/lit/ - Literature

>>4067407
Go back to /pol/, you nazi.

>>4067407
There isn't "real science" about race science

Your IQ tests and whatnot are psychology and sociology

>>4067416
>what are haplogroups

You don't know what you're talking about.

>>4067422
> haplogroups = africans are stupid

>>4067429
Haplogroups are "real science"about race science. Take you ignorance elsewhere, pleb.

>>4067412
OP here... um, you're aware the Nazis were socialist scum, right? I'm not a fucking Nazi.

Why not just make a thread on /pol/ about it?

>>4067436
>Subjugation of inferior cultures
What happened to the Jews, gays, blacks, gypsies, etc.?

>>4067453
/pol/ is good but too many idiots. Wanted to ask /lit/ because you guys read a lot.

>>4067434
>Haplogroups are "real science"about race science

lol good luck with your holocaust:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_ethnic_group

>>4067407
>/pol/bro
>bro
Not my bro.
>not social science garbage
Well I'm sure there's some fringe "real scientist" somewhere who writes books that will suit your shit taste. Keep looking, but not here.

I have political views taught to me by websites. Please recommend me books which will teach me the same thing.

>>4067528
Erik von Don't know what - Leftism: from de Sade to Marx, from Hitler to Marcuse
Or something like that

>>4067524
>on 4chan
>not a bro of anti-semites

Don't make me laugh. Too late!

guns, germs and steel

>>4067407
take a cultural anthropology course and then realize what a shit human being you are and kill yourself

all the replies to OP made me regain my faith in 4chan
/lit/ u rock

So you basically want someone to provide you with reasons for what you WANT to believe?

Long live /pol/

Get fucked

>>4067407
>justify American imperialism
Anything by neoconservatives, duh. There was a pretty good one from some time ago but christ I can't remember the name.

>[...]the subjugation of "inferior" cultures by military means. Also anything that deals with race science (real science especially, not social science garbage) also appreciated.
I love how you put "inferior" in quotations marks. Social darwinism was refuted in the 19th century, so good luck with that one.

>stuff that deals with fighting feminist marxist bullshit too
I'm guessing you want something against the modern american version of it? Just look for critiques of postmodern feminism and other social movements. Most good ones are from marxists, mind you. It's like reactionaries are biologically incapable of understanding Foucault.

>>4067578
>social darwinism was refuted in 19th century
Wishful thinking, loser.

Here is everything you need:
ironmarch . org / index . php? / topic / 653-reading-list/

Now watch these retarded leftists in che guevara tshirts get buttpained when they realize that the right can be just as intellectual as left wing is, if not more.

Harry potter

>>4067554
>faith in humanity = restored!

>>>/anywhere else/

>>4067407
You won't find anything because you're looking for material that's custom fit to a fringe ideology, and therefore will not exist without being biased.

>>4067626
>this fucking guy

top lel

>>4067626
I'm not even a leftist and this is fucking stupid.

>>4067635
He didnt say humanity, retard

>>4067649
why

>>4067626
The recent Che film starring Benencio del Toro was pretty good, you could use that as a jump start to red-pill yourself.

>>4067651
>I'm incapable of drawing parallels

Nice.

The rising tide of color against white world-supremacy

>>4067654
Presumably because I disagree with some of the ideas popularly perceived to be associated with "leftism".

>>4067626
Fascists actually believe in Hyperborea. All fascist discussion belongs on >>>/x/

>>4067661
Can't happen soon enough.

ITT: It's this easy to troll /lit/

I mean I knew what's going on once I read /pol/bro...

>>4067668

"please massah, gibs me some food" - the black community

Oh to make this more on-topic.
Empire could be read as a excuse for US imperialism.

>>4067644
>>4067649
>>4067665
>>4067657

Just as expected. No actual criticism, arguments, just intense infantile rage every leftist feels when his little bubble of delusions is threatened with original ideas.

>>4067670
no one has replied with more than one-and-a-half sentences.

>le epic trolling face xD

>>4067678
They sure are original

>>4067679
I'm not OP, I'm just saying that /pol/ mostly goes to /lit/ to try and troll and what not...

>>4067687
Evidently without much success

>>4067679
Because there isn't much to reply to. People with fringe ideology are already well aware of the evidence against their beliefs and have rationalized accordingly. There's really no logical way to convince them of anything, since they usually have convenient ways of dismissing entire arguments or bodies of evidence

>>4067468
you should probably go back there

>>4067678
I gave you a good suggestion for media that could help you actually know what you're talking about. Sorry that you are upset by conversation. Perhaps you shouldn't be here.

>>4067693

Does 'fringe ideologies' cover marxism?

>>4067699
>I post a list of a couple of hundred works done by some of the greatest intellectuals of the last few hundred years
>you dismiss it in its entirety and propose me to watch a 2 hours commercial fictional account of some revolutionary's life instead

Never change, left.

>>4067660
There is no parallel between 4chan and 'humanity'. Please, please, go back to /pol/ and delete this thread

>>4067708
>Implying I'm OP

>>4067707
>I post a list of a couple of hundred works done by some of the greatest intellectuals of the last few hundred years
Not even close, anon. Sorry.

As for the movie: it's actually 4 hours (two parts).
>Fictional
Your insecurity is cute but revealing.

>>4067678
>>>/x/

>>4067719
Che Guevara was a disgusting sociopath, and probably far more racist than most /pol/acks are, which you'd know had you actually looked into some historical sources regarding his life, instead of taking for granted what you've been told in a Hollywood movie. As for the list, you either didn't read it, are extremely uneducated or just a delusional leftist who considers hacks like Derrida or Foucault to have some sort of intellectual significance. Probably the latter, with a pinch of other two.

>>4067733
>Che Guevara was a disgusting sociopath
>and probably far more racist

Stop trying to be above other people and try to actually learn real history and science. You're only hurting yourself by continuing this charade.

>>4067767
He was trying to start a revolution in Congo, yes. However, he failed and here's what he said on the negro:

>“The blacks, those magnificent examples of the African race who have maintained their racial purity thanks to their lack of an affinity with bathing, have seen their territory invaded by a new kind of slave: the Portuguese.”

>“The black is indolent and a dreamer; spending his meager wage on frivolity or drink; the European has a tradition of work and saving, which has pursued him as far as this corner of America and drives him to advance himself, even independently of his own individual aspirations.”

He would fit in great on /pol/. You are obviously uneducated as hell, read some books and stop embarrassing yourself. Leftists are rarely very intelligent, but you are dumb even by their standards. You are making this too easy for me, people on /pol/ can argue better.

>>4067733
>>4067733
>"If it's in a movie, it can't be true."
>Regurgitating the most asinine, hilariously easy to refute lies about a well-known figure
>Accusing anyone else of being ill-educated and "delusional" when proving you yourself are ill-educated and clearly operating on nothing by ideological steam

Ouch.

I just want /pol/ to go away

>>4067790
>putting words in my mouth
>being this delusional

Holy shit, you guys are dumb. /lit/ is supposed to be the most sophisticated board on 4chan, and this is all you guys have to offer?

>>4067799

Never going to happen, you sheltered little faggot.
First 4chan, then the world.

>>4067804
the most delusional thing about /pol/ is that you actually expect you to give worthwhile discussion. we just don't want you and the shitstorm you bring here, we're pretty fine having our noses in our books. go bother somewhere else.

>>4067789
>muh unsourced quote from fascists

Why don't you quote the whole thing and give the date? Is it because you'll find that Che is describing earlier racist thoughts which he later, as a revolutionary, came to terms with and disregarded as wrong and part of the imperialist system?

You need to actually try.

>>4067815
*from fascist and rightist websites

>dat impotent /pol/-rage

>>4067815
You are retarded beyond comprehension. The quote is from the The Motorcycle Diaries, you know, the book on which your favorite movie was based on. I actually read his diaries, by the way, unlike you.

Whether he renounced his views later (gonna need a source on this), is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Fact is, he held these views and wrote those exact lines. Those exact lines sound exactly like something your average poltard might say, vulgarity included.

>>4067626
just wanted to say that while i think this was originally a troll thread i like this list
it's really quite comprehensive and i appreciate being made aware of it

>>4067693
That's a great excuse to never provide an argument against the people you disagree with.

No one cares about Che, you fucking mongrel.
He is hardly the paragon of virtue for leftists these days.

Fucking /pol/
it's 2013.

>>4067804
>If I don't agree with bigotry and unregulated economics I am sheltered

You're delusional, is the thing. /pol/ asserts ideologies with no support, and then demands a rebuttal with cited sources. Do you know Hitchen's Razor?

>>4067845
It was some leftist who brought him up, not me. I merely used "leftists in che guevara tshirts" as a phrase. Someone who clearly owns one of these shirts was "triggered" by my comment.

>>4067855
>Do you know Hitchen's Razor?
You're embarrassing /lit/ now.

pls stop

and stop arguing with morons

>>4067828
Well, first, "Che" is not my favorite movie, nor did I suggest it was. It's good and worth watching, but not fantastic. It is also not based on the Motorcycle Diaries. The Motorcycle Diaries, as you don't know since you've ever read it, is about the author's experiences traveling South America as a youth, some time before he became a revolutionary. It was actually these experiences that made him into a revolutionary. Let me break this down for you since you're having a difficult time, being /pol/ster and everything. When Ernesto Guevara was not a anti-imperialist revolutionary, he made a few mildly racist comments. After Ernesto became an anti-imperialist revolutionary, "Che", he said these views were wrong, refuted them publicly as a self-criticism, and acted as an anti-racist for the rest of his life. Che pushed for integrated schools in Cuba. Che fought with the Congolese, Mozambicans, and other Black Africans against their oppressors. Che railed against White supremacism and segregation in the US at the UN and was friends with Malcolm X and other American Black figures. But what does context and historical fact mean to a fascist?

>>4067857
You're too stupid to even remember the fact that you're the first person to bring him up. >>4067626

Indisputable proof that /pol/fags only have strawman conversations with themselves. Please get fucked.

>>4067872
#rekt
#shotsfired

>>4067733
>>4067789
>>4067828
>>4067857
http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2013/apr/17/marco-rubio/did-che-guevara-write-extensively-about-superiorit/
>you are retarded beyond all comprehension

Well, that came home to roost, didn't it?

>>4067872

>>4067872
His Congolese Diaries don't really reflect the idea that he thought such racist comments were inappropriate- perhaps inappropriate to make publicly.

>>4067922
The only thing he had to say about the Congolese was that they weren't disciplined soldiers. Which is something he said about comrades of other races. Why don't you actually produce something of merit here, as far as your views are concerned?

>I am looking for some books, specifically ones that justify American imperialism and the subjugation of "inferior" cultures by military means.

That sounds bad.

>Also anything that deals with race science (real science especially, not social science garbage) also appreciated.

I'm not sure that you have the correct mindset to engage in the science in that area. It does require an open mind since it's apparently very emotional for most people.

Anyway: Arthur Jensen, Philippe Rushton, Richard Lynn, John R. Baker, Linda Gottfredson. All of these except John are psychologists, specifically psychometricians. None of them are white supremacists as you appear to be. Hopefully you will be pushed away from that idea by reading science. Baker is a biologist. All of them are or were professors.

>Also stuff that deals with fighting feminist marxist bullshit too, basically stuff about solving our country's problems.

I don't think just fighting that strain of stupidity will solve your country's problems. But it will at least slightly improve things.

For evolutionary psychology, David Buss wrote a great textbook. Try also: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1553512.Missing_the_Revolution

Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also very useful. Perhaps read that first before any of the other stuff here. As for marxist political stuff, just read any textbook on economics, specially the discussion of how well markets work vs. non-markets. Perhaps read a history of the Soviet union or communism in general to learn about all the famines that ideology caused. The number of casualties are in the millions just due to hunger alone.

>>4067436
>you're aware the Nazis were socialist scum, right?
Except they weren't at all, like popular caricatures in Germany of the 1930s portray by striking out the "socialist" and "party", highlighting what it's really all about.

I suppose the German Democratic Republic was super democratic, too, right? It has "democratic" in it's name, after all!

>>4067937
Even after the revolution he still held "We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing." His conception that Congolese soldiers were not just unskilled but "unwilling to learn" probably in part fuelled the later comment. He didn't view them as comrades of other races, he went class against class on them except on the basis of colour.
As far as my views are concerned on the topic at hand- I still think you're wrong and defending a class traitor to claim unity.

>>4067945
>Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate is also very useful. Perhaps read that first before any of the other stuff here. As for marxist political stuff, just read any textbook on economics, specially the discussion of how well markets work vs. non-markets. Perhaps read a history of the Soviet union or communism in general to learn about all the famines that ideology caused. The number of casualties are in the millions just due to hunger alone.

You've literally been lied to. You need to read Hinton's Through a Glass Darkly. Unlike the people that fabricated the numbers, Hinton lived and worked with China's revolutionized commoners and provides damning evidence and arguments against the popular Western capitalist mythology about China during Mao's time.

>>4067945
Allow me to act like a /pol/-mongrel:
>That sounds bad.
liberal muh feelings. God, you are ruining everything
>All of them are or were professors.
Do you even understand Jewdeological State Apparatuses?

>>4067972
>"We're going to do for blacks exactly what blacks did for the revolution. By which I mean: nothing."
There is literally no source for this comment. None. I don't just mean YOU not providing the source (par for the course), I mean that it's completely unattested. Can you provide one?

>>4067979
I don't really care about Zionism or antisemitism.

As for Ashkenazi, try something like:

Cochran, Gregory, Jason Hardy, and Henry Harpending. "Natural history of Ashkenazi intelligence." Journal of Biosocial Science 38.5 (2006): 659.

Richard Lynn - The Chosen People, A study of Jewish Intelligence.

>>4067998
>implying these studies involve real science and aren't just part of a Zionist plot to prop up the Jews

>>4067872
I've read the Motorcycle Diaries, I haven't seen the movie, but I know there's a movie on Che which is based on them. Seemingly you were referring to another movie. Everything else you said is completely beyond the point of our argument. You said the quotes weren't authentic. Fact is, Che wrote exactly what I posted. I never said he did not change his views later on, you put this in my mouth. I could have argued onward by seeking out quotes of his psychopathic descriptions of executions and other atrocities he committed, but I honestly have no interest in the life of a posterboy of the left, or should I say, quasi-rebellious youth in general.

Your infantile samefagging (>>4067910, >>4067899) aside, you completely diverted this discussion from my original statement, which was that right wing can be just as intellectual as left wing can be. All you could muster up in rebuttal were childish insults unworthy of this board. You also couldn't point out what exactly you thought was wrong with my reading list (which was the most on-topic thing posted in this whole thread), but you did not hesitate to dismiss it in its entirety.

I'm what you'd call a moderate conservative, and am hardly anything you accused me of being. I'd like to advise you to "open your mind" (ironically this phrase is often heard from the left) and at least try to acknowledge that your own opinions are merely opinions and that timeless political and even philosophical questions exist precisely because definite answers to them are impossible to arrive at. By framing everything that doesn't fit into your very narrow leftist worldview (and believe me, it's VERY narrow) as bigotry and the next holocaust you are missing out on a great portion of very intelligent thought currents of the present and past.

>>4067992
Luis Pons asked the question of what Che was planning to help blacks in a 1959 press conference. I'm assuming you are not calling Luis Pons or the others present at the press conference liars just because you've never bothered to find a source.

>>4068003
Not the guy you're having the most pointless debate ever with but

>not being a socialist
lel

>>4067945
>As for marxist political stuff, just read any textbook on economics, specially the discussion of how well markets work vs. non-markets. Perhaps read a history of the Soviet union or communism in general to learn about all the famines that ideology caused. The number of casualties are in the millions just due to hunger alone.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Irish_Famine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_famine_of_1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_famine_of_1891%E2%80%9392

The hypocrisy of capitalist apologists is amazing sometimes.

>>4068003
>You also couldn't point out what exactly you thought was wrong with my reading list
Not the same anon, but I just looked at that list and.... there's not much that can be said. It's just a giant mishmash of stuff that is mostly right-wing in some way, from mildly conservative to outright fascist. It's so big and eclectic that it's hard to see what point you're making. I mean, you first mentioned it here:
>>4067626
arguing that social Darwinism is still valid, but what in that list actually makes that case? It's sure as hell not going to be Dostoyevsky or Jung, to pick two random names...

>>4068057

those famine are caused by natural disasters, not man-made.

>>4068077
Well, the one connected with WW2 sounds man-made to me, but not a consequence of market failure, but of warfare.

>>4068077
Which famines don't involve natural disasters?

>>4068003
>Seemingly you were referring to another movie.
Yes, the one I originally mentioned quite clearly as being the newest one with Benencio del Toro.

>You said the quotes weren't authentic.
I never said that.

>I never said he did not change his views later on
You've said repeatedly that he was a racist and didn't change his views about Blacks, even as recently as >>4067972

>you completely diverted this discussion from my original statement, which was that right wing can be just as intellectual as left wing can be.
Actually you've been saying that the Left is not intellectual at all, or at least less intellectual. If your ability to follow a conversation is any indicator, we know this is not necessarily true. As for diversion:

>All you could muster up in rebuttal were childish insults unworthy of this board.
Did you forget that you posted >>4067626 in which you called the poster in question (not me, in case you continue your "samefag" paranoia) a loser and called leftists of this board "retarded buttpained che guevara tshirt wearers"? Your silly quip about the tshirts clued me in that you don't know the first thing about the man, so I took the chance of actually recommending a movie (easier to consume) that might introduce the idea that you're actually not as knowledgeable about him or Leftism in general. It's not diversion if you're the one that brought it up to begin with.

As for the list, you're correct that I did not and I'm not going to tease your pretensions. Perhaps if you'd presented such a list before going on a tired about "retarded Leftists" I'd have a reason to assume you might be making some genuine attempt at a conversation. Events have shown that, as always with self-identifying /pol/sters, this is not so. You're more interested in justifying yourself against "those Leftists!!" than you are in truth- incidentally, this is true of all Rightist reactionary thought, which on its own justifies disregarding the authors and works in that post.

>>4068013
I'm clearly asking for a source. Why is the text for this conference impossible to find, except for this quote?

>>4068085

communism caused famines are usually caused by food price control, so that food price remains low even as supply dwindles, so nobody realizes there is a shortage.

>>4068077
So were the USSR and Chinese famines, you twat.

>>4068112

yes, thats official government propaganda, most historians agree it's not the cause.

>>4068107
This didn't occur in China which controlled food pricing that matched, and sometimes was better than, the global price level. But famine was only a problem in a few locations and the numbers of deaths were intentionally inflated by the Deng reformists.

>>4068107

And supply dwindles because of natural disaster, which is my point.

My other point being that e.g. the Irish famine was caused by absentee landlordism restricting tenant farmers to properties where they could only support themselves by growing potatoes.

>>4068077
Pretty much all famines are a combination of natural and man-made, yo. Including China's.

>>4068123
>most [capitalist] historians agree it's not the cause.

Of course they do. When communists are involved famines intentionally caused disasters made to entertain whoever the Head Honcho is. Only when capitalists are involved is starvation a natural occurrence that no one could have prevented.

>>4068133

there is a joke: when asked how soviet officials set the price of goods, they answered they read walmart catalogs.

>>4068072
I'm not making any point, I simply posted what OP was requesting, which was followed by insults and condescending talk. It's unrelated to my remark about social Darwinism.

>>4068088
>I never said that.
Yes you did. You stated that the quote was fabricated by "rightist and fascist websites". >>4067972 Was not my post, but he does make a point which you failed to address.

>As for the list, you're correct that I did not and I'm not going to tease your pretensions. Perhaps if you'd presented such a list before going on a tired about "retarded Leftists" I'd have a reason to assume you might be making some genuine attempt at a conversation.

I simply pointed out my list is going to cause a butthurt reaction from progressives of this board. You could've proved me wrong by not responding to my post in a butthurt fashion, but you failed to do so, which i anticipated.

>Events have shown that, as always with self-identifying /pol/sters, this is not so. You're more interested in justifying yourself against "those Leftists!!" than you are in truth- incidentally, this is true of all Rightist reactionary thought, which on its own justifies disregarding the authors and works in that post.

>i am supposedly not interested in truth
>therefore all self-identified /pol/sters are supposedly not interested in truth
>therefore all rightist reactionary thought is supposedly not interested in truth
>therefore my every author and work in that post can be completely disregarded

Okay. Stay frosty my friend.

>>4068143

And then they call us tinfoil hatters and conspiracytards.

>>4068149
>It's unrelated to my remark about social Darwinism
Ah, right.

>>4068149
>You stated that the quote was fabricated by "rightist and fascist websites"
Wut. Not the same anon, but which post are you talking about here?

>>4067468

Yeah, and that's how we know you and your kind are full of shit

>>4068149
Jesus Christ...
>Yes you did. You stated that the quote was fabricated by "rightist and fascist websites".
>>4067815
>>4067819
The full revised quote: "muh unsourced quote from fascist and rightist websites."

>I simply pointed out my list is going to cause a butthurt reaction from progressives of this board. You could've proved me wrong by not responding to my post in a butthurt fashion, but you failed to do so, which i anticipated.
I didn't even originally SAY anything involving your silly list, bro. All I said was you should watch a movie and learn something about Che before you call anyone else retarded. Christ Almighty.

>i am supposedly not interested in truth >therefore, etc. >therefore, etc.
I actually said that your behavior is merely in line with the behavior of all /pol/sters that find their way to /pol/. It's coincidence; I don't conclude anywhere that /pol/sters/rightist reactionaries think and behave a certain way -because- of you. You even quoted my comment.

Are you finished?

>>4068170
...because if it's >>4067815, it says 'unsourced', not 'fabricated', and then says
>Why don't you quote the whole thing and give the date?
...which clearly implies that anon isn't assuming it's invented.

Social darwinism was refuted by Kropotkin over a century ago

>>4068185
You are right.
He actually stated that this is Che describing his earlier thoughts, as if they were taken out of context of a larger piece of text which was anti-racist in nature. This is obviously wrong, as these quotes were taken directly from his diaries. Even if the quote was actually fabricated, I could not care less. This is completely irrelevant to the argument which we are having, mainly whether there is one true political orientation, which is that of progressive leftism and everything else is a neurotic abnormality as Reich, Durkheim or Adorno would conclude, or if historical, sociological, psychological and biological facts can be interpreted in a variety of ways, with each of them offering a possible answer to political questions of our time.

>>4068179
Are you sweating right now? You don't sound very coherent anymore, contradicting yourself and all. You clearly did conclude exactly that all reactionary thought should be disregarded, as I am, like every other reactionary EVER ANYWHERE, more interested in "justifying myself against "those Leftists!!" than i am in truth-".

>>4068193
You appeal to authority does not intimidate me (especially as authority in kropotkin lel). I'd like to hear his arguments, then I'll present mine against his. Burden of proof lies on you.

>>4068219
especially as "authority" in this case would be kropotkin*

>>4068219
>Are you sweating right now? You don't sound very coherent anymore, contradicting yourself and all. You clearly did conclude exactly that all reactionary thought should be disregarded, as I am, like every other reactionary EVER ANYWHERE, more interested in "justifying myself against "those Leftists!!" than i am in truth-".
Are... are you illiterate?

>>4068219
I don't really care to argue with weirdos on the internet at 3 in the morning. Just read Mutual Aid.

>>4068241
>>4068280
Argument won.

>>4068302
I wasn't even arguing with you

>>4068302
Observer here. Which argument do you believe you won?

>>4068106
because maybe not everyone made transcripts of the radio in 1959. certainly the people involved in the press conference remember it, and while they would be primary sources, you're clearly asking for a citation so Humberto Fontova writes about this- having been five at the time of broadcast in Cuba, he'd be something of a similar level of involvement as Pons but has written a book which mentions it (page167).

I like how you find it acceptable that he would make racist comments later because there are sources you can't deny for those commentaries by sticking your fingers in your ears until someone provides you with wikipedia format, but your attitude makes me want to give you ED as the source of the quote just because you're that obtuse.

heads up to the fact you're conflating me with another anon, as recently as >>4068088 but in other previous posts too. i don't see why you can't accept Che as a racist mass murdering class traitor when there's a wealth of evidence he was. why does he have to be a good guy in all aspects of his morals and government? I find this defence of his personality extreme, and I'm saying that as a communist.

the level of proof that you're demanding also ignores key issues both then and now in terms of political freedoms enjoyed. speaking out about the current oppressions, inequalities, and disadvantages of blacks in cuba loses people their positions of power and influence to this day. your branch of revisionist denial of there's no problem if it's not evidenced ignores that there's two problems: there's racism deeply running in cuba, and there is no way to safely or effectively evidence it if you want to remain within its confines. this is exactly the kind of mentality which marxists like kolakowski claim to propagate the degeneration of communism into dishonesty.

>tl;dr- you best be trolling for the right wing or authoritarians or else you're exactly what's wrong with the revolution

>>4068354
sorry,
>he *would not be* of a similar level of involvment as Pons
obvi

>>4068354
>because maybe not everyone made transcripts of the radio in 1959.
Come the fuck on. But even if it was true, there'd be some kind of reference to it somewhere that isn't coincidentally only in anti-communist propaganda.
>certainly the people involved in the press conference remember it
Yes, [the people], of course.
>Humberto Fontova writes about this
Does he cite his source? What is it? All I want is a god-damned transcript. A conversation. ANYTHING. Why is this hard to ask for? Maybe Che did say it: --I don't know--. I won't know until I see the damn thing. Why do you expect people to just BELIEVE, especially when there's absolutely no context and it's completely contrary to the thought and action of the person in question? If I told you Hitler said at a conference that "Jews were nice people and great asserts to the German race", you'd want some kind of source or you'd dismiss it.

The rest is just obfuscating bullshit.

>>4068478
lol, you see no problem with that analogy?

>>4068613
Just leave

>>4068354
Kolakowski isn't a Marxist, mate