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 importantlyfrom a historical perspectivethese 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 cohortsthe black-bloc anarchists, animal rights activists, MEChA separatists, environmental activists, black radicals, indigenistsseem 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 revolutionwhich will be brief and relatively bloodless because the seeds for expedient capitulation to "moral authority" have already been sown and carefully nurturedthe 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 throneit makes no difference what flavor of fascism is in control; collectivism always has the same taste of brutal despair.