(1)Respect/objectivity: Do atheists and religious folks respect each other's point of view, or are they rude, aggressive and dismissive toward each other? (This isn't just a Political Correctness issue if it results in giving inadequate consideration to arguments and evidence).
In general yes, there are usually no physical altercations. Rarely after debate are any of the debater’s viewpoints radically changed. But I tend to respect the idea of God only if the person is not condescending and respectful of my opposing views, as well as a debatable and intelligible demeanor. I would not be so arrogant as to claim I am the final decider and corrupter of religious faith so a hopefully rational debate would be a natural response to my claims, I must say I openly accept another person challenging my celestial viewpoints.
(2) Numinous vs. supernatural: Is it possible/desirable to separate the "numinous" (sense of mystery, wonder, awe, & spirituality; accompanying emotional high) element from the supernatural aspects of spirituality, and retain the former while discarding the latter?
I can gaze at the cosmos from my room and feel a sense of awe; we are all simplistic creatures that attain a sense of wonderment on subjects we don’t completely understand. I am usually just amazed at what Mother Nature created, not what “God” created. Spirituality and reason don’t necessarily have to be inseparable. I think spirituality and secularism go especially well with one another, instead of feeling enlightened or wonderment and claim it’s the plan of a Devine dictatorship, I can say my new spirituality was obtained simply by my doing, Thus making it more significant.
(3) Faith and reason/science: Is faith compatible with reason/science?
Depends of course on the faith if it is completely dogmatic unquestioning faith then I would in all probability say no. It also depends on the branch of science if its botany or the studying of gravity or physics, belief in God would almost certainly not be as intervening in the mind as much as if he/she were studying the origins of the cosmos.Religious conviction and faith by definition are completely void of empirical evidence therefore science and ancient orated doctrines are completely dissimilar subjects.
(4) Dangers and benefits of atheism & religion: are atheism and religion dangerous? Would the world be better off without either? If so, do they have any redeeming qualities?
Well if religion was exhausted atheism wouldn’t be obligatory and I would much rather live in a world where we are not blinded by this religious or irreligious fundamentalism. I think some religions are far more hazardous than others but I still hold with firm conviction they are all innately harmful. I deem there are few if any redeeming qualities even the eradication of a horrible drug habit making the user think he/she was healed by Devine intervention still makes the former user feel as if he/she is not in control of their existence.
(5) Science and God: Can God be studied scientifically? Are religion and science compatible?
I believe God and science are exclusively different subjects, and should be kept out of the same realm. You can’t disprove a negative, and God’s reality by characterization is conviction in uncertainty which cannot be proven without a logical doubt.
(6) Finely tuned universe and God: Is the universe finely tuned for intelligent life, and if so, is that evidence for God?
There are a large number more than two astrophysical arguments, (I think around 26). The finely tuned universe argument has been argued and refuted copious times. I believe we adapted to the universe, not that the universe adapted to us. There could be bubble universes, multiple universes, and extra-terrestrial universes. A finely tuned universe is certainly not proof or even evidence for God.
(7) God and evolution: Is evolution compatible with God?
Of course, God could have guided it depending on the God you hold in veneration. This is the precise moment when you must decide whether to rely on the telling of antique literature or in the modern human science thus deciding whether you are blinded by faith or not.
(8) Altruism: does human altruism prove God?
Altruism proves that homo-sapiens inherently want to be in solidarity with one another. Nor would I even speculate if human charity would prove God, I don’t see how it would. Some of the earth’s greatest philanthropists were secularist.
(9) Miracles: Can miracles happen, and if so, are they compatible with science?
Of course I can’t prove the absence of miracles but I stand firm in the belief they are coincidences. We must be very careful not to deem coincidences an act of loving Devine intercession. Excuse me but it feels as if I must pull a tangent, I was watching a documentary about a young boy considered by many to be the worlds most intelligent youth, he hailed from India and their Hindu intransigence confirmed his mental power a phenomenon and therefore wanted him to preach Gods word instead of finding alleviation for atrocious diseases.
(10) War of ideas: Who is winning, atheism or religion? Is victory possible/desirable for either?
Gridlocked as usual until maybe an enlightenment occurs or something of that nature.
Your Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The Dogmatism of Muhammed
The Dogmatism of Muhammad
As any of my readers know I am not an adherent to any religious doctrine nor am I a spiritual pseudo-intellectual zealot, but I take usually the position of atheism to maybe perhaps anti-theism. So stating this, the reader conceivably knows I am not partial to one mythology, but a staunch critic of its same versions of untruth. I am writing this particular essay on the “Prophet” Muhammad because Islam is currently the earths most rapidly expanding religion, managing to place its devotees to some of the worlds most prestigious political positions. I believe the delusion that Islam is a misinterpreted “religion of peace” is an utter lie propagated by those who have never bothered to read the Quran or the Hadith therefore maintaining their ignorance about this religion. Muhammad was in modern terms a practicing pedophile a practitioner of polygamy a mass executioner and religious dogmatist utterly blinded by his fanaticism. First I would like to show you the amazing maliciousness of this religion. First by disproving the myth that the Quran is the pinnacle of morality here are a few of the beautiful divinely inspired passages
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).
I could keep quoting these repugnant verses but it would leave no time to spare and it would require too much space and besides I believe I made my point that Islam by its own doctrine and “holy book” is not the absolute moral goodness many people would have you believe. The next point I will make is that Muhammad himself is not a person to be emulated nor even to be taught was a decent person. Muhammad courted and betrothed a nine year old girl and of course took her virginity, an apologist would of course say it was different in these times but many historians would agree and disagree. The point I would make is an omniscient foretelling God would have with no doubt have told Muhammad that in the future people might look with disgust at the idea of intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl. Muhammad was not in the Jesuit sense a teacher or follower of pacifism he was a warrior, who fought the last decade of his years in Medina slaughtering Meccans. He had a Devine revelation in which he made the assertion Allah wanted him to wage war in his name and spread Islam by the point of a sword (thus making what seems a near prediction of the next millennium of Islam). Had Muhammad not been a warrior his religion might (wishful thinking) have been stopped on the Arabian Peninsulas but it instead leaked into the Byzantine and Persian empires through invasion of Arab armies.
Muhammad is not a decent person nor is the Quran a book to be taken literally stop selling this false myth and put Islam and all other religions in the category where they rightfully belong into the mythology section of literature.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
As any of my readers know I am not an adherent to any religious doctrine nor am I a spiritual pseudo-intellectual zealot, but I take usually the position of atheism to maybe perhaps anti-theism. So stating this, the reader conceivably knows I am not partial to one mythology, but a staunch critic of its same versions of untruth. I am writing this particular essay on the “Prophet” Muhammad because Islam is currently the earths most rapidly expanding religion, managing to place its devotees to some of the worlds most prestigious political positions. I believe the delusion that Islam is a misinterpreted “religion of peace” is an utter lie propagated by those who have never bothered to read the Quran or the Hadith therefore maintaining their ignorance about this religion. Muhammad was in modern terms a practicing pedophile a practitioner of polygamy a mass executioner and religious dogmatist utterly blinded by his fanaticism. First I would like to show you the amazing maliciousness of this religion. First by disproving the myth that the Quran is the pinnacle of morality here are a few of the beautiful divinely inspired passages
"Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"(2:190–93).
"Fighting is obligatory for you, much as you dislike it. But you may hate a thing although it is good for you, and love a thing although it is bad for you. God knows, but you know not" (2:216).
I could keep quoting these repugnant verses but it would leave no time to spare and it would require too much space and besides I believe I made my point that Islam by its own doctrine and “holy book” is not the absolute moral goodness many people would have you believe. The next point I will make is that Muhammad himself is not a person to be emulated nor even to be taught was a decent person. Muhammad courted and betrothed a nine year old girl and of course took her virginity, an apologist would of course say it was different in these times but many historians would agree and disagree. The point I would make is an omniscient foretelling God would have with no doubt have told Muhammad that in the future people might look with disgust at the idea of intercourse with a pre-pubescent girl. Muhammad was not in the Jesuit sense a teacher or follower of pacifism he was a warrior, who fought the last decade of his years in Medina slaughtering Meccans. He had a Devine revelation in which he made the assertion Allah wanted him to wage war in his name and spread Islam by the point of a sword (thus making what seems a near prediction of the next millennium of Islam). Had Muhammad not been a warrior his religion might (wishful thinking) have been stopped on the Arabian Peninsulas but it instead leaked into the Byzantine and Persian empires through invasion of Arab armies.
Muhammad is not a decent person nor is the Quran a book to be taken literally stop selling this false myth and put Islam and all other religions in the category where they rightfully belong into the mythology section of literature.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Mythology of Mr. Lincoln
Never has there been a president in the history of America who needs to be looked at more critically and candidly than our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln. To be analytical of the so called savior of our nation and preserver of our union is to be called seditious and the most UN-American of a citizen. The "preserver" of our union was everything but that, he and his administration disjoined our country to its eventual collapse, his personal agenda of abhorrence to the South’s possible use of states rights (meaning secession of the South from the Union) which would've consequently lost a enormous amount of revenue for the industrial empire that was the North and inevitably put our country into a senseless barbarian civil war. Abraham Lincoln was as most civil war enthusiast know, a loyal Whig until the parties collapse in the mid 1850’s. He officially changed his party to Republican desiring to obtain a large amount of money for his cronies in the party of Henry Clay, the very same political kooks who believed the same doctrine as the Communist Manifesto basing them upon high protective tariffs, a centralized banking system and internal improvements. The hatred for the south came when the threat of using their constitutional right of secession was considered by the inhabitants of the South, who demanded the abolition of the eighty percent income tariffs of Southern ports (the South made up about twenty percent of the union while paying eighty percent of all tariffs). Lincoln knew that if the South would consider seceding, its removal would be a massive loss of income for his campaign of a larger Federal Government and his protection of dangerous industrial interest.Until Lincoln’s contempt and disregard of our constitution and our countries founding documents secession was a right greatly preserved by the federal government for the North and South. We are the only industrial country on earth that extinguished involuntary servitude through the means of warfare when our own federal government could have with much more ease abolished it through compensation of the owners of slaves, when the much more passive and possibly more fiscally responsible way of peaceful atonement is the road not taken I have to look at the leadership with skepticism. Abraham Lincoln was not a friend of the African American in fact if he was president any longer than John Wilkes Booth permitted he would have carried out the final arrangements of his fellow members at the American Colonization Society which was to send all blacks to Liberia, the same ideology of the modern Neo-Nazis. He never advocated the eradication of slavery because he thought it was a necessary evil; to do so he advocated the absolute destruction of the agrarian South to prevent the North from losing the South's monetary assistance meaning modern corporate welfare, which was favored by the former lobbyist Abraham Lincoln and his friends in the railroad and other industries.I will end my critique of Lincoln by putting two of my favorite quotes by him.
"If I could preserve the union with freeing the slaves I would do so, if I could preserve the union without freeing the slaves I would do so."
"First Inaugural Address that "I have no purpose or intention to interfere with slavery where it exists."
I hope in the future individuals stop looking at people of celebrity stature with blind wonderment and awe and actually research and be critical of former leaders.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
"If I could preserve the union with freeing the slaves I would do so, if I could preserve the union without freeing the slaves I would do so."
"First Inaugural Address that "I have no purpose or intention to interfere with slavery where it exists."
I hope in the future individuals stop looking at people of celebrity stature with blind wonderment and awe and actually research and be critical of former leaders.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Thursday, January 10, 2008
The Usual Infringement of our Rights
The Usual Infringement of our Rights
I wrote a weighted letter last week to my local newspaper unfortunately because I felt inclined to do so about a topical subject I certainly would never have thought I would feel the necessity to defend, the right to keep and bear arms. The man claimed that our forefathers would not only have made modern firearm laws more authoritarian by making sales policy more strict but totally outlawing the sales or possession of firearms altogether, also making a slanderous statement stating the founders would have supported D.C.’s unconstitutional ban of handheld firearms. Well after first pointing out the author’s initial stupidity and sophomoric reading of our founding document I felt it necessary to make the point that D.C.’s ban on handheld firearms brought up crime especially violent crime substantially by all accounts. It seems the very same individuals that propose the absolute destruction of prohibition against illicit substances (which I am for) are the very same that are pressing for the Draconian abolition of our second amendment rights. The very same reasons apply to both subjects drugs and firearms are very jeopardous when used improperly but as we have seen multiple times the illegalization of a product floods black markets with the illegal product causing drug dealers or gun dealers to slay opposing providers of the product causing crime rates to skyrocket. The only people that would voluntarily give their guns to the government initiating the ban would be law-abiding citizens therefore the criminals keep their weapons of choice while the good citizens go unarmed and become victims of the inevitable crime wave.
This inalienable right should not only be protected but practiced without our second amendment right, all our other expectations from our government go; needless to say there would be no incentive for the government to allow us those other rights liberals tend to hold so dear. Without this right we fail to become citizens to the higher power we become nothing more the mindlessly obeying serfs. I make the argument that the only thing making our government hesitant to strip more our civil liberties away is the fact there are an estimated three hundred million guns in America. I guess I am backed into the corner and make the cliché quote “People should not be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of its people.”
On the evening of October 4th, 2007 the elderly couple Ed and Elaine Brown were captured by the Federal Government and imprisoned because of their failure to pay the unconstitutional federal income tax. Ed and Elaine, both in their sixties were held in their property plentiful abode for months with nothing but vitaminless food and firearms. The elderly couples were rattling the cages of the growing power of the American empire because of their disobedience and unwavering patriotism, to protest something their forefathers would have been against. This was a sad but joyful occasion to me, on one hand an elderly couple were captured in their own home and incarcerated (and by many accounts tortured) for not paying a tax. This issue was brought to us and many millions more because of their bravery to not submit to a totalitarian unconstitutional Federal Income tax and all at the assistance of the firearms in their possession.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
I wrote a weighted letter last week to my local newspaper unfortunately because I felt inclined to do so about a topical subject I certainly would never have thought I would feel the necessity to defend, the right to keep and bear arms. The man claimed that our forefathers would not only have made modern firearm laws more authoritarian by making sales policy more strict but totally outlawing the sales or possession of firearms altogether, also making a slanderous statement stating the founders would have supported D.C.’s unconstitutional ban of handheld firearms. Well after first pointing out the author’s initial stupidity and sophomoric reading of our founding document I felt it necessary to make the point that D.C.’s ban on handheld firearms brought up crime especially violent crime substantially by all accounts. It seems the very same individuals that propose the absolute destruction of prohibition against illicit substances (which I am for) are the very same that are pressing for the Draconian abolition of our second amendment rights. The very same reasons apply to both subjects drugs and firearms are very jeopardous when used improperly but as we have seen multiple times the illegalization of a product floods black markets with the illegal product causing drug dealers or gun dealers to slay opposing providers of the product causing crime rates to skyrocket. The only people that would voluntarily give their guns to the government initiating the ban would be law-abiding citizens therefore the criminals keep their weapons of choice while the good citizens go unarmed and become victims of the inevitable crime wave.
This inalienable right should not only be protected but practiced without our second amendment right, all our other expectations from our government go; needless to say there would be no incentive for the government to allow us those other rights liberals tend to hold so dear. Without this right we fail to become citizens to the higher power we become nothing more the mindlessly obeying serfs. I make the argument that the only thing making our government hesitant to strip more our civil liberties away is the fact there are an estimated three hundred million guns in America. I guess I am backed into the corner and make the cliché quote “People should not be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of its people.”
On the evening of October 4th, 2007 the elderly couple Ed and Elaine Brown were captured by the Federal Government and imprisoned because of their failure to pay the unconstitutional federal income tax. Ed and Elaine, both in their sixties were held in their property plentiful abode for months with nothing but vitaminless food and firearms. The elderly couples were rattling the cages of the growing power of the American empire because of their disobedience and unwavering patriotism, to protest something their forefathers would have been against. This was a sad but joyful occasion to me, on one hand an elderly couple were captured in their own home and incarcerated (and by many accounts tortured) for not paying a tax. This issue was brought to us and many millions more because of their bravery to not submit to a totalitarian unconstitutional Federal Income tax and all at the assistance of the firearms in their possession.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Contrarian view on Judeo-Christian God part1.
I should like to begin with the defining of the term Theism
This is the belief that one or more divinities are immanat in the world, yet transend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent. My point is that you cannot by definition have an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient God without that God being evil (Thus disproving the idea of Omni-benevolence.) If God was omniscient, thus knowing what the future beholds and fails to use perfect Devine powers to stop an atrocity to occur then the God is by any standards evil. If evil occurs or an evil act comes upon us an all-mighty God must know beforehand, knowing this and not providing adequate warning of a coming disaster would be doing nothing more then contributing to the evilness of the earth. An apologist will make the statement stating the evil doer’s free will (or the Judeo-Christian consequential will) is respected or unhampered by God. Well by definition it would make the idea of omniscience implausible.
Okay let’s ignore the previous point and say free will was provided to us by God. Well by doubting Gods or Jesus’ Divinity (considered the greatest sin) you will be of course sent to eternal hell. It seems rational that if God loves us more then our own parents the most mercy would be given to us (within the bounds of justice) to prevent the possibility of him burning his children. To believe in the existence of God the burden of proof must lie with the theist and not of the atheist or agnostic because our ideology means we are skeptical to the idea of celestial totalitarian big brother and demand evidence for our believing. It seems as if an Omni-benevolent God would be more liberal in providing undeniable evidence that is not based on fictional hearsay thus making us a more moral people and negate the need for an eternal punishment.
Your Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
This is the belief that one or more divinities are immanat in the world, yet transend it, along with the idea that divinity(s) is/are omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent and omnibenevolent. My point is that you cannot by definition have an omnipotent omnipresent omniscient God without that God being evil (Thus disproving the idea of Omni-benevolence.) If God was omniscient, thus knowing what the future beholds and fails to use perfect Devine powers to stop an atrocity to occur then the God is by any standards evil. If evil occurs or an evil act comes upon us an all-mighty God must know beforehand, knowing this and not providing adequate warning of a coming disaster would be doing nothing more then contributing to the evilness of the earth. An apologist will make the statement stating the evil doer’s free will (or the Judeo-Christian consequential will) is respected or unhampered by God. Well by definition it would make the idea of omniscience implausible.
Okay let’s ignore the previous point and say free will was provided to us by God. Well by doubting Gods or Jesus’ Divinity (considered the greatest sin) you will be of course sent to eternal hell. It seems rational that if God loves us more then our own parents the most mercy would be given to us (within the bounds of justice) to prevent the possibility of him burning his children. To believe in the existence of God the burden of proof must lie with the theist and not of the atheist or agnostic because our ideology means we are skeptical to the idea of celestial totalitarian big brother and demand evidence for our believing. It seems as if an Omni-benevolent God would be more liberal in providing undeniable evidence that is not based on fictional hearsay thus making us a more moral people and negate the need for an eternal punishment.
Your Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Malcolm Little No Martin Luther King
I believe Malcolm Little was an overall good human being that wrongly sustained the idea he was doing best for his race and religion, but then again so did Jerry Fallwell. Malcolm Little also known as Malcolm X was a bigot that preached nothing but superstition and demagoguery and separation between races. Let me tell you a little about Malcolm X, Malcolm Little was born May 1925 in Omaha Nebraska to parents that were members of Marcus Garvey’s Universal Negro Improvement Association. In 1931 Malcolm’s father committed suicide and seven years later his mother fell into insanity and lived in a mental hospital for the next twenty-six years. He moved to New York City in 1943 and that’s where the trouble started.
After some time in Harlem, Malcolm became involved in robbery, prostitution, racketeering, and drug dealing and other not so harmless vices. He was incarcerated for three years in Massachusetts for robbery he went back from Boston and New York a few more times. He was disqualified from the military draft for being “mentally unfit for service” (at least the U.S. Army agrees with me). Malcolm then spent the next six years imprisoned for Grand Larceny and Breaking and Entering. That is where Malcolm converted to the Nation of Islam and became a regular accomplice of the racist crackpot Elijah Muhammad. Prison seems to be a fit place to be converted to this organization.
The Nation of Islam preaches that Caucasians were “grafted” from the black race through a selective breeding process about six-thousand years ago by a God scientist named Yakub. (Well I hope I just destroyed a lot of Little’s creditability). According to the writing of Elijah Muhammad whom Little called The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught to be truly in the Nation of Islam you have to believe not just a few Caucasian people are devils but that all Caucasians are devils, this doctrine also preached the inevitability that African-Americans would one day be supreme rulers again. He constantly criticized Martin Luther King calling him a “chicken pecking uncle Tom”, he insulted King most likely because a poll suggested the year earlier that The Nation of Islam was by far the least influential civil rights organization but naming Kings number one. When President Kennedy was cruelly assassinated he said “It was a simple case of chickens coming home to roost and he was always glad when that happened.”
Your typical X apologist will state Little's racism absolutely vanished after his pilgrimage to Mecca and he became a follower of the much more intelligent and wiser Dr. Martin Luther King. Well this is highly debatable considering he still would prevent Caucasian people from entering his organization and still preached Garvey's total separation of races and to mention this lovely quote he said after he unfortunately returned to the states “Don’t teach me to be non-violent until you tell those crackers to be non-violent”.
Even though there is much evidence that suggest Little’s racism you will virtually find NOTHING on the Internet or in literature to be educated on the subject. His racism is virtually ignored by everyone. It stems from the nervousness that someone might get at being called a racist for pointing out the obvious bigotry in black leadership. Maybe one day this double standard will disappear.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
After some time in Harlem, Malcolm became involved in robbery, prostitution, racketeering, and drug dealing and other not so harmless vices. He was incarcerated for three years in Massachusetts for robbery he went back from Boston and New York a few more times. He was disqualified from the military draft for being “mentally unfit for service” (at least the U.S. Army agrees with me). Malcolm then spent the next six years imprisoned for Grand Larceny and Breaking and Entering. That is where Malcolm converted to the Nation of Islam and became a regular accomplice of the racist crackpot Elijah Muhammad. Prison seems to be a fit place to be converted to this organization.
The Nation of Islam preaches that Caucasians were “grafted” from the black race through a selective breeding process about six-thousand years ago by a God scientist named Yakub. (Well I hope I just destroyed a lot of Little’s creditability). According to the writing of Elijah Muhammad whom Little called The Honorable Elijah Muhammad taught to be truly in the Nation of Islam you have to believe not just a few Caucasian people are devils but that all Caucasians are devils, this doctrine also preached the inevitability that African-Americans would one day be supreme rulers again. He constantly criticized Martin Luther King calling him a “chicken pecking uncle Tom”, he insulted King most likely because a poll suggested the year earlier that The Nation of Islam was by far the least influential civil rights organization but naming Kings number one. When President Kennedy was cruelly assassinated he said “It was a simple case of chickens coming home to roost and he was always glad when that happened.”
Your typical X apologist will state Little's racism absolutely vanished after his pilgrimage to Mecca and he became a follower of the much more intelligent and wiser Dr. Martin Luther King. Well this is highly debatable considering he still would prevent Caucasian people from entering his organization and still preached Garvey's total separation of races and to mention this lovely quote he said after he unfortunately returned to the states “Don’t teach me to be non-violent until you tell those crackers to be non-violent”.
Even though there is much evidence that suggest Little’s racism you will virtually find NOTHING on the Internet or in literature to be educated on the subject. His racism is virtually ignored by everyone. It stems from the nervousness that someone might get at being called a racist for pointing out the obvious bigotry in black leadership. Maybe one day this double standard will disappear.
You’re Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
The Stupidity Of Guevara Idolators
The Stupidity of Guevara Idolaters
It seems I must perpetuate the stereotype of your typical Che Guevara cult worshipers. They are predominantly a crowd of Marxist Caucasian Trust fund guilted high school kids, of whom know absolutely nothing of the man they call Che. They maintain an anti-authoritarian stance on things resulting from political ignorance and arrogance but don’t realize the same government they desire to implement will be far more totalitarian then the one they are presently under rule of. So I have taken it upon myself to help educate my fellow brethren in hopes that they wont maintain there historical ignorance any longer, here are just a few of the horrible things this cruel totalitarian evil man has done.
He was the initiator of the first known firing squads in Cuba to murder any political dissenters. The merciful Che brutally executed at least one hundred and eighty men HIMSELF in La Cabana alone, his fellow cronies would make the political prisoner (or gay, black, or AIDS victims were also known to be forced into Che’s Cuban labor camps) surrender on there knees while Guevara would walk behind them with his famous .45 caliber hand gun shooting them in the most cowardly way in the back of the head.
The most ironic part of me having to go on the offense on Che idolaters is that Che himself never denied his cruelty “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary,” Truly a wise sage.
I will further my writing on the stupidity of callousness of the Che cult with offering even a greater amount of proof of his dictatorship. The new country that Che helped force upon the Cubans was truly a nightmare it ranks among the worst by far on the human rights violation list according to Amnesty International. Guevara himself murdered a fourteen year-old boy that was trying to defend his father from the brutal murderers, when they called the young boy to be executed Che ordered him to kneel the boy bravely said
“If you're going to kill me you're going to have to do it the way you kill a man, standing, not like a coward, kneeling.”
Guevara pointed the gun at the boy’s throat and pulled the trigger nearly decapitating him.
Guevara was nothing more then a terrorist, brutal murderer and coward and with a level of economic idiocy that would be laughable if he did not murder in its cause. Do anything to help disprove this Guevara myth educate to everyone you see one of those sadistic shirts or lighters or coffee mugs, poster, bandannas, key chains (all brought to you by capitalism). So they one day we can put Che with all the other failed dictators to the trash bin of history.
Your Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
It seems I must perpetuate the stereotype of your typical Che Guevara cult worshipers. They are predominantly a crowd of Marxist Caucasian Trust fund guilted high school kids, of whom know absolutely nothing of the man they call Che. They maintain an anti-authoritarian stance on things resulting from political ignorance and arrogance but don’t realize the same government they desire to implement will be far more totalitarian then the one they are presently under rule of. So I have taken it upon myself to help educate my fellow brethren in hopes that they wont maintain there historical ignorance any longer, here are just a few of the horrible things this cruel totalitarian evil man has done.
He was the initiator of the first known firing squads in Cuba to murder any political dissenters. The merciful Che brutally executed at least one hundred and eighty men HIMSELF in La Cabana alone, his fellow cronies would make the political prisoner (or gay, black, or AIDS victims were also known to be forced into Che’s Cuban labor camps) surrender on there knees while Guevara would walk behind them with his famous .45 caliber hand gun shooting them in the most cowardly way in the back of the head.
The most ironic part of me having to go on the offense on Che idolaters is that Che himself never denied his cruelty “To send men to the firing squad, judicial proof is unnecessary,” Truly a wise sage.
I will further my writing on the stupidity of callousness of the Che cult with offering even a greater amount of proof of his dictatorship. The new country that Che helped force upon the Cubans was truly a nightmare it ranks among the worst by far on the human rights violation list according to Amnesty International. Guevara himself murdered a fourteen year-old boy that was trying to defend his father from the brutal murderers, when they called the young boy to be executed Che ordered him to kneel the boy bravely said
“If you're going to kill me you're going to have to do it the way you kill a man, standing, not like a coward, kneeling.”
Guevara pointed the gun at the boy’s throat and pulled the trigger nearly decapitating him.
Guevara was nothing more then a terrorist, brutal murderer and coward and with a level of economic idiocy that would be laughable if he did not murder in its cause. Do anything to help disprove this Guevara myth educate to everyone you see one of those sadistic shirts or lighters or coffee mugs, poster, bandannas, key chains (all brought to you by capitalism). So they one day we can put Che with all the other failed dictators to the trash bin of history.
Your Contrarian Author,
Charles Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
