Exposing the real CHE GUEVARA
And the useful idiots who idolize him.
Hollywood, Madison Avenue, and the mainstream media celebrate Che as a saint and a sex symbol – a selfless martyr with a love of humanity second only to Jesus Christ’s.
But their ideas about Che – Fidel Castro’s henchman whose face adorns hipsters’ T-shirts, posters, and ad campaigns – are based on a murderous communist regime’s outright lies.
As Humberto Fontova reveals in this myth-shattering book, Che was actually a bloodthirsty executioner, a military bumbler, a coward, and a hypocrite. This biographical account proves it’s no exaggeration to state that Che – who was captured and killed nearly forty years ago – was the godfather of modern terrorism.
And yet Che’s followers naively swallow Castro’s historical revisionism. They are classic “useful idiots.” the name Stalin gave to foolish Westerners who parroted his lies about communism’s successes.
Humberto Fontova interviewed the few people still alive who interacted with Che and can tell the truth about him, while overturning the myths and legends. In this book you’ll learn:
- How Che longed to destroy New York City with nuclear missiles. (So why does Angelina Jolie sport a Che tattoo, while denouncing violence as a U.N. ambassador of goodwill?
- How Che promoted book burning and signed death warrants for authors who disagreed with him. (So why did Jean Paul Sartre praise him as a “perfect” man, and why did Time Magazine name him one of the 100 most influential people of the century?)
- How Che made amazingly racist statements about blacks. (So why do Jesse Jackson, Jay-Z, and Mike Tyson say nice things about him?)
- How Che persecuted gays, long-haired rock and roll fans, and religious people. (So why do Carlos Santana, Madonna and Johnny Depp think he’s so cool?)
- How Che, the devoted Communist, loved material wealth and private luxuries. (So why do the mainstream media still depict him as an ascetic?)
First off, I can infer from your tags that you are a staunch libertarian. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but that reveals something about your political views and biases. It seems that you are willing to accept ANYTHING from the Austrian School, whether it be from a libertarian like the anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard and the conservative minarchist Ron Paul, or that feudal fascist Hans Hermann Hoppe.
That said, I would prefer not to box myself into ideological labels, be it Left or Right, but rather, try to see both sides of the aisle. To the left, Ernesto “Che” Guevara was a hero, a truly great man who wanted paradise on Earth. To the right, the same individual becomes a genocidal sociopath, a petty fascist, and of course a murderer. I would like to find a biased perspective written neither by a naive Communist apologist or a paranoid wingnut Cold Warrior.
On the one hand, Che was a dictatorial figure, a would-be dictator who sought absolute power. He was not beyond cruelty in conducting affairs, and probably killed some people who did not deserve it. Yet the portrayal of Guevara as a mindless, murderous, lunatic preoccupied only with raw sadism is a ridiculous caricature for the same reason why the Left’s whitewash is ridiculous.
Then again, to be fair, Che Guevara did not exactly change Cuba for the worse. While he certainly did NOT improve Cuba, you can not credibly argue that he made things much worse. Before Castro came to power, Cuba was a fascist country. The Fulgencio Batista dictatorship was essentially one giant Mafia regime. My one regret with the conclusion of WW2 and its aftermath is that the Nuremberg trials were, if anything, too lenient. If you ask me, the Allies did not kill enough Nazis. The reason why I argue murder, even mass murder, is not necessarily always evil is because while murder of innocents is never good, any man who kills hundreds of Nazis is a hero. So on that note, I could at least say that Che killed plenty of Batista thugs (who clearly had it coming). But that does not excuse everything else. In brief, while Guevara had many lofty ideals, he did not quite live up to them. In fact he fell tragically short! Another hopeless idealist who only wanted to help people, ended up seduced by power and causing great harm.
And since I mentioned Nazis, it always puzzles me why so many right-wingers claim Che was as bad as or worse than Hitler. Guevara does not come close to a Stalin or Hitler and anyone who claims that he was equally as bad is clearly a closet Nazi sympathizer. If you liken Che to Hitler, you would find some company on Stormfront.
But I digress. As to some of your points, concerning Angelina Jolie, does anything about that woman (or man as I have suspected), surprise you. She claims to be pro-peace, when in fact Jolie is a PNAC Zionist neocon. Neocons, claiming to be good Republicans, are supposed to hate Che. Either way, Angelina is a Marxist chickenhawk, whether she aligns herself with Stalinist Che or the Trotskyist neocons. As for Che’s alleged racism, it might be unfair to criticize him for that when back in his time the USA had a system of apartheid (Jim Crow laws, Indian Reservations). Finally, making Time Magazine’s list of 100 most influential people of the century is not necessarily a compliment. After all, Stalin and Hitler were called Man of the Year, and Osama bin Laden almost made the cut. Such distinctions are for significant people, good or evil.
Of course, I think it is important to look at both sides of a person.