity, slim chances of success and of course some cynical elements in his administration)

I'm agreeable enough to that. I just wanted to point out that thinking happy thoughts do not justify execution for revolution.

your forgetting
bush worked only for his retirement fund.
between half and a whole million people are dead, for his own personal welfare.

thats why im saying, if he went out there himself, and killed people, i would have respected him for it, cus it woulda been ballsy.

and no, anarcho-primitivism is no ideology, but the only one i can support. humanity isnt "meant" to do anything, we arent "destined" for greatness if we invent enough stuff. thats what everybody is waiting for. some day we will simply invent the machine that eliminates pollution, lets kick back untill that day.

i want a meteor.
i want human populations down to 10 million world wide. thans a nice number.

Thats definitely anarcho-primitivism. Might not even be possible to maintain language at that world wide population.

My own personal twist on it:

1. A guy who told the poor of already third world countries to tare down the few land owners which disessembled the rich and divide it up so that they got a shiny new penny a piece.

2. A guy who, after 9/11, told the Taliban to give up Bin Laden under the auspice that something would definitely happen if they didn't, took them to task when they refused to, stood up to the U.N. at a time where the whole assembly believed that Saddam had WMD's but purely didn't want to deal with the major infractions like Saddam's perpetual shooting at planes over the parallels, his awards to families of suicide bombers, and the apparent ball and cup games that the inspectors spoke of constantly in terms of where they were allowed to go and where they weren't. Lo and behold, not only did a lot of our most outspoken oppostion have military trade with the guy but oil for food vouchers were all over the U.N., buying all kinds of lax, and the second they would have just pulled the inspectors out and said F' it - he would have been right back at it. Also, we had a president who was able to make the kinds of economic decisions at least in his first term to stave off a recession and even grow GDP enough to neutralize a lot of the ill effects brought on by 9/11 and the wonderful CFO and Arthur Anderson/Enron type deals. You can debate that he spent like a drunken sailor on a lot of 'compassionate conservative' programs or yes - did endorse the first round of T.A.R.P., that's about all I can really hold against him in good faith. He had a pair, enough to do what had to be done regardless of what people thought of him for it.


Not trying to bust your O's personally but I just hate to see a one-sided wooping slide, you guys diserve better .

That's what I always say! people need to stop demonizing Guevara, Hussein and Hitler, they fought and died for what they believed was right.

seriously, whats so evil about playing with your dog?