PirateBallerina » The Imam of Indigenism

The Imam of Indigenism

by Jim Paine

Radical Muslims are now trashing Europe (for which it appears the burning of Peugeots and Citroëns in France was merely a warming-up exercise) over some editorial cartoons; more importantly—from a historical perspective—these radicals are burning embassies, issuing death threats, forcing editorial cartoonists into hiding, and winning concessions from Europe in the form of restrictions (they're currently calling them "guidelines" and "suggestions") on the freedom of the press. This is not so much a spontaneous outpouring of righteous outrage as a demonstration of the power of radical imams to foment insurrection.

Meanwhile, the Imam of Radical Indigenism, Ward Churchill, continues to coach those most likely to serve as American counterparts to Europe's radical Muslims: the far (and ever-angrier), far Left. That the stated goals of the various cohorts—the black-bloc anarchists, animal rights activists, MEChA separatists, environmental activists, black radicals, indigenists—seem incongruous to one another is beside the point; the ultimate goal of each and every one of them is the end of the United States.

People like Churchill have been steadily nurturing political anger (and encouraging or even actively abetting "revolutionary action") for three decades. It doesn't matter what the cause is, the important aspect is that they all share a common enemy: the United States. The U.S. is evil because it mistreated the Indians; the U.S. is evil because it condoned slavery; the U.S. is evil because it cuts down trees; the U.S. is evil because it eats meat; the U.S. is evil because it loves money.

Under the barrage of this constant litany of U.S. wickedness, who would not feel compelled to take up arms against it? To destroy such an Adversary would not only be good, it would be Good. It doesn't strike me as coincidental that Churchill likens the U.S. so often to that Great Evil of the 20th Century: Nazi Germany. One does not compromise with a Nazi; one does not reason or negotiate with him. One exterminates him.

One oddity of seeming inconsequence that may actually be key in explaining Churchill is how eager he's been to denounce those who are ostensibly fighting alongside him; this seems contraindicative of a true believer, who would reasonably be expected to overlook the transgressions of his brothers-in-arms. One explanation for this oddity is that he's an FBI-CIA counter-insurgence operative (one who, by the way, willingly sacrificed 30+ years of his life to this undercover activity). This seems just a tad far-fetched. Far simpler is to see these denunciations as perfectly consistent with a goal to eliminate competition. One should remember that every Movement requires not only an Adversary, but heretics, as well.

It also requires moral authority, or at least the perception of moral authority. Enter White Guilt. During the past 100 years, and particularly the last 30, White guilt (or more succinctly, Euro-guilt) has become a powerful lever with which to pry power, privilege, or money from the fingers of those who possess it. Euro-guilt has long been the capital with which "minority representatives" build their little empires of control. Churchill isn't interested in bettering the lives of Indians; the very real plight of reservation Indians is a convenient hammer with which to beat the drum of Euro-guilt.

As useless to real Indians as Churchill is, his litany is quite effective in accomplishing two other more important goals: the encouragement of destruction, and the weakening of the resolve of the Adversary. In such an all-but-global environment, those not actively attempting to destroy the U.S. will surely be morally powerless to defend it. And in a fight between an equivocating good and a resolute evil, it is the evil that will win. Thus Churchill continues to define his position as the moral high ground and himself as the moral arbiter... Done properly, he won't have to ask; at the right time people will demand he take the lead. Just look at the attack-dog adulation he already receives from many of his defenders, as well as the intellectual approval and acclamation he gets from the CounterPunch crowd.

Of course, Churchill may not be the eventual beneficiary of the insurrection he foments (though he has few competitors). That is a risk every revolutionary takes.

But regardless of whether the victorious (and inevitably glorious) leader is Ward Churchill or Louis Farrakhan or David Duke or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, come the revolution—which will be brief and relatively bloodless because the seeds for expedient capitulation to "moral authority" have already been sown and carefully nurtured—the face of the new world order will be all too recognizable. Ironically (considering how often the accusation of Nazism is hurled at the U.S.), it will be some form of fascism, that unacknowledged far-far left wing of the Left. It won't matter if "Indigenists" or "Muslims" or "Ecologists" or "Black Supremacists" or "White Supremacists" sit on the throne—it makes no difference what flavor of fascism is in control; collectivism always has the same taste of brutal despair.

Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of PirateBallerina. Obscene, abusive, threatening, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by PirateBallerina.

Well said Jim! I'm estatic that someone has begun to get to the heart of what Churchill really is, and what he advocates. At the dime of the state. He is, as he is wont to say, the opposite of what he pretends to value.

— DWG () - 13 February '06 - 16:32

Comrades,

The thing is, I actually would liken the resulting mob to the mob of the French Revolution, calling for "Madame Guillotine" and howling with delight with each fall of the bloody blade.

They don't care, actually, WHO dies, as long as SOMEONE dies, so that they can feel vindicated, feel a sense of self-worth through "payback".

These moonbats have incredibly low self-esteem as it is, always muttering about facists and nazis and eveil right wingers, etc. They stare blankly at you when confronted by someone who disagrees with them. They can't hold any sort of civil dialogue, because as soon as anything they say is disagreed with, they rally together to shout down the offending speaker.

In this sense, they are very much like the rank and file of the SA inthat they are intellectuals in their own minds. Ward Churchill, like Hitler, like Mussolini, plants the ideas in their minds, and lets them think it sprang from their own thoughts. He grooms and cultures their fetid imaginings, because he knows that, when he calls for them, they will follow blindly and ravenously. They will follow to their destruction, because they cannot believe themselves to be wrong. They simply cannot imagine the possibility that they are dupes.

Personally, I welcome the revolution. The level of civility in political, and even general discourse is so low and gutteral, that it seems to me to be a good time to clean house. It's interesting, though, how folks like me are always willing to stand up and protect their right of free speech, but yet they would so quickly deny that to me.

One might well question just exactly WHO the facists are.....

Respects,

Gwedd

— Gwedd () - 13 February '06 - 16:45

JWP,

Damn, that's nice. But, while I know you're only being fair and balanced when you include "white supremacists" in your potential leaders of an American fascist state, the truth is they have no chance. It's the ecofreaks, the black and "indigenous" supremacists and the rabid anticapitalists who do, because they have the Power of Euro-guilt! Luckily for us and as you point out, they really do need their heretics, an amazing lot of them. In fact, I'm thinking of going into the icepick business. (That's Trot, I say, that's Trotsky humor, y'all.)

— jgm () (URL) - 13 February '06 - 17:18

Can't you guys get anything right? Trotsky got it with a pick ax, not an ice pick. Nice try, jgm, to extract your neo-Nazi friends from the critique, but no go. They're already in the White House, Homeland Security, DoD and the NSA. Meanwhile, while you boys are providing this smokescreen for the genuine criminals, the real 1984 is unfolding before our very eyes. Forget the metaphorical fascism that you project onto Churchill. The real thing is as near as the low-jack on your truck, the video camera on your street corner, your ISP, or your personal GIS location detector (commonly known as your cell phone). And I thought that you rednecks were against huge, imperial government.

— Frida - 13 February '06 - 18:08

Comrade Frida,

Actually, Comrade, the neo-nazis are in YOUR camp, marching against the administration. You know, Skin Heads, Neo Nazis, KKK types, all working to stop the "Jew-backed oil war". The pro-Palestinian, pro-Hamas radicals include the American nazi party, the KKK, the Aryan Nation. All of them sound like most anything you'll find over at the Daily Kos. Same verbosity and bloviating, same desires, same ideas about what the country needs.

Comrade Frida, saying the right side of politics is in bed with those sorts of folks is really out to lunch. Those radicals, facists, nazis, klansmen, are all you folk's relatives, not the right's! I urge you to just surf on over there and check out any of their sites. I'm pretty sure you'll find their politics and yours are kissing cousins.

respects,

Gwedd

— Gwedd () - 13 February '06 - 18:58

Frida you idiot,

According to Wikipedia, it may have been an ice axe or an ice pick. It was definitely NOT a pick axe. Have you ever seen one? Not exactly a concealable weapon.

But thanks anyway for getting me to look at the wiki.

— jgm () (URL) - 14 February '06 - 06:00

Not sure what an "indigenist" is, but can't you allow that American Indians got the short end of the stick in all ways historical without labeling them or their supporters as commie pinkos, the wasted, wicked left, or radical muslims? Thank you Mr. Pirate. I know in your heart you agree with me...

— obiwanagi - 14 February '06 - 16:51

Interesting essay, but I take issue with your assumption that Churchill is an intellectually serious and committed revolutionary. I view him as a victim of a rather serious psychological disturbance, who fights his demons by creating a series of masquerades that feed his ego needs. He fell into a situation in which posing as an Indian radical brought him the attention he craves. He's never actually done anything radical. He just talks about it and collects the checks and the attention.

I also can't imagine him as the head of any type of successful movement. He played a big role in the AIM split, and cannot seem to deal rationally with any disagreement. I also doubt that there are many potential followers of such a nihilistic ideology.

— Noj - 14 February '06 - 18:23

Noj:

Perhaps I should have made one of my points more clearly: Churchill is on Churchill's side. His alleged "Indianness" is simply a convenient platform. Recall he started in the Black Panther Movement; it's my guess he figured out very quickly that in the class/race politics he plays, he was forever going to be handicapped among the Panthers. Ah, but everybody's got Indian blood....

And here's another point I should have made: The ultimate goal of these movements is not to create a "paradise on earth"—at least not the for the hard-core thinkers. Their ultimate goal is to loot. Beyond that, they have no agenda.

— [jwpaine] () (URL) - 14 February '06 - 18:51

The thing I find most curious is the amount of time it takes for academia to investigate this. In the business world, this would have been completed in a few weeks max. But it appears the brightest minds need 50 plus extra weeks to figure this out. If they ever do...

This just baffles me. You would think they would want the controversy over also.

— CattleDog - 15 February '06 - 07:20

obiwanagi,

The, "supporters" that you refer to in jwp's post usually do not really care in any meaningful way about the people they purport to support. They are simply props in their self-loathing and hatred of others within their framework. In other words, they hate others who are more like them, but have different views.

They are also extemists, valuing one value over all others.

— DWG () - 15 February '06 - 09:05

Dearest DWG:

Thanks you for speaking from Mr. Paine's brain.

You sound like a pirate, but you may be Johnny Depp...

My simple point is that Indians have the inherent right

to bitch and moan, flex and foment. This has nothing to

do with the lunatic Ward C. It's the curse of invisible

war paint or something like that.

--Obi

— obiwanagi - 15 February '06 - 10:43

obiwanagi,

You speak of Indians, but which Indians? the Oglala, the Abenaki, the Piute, Shoshone, Cherokee, Cheyenne, Navajo, which ones?

To speak of "Indians" lumps all the tribes together, and that is disingenuous at best. It's like saying whites, and referring to blacks and asians and caucasians all at the same time.

I would assume from your posting that you value your "indian" heritage, but I can't see any inherant right to "bitch and moan, flex and foment". At least, not anymore than anyone else. Do Irish Catholics have a "bully pulpit' as well? How about descendants of Chinese railroad workers? Japanese descendants?

At what point does it all become moot and we simply say "Americans?" I've been to Pine Ridge many times. I've witnessed the Sun Dance with my late friend James Holy Eagle. I also would have stood against Custer, given the choice, but I wasn't given that choice.

I am an American. Mixed race like anyone who has been here more than a century. I didn't own slaves, though my ancestors did. I didn't fight Indians, though my ancestors did. Modern Indians, however one wishes to interpret that word, have only themselves to blame for their own situation.

Ward Churchill is a Poseur of the worst sort, and a cultural vampyre. He sucks the life out of whatever group he associates with, usually one that hasn't got a strong leader or is fighting amongst themselves. He steps in and sucks the life out of it. He takes what he can use and then moves on to another victim.

The various "Indian" tribes and nations have great histories. They should be remembered, and their cultures witnessed and discussed and remembered. But life goes on. Either we are all "Americans" or we are all dead men walking. We cannot hope to survive as "Indian" and "White" and "African-American" etc.

It's time for people to take responsibility for their own lives, their own situations. To stop waiting for someone to come along and help you out, because odds are that person is not going to be there anytime soon.

We are each responsible for our own lives, for our own situations.

Respects,

Gwedd

— Gwedd () - 15 February '06 - 19:16

Astonishing reply. Yes, let us all forget our roots and blend together in the great pie of America. Let's have no dissension in the ranks. Forward ho, my brother Americanos! While were at it, let's absorb the Iraqis and make them Americans too. That way in a hundred years they still won't still be fighting against the intruders, the foreign invaders of their homeland.

— obiwanagi - 15 February '06 - 20:58

This is kind of fun, Mr. Paine. Your new NAIM buddies don't seem to like you any better than we do.

And they seem to be slapping your readership around righteously.

— John Moredock () - 16 February '06 - 05:37

Comrade obiwanagi,

Perhaps you might do me the courtesy of actually READING what I wrote before you run off at the mouth. I never said anything about forgetting the past. I said we need to work towards the future. Any sort of future that involves any "something-American" is not progress but division and non-productive. Of course, that's what so many liberal groups are about: division and victimhood. They all worship at the altar of victimization, bowing down to their high priests from the left, living in the past, and weeping "oh poor me", while the rest of the country tries to go forward while dragging those sorry asses along like a flat tire. You can be part of the solution, or part of the problem, and right now, your attitude smacks of the latter.

This nation's motto is "E Pluribus Unum" but sadly, many folks like yourself would rather have "E Pluribus Pluribii". Everyone looking for the "me" and very few looking for the "we".

Grow up, comrade. The real world is out there calling for you to be a part of it.

Comrade John Moredock,

What slapping? Pre-packed pompous bellowings from the left's talking-points meme? Rehashing the tired old cliches of victimhood? Get a grip. My kids can do better than that. It's to be lamented that so many tax dollars go to fund universities and colleges that, in the end, seem to be nothing more than petri dishes for breeding idiotarian leftist experiments. The positive side of that, however, is that when it comes time to find the moonbats, these same institutions are a target-rich environment.

To be honest, though, I do enjoy seeing so many left-wing responders and bloggers. Their postings and comments directly relate to the rise in conservative voter registrations.

Respects,

Gwedd

— Gwedd () - 16 February '06 - 08:05

Dearest Sir Gwedd of the E Pluribus Round Table:

I yield. I place my head on the tracks in the face of the Great American locomotive. You win! Oops, you won a century and a half ago...besides, it's really like Comrade Buddha says: "People with opinions only bother each other."

— obiwanagi - 16 February '06 - 09:41

obiwanagi/moredock:

Is that all you two have to offer to the argument - a sneer? I think you'll find that sneering contempt lost much of its tactical value to the Left about five years ago. Or do you think Al Franken and and Jeannine Garafalo, to name a few practitioners, still have careers?

But keep demonstrating that your position is so morally and intellectually bankrupt that the only remaining arguments available to you are insult and invective.

— [jwpaine] () (URL) - 16 February '06 - 11:03

Gwedd,

Umm, Indian Nations were treated as separate nations from the get go and still are so the inherent right to bitch and moan is valid. The US screwed Indian people big time it wasn't them that did the screwing. Peace was always practiced first, then war. Indian people didn't have the resources to gather and seek alliances until the Battle of the Little Bighorn when Custer's ass was kicked big time.

Inclusion of anyone, even white immigrants, was largely a colonial idea that had everything to do with proper management of people rather than their equality, and it took particular shape around programs that aimed to assimilate while still assuming them to be inferior people.

We're all living in this country and were not at civil war. We may not all agree on the same thing or see things differently, live differently, isn't that American? Why does there have to be a strive for something that was always a myth. We're united still, with different beliefs. Why should I give up the ways of my ancestors when I can still keep them intact and still be a part of something larger?

— The Joker - 16 February '06 - 11:28

I do not sneer at pirates! I agree with you about Mr. Wardo, but I simply refuse to bow down to the golden idol of Halliburton and the moronic fifty percent of this country who do. Sneering is all some of us have left.

Sneerly yours, Obiwanagi.

— obiwanagi - 16 February '06 - 12:40

Ah, Mr. Paine, we don't only sneer. Sometimes we scoff.

— John Moredock () - 16 February '06 - 20:38

But most of the time, Moredock, you just suck.

— jgm () (URL) - 16 February '06 - 21:06

Why is it that the right brings up the "we are all American" line when speaking to people of color but malign those who do not hold their views, as "unamerican", when speaking to other right wingers?

Anyone who has ever been to places like freerepublic, Little Green Footballs, Powerline etc,. can attest to viewing discussions in which right wingers posit that they are the "True Americans" while progressives, Chicanos, Blacks, Indians, etc,. are not.

I was once spoke to a right winger and asked him if he viewed democrats as fellow Americans and he said "no". Right wing pundits like Ann Coulter cash in by portraying Democrats and progressives as traitors and seditionists.

The right wing definitely has their classifications of who is a legitimate American and the "we are all Americans" line is simply a device they use in an attempt to stop the discussion from continuing.

— jayo - 17 February '06 - 01:08

Senor Jayo:

Finally, someone lets goodness/truth shine from his brain. I don't know what is on other blogs and I'm not sure why I started posting here, but most right wingers that I've encountered seem stunted in some strange way—almost like the sunlight of dialogue would singe their tiny nutsacks...and this is not to say they are evil, they are just imprisoned by their own small thoughts. But people can change I guess. Maybe tomorrow Mr. Bush will announce a pullout from Iraq—will unveil a plan to rebuild this nation and help those who truly need help. I must be daydreaming!!

— obiwanagi - 17 February '06 - 09:55

No trackbacks:

Trackback link:

Please enable javascript to generate a trackback url