You Say You Want a Revolution, Well….

It could just be the partisan in me, but the Reagan one doesn’t seem as comically weird to me. I think it better expresses the sentiments of what that guy (is Jason or Justin his name? I could click the link in my post, but….naw!) who designed the Ron Paul version was trying to get across. The one he designed for Che Paul looks more like a Che supporter trying to co-opt Ron Paul to support communism and anarchy. And I am absolutely not a fan of Che Guevara. Maybe it’s because he kept the beret and long hair. He should have just kept Ron Paul’s likeness rather than overdo the Che conjuring.

Tough crowd around here.

Though there are a lot of takes/variation on anarchy, it would be next to impossible to equate it to communism, which requires a government by default.

The brand of anarchy to which I subscribe is a capitalist one. It’s a mouthful, but anarcho-capitalism is the closest term you could use. And no, it’s not leftist. And hell no its not conservative. It’s libertarianism taken to its natural conclusion.

Anyway, as far as my Che-esque Ron Paul image, some folks just don’t get it. I wonder if they’re the same ones who believe the Bible should be take literally. Art and marketing often hijack the logos and images of their opposition and then use them for their own benefit. It’s this basic principle that led to the “Capitalism made this shirt possible” or the Reagen shirts cited above. To make any differentiation between them, claiming one as less offensive or better than the others, is nothing more than a bunch of mental masturbatory hogwash.

You either accept the principle — to turn the symbols of your enemy against your enemy — or you don’t. Pick one.