IN DEFENSE OF WARD CHURCHILL
Don't choose between the Nazi and Soviet models
Analysis © 2006 by G. Edward Griffin
Published 2006 August 13. Updated 2013 February 18
This video deserves your careful attention, not only for the information it contains, but also for what it omits.
The information it contains is about how the United States government has supported totalitarian regimes around the world and provided them with military assistance. But it goes further than that. It is about how those regimes have used that military assistance to subjugate their citizens. But it goes further than that. It is about how that subjugation has resulted in the death and mutilation of innocent non-combatants, notably children. But it goes further than that. It is about how U.S armed forces themselves have taken on this role and have done exactly the same things in many countries of the world. But it goes further than that. It is about how this has created hatred of America by the victims and that this is what motivates acts of terrorism.
But it goes further than that. This program is also about the Principles of Nuremberg that fixed guilt on anyone who knowingly participates in a war crime. Karl Eichmann was hung as a war criminal, not because he killed anyone, but because he knowingly expedited the railway system and supply lines for death camps. He was merely a technician, but he was found guilty of mass murder because he willingly participated in the process. Followed to its logical extension, that means that Americans who knowingly participate as technicians in a process that results in a war crime are guilty of that crime just the same as their leaders.
That’s a chain of ideas that is not acceptable in polite American society. Those who say such things are categorized as disloyal to their country (just as they were in Nazi Germany). However, a college professor at the University of Colorado actually did say these things, and the University has decided to fire him from his post. This video was produced in his defense.
All of this you can get from the video itself, so why are we bothering to write this analysis? The answer is that what the video does not contain is just as important as what it does. What it does not reveal is the fact that Professor Churchill and the company distributing the program are from what commonly is called the Left of the political spectrum. On several occasions you will hear Churchill deride the Right Wing as the opponents of his position and as the perpetrators of the war crimes he describes. He is a member of AIM (The American Indian Movement), which has called for revolution (they call it a “war of national liberation”) in the Southwest and the establishment of a separate Indian nation. AIM has ties to Marxist-Leninist organizations and uses the slogans and strategies of old-style Communist revolution. None of this, of course, is in the video.
The distributors of the video are FreeSpeech.org, an Internet organization that describes itself as “The Nation's First Progressive Television Channel.” In case you don’t follow these things, the word Progressive is used by the same people who, only a few years ago, called themselves Liberals. Even though neither of these words can be clearly defined, they are universally associated with people who consider themselves to be on the Left of the spectrum as opposed to the Right.
Those who have followed my work are aware that I consider such concepts as Left vs. Right, Liberal vs. Conservative, Socialist vs. Capitalist, Communist vs. Nazi, and a host of others like them to be meaningless. In the Western World, there are only two coherent, definable ideologies. They are collectivism vs. individualism. Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and Neoconism are merely variants of Collectivism. Their similarities are great. Their differences miniscule. While most self-described Liberals and Progressives would complain bitterly to be lumped together with Fascists and Communists, so would most Neocons. Yet, when we analyze their underlying ideology, we find that they are much closer than even they realize. They believe in government as the ultimate solution for most problems. They believe that rights are granted by the state. They believe that the group is more important than the individual and that individuals must be sacrificed if necessary for the greater good of the greater number. They believe that laws should apply unequally to different classes of citizens to accomplish objectives they consider to be beneficial. And they believe that people should be forced to do what is right rather than be given freedom of choice. These are the hallmarks of collectivism, and Liberals and Progressives typically embrace them all. Oh, yes, so do Neocons. (See my essay entitled The Chasm for the historical and logical support of this conclusion.) The significance of this fact is that when people from one variant of collectivism condemn those from another variant, we must be on our guard. We know that their differences are not based on principle but on expediency or a difference in style.
When Communism came to Russia, the British Fabian Socialists flocked into the Communist Party because both groups advocated collectivism. However, when the Fabians saw the brutality of the Stalin regime, they dropped out in disgust, not at the system of Communist rule, but at the excesses of the Communist leaders. They saw nothing wrong with Communism. They just wanted a kinder face on it.
Whenever there is a contest between two branches of collectivism, it is always over questions of style or dominance, never objectives. It often takes the form of condemning specific leaders rather than the system. That is why later-day Communists could eventually condemn the brutality of Stalin but find nothing wrong with the system that produced and sustained him. They do not realize that it is the system itself that is the problem. The concentration of power that is essential in a collectivist system is the dynamic that makes a Stalin or a Hitler inevitable. But they are blind to this reality, which is why collectivists on the so-called Left can be critical of collectivists on the so-called Right and find nothing wrong with them except that they are “bad men” who are doing “bad things.” The idea is that everything would be fine if we could just get rid of those “bad men” and replace them with “good men” presumably from the other branch of collectivism. It is the same game played by the two major political parties. There is no difference between the political principles of the leaders of either party, so their total focus always is on the “bad” things that their opponents are doing. And so the game goes on with voters, like tennis balls, slammed back and forth across the net, from one party to the next. Collectivists are in control of both parties, so it makes little difference which party has the most votes. Collectivism always wins. Individualism is not allowed as an option.
In this video, you will see a subtle but clear example of this ploy. You are supposed to get so heated up with anger and indignation over what "bad" American leaders are doing that you will be prepared to accept ANY solution. You will not be told that the war crimes committed by the United States for several decades are the result of having adopted the ideology of collectivism, which permits any act so long as it is claimed to be for the better of society. You will not be told that the atrocities being committed are in furtherance of the creation of a global world government based on the model of collectivism. You will not be told that the people who are condemning U.S. foreign policy stand for the same principles of world government based on the model of collectivism. You will not be reminded that, when leaders from the so-called Left have come to power anywhere in the world, they have perpetrated comparable acts of barbarism against innocent non-combatants. You will only be told that the United States now is in the hands of “bad men” and led to the unspoken but overpowering conclusion that ANYTHING would be justified to put an end to their rule.
The world today is divided into two large camps of collectivism. On the so-called Left, there are those who, even today, follow the teachings and ideology of Vladimir Lenin. For convenience, we may refer to them as Leninists. These are the leaders of the countries we used to call Communist, for they still have an affinity and a loyalty to their international brotherhood. They will come to each other’s aid when the chips are down. Russia and China are foremost among these powers, but there are many more in Asia, Africa, and South America. They are lying low at present, waiting for America to stumble, which will be their chance to strike a surprise and what they hope will be a knockout punch. I should hasten to add that this does not necessarily mean a nuclear or biological attack, although they do not rule out that possibility, especially if it could be arranged to be delivered by a Middle Eastern state instead of by Russia or China. That way, they would have no fear of retaliation. However, Leninist strategy allows the possibility for internal conquest resulting from a desperate population seeking new leaders and falling prey to the slogans and rhetoric of homegrown Marxist-Leninists. Leninists are a flexible and formidable foe.
On the other side (supposedly “our” side) we have the United States, The UK, Canada, and numerous countries in Western Europe. These nations for decades have been in the hands of a small group of elites who are the ideological followers of the secret society established by Cecil Rhodes. For convenience we may refer to them as Rhodesians. Today they are visibly clustered in England in the Royal Institute for International Affairs and, in the United States, in the Council on Foreign Relations. (For information about this group, see The Quigley Formula; A Conspiratorial View of History As Described by The Conspirators Themselves, a lecture by G. Edward Griffin, available from www.realityzone.com.)
Both of these camps are dedicated to world government based on the model of collectivism. Since they have identical goals, their only basis for conflict is over style and, more importantly, over which camp will be the winner in the end game.
If you understand this reality, you will be alert to the possibility of being manipulated by one side of this global battle into aligning yourself against the other. There are plenty of horrors against humanity committed by either side so, if that’s all you saw, you could be drawn into their nets. The Rhodesians are expert propagandists and control large segments of the press. It is not difficult for them to parade before our eyes endless images of atrocities committed by Muslim extremists, accompanied by the subliminal message that ANYTHING is justified to stop this killing machine. And that propels many into an uncritical alignment with the Rhodesians as they use a war on terrorism as a cover for advancing their agenda. But the Leninists, also, are expert propagandists and, although they do not have the same dominance in the American mass media, they have significant influence on the Internet. It is not difficult for them to parade before our eyes endless images of atrocities committed by U.S. military operations, accompanied by the subliminal message that ANYTHING is justified to stop this killing machine. And that propels many into an uncritical alignment with the Leninists.
We must not be manipulated into hating America just because we hate what our leaders are doing. We must not be fooled into blindly accepting change in leadership on the assumption that ANYTHING would be better than what we have. We must not be tricked into choosing between the Soviet model and the Nazi model. They are both based on collectivism, and there is no room for freedom in either one.
Now that I have said my piece, I urge everyone to listen to what Churchill has to say. Even though I am uncomfortable about his personal ideology and those with whom he has aligned himself, I believe that his position on freedom-of-speech and the principles of Nuremberg is valid. Truth is truth, no matter the source.
To see the video, click here.
Since this analysis was published in 2006, the video has disappeared from its original site. So far we have not been able to locate it anywhere else but will keep searching. If we are successful, we will provide the new link.
Printed on 31 January 15 at 08:06 URL of this page:
Contact us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Printed on 31 January 15 at 08:06
URL of this page: