Che Chic

Shoppers meander through the shopping center capitalist consumer goods to acquire with fist-fulls of filthy lucre. But what is this? I spy another one.  Can it be?  Another adolescent with a Che Guevara T- shirt.  I taste bile.  Momentarily, I calm.  Based on her acne, awkward gait and vacuous expression I guesstimate her age at about fifteen and the product of little education.  Of course, I cannot blame her for her ignorance.  She just knows that if she wears that t-shirt then her social cache will increase- she will be cool.  But who told her that an evil man, a Communist, a murderous thug is such a great guy that she should wear his image as if he were her patron saint?  

Let us examine a few facts.  Ernesto Che Guevara was a communist.  Not an armchair, ivory tower, useful idiot type of communist.  He was a violent revolutionary, murderous communist.  From 1957 to 1959 Che murdered 180 people.  From 1959 onward as one of Fidel Castro's main executioners he acknowledged ordering "several thousand" executions.  Among his myriad rants he spoke regarding the murders in which he partook.  Consider the following:

"To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary... This is a revolution!  And a revolutionary must become a cold killing machine motivated by pure hate." 

"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands.  My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood.  With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl."

"We must carry the war into every corner the enemy happens to carry it: to his home, to his centers of entertainment; a total war. It is necessary to prevent him from having a moment of peace, a quiet moment outside his barracks or even inside; we must attack him wherever he may be, make him feel like a cornered beast wherever he may move."

A believing Marxist-Leninist or Maoist might consider this evil man a hero, but most people will see him for what he was- a dangerous sociopath. Of course, most adolescents who wear his image don't really know who he was or what he did.  However, if an adult knows who Che was and what he did it becomes inexcusable to promote his image.  Now we must return to my question: Why would someone wear the image or promote the idealization of an evil person?  Is it out of a desire to be overtly counter-cultural or anti-social like a person who wears an image of Charles Manson?  I think not.  Said cacogen is only interested in the shock and discomfort of others like the artist who finger paints with feces.  To choose to display a political figure is to make a political statement.  However to choose to display a communist, a totalitarian socialist, is to take it a step further.  Murray Rothbard noted that Marxism is really a religion and not primarily a economic philosophy.  It is concerned with the transformation of man, the total upheaval of the social order, the end of history and the establishment of a utopian future- a secular version of "heaven on earth" mimicking the post-millenialist belief in the Kingdom of God on Earth- with the dictatorship of the proletariat, the withering away of the state and the emergence of the eternal social harmony and perfection of man.

Consider the witless, cerebrally void statement by supermodel Naomi Campbell who said that Fidel Castro was "a source of inspiration to the world... I'm so nervous and flustered because I can't believe I have met him."  Or perhaps the feeble-minded statement by comedian Chevy Chase who said at Earth Day 2000 in Washington D.C. that he believes "socialism works" and explained that "Cuba might prove that."  Finally consider  Steven Spielberg who visited Cuba and dined with Castro in November of 2002. Spielberg declared that his time with Castro "was the eight most important hours of my life."  Mr. Spielberg is an intelligent and successful man.  This statement makes no sense in light of his success which is only possible in a free and open society. The only explanation is that he is hopped-up on dope.  What dope?  The opiate of the masses, albeit a secular one. These celebrities may not even identify themselves as Marxists or Marxist leaning for the undertones of Marxism permeate our culture especially in Hollywood and in educational institutions.

The idolization of Ernesto Che Guevara and his boss Fidel Castro is exactly that- idolization.  Che's image is on t-shirts and posters not like a patron saint, but because he is a patron saint in the religion of Marxism.   When Hollywood celebrities meet with or talk about Castro and socialism with hope and ebullience not only do they expose their ignorance, but they also unveil the source of their hope in a better future.  An audience with Castro is like a Catholic having an audience with the Pope.  They may have caveats but they nevertheless would have us all drink from the poison well of Marxism.  And what of Che?  He is both saint and martyr.  Yes, in the end he finally became a "good communist" on October 9, 1967 when the Bolivian army, who had captured him, executed him.   

 

Bail This Out!

Enough is enough for this bailout mania. It is about time that instead of asking who needs or would like a bailout someone tacked on the important question "At the expense of whom is this bailout?" Yes, it is true that a bailout or subsidy or government handout will benefit the receiving corporation or party involved, but the other side of the coin requires that the same action be to the detriment or at the expense of somebody else.

Let us imagine that every person in the United States formed a giant circle and that each one of us wrote out a check for $5000. Next, each person placed that check in the pocket of the person to his left. This would mean that I would have received a bailout from the person to my immediate right, but I would have bailed out the person to my left. I have benefited at the expense of the person to my right; however, the person to my left benefited at my expense. Unfortunately, the present bailout mania is not so benign. Let us next imagine that half of the people in the United States were to be facing east and the other half facing west. Each of us would be face-to-face with one other fellow countryman. Now, the half of the people facing east wrote a check for $5000 and handed it to the person facing west. The half of the country facing east has bailed out the half facing west. The people facing west have benefited from a bailout at the expense of the people facing east.

Now let us turn to the issue of the proposed bailouts of Ford, GM, and Chrysler. If The Big Three get the taxpayers' money like they want, then those who would benefit would be the automobile companies themselves, their suppliers, the UAW, the stockholders, etc. In short, the beneficiaries would be anyone who stands to receive money from the continued normal operations of The Big Three including politicians who will benefit from future donations from both the automobile manufacturers and the UAW. Who will be the subsidizer, as we have already established that this money must come from someone. Will Washington immediately send us each a bill so that we all might pay our share forthwith. This is unlikely but more honest as we would all see the immediate cost of the bailout. (If the government were to do this some people might object strenuously.) Predicting actions that will take place in the future can be a little tricky, but it is likely that Washington will somehow manage to borrow this money, add one more big IOU to the already existing monstrous pile of IOUs, print some more money and then pay it back with greatly devalued dollars.

There are of course secondary costs which are more difficult to see as they require the use of imagination to see what might have been. Let us say that Washington acts more responsibly and turns the US automotive manufacturers away to go behave like legitimate for-profit capitalist enterprises. What then? GM restructures and forces the union to renegotiate or GM becomes a non-union shop. As the company is in trouble and needs to cut labor costs it does so across the board. Big CEO salaries must go too. They are for executives whose companies make money hand over fist. GM needs to cut costs and become more efficient. Maybe this means new machinery which will outperform some employees. GM will kill-off underperforming products and cut the dead weight. It will advance where it needs to advance, retreat where it needs to retreat and regroup where it needs to regroup. The bottom line is GM needs to make a profit for its shareholders. If this produces a much smaller GM then so be it. Only a company which produces a profit can and should survive. Even with a bailout there is no guarantee that GM would survive in perpetuity. (A bailout might just encourage GM to not make changes necessary for long-term survival. And when they near insolvency again, viola, another bailout.) As supernumerary and inefficient employees are laid off they provide the human resource necessary for new ventures at which the employees have a chance at being more productive than they were at their old inefficient and only somewhat productive jobs. Thus also will follow Ford and Chrysler.

So who pays for it? At whose expense will the bailout be? It will be at all of our expense. Not just in the immediate future in terms of the unrealized opportunities and continued inefficiencies, but also down the road a little way when the bill comes due. If we allow this to continue then it is to a great degree our own fault. However the Spendocrats in Washington do not simply laden me with this burden. They intend it for our children and grandchildren. They want my children to cut the check and hand it over. Then the CEOs and the union bosses and the politicians will laugh all the way to the bank.