Full Version: Will the real Che please stand up.
The Real Che Guevara
by Guy Sorman Guy Sorman, a French philosopher and economist, is the author of Empire of Lies. 28.01.2009 Keywords:
PARIS - Hollywood history is often nonsensical, but filmmakers usually have the good sense not to whitewash killers and sadists. Steven Soderbergh's new film about Che Guevara, however, does that, and more.
Che the revolutionary romantic, as depicted by Benecio del Toro in Soderbergh's film, never existed. That hero of the left, with his hippie hair and beard, an image now iconic on t-shirts and coffee mugs around the world, is a myth concocted by Fidel Castro's propagandists - something of a cross between Don Quixote and Robin Hood.
Like those tall tales, Fidel's myth of Che bears a superficial resemblance to historical facts, but the real story is far darker. Some Robin Hood probably did brutalize the rich and, to cover his tracks, give some of his loot to the poor. In medieval Spain, Quixote-like knights probably did roam the countryside, ridding it not of dragons but of the land's few remaining Muslims.
The same goes for the legendary Che. No teenager in rebellion against the world or his parents seems able to resist Che's alluring image. Just wearing a Che t-shirt is the shortest and cheapest way to appear to be on the right side of History.
What works for teenagers also seems to work with forever-young movie directors. In the 1960's, the Che look, with beard and beret, was at least a glib political statement. Today, it is little more than a fashion accoutrement that inspires a big-budget Hollywood epic. Are Che theme parks next?
But once there was a real Che Guevara: he is less well known than the fictional puppet that has replaced reality. The true Che was a more significant figure than his fictional clone, for he was the incarnation of what revolution and Marxism really meant in the twentieth century.
Che was no humanist. No communist leader, indeed, ever held humanist values. Karl Marx certainly was not one. True to their movement's founding prophet, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and Che held no respect for life. Blood needed to be shed if a better world was to be baptized. When criticized by one of his early companions for the death of millions during the Chinese revolution, Mao observed that countless Chinese die everyday, so what did it matter?
Likewise, Che could kill with a shrug. Trained as a medical doctor in Argentina, he chose not to save lives but to suppress them. After he seized power, Che put to death five hundred "enemies" of the revolution without trial, or even much discrimination.
Castro, no humanist himself, did his best to neutralize Guevara by appointing him Minister for Industry. As could be expected, Che applied Soviet policies to the Cubans: agriculture was destroyed and ghost factories dotted the landscape. He did not care about Cuba's economy or its people: his purpose was to pursue revolution for its own sake, whatever it meant, like art for art's sake.
Indeed, without his ideology, Che would have been nothing more than another serial killer. Ideological sloganeering allowed him to kill in larger numbers than any serial killer could imagine, and all in the name of justice. Five centuries ago, Che probably would have been one of those priest/soldiers exterminating Latin America's natives in the name of God. In the name of History, Che, too, saw murder as a necessary tool of a noble cause.
But suppose we judge this Marxist hero by his own criteria: did he actually transform the world? The answer is yes - but for the worse. The communist Cuba he helped to forge is an undisputed and unmitigated failure, much more impoverished and much less free than it was before its "liberation." Despite the social reforms the left likes to trumpet about Cuba, its literacy rate was higher before Castro came to power, and racism against the black population was less pervasive. Indeed, Cuba's leaders today are far more likely to be white than they were in Batista's day.
Beyond Cuba, the Che myth has inspired thousands of students and activists across Latin America to lose their lives in foolhardy guerrilla struggles. The left, inspired by the siren call of Che, chose armed struggle instead of elections. By doing so, it opened the way to military dictatorship. Latin America is not yet cured of these unintended consequences of Guevarism.
Indeed, fifty years after Cuba's revolution, Latin America remains divided. Those nations that rejected Che's mythology and chose the path of democracy and the free market, such as Brazil, Peru, and Chile, are better off than they ever were: equality, freedom, and economic progress have advanced in unity. By contrast, those nations that remain nostalgic for the cause of Che, such as Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia, are at this very moment poised on the brink of civil war.
The real Che, who spent most of his time as Castro's central banker supervising executions, deserves to be better known. Perhaps if Soderbergh's two-part Che epic succeeds at the box office, his financial backers will want to film a more truthful sequel. There is no certainly shortage of material for "Che, The Untold Story."
http://www.factsandarts.com/articles/the-real-che-guevara/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentar...0_8_05_AVL.html
1. HE WAS AGAINST CAPITALISM. In fact, Guevara was for state capitalism. He opposed the wage labor system of “appropriating surplus value” (in Marxist jargon) only when it came to private corporations. But he turned the “appropriation of the workers’ surplus value” into a state system. One example of this is the forced labor camps he supported, starting with Guanahacabibes in 1961.
2. HE MADE CUBA INDEPENDENT. In fact, he engineered the colonization of Cuba by a foreign power. He was instrumental in turning Cuba into a temporary beachhead of Soviet nuclear power (he sealed the deal in Yalta). As the person responsible for the “industrialization” of Cuba he failed to end the country’s dependency on sugar.
3. HE STOOD FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. In fact, he helped ruin the economy by diverting resources to industries that ended up in failure and reduced the sugar harvest, Cuba’s mainstay, by half in two years. Rationing started under his stewardship of the island’s economy.
4. HE STOOD UP TO MOSCOW. In fact, he obeyed Moscow until Moscow decided to ask for something in return for its massive transfers of money to Havana. In 1965 he criticized the Kremlin because it had adopted what he termed the “law of value”. He then turned to China on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, one of the horror stories of the twentieth century. He simply switched allegiances within the totalitarian camp.
5. HE CONNECTED WITH THE PEASANTS. In fact, he died precisely because he never connected with them. “The peasant masses don’t help us at all,” he wrote in his Bolivian diary before he was captured—an apt way to describe his journey through the Bolivian countryside trying to stir up a revolution that could not even enlist the help of Bolivian Communists (who were realistic enough to note that peasants did not want revolution in 1967; they had already had one in 1952).
6. HE WAS A GUERRILLA GENIUS. With the exception of Cuba, every guerrilla effort he helped set up failed pitifully. After the triumph of the Cuban revolution, Guevara set up revolutionary armies in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Haiti, all of which were crushed. He later persuaded Jorge Ricardo Masetti to lead a fatal incursion into that country from Bolivia. Guevara’s role in the Congo in 1965 was both tragic and comical. He allied himself with Pierre Mulele and Laurent Kabila, two butchers, but got entangled in so many disagreements with the latter—and relations between Cuban and Congolese fighters were so strained—that he had to flee. Finally, his incursion in Bolivia ended up in his death, which his followers are commemorating this Sunday.
7. HE RESPECTED HUMAN DIGNITY. In fact, he had a habit of taking other people’s property. He told his followers to rob banks (“the struggling masses agree to rob banks because none of them has a penny in them”) and as soon as the Batista regime collapsed he occupied a mansion and made it his own—a case of expeditious revolutionary eminent domain.
8. HIS ADVENTURES WERE A CELEBRATION OF LIFE. Instead, they were an orgy of death. He executed many innocent people in Santa Clara, in central Cuba, where his column was based in the last stage of the armed struggle. After the triumph of the revolution, he was in charge of “La Cabaña” prison for half a year. He ordered the execution of hundreds of prisoners—former Batista men, journalists, businessmen, and others. A few witnesses, including Javier Arzuaga, who was the chaplain of “La Cabaña”, and José Vilasuso, who was a member of the body in charge of the summary judicial process, recently gave me their painful testimonies.
9. HE WAS A VISIONARY. His vision of Latin America was actually quite blurred. Take, for instance, his view that the guerrillas had to take to the countryside because that is where the struggling masses lived. In fact, since the 1960s, most peasants have peacefully deserted the countryside in part because of the failure of land reform, which has hindered the development of a property-based agriculture and economies of scale with absurd regulations forbidding all sorts of private arrangements.
10. HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. He predicted Cuba would surpass the GDP per capita of the U.S. by 1980. Today, Cuba’s economy can barely survive thanks to Venezuela’s oil subsidy (about 100,000 barrels a day), a form of international alms that does not speak too well of the regime’s dignity.
1. HE WAS AGAINST CAPITALISM. In fact, Guevara was for state capitalism. He opposed the wage labor system of “appropriating surplus value” (in Marxist jargon) only when it came to private corporations. But he turned the “appropriation of the workers’ surplus value” into a state system. One example of this is the forced labor camps he supported, starting with Guanahacabibes in 1961.
2. HE MADE CUBA INDEPENDENT. In fact, he engineered the colonization of Cuba by a foreign power. He was instrumental in turning Cuba into a temporary beachhead of Soviet nuclear power (he sealed the deal in Yalta). As the person responsible for the “industrialization” of Cuba he failed to end the country’s dependency on sugar.
3. HE STOOD FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE. In fact, he helped ruin the economy by diverting resources to industries that ended up in failure and reduced the sugar harvest, Cuba’s mainstay, by half in two years. Rationing started under his stewardship of the island’s economy.
4. HE STOOD UP TO MOSCOW. In fact, he obeyed Moscow until Moscow decided to ask for something in return for its massive transfers of money to Havana. In 1965 he criticized the Kremlin because it had adopted what he termed the “law of value”. He then turned to China on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, one of the horror stories of the twentieth century. He simply switched allegiances within the totalitarian camp.
5. HE CONNECTED WITH THE PEASANTS. In fact, he died precisely because he never connected with them. “The peasant masses don’t help us at all,” he wrote in his Bolivian diary before he was captured—an apt way to describe his journey through the Bolivian countryside trying to stir up a revolution that could not even enlist the help of Bolivian Communists (who were realistic enough to note that peasants did not want revolution in 1967; they had already had one in 1952).
6. HE WAS A GUERRILLA GENIUS. With the exception of Cuba, every guerrilla effort he helped set up failed pitifully. After the triumph of the Cuban revolution, Guevara set up revolutionary armies in Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic, Panama, and Haiti, all of which were crushed. He later persuaded Jorge Ricardo Masetti to lead a fatal incursion into that country from Bolivia. Guevara’s role in the Congo in 1965 was both tragic and comical. He allied himself with Pierre Mulele and Laurent Kabila, two butchers, but got entangled in so many disagreements with the latter—and relations between Cuban and Congolese fighters were so strained—that he had to flee. Finally, his incursion in Bolivia ended up in his death, which his followers are commemorating this Sunday.
7. HE RESPECTED HUMAN DIGNITY. In fact, he had a habit of taking other people’s property. He told his followers to rob banks (“the struggling masses agree to rob banks because none of them has a penny in them”) and as soon as the Batista regime collapsed he occupied a mansion and made it his own—a case of expeditious revolutionary eminent domain.
8. HIS ADVENTURES WERE A CELEBRATION OF LIFE. Instead, they were an orgy of death. He executed many innocent people in Santa Clara, in central Cuba, where his column was based in the last stage of the armed struggle. After the triumph of the revolution, he was in charge of “La Cabaña” prison for half a year. He ordered the execution of hundreds of prisoners—former Batista men, journalists, businessmen, and others. A few witnesses, including Javier Arzuaga, who was the chaplain of “La Cabaña”, and José Vilasuso, who was a member of the body in charge of the summary judicial process, recently gave me their painful testimonies.
9. HE WAS A VISIONARY. His vision of Latin America was actually quite blurred. Take, for instance, his view that the guerrillas had to take to the countryside because that is where the struggling masses lived. In fact, since the 1960s, most peasants have peacefully deserted the countryside in part because of the failure of land reform, which has hindered the development of a property-based agriculture and economies of scale with absurd regulations forbidding all sorts of private arrangements.
10. HE WAS RIGHT ABOUT THE UNITED STATES. He predicted Cuba would surpass the GDP per capita of the U.S. by 1980. Today, Cuba’s economy can barely survive thanks to Venezuela’s oil subsidy (about 100,000 barrels a day), a form of international alms that does not speak too well of the regime’s dignity.
[i]Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a Senior Fellow and director of The Center on Global Prosperity at the Independent Institute. He is the author of Liberty for Latin America.[/i]
Whenever I see some college student sporting the iconic image of Che Guevara, the psychopathic physician whose romantic tale of blood and gore has thrilled the hearts of liberals every where, I chuckle. His now legendary diary, The Motorcycle Diaries, almost a total fabrication by the Cuban Ministry of Propaganda, has been the subject of many books and feature films. Here is a hint for all you thoughtful liberal documentary filmmakers, biographers, and journalists: if your source of information is published and distributed by a communist entity called the “Ministry of Propaganda” then every word of the source material is suspect at the very least. But of course, liberals love anything communistic and, as we all know, Cuba can do no wrong. Oh for the glory days of Mao and Stalin…what liberal’s heart doesn’t leap to fondly remember them.
Here are some bullet points for all you Che admirers out there:
- Twice, Che plotted terrorist attacks against New York City. In November 1962, the FBI cracked a terrorist plot by Cuban agents who targeted Macy’s, Gimbel’s, Bloomingdale’s and Grand Central Terminal. They planned to blow up those landmarks with 12 incendiary devices and 500 kilos of TNT the day after Thanksgiving. Several months before visiting New York in December 1964 and being feted by the toast of the city’s intelligentsia, Che hatched a plan with the Black Liberation Army to blow up the Statue of Liberty, the Liberty Bell and the Washington Monument. The plotters were infiltrated in 1965 by a sharp-eyed NYPD cadet.
- Che detested rock and roll and railed against “long hairs,” “lazy youths,” and homosexuals. At one point, he wrote that the young must always “listen carefully - and with the utmost respect – to the advice of their elders who held governmental authority.”
- Che sidelined black Cubans and mocked those who were part of the revolutionary movement. He once told radio host Luis Pons, “We’re going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing.”
- Che personally ordered 700 executions by firing squad, which he supervised at his jungle headquarters in Cuba. He also hosted book burnings, torching thousands of books owned by suspect intellectuals and librarians.
–Che enjoyed viewing executions and had a special window constructed in his study so he could watch men and women being shot to death. What a hero!
He’s the ultimate symbol of radical chic but Che Guevara was really a homophobic, racist square who personally ordered the jailing and executions of innocent men, women and children?
According to Humberto Fontova, the author of “Exposing the Real Che Guevara and the Useful Idiots Who Idolize Him,” Guevara probably would have imprisoned or punished most of his celebrity fans, from Johnny Depp to Angelina Jolie.
LOL! took me a minute to figure out what the heck...
Gotcha! LOL!
Gotcha! LOL!
It seems like people would follow Simon Bolivar. I'm not saying Simon was the epitome of freedom, he understood the ways of Central and South America far greater than Che.
I've never understood the appeal of Guevara. I could more for Cesar Chavez or Jimmy Hoffa, but even their policies had a bent to them which underscored their accomplishments. If anyone should be admired it would be Lech Walesa his efforts helped workers more in Eastern Bloc countries than any other.
I've never understood the appeal of Guevara. I could more for Cesar Chavez or Jimmy Hoffa, but even their policies had a bent to them which underscored their accomplishments. If anyone should be admired it would be Lech Walesa his efforts helped workers more in Eastern Bloc countries than any other.
One of the many mass murderers of the past century....he's right in there with hitler, stalin, mao, and saddam......
Your info is informative JV.
Perhaps surfers will reconsider.
Perhaps surfers will reconsider.
QUOTE (hares @ Nov 18 2009, 08:57 PM) 
Your info is informative JV.
Perhaps surfers will reconsider.
Perhaps surfers will reconsider.
Thank you, and I too hope surfers will see the light.
I have not condoned Marxism once, and I am certainly no fan of Castro's (although I do think it would be cool to have a conversation with him due to the fact he is one of the only world leaders left alive from era). In a revolution things are going to happen. Especially when the regime is as fragile as that one was in the beginning. Lincoln trampled many rights in his conquest to save America. Also, keep in mind that they went to war to fight oppression, and the exploitation of Fidel's homeland. That is a just war in my opinion. It is jacked up that they had the ideals they had, i mean why replace one despot with another?
It is the values of fighting exploitation, and oppression that we remember Che for. That is why I have time after time defended Bush in my dealings with more liberal people. People forget that he is the reason 34 million African children are going to school today. Do I agree with his policies? No. But I am willing to give him some credit for being a humanitarian. It does not matter to me whether or not you guys like Che. I do not remember asking for an opinion. However, if believing in the right to stand up for my rights makes me a Communist, so be it.
It is the values of fighting exploitation, and oppression that we remember Che for. That is why I have time after time defended Bush in my dealings with more liberal people. People forget that he is the reason 34 million African children are going to school today. Do I agree with his policies? No. But I am willing to give him some credit for being a humanitarian. It does not matter to me whether or not you guys like Che. I do not remember asking for an opinion. However, if believing in the right to stand up for my rights makes me a Communist, so be it.
QUOTE (surfsup @ Nov 19 2009, 03:37 PM)
I have not condoned Marxism once, and I am certainly no fan of Castro's (although I do think it would be cool to have a conversation with him due to the fact he is one of the only world leaders left alive from era). In a revolution things are going to happen. Especially when the regime is as fragile (cough cough evil) as that one was in the beginning. Lincoln trampled many rights in his conquest to save America. Also, keep in mind that they went to war to fight oppression, and the exploitation of Fidel's homeland. That is a just war in my opinion. It is jacked up that they had the ideals they had, i mean why replace one despot with another?
It is the values of fighting exploitation, and oppression that we remember Che for. That is why I have time after time defended Bush in my dealings with more liberal people. People forget that he is the reason 34 million African children are going to school today. Do I agree with his policies? No. But I am willing to give him some credit for being a humanitarian. It does not matter to me whether or not you guys like Che. I do not remember asking for an opinion. However, if believing in the right to stand up for my rights makes me a Communist, so be it.
It is the values of fighting exploitation, and oppression that we remember Che for. That is why I have time after time defended Bush in my dealings with more liberal people. People forget that he is the reason 34 million African children are going to school today. Do I agree with his policies? No. But I am willing to give him some credit for being a humanitarian. It does not matter to me whether or not you guys like Che. I do not remember asking for an opinion. However, if believing in the right to stand up for my rights makes me a Communist, so be it.
Surfs you have to be smarter then this argument. Comparing Che to Lincoln is about the most absurd thing I have ever read. I mean Lincoln was known for showing mercy to a soldier convicted of cowardice, Che killed innocent people. Lincoln perserved and gave freedom, Che took it away.
Lincolns mercy
David R. Locke, a journalist and humorist observed: "No man on earth hated blood as Lincoln did, and he seized eagerly upon any excuse to pardon a man when the charge could possibly justify it. The generals always wanted an execution carried out before it could possibly be brought before the President."
http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside...amp;subjectID=3
To know Che and his cruelity/selfish lust for power read my above post
But to really hurt the whole idea of Che = Lincoln let us look at what happened after each of the civil wars. USA did rather well, Cuba not so much.
The communist Cuba Che helped to forge is an undisputed and unmitigated failure, much more impoverished and much less free than it was before its "liberation." Despite the social reforms the left likes to trumpet about Cuba, its literacy rate was higher before Castro came to power, and racism against the black population was less pervasive. Indeed, Cuba's leaders today are far more likely to be white than they were in Batista's day.
------
And it is not as much as you standing up for your rights that makes you a communist it is how you do not reject the thought of people who wish to take away the peoples rights of life liberty and the pursuit of happyness that make you a communist.
So I guess Lincoln was unaware of Sherman's march to the sea, and the destruction he was doing? I guess it was ok for Lincoln to set up martial law to keep the people of Maryland from expressing their first amendment right. Of course, he was right when he invaded the South, and refused to leave South Carolina.
If you read my post you would see that I stated:
Also, keep in mind that they went to war to fight oppression, and the exploitation of Fidel's homeland. That is a just war in my opinion. It is jacked up that they had the ideals they had, i mean why replace one despot with another?
I believe that is a denunciation of Cuba's policy, and of Castro in general. So my failure to reject is more or less your failure to comprehend what you are reading.
If you read my post you would see that I stated:
Also, keep in mind that they went to war to fight oppression, and the exploitation of Fidel's homeland. That is a just war in my opinion. It is jacked up that they had the ideals they had, i mean why replace one despot with another?
I believe that is a denunciation of Cuba's policy, and of Castro in general. So my failure to reject is more or less your failure to comprehend what you are reading.
Who is fighting oppression in cuba today?
Raul has taken baby steps in the right direction, but that is why I said what is the point in replacing one despot with another. It doesn't make sense for them to fight for a liberated Cuba, and then oppress the people even more.
What I hate about Communism in general is that it appeals to the masses in a sense that it will grant all of them liberation. It liberates no man, because it subjects them cogs of the State. The only ones with any real freedom are the politburo, not the populace. The politburo's tell each individual what their job is, where and when they can travel, how much food stuffs that they may purchase and what type (all the while the heads are eating like fat cat's), how many children one can have, how far you can reach with an education (mind you, field hands do not need a high school or elementery education.
If Einstein, Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nicolai Tesla, Robert Goddard, and most scientists including my favorite Sir Humphry Davy would have been born in any socialist country they would have been field hands, sanitation workers, fishermen, etc. . I'm not saying anything is wrong with those professions. What I am saying is they would have never been given the opportunity to become the men of their professions that they aspired to.
The Capitalistic way of life is one that can be obtained. People think a higher education should be provided by the government, I don't think so. It should be something that you work for and obtain, and then you have more knowledge to make the differences or the money that you desire.
The younger generation wants to glorify socialism, because they see it as being fair and equitable. However there are distinctions in class more vast than in America. Yes, we have some very rich individuals in America, but look at their backgrounds. Not all of them are as the Kennedy's, Bush's, Cabot's, Lodges, Vanderbilts, and Rockefeller's. Most of our billionaire's started out with a hard work ethic. Walt Disney didn't have a college degree.
If these people could do it why can't our current generation ? I don't think I'll understand it. Maybe our Depression Era parents and grandparents didn't want their children to go through the same things that they did.
If Einstein, Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nicolai Tesla, Robert Goddard, and most scientists including my favorite Sir Humphry Davy would have been born in any socialist country they would have been field hands, sanitation workers, fishermen, etc. . I'm not saying anything is wrong with those professions. What I am saying is they would have never been given the opportunity to become the men of their professions that they aspired to.
The Capitalistic way of life is one that can be obtained. People think a higher education should be provided by the government, I don't think so. It should be something that you work for and obtain, and then you have more knowledge to make the differences or the money that you desire.
The younger generation wants to glorify socialism, because they see it as being fair and equitable. However there are distinctions in class more vast than in America. Yes, we have some very rich individuals in America, but look at their backgrounds. Not all of them are as the Kennedy's, Bush's, Cabot's, Lodges, Vanderbilts, and Rockefeller's. Most of our billionaire's started out with a hard work ethic. Walt Disney didn't have a college degree.
If these people could do it why can't our current generation ? I don't think I'll understand it. Maybe our Depression Era parents and grandparents didn't want their children to go through the same things that they did.
QUOTE (DaveTV1 @ Nov 19 2009, 09:15 PM)
The younger generation wants to glorify socialism, because they see it as being fair and equitable. However there are distinctions in class more vast than in America. Yes, we have some very rich individuals in America, but look at their backgrounds. Not all of them are as the Kennedy's, Bush's, Cabot's, Lodges, Vanderbilts, and Rockefeller's. Most of our billionaire's started out with a hard work ethic. Walt Disney didn't have a college degree.
I, and all of my friends that know enough about socialism and what not, have never glorified it in any way.
QUOTE (h-town12 @ Nov 21 2009, 12:05 AM)
I, and all of my friends that know enough about socialism and what not, have never glorified it in any way.
Glad to hear that!!
Smart man!!!!
QUOTE (DaveTV1 @ Nov 19 2009, 09:15 PM)
If Einstein, Henry Ford, Sam Walton, Alexander Graham Bell, Thomas Edison, Nicolai Tesla, Robert Goddard, and most scientists including my favorite Sir Humphry Davy would have been born in any socialist country they would have been field hands, sanitation workers, fishermen, etc. . I'm not saying anything is wrong with those professions. What I am saying is they would have never been given the opportunity to become the men of their professions that they aspired to.
I've sometimes thought where Bill Gates would be had he grown up in another country.
Per wiki "The primary aims of the foundation (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology". I know Gates for years criticized education in the United States and he is probably right in much of his criticism. Gates obviously looks after Gates as he hounded Congress for years to increase work visas as I assume he felt Americans were perhaps incompetent in technology or was that done simply for the bottom line? Gates has and had every right to pursue that bottom
line. I can imagine those like Gates lean more toward a global melting of the United States as opposed to United States sovereignty.
I could almost write a book about the realities of NGOs.
....and the real Che is STILL a mass murdering lunatic....the ends do not justify the means......a murderer is a murderer....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.