Back to

"Invitations to Violence"

A sadly under-reported aspect of Churchill's history has been (until now) his habit of what we call "invitations to violence." We say "invitations" because they often cannot be classified as "incitements" (which might be cause for criminal charges). But whatever the nomenclature, Churchill's statements throughout his career are disturbing.

Hawaiian cartoonist who was lambasted by Churchill shares his recollection:
During Churchill’s speaking time at the event, this man -- a man who had never met me and refused to do so before and during the event -- included in his speech a reference to me as "vermin," and shared aloud a story of how an unnamed Nazi cartoonist was tried at the WWII Nuremburg trials, executed, dismembered and then cremated. Churchill ended this story with his own personal comment of, "Now, I’m not saying that should happen to Grant, but it would be a good thing." [emphasis ours]
From an April 2004  interview in Satya Magazine:
"One of the things I’ve suggested is that it may be that more 9/11s are necessary."


"I want the state gone: transform the situation to U.S. out of North America. U.S. off the planet. Out of existence altogether. "

From a speech given back in June 2000:

[begins 6:59] "As I said, killing the colonizer is a [figurative?] proposition; it is a liberal proposition but either way and by all available means, the proposition has to be fulfilled and that is the way not only to liberation but to mental health."

From an interview with Shawn Setaro on ZMag:
"They're [yuppies who advocate gun control] concerned they're gonna get shot, so they want to make sure this guy down the street whose life they're getting ready to rearrange for him because they know better how he ought to live than he does, and how he ought to act - and they don't want to bear the burden of his health care, or whatever - that he may just one day go off the deep end of getting fucked with and come up and shoot one of them. He probably should." [emphasis ours]

From a speech in Vancouver, BC, Canada, August 8, 2004:
[...W]e are going right to the nerve centre of what makes the thing function and it will not stop functioning painlessly; it will resist. There is not a petition campaign that you can construct that is going to cause the power and the status quo to dissipate. There is not a legal action that you can take; you can't go into the court of the conqueror and have the conqueror announce the conquest to be illegitimate and to be repealed; you cannot vote in an alternative, you cannot hold a prayer vigil, you cannot burn the right scented candle at the prayer vigil, you cannot have the right folk song, you cannot have the right fashion statement, you cannot adopt a different diet, build a better bike path. You have to say it squarely: the fact that this power this force, this entity, this monstrosity called the State maintains itself by physical force, and can be countered only in terms that it itself dictates and therefore understands. That's a deep breath time; that's a real deep breath time." [emphasis ours]
Here's a report from 2002 of a Churchill speech in Montreal written by a reporter sympathetic to Churchill's cause:
Churchill's thesis is that understanding history is the key to coming to a position whereby people may be motivated to move to act in their own best interests. Churchill fielded questions from the audience. Throughout, Churchill stressed that rhetoric does not change things - it is action that does. Churchill encouraged people to consider the ways in which they could act.

Here's Churchill as co-author of an article defending the property destruction perpetrated by "black block anarchists" during the 1999 anti-WTO protests in Seattle:

"It also should not go unsaid that developing a community able to produced several hundred predominantly white youths with middle-class backgrounds to take militant action against their real enemy is no small feat of organization. It has taken years of sowing and tending to seeds of awareness and resistance, and we, at least, appreciate that effort."

From his essay "I Am Indigenist" (this essay bears reading in full; Churchill lays out an entire plan for giving "indigenous people" about 1/3rd of the contiguous states, and discusses the yuppie-free world created afterward):

it seems obvious that the literal dismemberment of the nation-state necessary for Indian land recovery correspondingly reduces the ability of the state to sustain the imposition of objectionable policies within itself.[...]

A brief aside: Anyone with doubts as to whether it is possible to bring about the dismemberment from within of a superpower state in this day and age, ought to sit down and have a long talk with a guy named Mikhail Gorbechev. It would be better yet if one could chew the fat with Leonid Breznev, a man who we can be sure would have replied in all sincerity, only twenty years ago, that this was the most outlandish idea he’d ever heard. Well, look on a map today, and see if you can find the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It ain’t there, folks. Instead, you are seeing—and you will see it more and more—the reemergence of the very nations Léon Trotsky and his colleagues consigned to the “dustbin of history” clear back at the beginning of the century. These megastates are not immutable. They can be taken apart. They can be destroyed. But first we have to decide that we can do it and that we will do it. [emphasis ours]

Here's Churchill on pages 91-92 of his book Pacifism as Pathology (excerpt taken from this review):

"[I]n order to be effective and ultimately successful, any revolutionary movement within advanced capitalist nations must develop the broadest possible range of thinking/action by which to confront the state. This should be conceived not as an array of component forms of struggle but as a continuum of activity stretching from petitions/letter writing and so forth through mass mobilizations/demonstrations, onward into the arena of armed self-defense, and still onward through the realm of 'offensive' military operations (e.g., elimination of critical state facilities, targeting of key individuals within the governmental/corporate apparatus, etc.) All of this must be apprehended as a holism, as an internally consistent liberatory process applicable at this generally-formulated level to the late capitalist context no less than to the Third World. From the basis of this fundamental understanding-and, it may be asserted, ONLY from this basis-can a viable liberatory praxis for North America emerge." [emphasis ours]


And as late as March 8, 2005, in his own refutation of claims that he incites violence, Churchill says:

I document the systemic violence perpetrated by the U.S. government in the hope that Americans will take this responsibility to heart and use political means to change government policy. I would vastly prefer that this happen through nonviolent means. However, I cannot say that nonviolence is the only legitimate response to systemic violence. [emphasis ours]


And even more recent, from this March 25, 2005 speech:

[Reading question from audience member] " 'A far cry admittedly so: do you see criminal charges against this administration for its current globalization strategy efforts?' I don't know whether the question is framed -- do I actually think there's gonna be criminal charges brought? Or would I like to see criminal charges brought? The answer to the, uh, second question, if that's what was intended, is kind of a no-brainer. I mean I already said I have these delightful visions which is what puts me to sleep at night of Madeleine Albright, Jesse Helms, and Henry Kissinger all in a nice neat little row with nooses around their neck and [audience applause]... And the current crop is amply entitled to the same destiny as far as I'm concerned. Do I think anybody's going to do it? Well, that's an interesting question. Who would be doing it? There's only one possible answer: you. We. Us."

Here's a transcript of Churchill on the most effective way to "conduct an action":

Churchill: I’m gonna repeat that, tell me if I got that right: Why shouldn’t we do something and how do you you move so they don’t see you coming.

As to the first part, not a reason in the world that I could see. I can’t find a single reason that you shouldn’t in a principled way—there may be some practical considerations, such as do you know how (laughter from audience)—you know, often these things are processes. It’s not just an impulse. And certainly it’s not just an event. And the simple answer, although it probably should be more complicated, but I’m not being flip and giving the simple answer, is: You carry the weapon. That’s how they don’t see it coming. [emphasis ours]

You’re the one…They talk about ‘color blind or blind to your color.’ You said it yourself.

You don’t send the Black Liberation Army into Wall Street to conduct an action.
You don’t send the American Indian Movement into downtown Seattle to conduct an action. Who do you send? You. Your beard shaved, your hair cut close, and wearing a banker’s suit.

There’s probably a whole lot more to it, you know that. But there’s where you start.

Here's Churchill as quoted by Marlena Ganji, from an "interview" conducted back in "the Spring of 2005":
Your [sic] going to have to suck it up and do whatever it is that you need to do in order to retaliate for what is being done in the world today, take up the gun if you want to. The point of the matter is, it has got to get done. You can start out there by showing solidarity to people in armed resistance to what is being done to them in the name of U.S. policy and aggression. You can take it right back home and do it here."

No list would be complete without a link to Churchill's infamous "Some People Push Back" essay:
"If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I'd really be interested in hearing about it."


"With that, [the 9/11 terrorists have] given Americans a tiny dose of their own medicine.. This might be seen as merely a matter of "vengeance" or "retribution," and, unquestionably, America has earned it, even if it were to add up only to something so ultimately petty." [emphasis ours]