Che Guevara: Cuban revolutionary or puppy-eating serial murderer?

Okay, here’s a fun little intellectual exercise to try out:

Let’s see if we can spot the irrational, blinded-by-ideology individual amongst these two writers using only a writing sample from each on a similar topic.

Keep in mind, that some characteristics of irrational people are that they tend to:

1) Be incapable of using even-headed arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks.

2) Unable to give an account of their opponent’s behaviour without using over-simplification or straw-men.

3) View those they disagree with as inherently evil, often attributing sadistic and/or even satanistic motivations to their opponent’s actions.

4) Ignore evidence which suggests that the subject of their attack is not the embodiment of pure evil seeking to destroy all of humanity and/or enslave all of humanity.

5) Believe their account to be the only valid account.  This last characteristic is often associated with a belief that every one either already agrees with their account or that every one would agree with their account if they could simply realize just how popular this account really is.

So keep these items in mind and look for which one of these two writing samples portrays their subject as a caricature — this will work even if you actually know nothing whatsoever about Che Guevara.

Writing Sample #1:

He inspires all the more intensely since he could have lived a prosperous bourgeois life as an Argentine dentist. Instead, and despite asthma, he chose a life of action, a motorcycle diarist, a comandante in a triumphant Cuban revolutionary army, a guerrilla leader in the Congo, a martyr in the mountain gulleys of Bolivia.

It’s true he had a spell as a bank manager – but it was the governorship of Cuba’s revolutionary state bank.

It was the 1950s motorcycle tour that did it. The immiserated wastelands of Latin American, where the poor starved, the latifundists larked and the US corporations sucked the blood of South America.

In 1954 he witnessed the overthrow of the reforming Guatemalan government at the behest of the United Fruit company, run by those scions of the US establishment, the Dulles family.

By the time Che Guevara met Fidel Castro a year later he was a rebel. After, he was a revolutionary. Guevara had absolutely no military background and signed on with Fidel as the rebel “army’s” doctor. In the mountains of eastern Cuba in the late 1950s he became a military leader and a strategist of revolutionary warfare of the first order. It was an old-fashioned ethos: lead your men (and women) from the front and don’t ask them to do anything you aren’t prepared to do with them.

It was in no small measure due to his military victories that the Cuban revolution triumphed – the rebels’ entry into Havana on New Years Day 1959 is memorably recreated in the Godfather II. The Mafiosi and the bordello owners headed for the airport with the barbaric dictator Fulgencio Batista.

Those who would traduce Che, Fidel and the Cuban revolutionaries must say what Cuba would be like now if that dictatorship had held on – Haiti, the most hellish place in the Western hemisphere is literally not far from Cuba, but metaphorically in a different universe.

By the standards of Cuba’s blood-drenched history the retribution visited on the dictator’s henchmen was light – even according to the US ambassador to Havana and the head of the CIA at the time, Alan Dulles.

Che, in particular, defies the right-wing stereotype of the ice-cold, cunning revolutionist. He said that ‘the true revolutionary is guided by a great feeling of love. It is impossible to think of a genuine revolutionary lacking this quality.’

Even as Cuba, in the grip of the US’s embargo, looked to the Soviet Union for support, Che was prepared to criticise the bureaucratism he saw in Moscow.

It’s a staple of liberal and conservative cynics that revolutionaries such as Che ineluctably end up mirror images of the monsters they set out to overthrow. No one shatters that lazy cliché more than Che.

Instead of settling down in Havana, he set out to spread revolution in Congo, where the great Patrice Lumumba had been murdered in a UN-supported coup. Nelson Mandela paid tribute to the Cuban role in Africa’s liberation struggle. On his release from prison he went to Cuba, rather than any other capital in the world, beneath an illumination of Che’s image, Mandela lifted his hands aloft and said: ‘See how far we slaves have come!’

‘There are no frontiers in this struggle to the death,’ Che told an international conference in 1965. ‘We cannot remain indifferent in the face of what occurs in any part of the world. A victory for any country against imperialism is our victory, just as any country’s defeat is our defeat.’

That internationalism, which has become a leitmotif of today’s movements, connected him with the masses on every continent.

Even the coldest of latter-day Cold Warriors must have been moved by the recent story that a Cuban medical team last year saved the sight of Mario Teran, the Bolivian sergeant who executed Che.

One of the greatest mistakes the US state ever made was to create those pictures of Che’s corpse. Its Christ-like poise in death ensured that his appeal would reach way beyond the turbulent university campus and into the hearts of the faithful, flocking to the worldly, fiery sermons of the liberation theologists.

Which leaves the liberals, who say that they too, as Che put it, ‘. . . tremble with indignation at every injustice,’ but who turn up their noses when the despairing mass of people resort to force against the daily violence of the elite.

They call to mind the admonition of the great black abolitionist Frederick Douglass: ‘Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation… want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters…. Power concedes nothing without a demand.’

Today, a new generation is struggling for progress – drawing strength from Hugo Chavez’s Bolivarian revolution, while many of us also remain mindful of the catastrophe that engulfed Allende and the Chilean movement when those who stood in its way were not defanged. To wish Venezuela’s social reforms without Che’s revolutionary steadfastness is to will the first 11 September atrocity – Santiago, Pinochet, 1973, gunfire drowning the song of a new Chile.

Che’s time is not past – it is coming. I was struck recently by the remarkable introduction by Lucia Alvarez de Toledo to a compilation of Che’s Bolivian diaries. She met the daughter of the telegaphist in the Bolivian village where Che was taken who had communicated the first written word of his murder.

Toldeo writes: “She said she had been there when Guevara had died. She said she was 19 at the time. Then she cast a look around her and said, ‘Look at us. Nothing has changed since then. El Commandante came too soon. We were ignorant and did not understand him… We abandoned him… and here we are just as we were before he came, or maybe even worse.’ ”


Writing Sample #2:

It is true that Che’s story begins with a motorcycle journey across South America. The young man was repulsed by the gap between the swanky transplanted European culture in which he lived and the starving misery of the indigenous peoples. He could see that this was caused largely by America’s habit of smashing local governments and replacing them with dictators prepared to slobber over US corporations. But he concluded from that journey – gradually, over a few short years – that there was only one solution: the imposition of authoritarian communism, by force, everywhere. He chose not to see that this system, wherever it is tried, makes people even poorer still, invariably spreading famine, starvation, and terror.

Since the Soviet Union was too soft for his tastes, there were only two countries that Che found truly admirable: Maoist China and Kim Il Sung’s North Korea. He bragged that there was “not a single discrepancy” between Mao’s world view and his own. As Che was happily fawning over Mao in the flesh in Beijing, in the surrounding countryside there was an epidemic of mothers cutting off the flesh from their inner thighs to feed it to their starving children. The programme that caused this biting hunger – the mass collectivisation of the farms – represented “true socialist morality”, Che said. The dictator killed 70 million people in the end, cheered on by his guerrilla friend [Che] at every stage.

Of course, Che’s defenders act as if this was the only choice confronted by Latin Americans: you were either for US-imposed market fundamentalism, or for Maoist Communism. But you don’t have to look very far in Che’s life to see that this is a lie. His diaries show that he was constantly appalled to discover that almost everyone around him, including the revolutionaries fighting by his side, did not share his Maoist vision for the future. His first wife, Hilda Gadea, was a social democrat. She wanted to depose the US-backed tyrants – and then replace them with moderate, Swedish-style mixed economies. Che ridiculed and pilloried her as “bourgeois”, before abandoning both her and their child. The ordinary Cubans he fought alongside on the Sierra Maestre also wanted to create a democracy with a mixed economy. Disgusted, Che noted in his diary: “I discovered the evident anti-communist inclinations of most of them.”

When Che and Fidel Castro’s guerrilla army seized power in Cuba, he was immediately – and to his delight – put in charge of the firing squads. He instituted a system of ‘trials’ that lasted just a few hours, with himself as sole judge. They invariably ended with the low-level functionaries of the Batista regime being lined up and shot. Che’s public declarations from that time are blunt. “All right, it is dictatorship,” he shouted at one point. “It’s criminal to think of the needs of the individual.” He even banned Santa Claus, saying he was an “American imperialist import.”

The friend who had travelled with Che on the famous motorcycle journeys, David Mitrani, was shocked when they met up in Havana after the revolution. He could not understand how Che’s compassionate response to poverty all those years ago had led him to announce he now wanted to become an ” effective, violent, selective, and cold killing machine“.

Che’s fanaticism reached its peak in October 1963, when he seriously advocated a course of action that would immediately end life on earth. Che had implored the Soviet Union to place nuclear missiles on Cuba. He knew the US would interpret this as an act of aggression and probably retaliate with nuclear weapons – but he said that “the people [of Cuba] you see today tell you that even if they should disappear from the face if the earth because an atomic war is unleashed in their names… they will feel completely happy and fulfilled” knowing the revolution had inspired people for a while. Che did not say how he knew the Cuban people would be delighted to die of radiation sickness, their hair burning on their heads and their skin slopping from their faces.

The Soviet Union followed Che’s advice – and the world came closer to nuclear annihilation than at any point before or since. On the American side, maniacs like General Curtis LeMay implored Jack Kennedy to nuke Moscow immediately. On the Soviet side, Che Guevara played exactly the same role. He urged Khrushchev to launch a nuclear strike, now, against US cities. For the rest of his life, he declared that if his finger had been on the button, he would have pushed it. When Khrushchev backed down and literally saved the world, Che was furious at the “betrayal“. If Che’s recommendations had been followed, you would not be reading this newspaper now.

None of these facts are seriously disputed by historians; they are simply skidded over by Che’s defenders, who stick to romantic generalities about how he stood for “honesty” and “revolution”. But Che Guevara is not a free-floating icon of rebellion. He was an actual person who supported an actual system of tyranny, one that murdered millions more actual people.

If the small lingering band of communo-nostalgists who still revere Che were honest about continuing his life’s work, they would have to form a group called “Left-Wingers for Creating a Universal North Korea, Prior to Universal Death in a Nuclear Winter.” I don’t think they would find many recruits.


So, which one of these two accounts portrays a real person and which account portrays a hollowed-out caricature which perfectly serves as a useful manifestation for the author to easily attribute everything evil?

Writting sample #1 is that of George Galloway.

Writting sample #2 is that of Johann Hari.

The text of these two writing samples can be found here.

The vast majority of the issues raised by Hari, I won’t bother addressing.  But there are a couple of things worth noting in closing which are blatantly factually inaccurate as opposed to merely misreadings, tu quoque arguments and straw-men arguments.  These items also demonstrate that Hari’s own caricature of Che is inconsistent even with itself.

First, Che was wildly suspicious of Stalin’s USSR precisely because of his authoritarian brand of faux ‘socialism’.  So Hari’s suggestion that Che’s goal was to spread that ideology is, at best, internally contradictory.

Second, if Che actually believed, as Hari suggests, that ‘authoritarian communism’ needed to be “imposed… by force…. everywhere”, then why did Che not simply convince the USSR to invade the Congo and brutally take it over (since, in the rest of Hari’s argument, Che is portrayed as having such a strong persuasive power over the weak-willed Soviets)?  Why did Che risk his life (and not to mention his health) to go to Congo and organize a grassroots, organic, and popular domestic uprising in the Congo?  Likewise, why didn’t he just have Cuba invade Bolivia instead of sacrificing his life there to help organize a similar grassroots movement?  These items of history are conveniently ignored by Hari because they contradict his caricature of Che.

Third, why is it the Soviets who brought the world to the edge of destruction and not the Americans who after all had placed nuclear weapons in Turkey in order to better target Moscow, which directly precipitated the Cuban Missile Crisis in the first place?

Fourth, if Che heartlessly “abandon[ed]” his child, why did he disguise himself so he could see his child without the CIA suspecting it was him?  Why would he care so much?

Now Che certainly wasn’t an angel, that’s for sure.  But it’s always important to be weary of people who present such an overwhelmingly simplistic picture of anybody.

39 Responses to “Che Guevara: Cuban revolutionary or puppy-eating serial murderer?”

  1. 1 Christina 9 October, 2007 at 4:50 pm

    both writing samples are overly simplistic. the first portrays a evangelized view of che, villifying the capitalist world, and the second portrays a villified one with the russians finally stopping to insert some common sense into the proceedings. I know absolutely nothing about che, his life or his principles. i actually find the second essay more human and more believeable than the first, in the face of the political self-aggrandizement carried out over much of history, and knowing the type of fanatical idealism that proponents of many socialist/communist ideologies have. to the best of my knowledge che has always been portrayed in the mainstream as the big hearted revolutionary hero; after all, his face is all over tshirts and posters and parodied in advertisements.

  2. 2 paulitics 9 October, 2007 at 5:58 pm

    Christina – I’m interested to hear that you thought the second essay was more “human” than the first essay. I’m wondering if you can talk more about that.

    Maybe it’s just because I’ve read tons about Che and I know what was ignored and what parts were constructed as a straw-man, but the second essay isn’t a person being portrayed — it’s a caricature of pure evil. Even if you disagree with Che or whoever, how can you accept such a facile picture of anybody — even somebody you profoundly disagree with? People may do horrible and terrible things, but they never do them BECAUSE they think these things are evil, horrible and terrible. They do them for a plethora of other reasons ranging from selfish egoism to any number of more complex reasons. (Now, that said, my bias is that I think Che was a pretty great guy and an admirable character, but that’s neither here nor there).

    My opinion is that something is overly simplistic when somebody is being portrayed as having his life’s ambition to actively seek the destruction of all of humanity through nuclear holocaust.

  3. 3 Eric 9 October, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Honestly, I find neither essay to be more indicative of someone who is “irrational” and “blinded-by-ideology” than the other. One paints a picture of a hero, the other of a demon, but that doesn’t mean anything. Suppose, instead of talking about Che Guevara we were talking about George W. Bush. Without any outside information, how would a reader react to two essays presented to them: One from the conservative perspective portraying Bush as a knight in shining armor against the evil terrorists and another from the liberals portraying Bush as evil incarnate — with all the really nasty bits in the liberal’s essay [lying us into a war, legalized torture, opposing a children’s health care bill] highlighted in bold, as you have done to the essay by Johann Hari.

    My point is this: Just because one essay is positive and the other is negative doesn’t mean anything. There is nothing in the WRITING STYLE here that makes me think one of these perspectives is more accurate than the other. The ONLY way to know the truth about an issue such as this is by looking at the facts and checking sources. It is my belief that very few Americans are willing to get below the surface of any issue and that this is why George Bush was elected twice, and this is why Republican propaganda works. The only way to tell what is real and what is not involves doing a little research. It takes less than two minutes with google, but sadly the American attention span is far less than two minutes, and besides the average american would rather go shopping.

  4. 4 paulitics 9 October, 2007 at 8:01 pm

    Eric – One can talk about what, for instance, George W. Bush has done from either a conservative or a left-wing light without painting a caricature. It is possible to talk about George W. Bush “lying us into a war, legalized torture, opposing a children’s health care bill” as you have pointed out without also positing that George W. Bush does these things simply because he is evil. If a leftist wrote that about Bush it WOULD be a writing style indicative of somebody who is blinded by ideology. And the way you can tell whether the writer is blinded by ideology or not is whether the essay gives you a more complex understanding of the person or whether it stops critical thinking about what makes the given person (Bush, in this case) tick.

    I’m drawing a bit on Kant’s moral taxonomy here, but it makes no sense to say that there is an evil person who does evil things merely because they are evil. They may do horrible things for any number of reasons but merely positing evilness answers nothing. Conversely, however, Kant does posit that it IS possible for individuals to do good things merely because they’re good and not because they personally benefit from them (read: altruism). Thus, saying Mother Teresa did good things because she was a good person and saying George W. Bush does bad things because he’s evil are NOT equivalents. One of these two statements could (under some circumstances) possibly lend some insight into the subject, while the other can never lend any insight. Thus, since Galloway’s article isn’t attempting to attribute evilness onto his subject that makes it all the stronger argument over and above the fact that it’s more historically accurate.

  5. 5 Comrade Ravenhawk 9 October, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    I did have issues reading the two since they were both obviously pushing something. However, the first is pushing it’s hero image through the use of historical references. Whereas the second is pushing it’s through demonization and, it would appear, the making up of complete bullshit.

    It’s bad enough to leave out one side of an argument, but twisting history and holding it up as “fact” is rather pathetic.
    “None of these facts are seriously disputed by historians” BS, I say.

  6. 6 Eric 10 October, 2007 at 11:36 am

    I don’t think Hari’s essay is trying to argue that Che did evil for the sake of evil. It seems to be arguing that Che was so blinded by communist ideology that he believed he was doing good things when he was doing things most people would consider evil. Note, I strongly disagree with Hari’s analysis, but that does not mean it isn’t plausible without knowing anything about the historical reality.

    Adherence to ideology beyond all rationality is actually quite common, and is, in fact, a good working definition of evil. A good example is the religious fanatic who bombs abortion clinics. As you say, no one does evil thinking that it is evil.

    Also, note the 5th point you make in describing irrational people, it’s the most important: they “Believe their account to be the only valid account.” Nowhere in EITHER of these essays is there any acknowledgment of another viewpoint, however incorrect the author believes it to be. Neither essay does more than hint that there is significant controversy, let alone tries to address the other side’s criticisms.

    Finally, I would point out that even if I accept that Hari is categorizing Che as doing evil for the sake of evil your argument still has a flaw: You’re comparing apples and oranges. If a critical essay can easily be categorized as that of an irrational lunatic, while a positive one cannot be categorized as such in the same manner the comparison you proposed is seriously flawed. In one case it’s much easier to spot the nut. If you truly want to prove that irrational people write differently, contrast two essays both critical of their subjects.

    You say that the writing style makes for a “stronger argument over and above the fact that it’s more historically accurate.” However your initial argument was that “this will work even if you actually know nothing whatsoever about Che Guevara,” thus making historical accuracy irrelevant to what you’re trying to argue. Again, I am not disagreeing with you that Hari is being intellectually dishonest, twisting facts and misrepresenting reality. I just think you need to read history in order to know that — you can’t tell by simply reading his essay.

  7. 7 charlie brown 9 November, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    Che said it himself:

    “This is the history of a failure.”

    Ernesto Che Guevara, translated from the Spanish by Patrick Camiller, The African Dream, New York: Grove Publishers, 2000, p.1.

  8. 8 Artaxerxes 19 February, 2008 at 5:23 pm

    I really think the latter essay is ridiculous. Yes, Che is portrayed rather positively in the first, but not at all in a sickly way – it doesn’t sound forced (like it would, if somebody tried doing the same thing about Hitler). But in the second, it’s apparently necessary to use quite extreme language and horrible images to get the message across, even when that message isn’t very strong. I can’t see that the 1st essay portatrays Che as perfect – only as good. But the latter doesn’t just view Che as bad, but as ‘perfect example of evil’. He might have been good or bad, but he can’t have been perfect or perfect evil. Since essay 1 chooses from the first two (good/bad, choosing good), and essay 2 chooses from the latter 2 (perfect/perfect evil, choosing perfect evil), I think its easily concluded that essay 2 is far out, whereas essay 1, whether right or wrong, is A LOT more down to earth.
    But nice debate:)

  9. 9 Vicktor 21 February, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    By the time I was done reading sample #2 it was obvious to me that I was being manipulated by the author of this “fun little intellectual exercise”. All of the large bold font with selective underlining of selected ugly words and phrases is a dead give away.

    Not to be outdone by Mr Galloway I have cribbed a bit about him from wikipedia. This is what I found: ‘Galloway is perhaps best known for his vigorous campaign to overturn economic sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s and early 2000s and to avert the 2003 invasion of that country. He made visits there in 1994 and 2002. As part of a speech in his 1994 visit in which Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was in attendance, he said “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability”,[1] although Galloway has always claimed that he was addressing the Iraqi people.’ *****Please people, I can’t be the only one here who sees the big lie. Not matter what your thoughts on the 1st or 2nd Persian Gulf wars, Saddam Hussein was not courageous or indefatigable, he was the Butcher of Baghdad. And it is also shamefully obvious that the ‘Sir’ George Galloway referred to in his speech is the singular Saddam, not the plural Iraqi people.

    As a critical reader of this post and the articles it contains it is of tantamount importance to understand that you are constantly being manipulated by people such as the author of this post. It is also negligent on the part of the reader in the age of google to not do even the most basic background checks on authors such as George Galloway. Because if you know the heart of this author, you can better judge his words.

    • 10 Cass Dean 27 September, 2016 at 7:00 pm

      The “most basic” background check is what you did, and a diligent background check reveals that you are wrong about the the utility of a peek at Wikipedia. Do you know who wrote the piece in Wikipedia? Did alone done a background check on the author?

      Some more George Galloway, in the House of Commons:

      “I despise Osama Bin Laden, that mediaeval, obscurantist savage. But here’s the difference. I despised Bin Laden at the time when you lot were shoving guns and money down his throat faster than he could swallow.”

      I am happier when facts rather than style destroy the credibility of an author, though, and I’d like to point out that Che reached the end of his strength once the Revolution had triumphed, collapsed and was sentenced to months of bed rest. He was NOT THERE when el exilio wallows in lies about him wallowing in the blood of BRAC, a group of CIA-trained psychopathic torturers and murderers who needed killing.

      He was the JAG and checked the paper work which was couriered to him daily.

  10. 11 paulitics 22 February, 2008 at 10:08 am

    Vicktor, I strongly suggest you get your information from more sources than Wikipedia. Reading the Wikipedia page far too often can make impressionable people believe they are experts on the subject when clearly they are not. If you are interested, there is a large corpus of George Galloway’s utterances on Hansard (the official Parliamentary record of the House of Commons) as well as written statements condemning Saddam Hussein in the harshest terms. If you’d like to read up further on them, you’re welcome to do so, but I highly doubt you will because it would ruin the image you have built up of him in your mind as a supporter of tyrants.

    On a more serious note, however: Charges of plagerism are considered on this blog as a very serious charge.

    I skimmed through the Guevara page on Wikipedia and found that your contention that the writing sample is “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia” is simply unsupported.

    If you can provide any proof to support your claim, then I will let that portion of the comment stand. Otherwise, I am going to have to delete that sentence only until you can substantiate this very serious accusation.

  11. 12 Vicktor 22 February, 2008 at 4:34 pm

    Paul, suggesting that I am impressionable and doubting my future research efforts is just plain lazy. And asking me to substantiate my claim that George Galloway is a plagiarist is an unimaginative attempt on your part to make this post about me instead of talking about what it is. This post is at it’s heart a perfect example of political propaganda disguised as a ‘fun little intellectual exercise’. You threw out a tasty bit of bait and the hungry little minnows out there gobbled it up in an attempt to look intellectual for you. The sad truth is that nobody really gets that what you are doing is manipulating the information you give them in order to solicit the outcome you desire. You bold faced, underlined, and enlarged the font of certain key words and phrases in sample #2 thereby making the reader response a forgone conclusion. Compared to your subterfuge my charge of plagiarism on the part of George Galloway is a just a footnote. I would very much like to hear you explain your actions and motives as regards your manipulation of sample #2.

    I see that you have already deleted my charge of plagiarism against George Galloway. Delete at will, however, how much more edifying would it have been to all the intellectuals out their to have let them decide for themselves if my charge of plagiarism against George Galloway was well founded or otherwise.
    On that note you are again guilty of subterfuge by charging that I had contended that sample #1 is plagiarized word for word from wikipedia. I clearly wrote that parts of it are plagiarized, not word for word. Unfortunately, your readers will never know that because you have word smithed my post in the same manner that you word smithed sample #2. Shame on you.

  12. 13 RPJ 23 February, 2008 at 3:28 am

    You do understand that the phrase “fun intellectual exercise” was said tongue in cheek don’t you Vicktor? That is even clearer as you read on and see how he sets up the comparison and unless you are many cells short of a functioning brain you know he is about to let you in on an amusing example of the points he has already told you about. He then goes on to highlight them in the same way a friend might share their thoughts about anything they have read or have seen broadcast. You can almost hear the “hey did you see this”, and “good grief, how about that” or at least some of us can. If the title of “… puppy-eating serial murderer” didn’t give you a clue as to what was going to follow then what can I say… and where would I start?

  13. 14 Vicktor 23 February, 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Is calling me many cells short of a functioning brain also tongue in cheek? To say that this was all a tongue in cheek gag amongst friends is a convenient cop-out that makes all of my points indefensible. If that’s all this was then Paul would have said so himself. But he never did. What he did was call me names, just like you are. He also censored my post by deleting a key sentence. Which is something his academic/philosophic mentor Noam Chomsky would never do (Paul are you listening?). Also just reading how seriously he responds to the comments by Christina, Eric and myself completely contradicts your assertion.

    You ended your post by asking the question, “where would I start?”. I’m assuming that that was asked tongue in cheek, but to answer you anyway you can start by getting out of Paul’s head. If this was all meant to be taken tongue in cheek then Paul can say so himself. If that ends up to be the case, and if Paul has any integrity at all, he will take the intellectual out of “fun intellectual exercise” because there is nothing intellectual about doctoring up another writer’s writing. Even if he is a vocal anti-communist. He will also apologize to me for censoring my post.

    P.s. RPJ, don’t be so angry dude. Were just talking here.

  14. 15 RPJ 24 February, 2008 at 1:53 am

    I’m not angry at all. I can’t speak for Paul and I’m sure he will do fine if he wishes to address your post but I was trying to point out to you how the post appeared to me and likely many others. You still don’t get the fact that he was poking fun at the over the top language of Hari and yet that was clear to us in the set-up (incl. puppy-killing serial murderer). Calling it a little intellectual exercise was said tongue in cheek because it is clear that this is not an intellectual test because he is going to point out the crazy parts and he says so up front. Now that said, the meat of the points being made in sample 2 are easily and seriously rebutted by him. I am at a loss to figure out how you think this post is some trick luring in the unsuspecting “minnows” when it is clear right from the title what will be presented and what view Paul has of both sides. And yes, I do find it funny how blatant and transparent the tactics and language used by Hari are and it would be so no matter what side of the argument he was on. Oh, and as far as his editing your post goes surely you don’t think he should have let your libellous charge of plagiarism against someone remain on his blog. He clearly stated that all you had to do to have him put it back online was to back up the charge with facts. Statements aren’t libellous if they can be proved true. If you want it back in your post why don’t you meet that requirement?

  15. 16 RPJ 24 February, 2008 at 2:06 am

    PS: I didn’t specify you personally as having many cells short of a funtioning brain. That entire sentence is directed at “you the reader” generally and I am saying ANYONE would have to be a bit dim not to understand what is being said in his post. Now if that describes you so be it, but it is only because you have put yourself into that group.

  16. 17 Vicktor 24 February, 2008 at 7:47 pm

    Paul, I am disappointed by your silence. Do you not see that your apologist RPJ has unwittingly validated everything I have said by claiming, on your behalf, that your “fun little intellectual exercise” was never actually that. From post 1 that has always my contention and now RPJ has fortuitously agreed with my exact claim. Sure, she and I differ on our views as to what your motives truly were, but either way if you don’t speak up on your own behalf and clarify I was always right and RPJ concurs with me.

    That being said let me tell you how I came across your blog. Wikipedia. Wikipedia may not be the most scholarly work on Che, Galloway, or Hari, but it is nevertheless a piece of work that many do take seriously. If your silence is indicative of your agreement with RPJ’s entertaining apology then I’m sure we can agree on at least this one item. Wikipedia is not the place for a tongue in cheek gag amongst friends. Either clarify your position, or ethics demands that you remove your tongue in cheek gag from wikipedia.

  17. 18 RPJ 25 February, 2008 at 12:12 am

    sat·ire Pronunciation Key – [sat-ahyuhr] –noun
    1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
    2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
    3. a literary genre comprising such compositions.

  18. 19 paulitics 25 February, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Vicktor – First off, I do apologize for my ‘silence’ as you term it. I am in the final 6 weeks of completing my graduate degree and as you can imagine, I do have slightly more pressing matters to attend to than dealing with crazies feigning indication.

    I for one and perfectly capable of admitting when I did something wrong, and thus I do admit that I should have made the time to respond to this debate between RPJ and yourself. I also did something else that was fatally wrong, and I am prepared to fully admit that here and now too: I should never have deleted the one sentence in your original post wherein you accused George Galloway’s essay of being “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia”. I’ve encountered conservatives, libertarians and liberals who have strongly, forcefully (sometimes obnoxiously) disagreed with me on any number of issues. But, I must say, I was truly shocked by your following post because never have I encountered somebody willing to lie to further their cause even when they themselves know the statement or argument to be fraudulent. I’ve read Machiavelli, but I’ve never encountered anybody personally who was actually so ruthless in their devotion that they are willing to lie to further their cause.

    So, with that said, I know that I just copied and pasted said quote from your comment and YOU know that I just copied and pasted said quote from your comment, and moreover, YOU know that it was not taken out of context because there was no context — the quote appeared in a one sentence, one line paragraph and it was only that one sentence which was deleted. However, that said, I must thank you for teaching me this (brutal) lesson. I promise I will never again delete a portion of another commenter’s post without at the very least first taking a screen cap of it.

    Sadly, there is no way of me retrieving the deleted sentence for me to present to everyone to expose you as nothing more than an opportunistic Machiavellian, so I suppose you’re free now to retort with more feigned indignation. Sigh.

    However, for what it’s worth, I think the readers of this blog will see through this ruse for what it is. I think most of my readers are aware that I have better things to do with my time than to fabricate a quotation from a blog commentator who thinks wikipedia is an authoritative source, and then to claim I copied and pasted them, and then to be silent on the issue of my ‘doctoring’ for several days instead of helping to further my cleaver and diabolical plot to discredit a person who is already, by his own utterances, discredited.

    That said, moving on now, you write that you came across my blog via wikipedia and then you go on to further demonstrate your ignorance by writing “Either clarify your position, or ethics demands that you remove your tongue in cheek gag from wikipedia.” If you are not familiar with wikipedia, allow me to enlighten you: anybody can add anything to wikipedia and, here’s the novel part, you can go on to any given page’s history and look at precisely who added what and when. Look at the history of of the wikipedia page on Guevara. You’ll notice that I’ve never touched it. I never added this blog post to wikipedia, and what’s more, whoever did add this blog post to wikipedia also added a whole slew of other sources, hardly one of which would meet encyclopedic standards.

    However, if you are interested, the vast majority of the articles linked to in the “further reading” section of the wikipedia page (including this blog post) were just removed a couple of days ago. So you’ve conjured an “ethical” dilemma here when none has ever existed. I wasn’t the person who added this page to wikipedia and I wasn’t the person who removed this page.

    But I await your response to tell me what I did wrong there too.

    P.S. I see you have still chosen not to provide any evidence to support your claims of plagiarism. Pity, I would have enjoyed watching you attempt to prove that one. I also see that you have chosen not to avail yourself of the opportunity I presented to you earlier to read up on George Galloway’s position of Saddam Hussein. He has been fiercely critical of Hussein long before it was fashionable to be critical of him. In other words, he’s been critical of Hussein since the 1980s when he was a favoured ally and Galloway continued his criticism after he was elected to the British House of Commons.

  19. 20 Vicktor 25 February, 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Paul, let me do a quick run down for you on how you’ve handled yourself:

    You have insinuated that I am impressionable, If I was then I would have fallen for your ruse, but I’m the only one besides RPJ who didn’t. She agrees that this post never was a fun little intellectual exercise but says it was actually a tongue in cheek gag amongst friends. You still have not concurred or countered her entertaining hypothesis, so that if I was an unbiased reader of this post I would have no idea which it is. You claim that I think myself an expert on George Galloway, where have I ever said that?

    You have said that I’m unsupported, crazy, liar, ruthless, fraudulent, opportunistic Machiavellian, think wikipedia is an authoritative source, discredited and ignorant. Let’s cover a-l-l of those one at a time. Unsupported – your wrong, RPJ agrees with me. Crazy – quit being a reactionary. Liar – you can’t prove that because you censored my post and as such you can’t credibly keep charging me with being a liar. Ruthless – don’t get hysterical. Fraudulent – see liar. Opportunistic Machiavelli – I’ve never been called that, thanks for popping my cherry. Think wikipedia is an authoritative source – where have I ever used the word authoritative in reference to wikipedia? Discredited – you are discredited, RPJ says so. Ignorant – besides RPJ I’m the only one who saw through your ruse so you can’t call me that either.

    Now let me tell you what I think about you. You are obviously a person with some strongly held beliefs, unfortunately your arguments for them are weak and as such you have to resort to name calling and censorship. Here’s what you said are some characteristics of irrational people. They tend to:

    1) Be incapable of using even-headed arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks. ( You’ve never addressed my claim about your post. Instead you have made relentless personal attacks against me for a sentence you censored and continue to call me a liar/fraud despite your own admission of censorship.)

    2) Unable to give an account of their opponent’s behaviour without using over-simplification or straw-men. (You’ve called me impressionable, lazy and ignorant.)

    3) View those they disagree with as inherently evil, often attributing sadistic and/or even satanistic motivations to their opponent’s actions. (You’ve called me crazy, opportunistic, ruthless and Machiavellian.)

    4) Ignore evidence which suggests that the subject of their attack is not the embodiment of pure evil seeking to destroy all of humanity and/or enslave all of humanity. (You’ve ignored the fact that your girlfriend RPJ continues to agree with me that this post was never an intellectual exercise.)

    5) Believe their account to be the only valid account. This last characteristic is often associated with a belief that every one either already agrees with their account or that every one would agree with their account if they could simply realize just how popular this account really is. (Being an almost post grad college boy you can’t honestly say that your doctored post would ever pass anyone’s idea of an intellectual exercise.)

    Paul you are so blinded by your own beliefs that you have become your own caricature. In closing the beauty of the blogoshere is that everyone gets a say. The bad news is that usually you end up preaching to the choir. Rather than fear me/hate me you should thank me for shaking you up a bit. And you have to admit that by logic alone I have destroyed everyone of your arguments without resorting to any of the 5 characteristics above while you have resorted to all of them. Please do not respond until after you have learned to do so without being the very person you warn others against.

  20. 21 RPJ 26 February, 2008 at 12:05 am

    Please don’t drag me into your warped version of reality. All I ever tried to do was to get you to see how the initial post was satirical and not some trap that you viewed it as. In no way are we in any kind of agreement so please don’t match me in any way with you and also please don’t match me with Paul either. Where the hell do you build these fantasies? What in my post would lead you to believe I am his girlfriend of all things? You really don’t need facts for any of your conclusions do you? Yikes you are one scary dude.

  21. 22 paulitics 26 February, 2008 at 9:56 am


    I love how you write that I am “blinded by [my] own beliefs” while suggesting that you occupy an unbiased viewpoint; that you stand at the archimedean point of the universe.

    Anyhow, contrary to your assertion, you haven’t refuted any of the substantive issues I’ve put to you. The items such as ‘liar’ ‘opportunistic machiavellian’ et cetera were simple obiter dictim observations on my part and even then, you laughably hold that a retort such as “your wrong” actually constitutes a refutation of anything. Either way, you know full well what the substantive matters I’ve put to you are, however, I’ll reiterate them to you as you have been conspicuously silent on them.

    First, I asked you to research George Galloway’s written statements and Hansard to educate yourself on his strong opposition to Saddam Hussein which can be found therein and to report back to me what you found. You’ve steadfastly demonstrated your phobia of doing such a research project (it wouldn’t even take you too long if you knew where to look) and consequently you’ve more than demonstrated your desire to retain your untenable position that Galloway supported Hussein’s regime. I guess we wouldn’t want any of those pesky ‘facts’ which blind my biased worldview to infect your unbiased worldview.

    Second, I asked you from the very beginning to present evidence, other than your ‘say-so’, that George Galloway had plagiarized his article from Wikipedia. I told you explicitly that if you presented me with evidence, I would let your charge of plagiarism stand. All you have to do is back up your statement. That’s it. It’s a fair and simple request, really. I haven’t told you you’re wrong on this matter, I’ve merely asked you to back up this contention. Moreover, I’ve now asked you multiple times to do so and you’ve had 5 days to do so. You’ve presented me with zero independent analysis of your own. You’ve presented me with zero sources of any reputable source which has done such an analysis. You’ve presented me with zero acknowledgment that charges of plagiarism are very serious and that they ought to be supported and ought not be leveled without support.

    Third, you put to me the charge of unethical bahviour insofar as keeping this page on wikipedia was concerned. I retorted that you had conjured up an ethical dilemma as I was not the person to have added this page to wikipedia nor was I the individual who removed this page from wikipedia, nor have I have I ever had anything to do with the wikipedia page on Che Guevara. You have yet to acknowledge this matter in any way since my retort even if only to retract your contention that I had somehow acted unethically.

    As for the issues you have put to me. You are correct that I have not bothered to wade into this ridiculous debate: ‘serious versus tongue and cheek’. However, there’s a simple reason why I haven’t responded to your question as to whether this post was intended to be tongue and cheek or not:

    Read up.

    However, what I will say on this matter is that I generally do not post my academic research projects and essays on this blog as I do not want my material to be employed by online ‘essay thiefs’. There are occasionally exceptions to this general rule of mine, for instance, a while back I posted a section that I had to cut out from an essay that I’d written due to essay length concerns. Thus if you’re interested in reading a sample of my academic work (although it is not properly formatted and is still in its draft sage), you’re more than welcome to and you can do so here:

    P.S. You wrote that I “can’t prove that” that you’re a liar. This is entirely and obviously true and I admitted this myself. Trust me, nobody regrets more than I the fact that I deleted the evidence that you are a baldfaced liar. However, I will have to make due with the knowledge that I know you lied and the knowledge that you know that you lied — that I didn’t doctor your comment to make you look bad, nor did I remove any context and that, yes, indeed, you did claim that Galloway “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia”.

  22. 23 Vicktor 26 February, 2008 at 3:27 pm

    Paul, I’m sure you will agree that obiter dictum you are a liar and opportunistic machiavellian meets anyone’s definition of being an ad hominem attack. Let me tell you where people like you tend to do well. In totalitarian regimes such as Cuba, North Korea, Stalin’s former USSR and George Orwell’s 1984 because in nightmares such as those people in power – the power to censor – are in a position to make the rules, bend the rules or change the rules of fair play whenever things don’t go their way. In your case you censored me, misquoted me, and then you relentlessly demand of me to defend a statement you so casually deleted. Basically you are demanding I defend a quote that is indefensible because in no way can anyone else ever know what I said because you censored me. Then like any good tyrant you became hysterical and attacked me with a long list of ugly words than in no way can be a reflection of your higher learning. Seriously, where were you ever taught that hysterics are an intellectuals best defense. And like any good tyrant when you realize that you have become a caricature of your own caveats, you say obiter dictum. Who the fxxk talks like that? Intellectuals? No wannabee intellectuals talk like that.

    Now I’ll tell you why I won’t bother to do more research on George Galloway. It’s because I already know enough about his type to know all I care to know about his type. He is a political opportunist blinded by his own hate for the United States of America and Capitalists. I’ll prove it. When the USA supported Saddam Hussein he condemned Saddam Hussein in the harshest terms, so you say. When the USA turned on Saddam Hussein he said “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability”. That is the Butcher of Baghdad he is so glowingly admiring. Why because anyone who is an enemy of the United States of America and Capitalists is a friend of George Galloway. Let me quote another political opportunist blinded by his own hate for the United States of America and Capitalists:

    “Once more I was able to convince myself how criminal the capitalistic octopuses are. On a picture of our old and bewailed comrade Stalin, I swore not to rest before these capitalistic octopuses are destroyed.” Che Guevara

    Old and bewailed! Che Guevara said that about the man responsible for the Great Purge, Gulag labor camps, the Ukrainian famine, the Katyn Massacre, Siberian death camps and countless other holocausts that some estimates claim cost between 3,000,000 to 60,000,000 human lives. Why? Because anyone who hates the United States of America and Capitalists is a friend of Ches’. I also believe that you are blinded. By hate for the United States of America and Capitalists? I don’t know, but you are without a doubt blinded by myth. Like George for Saddam and Che for Stalin you are blinded by the myth of what you want to believe your heros are rather than believe the history books. Here’s what one man had to say about myth:

    “For the greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

    That myth worship is why you can’t see that your mind fabricated a quote I never said about George Galloway and that myth worship is why you worship Che, Marx and a slew of other revolutionaries who are nothing more than egotistical tyrants disguised as saviors. But how can I expect you to be intellectual enough see yourself when you are probably not even intellectual enough to know who said that quote about myth.

  23. 24 paulitics 27 February, 2008 at 10:29 am

    Victor – definition of “ad hominem attack”:

    adj. A fallacious attempt to attack an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

    When I called you a liar, that was quite simply not an ad hominem attack under the definition of the term. First off, an ad hominem attack, in order to actually be fallacious has to, at a very minimum, have the structure of an argument. You have to actually use it to argue something. Anybody who’s read a book on informal reasoning knows that the simplest structure any argument can have is a syllogism (there are other structures, but they’re all more complex) and in the part of my comment where I called you a liar (and you read it through again if you like), nowhere will you find an attempt at a syllogism or an attempt at any other kind of an argument. It was merely stated obiter dictum as an observation (thus the importance of me using the phrase ‘obiter dictum’ because an obiter dictum does not need to have the structure of an argument).

    The second reason why it doesn’t constitute an ad hominem attack is that, in addition to it not having the structure of an argument itself, it was not an attempt to deflate one of your unrelated arguments by attacking your person. The argument in question which you made on the subject of your original charge that George Galloway “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia” was that you had never actually made that statement and that somehow my copy and paste function made up a quote from you. Thus, it was not an off hand remark designed to discredit you irrespective of your utterances, it was directly related to the issue at hand (though not an argument because just calling somebody a liar, does not an argument make).

    Thus, when I called you a ‘liar’ that may have been not particularly neighbourly (and frankly I don’t care if that’s the case because it’s the truth) but it was not, technically, an ad hominem attack because it had neither the form of an argument nor was it a way of attacking an unrelated argument by attacking your character.

    Moving on, you think that I’M being “totalitarian” on the subject of plagiarism??? Wow. Clearly you’ve never been in an academic setting. Do you know what would happen to you in a university setting if you accused a professor of plagiarism (and word for word plagiarism, no less) and then after repeated requests to produce ANY evidence of this, you still could not produce anything? Do you have any idea what would happen? First, at least one panel of academics would be conviened and you’d testify before the board. Then, if you’d accused a professor, you’d likely go before a full session of the University Senate. Then, over and above that, you’d probably be faced with whatever private tort law suits the individual falsely accused of plagiarism wished to bring against you and you’d have to defend yourself in a court of law.

    If you think what I’ve done here is totalitarian, then my friend, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

    I do, however see now that you’re beginning to realize the seriousness of your charge (even though you won’t admit it) and you’re now backing away from the statement on plagiarism. It’s a pitty, I would have really liked to see you try to defend your claim.

    Third: I see you’ve decided to continue to refuse my offer to do some further research on George Galloway because you don’t want to be confused by the facts since you mind is already made up. That’s a pity too. George Galloway was first elected to the British House of Commons in 1987 (I believe) — only a few years before Saddam became an official enemy. If you do ever muster up the courage to read something or do some research, you’ll find that his harsh criticism of his regime extends well past the time when Saddam became an official enemy.

    Lastly, you go on to write “but you are without a doubt blinded by myth… you are blinded by the myth of what you want to believe your heros [sic] are rather than believe the history books.”

    Where did you ever get the impression that Che was one of my heroes? Because I defended him in the body of this post? Because I’ve read about him and know a reasonable amount about him?

    What even makes you think that I hero worship anybody?

    If you want, you can read up on my opposition to all forms of idoloatry and hero worship as I’ve written extensively on them here:



    And, lastly, if you like, you can read the “about me” section of this blog and you’ll see a rieteration of one of the themes I discuss in one of the comments above wherein I talk about how Marx as nothing more than a 19th Century dead white guy and he should be treated as such, but that it is on that basis that I call myself a Marxist.

  24. 25 Vicktor 27 February, 2008 at 11:00 pm

    Paul, first you satisfied all of your own 5 caveats of an irrational person. Then you said not so because obiter dictum. Whatever. Now you say obiter dictum is no longer your excuse but that the ‘real’ definition of an ad hominem attack is now your excuse. You know listening to you go round and round and round in your drunken rants reminds of the way I felt when I watched Abbott and Costello do there Who’s On Second routine for the first time. It was funny and entertaining the first time, but the second time and then the third time I was just thinking to myself, oh brother not again.

    Do I know what would happen to me in a university setting if I accused a professor of plagiarism? Yes, I do. First, the plaintiff would have to provide evidence. Second, the plaintiff upon not being able to produce said evidence would be labeled a lune. Third, I would personally demand that the plaintiff double up on their dosage of Prozac.

  25. 26 paulitics 1 March, 2008 at 7:49 pm


    You write:

    “Do I know what would happen to me in a university setting if I accused a professor of plagiarism? Yes, I do. First, the plaintiff would have to provide evidence. Second, the plaintiff upon not being able to produce said evidence would be labeled a lune. Third, I would personally demand that the plaintiff double up on their dosage of Prozac.”

    You do realize, don’t you, that in your final paragraph’s example, YOU would be the plaintiff whose dosage of Prozac you want upped? Next time you read the word “plaintiff”, think in your head “plaintiff means the one who’s doing the accusing”.

    By the way, for the nth time, now: have you put together ANY evidence to support your claim of George Galloway’s alleged plagiarism? Have you done ANY research on George Galloway’s post-1991 criticism of Saddam Hussein’s regime? Have you finally grown tired of humiliating yourself that you’re willing to retract the contrived ethical dilemma that It was unethical for me to keep this article on wikipedia?

    If the answer to these three questions is “no”, then might I be so bold as to ask why the heck are you still hanging around here?

  26. 27 Vicktor 1 March, 2008 at 11:50 pm

    Paul, if I were the one to be hauled before your kangaroo court by you I would be the one accused of making a blanket statement about your hero Galloway that I never made and you can’t prove otherwise. That makes you the plaintiff. Get it? Now double up minnow.

    Now in one last sad attempt to save face you are basically asking me to be gone. No problem irrational man. One final question for you. Are you proud of yourself? Are you proud of your doctored post and the way you have responded to me all throughout? Think about your most respected professor. Think Chomsky. Would you proudly hold this post up for his review, and say, “Professor Chomsky, this is who I am.”

  27. 28 Vicktor 2 March, 2008 at 12:39 am

    Before I depart for good minnow let me make one final recommendation. When the voices in your head -not mine the other ones that say obiter dictum and other such nonsense- start singing, “it’s getting retarded in here”, I recommend you commence intensive lifelong lithium therapy.

    P.s. What would Chomsky say?

  28. 29 RPJ 2 March, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    Omigod, Vicktor is now trying to claim he did not accuse Galloway of plagiarism when he has admitted to doing so several times and only wishes to nit-pick on the wording in his initial charge of plagiarism.

    Vicktor said…
    “And asking me to substantiate my claim that George Galloway is a plagiarist is
    an unimaginative attempt…”

    and said…
    “Compared to your subterfuge my charge of plagiarism on the part of George
    Galloway is a just a footnote…”

    and said…
    “I see that you have already deleted my charge of plagiarism against George

    and said…
    “…let them decide for themselves if my charge of plagiarism against George
    Galloway was well founded or otherwise…”

    and said…
    “I clearly wrote that parts of it are plagiarized, not word for word…”

    I can only conclude that this bozo is just a troll and likely a teenager based on his immature ramblings.

  29. 30 Vicktor 2 March, 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Omigod is not a word minnow, but censorship is. Read Paul’s unproven accusation, “I skimmed through the Guevara page on Wikipedia and found that your contention that the writing sample is “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia” is simply unsupported.” Then Paul censors my comment and puts words in my mouth. From the beginning I was honest about my claim, “I clearly wrote that parts of it are plagiarized, not word for word.” Paul on the other hand has been less than honest, admitted to censorship, and cowers behind his friends of unknown personal relation when he can’t win his point on his own.

    BTW, RPJ thanks again for agreeing with me that this never was a fun little intellectual exercise, but something else.

  30. 31 paulitics 6 March, 2008 at 10:07 pm

    Victor, I never put any words in your mouth. Ever. I copy and pasted your words. But I see now that you’re no longer willing to sustain the argument that Galloway plagiarized the wikipedia article word for word. So, I’ll tell you what: I’ll cut through all the crap. For arguments’ sake, I’ll humour you. You say that the position that Galloway plagiarized ‘word for word’ is untenable (and I agree), so let’s assume, just for the time being, that your contention is actually that Galloway didn’t plagiarize the wikipedia article ‘word for word’. You do realize, don’t you, that accusing somebody of plagiarizing something is the same irrespective of whether it’s ‘word for word’ or not? In an academic setting where you accused somebody of even this kind of plagiarism and then refused to provide any evidence, you’d still be hauled before a university disciplinary committee. You also realize that you’ve now had weeks to marshal ANY evidence to support your claim of plagiarism (even your ‘reduced’ claim of plagiarism) and you’ve been either unwilling or unable to do so, don’t you?

    So if you’re standing by your contention that Galloway plagiarized the article, then put your money where your mouth is and do some research and provide some proof or quit wasting my time.

  31. 32 jenn 10 June, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    fuck yall haters che is a hero end of story

  32. 33 Kempson Bellington 31 October, 2011 at 4:36 pm

    I just spent the last hour reading the blog post and all of its comments (yes, every single word from every single post). I have concluded this much:

    Vicktor is the most dimwitted, hypocritical, accusation-dodging shit-for-brains I’ve ever had the misfortune of discovering.

    He boasted that, by getting RPJ to agree that the “intellectual exercise” comment from Paul was “false”, he had proved that Paul’s entire article was deceitful, biased, and misleading. In reality, anyone with half a brain could tell that it was tongue-in-cheek to be satire against Hari.

    Vicktor’s reasoning is confounding, deceitful, and inconsiderate of all facts and contradictions he’s stated. I have had the displeasure of meeting many people who “debate” in this conceited and dishonest fashion, so I extend my sympathies to Paul.

    I doubt anyone will stumble across this comment years from its posting, but should anyone do so, a short disclaimer: I stumbled across this page doing research on Che Guevara, and I’ve never heard of Paul or this site of his.

    Although I’m sure if Vicktor returned, he’d call me a “minnow” and a victim of Paul’s wily ways. I may be sixteen, but I know a bullshit argument when I see one. Heck, I’ve made plenty of my own in the past.

  33. 34 Benefits Of Eating Fruits 24 June, 2014 at 8:31 am

    Hi to all, because I am actually keen of reading this website’s post
    to be updated regularly. It carries fastidious data.

  34. 35 online marketing for attorneys 12 August, 2014 at 11:36 pm

    I do believe all the ideas you’ve presented to
    your post. They are really convincing and
    can definitely work. Nonetheless, the posts are too short
    for starters. Could you please prolong them a little from next time?
    Thanks for the post.

  35. 36 EMF 30 September, 2014 at 5:18 pm

    Spot on with this write-up, I actually feel this website needs a lot more attention. I’ll probably be returning to read more, thanks for the advice!

  1. 1 Regional blogs » Che Guevara: Cuban revolutionary or puppy-eating serial murderer? (Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations) Trackback on 9 October, 2007 at 4:55 pm
  2. 2 Canada should implement many of the reforms just approved by Venezuelans « Paulitics: Paul’s Socialist Investigations Trackback on 3 December, 2007 at 2:07 am
  3. 3 Thailand excursion Trackback on 6 October, 2014 at 9:32 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


home page polling resource

Click below to download the

Paulitics Blog Search

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Canada License.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in the comments section beneath each post on this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the blog's author and creator. Individual commentators on this blog accept full responsibility for any and all utterances.


Progressive Bloggers

Blogging Canadians

Blogging Change

Paulitics Blog Stats

  • 831,235 hits since 20 November, 2006

%d bloggers like this: