eichmerikan

Ward Churchill takes Amerikan Little Eichmannism to court, March 9 through March 27. We’re staunch supporters of Mr. Churchill’s right to call Little Eichmanns by their proper and deserved names. We urge all who uphold bourgeois Amerikan “free speech” and those First World nation traitors who uphold the world’s oppressed majority to do whatever they can to provide support to the organizing efforts around this trial. Below please find some nifty fliers to download and distribute as part of this campaign.

wc-blackboard

wc-firetruth

wc-innocents

wc-freespeech

wc-lifeblood

wc-taxonomy

wc-winknod

Update. Available in DVD format via torrents. Some have experienced difficulty with the previously announced DVD offering of this video. Those problems have been resolved and a new DVD is available. Search mininova for the title: Amerikan Holiday

We will have more to say about Kolumbus. And we will especially have more to say about the $panish priest mentioned in the video, Bartolomé de las Casas.

For those who have diligently read our previous articles, the answer in advance is no, it won’t turn out that Kolumbus spoke the same language as Ward Churchill, or John Brown, or the German communists of 1945.

But it may well be that de las Casas did. It may just turn out that de las Casas shared some remarkable similarities with that white nationalist liberal, William Lloyd Garrison. Including the ability to speak a credible version of the language of the oppressed.

In the event things do turn out that way, we’re thinking of titling the article, “Why one 16th century religious colonialist was more politically advanced than all of today’s white nationalist “leftists” put together.” Sorta has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

We began this article a long time ago by noting how very different were John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison, the one a revolutionary nation-traitor, the other a white nationalist liberal. And we explained how, even coming from opposite ends of the national oppression spectrum, these two could speak the same language about amerika’s primary political fact at the time. And it turned out that was mainly because they both spoke the truth: white amerikans as a nation were enemy to the enslaved Black Nation. They told the truth for different reasons, to be sure. Garrison to save amerika, John Brown to destroy it. But as to the assessment of forces in this war, they spoke the same language because they were each in a situation that demanded the truth if they were to accomplish their respective aims.

Then we talked about Ward Churchill and the German communists of 1945. And about how those communists were speaking Ward Churchill’s language when they acknowledged the overwhelming class content of their nation as oppressors and exploiters. John Brown, we concluded, was speaking the same language as well. They could all talk.

William Lloyd Garrison wouldn’t like all that Ward Churchill-John Brown-communist talk, coming as it does from the side of the oppressed.   But you can bet he would understand them. Just like they would him. And simply because they all told the truth.

“I am ashamed of my country,” was how Garrison put it, “our guilty land.” That’s how the better white nationalist liberals put it then. So he could talk to John Brown. Or the German communists. Or Ward Churchill.

Then we discussed the all amerikkkan white nationalist so-called “leftists.” And how they’ve made it absolutely manifest that they can’t talk to Ward Churchill.

Well maybe they could talk to the German communists of 1945. Let’s see, how would that go? “Gee comrades, sorry your white nation didn’t get the exemption clause we got over here in white amerikkka. Now you got yourselves a bunch of outed Little Eichmanns to deal with. Well good luck with that.”

Or maybe it’d go like, “Don’t worry, comrades, they can’t really be Little Eichmanns – they’re white, just like us. Must just be a vicious rumor, it’ll blow over.”

No, probably not much conversation to be had there.

Well then, how about John Brown? “Hey, just hold on a minute, now, John Boy, don’t you see all them white “worker” allies yonder coming over the hill rushing to join up with you? What’s your hurry, boy? They’ll be here directly.” But more likely it’d be, “Damn, John Boy. Just when the Blacks and whites were about to really get together with each other, you have to go and spoil the whole thing by splittin’ ‘em up. Cryin’ shame, that’s what it is.”

Yeah, just like with the German communists of 1945, John Brown wouldn’t be able to make out a word of the language of all-amerikkkan white nationalist so-called “leftism.” Just wouldn’t make a bit of sense to him, that’s all.

And all they’d have to do, to get into the conversation, these clowns, is just say what the better 19th century white nationalist liberals could say: white amerikkka is a guilty land. Even “I am ashamed of my country” would do. But they can’t. Too much near the precipice of the truth’s slippery slope.

So you can see how William Lloyd Garrison has it all over the all-amerikan white nationalist so-called “left” when it comes to brute political development. It’s not much of a contest, is it?

But let’s be fair. Remember back when we talked about how it’s when fundamental contradictions get exacerbated that you get liberals like Garrison who are forced to tell the truth to save their own asses? We should have specified “exacerbated for the oppressors,” since the contradictions weighing on the oppressed are always exacerbated. The contradiction between the Black nation and the oppressor white nation was pretty much exacerbated in Garrison’s time. And so the credit for Garrison’s truth-telling really goes to the heroes of the Black Nation, who died exacerbating the contradiction for the oppressors enough to scare all white amerikkka rather shitless.

No contradictions are that exacerbated today for the oppressors, and white amerika has stayed cozy safe and full of shit for a while now. In that state there are still liberals, of course. But the necessity for belting out bare truth isn’t as pressing. So liberals are different – quieter, and not quite as direct. If William Lloyd Garrison could be with us today, he’d probably be one of those. Maybe he’d be running the Global Rich List, which is “trying to make people aware of the big injustices in the world.” The Global Rich List is a charity organization which is trying to resolve the primary contradiction in the world, between the oppressors of the first world and the oppressed Third World, through donations.

Of course we think Maoism has demonstrated a better track record at this sort of thing. But still, look at how refreshing it is to have even the truth-value of that somewhat indeterminate statement, “the big injustices in the world.” If you’re a first worlder, and you probably are, go plug in some numbers at the Global Rich List – yours, your friends’, anybody you can think of – and we guarantee you’ll get more truth about the world’s primary contradiction than attending 10,000 all-amerikan white nationalist so-called “leftist” rallies. At any rate, that’s what the better liberals look like today, and they too have it all over the white “leftists” for political advancement.

Which means, then, that these “leftists’ aren’t even decent liberals. It could be that when the primary contradiction gets more exacerbated they’ll get turned into decent liberals. You know, like when the Third World gets to breathing down white amerika’s collective white neck. Maybe a few of these white nationalist “leftist” will get turned into William Lloyd Garrisons.

But the odds are against it. Remember, there weren’t all that many William Lloyd Garrisons in his time. Don’t forget half the white nation was ready to die – to have their husbands and wives, children and grandchildren and every bit of their extended cracker families just plain fucking die – rather than give up owning the Black nation as slaves. And that would have been fine for most of the rest of the white nation, if they could have slept without an eye open.

So, yeah, chances are even when push comes to shove internationally, these white nationalist “leftists”, will be, like their brethren, just more of what they are now, and that’s white nationalists, period.

Here’s what we’ve got so far. From two disparate sources, a concurrence of mid nineteenth century class analysis. Each concludes that an entire nation of whites is enemy to an enslaved Black population. From the side of the oppressed, John Brown needs as accurate an estimate as possible of potential allies – there are almost none. From the side of the oppressor nation, William Lloyd Garrison needs an equally high level of accuracy to assess the dangers to white amerika and provide proper warning. He finds the danger pervasive: all amerikans are at risk because they have all conspired in the oppression of Blacks. We then observed that at times useful class analysis can be just this simple. Sometimes, we said, such useful class analysis can just be the most important honest thing to naturally say about a political situation.

Take Germany in defeat, 1945. That was such a time. It was all pretty simple. The German people had fought for the Reich’s bloody imperialism till the bitter end. Why?

“Precisely because so many Germans did in fact benefit from Nazi Germany’s campaigns of plunder … The Nazi leadership did not transform the majority of Germans into ideological fanatics who were convinced they were part of the master race. Instead it succeeded in making them well-fed parasites.”(1)

That’s Gotz Aly, in Hitler’s Beneficiaries, which details how Germans devoured with the “euphoria of a gold rush” the Nazis’ disbursement of the plunder derived from their genocidal campaigns. The priming force for the ease with which Germans by the millions embraced well-fed imperialist parasitism had of course been German colonization of Africa. That imperial venture thwarted, the great majority of the German people hardly missed a beat in supporting the turn of attention to a KKKolumbus style conquest of Europe and the Soviet Union for the same spoils of war and oppression. Like fish to water. Like parasites to hosts.

In terms of class analysis, what was the most important honest thing to say about this political situation? The German communists thought it was quite simple:

“Not only is Hitler guilty of the crimes that have befallen humanity! Ten million Germans also bear part of the guilt, those who in 1932 in free elections voted for Hitler … Part of the guilt is also borne by those German men and women who, spineless and without resistance, watched Hitler grab power … Guilty are all those Germans who saw in the armaments build up a “Greater Germany” and perceived in bestial militarism, in marches and exercises, the sole sanctifying redemption of the nation.”(2)

Taken together this assessment pretty much covers most all Germans. The German communists thought that far and away the most important thing to say at the time was that great wide swaths of the German population had chosen bloody imperialist conquest and subjugation with all the reactionary resolution of the German imperialists themselves. And bore consequent responsibility for that choice. That’s a class analysis. Of the German populace as constituting a parasitic oppressor nation. Of Little Eichmannism on a national scale.

Now, unlike the 1945 German communists, Ward Churchill doesn’t have the reinforcement of the victorious Soviet Red Army ensuring his right to freely speak the most important honest things to naturally say about amerikkka and amerikkkans. That’s regrettable. He identifies just a paltry few Little Eichmanns by name and boom, after recovering from a collective fainting spell, amerika erupts in witch-hunting, railroading, and full blown kangaroo kourting.

Ward Churchill, in naming names in amerika, speaks for the oppressed against the oppressors and their functionaries. Others who in the past spoke for the oppressed, could they be with us now, would say point blank Ward Churchill is right. The communists of Germany, 1945, would say yes, we’ve seen this Little Eichmann movie before, and Ward Churchill is right. And is there any doubt where John Brown would stand? He stood against the Little Eichmanns of slavery and would certainly stand against the Little Eichmanns of imperialism. Old John Brown the revolutionary, could he be here, would bear witness to the now global “crimes of this guilty land” and declare Ward Churchill to be absolutely right.

We could use those voices now, as we have only a few pockets of full support for Ward Churchill. The J. Sakai influcenced anarchists, some national liberation movements, the real Maoists, and a few others. Otherwise it’s all of white amerika assembled phalanx fashion against truthfully calling things by their proper names. That reactionary formation includes, of course, the all-amerikkkan white nationalist so-called “left.”

We realize that that last term is a mouthful and is in need of explaining. A full and proper explanation will require extending this article to a Part Four. At that time we’ll also bring back William Lloyd Garrison, the white nationalist liberal. And he’ll shine like nobody’s business in comparison with the current clowns of the amerikan “left.”

1. Gotz Aly, Hitler’s Beneficiaries (New York: Henry Holt, 2007), pp.2, 324.

2. Eric D. Weitz, Creating German Communism, 1890-1990 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), p.319.

This article was supposed to conclude in Part Two. It won’t. Maybe in Part Three. It’s just how things turn out sometimes.

Anyway, here’s William Lloyd Garrison replying to some fan mail in 1855. The note reads: Wishing you a happy new year and that this may prove the long-desired jubilee to all the enslaved in our guilty land.

Our interest is in the meaning of the last three words, “our guilty land.” Garrison’s intended referent for “our guilty land” had been clear at least since an 1829 speech on slavery. “Before God, I must say that such a glaring contradiction as exists between our creed and practice the annals of 6,000 years cannot parallel. In view of it, I am ashamed of my country.”

There’s no doubt or ambiguity here. By the phrases “our guilty land” and “my country” Garrison is without question referring to the nation of white amerika. These are political phrases. They indicate a political entity, a nation, that whites together constituted. And these political phrases are themselves integral to the political statement that Garrison is making in these two fragments. The political statement concerns the behavior of that political entity, that nation, which he has precisely referenced. In full, the political statement asserts that these whites, as a nation, have oppressed, in fact have enslaved, a people – we would of course say an entire nation.

Garrison’s statements identifying white amerika as an oppressor nation and Blacks as the subject of this oppression are by definition a class analysis. What we want (well, what Maoists want) in a class analysis is some good idea of who are the truly exploited and oppressed, who are their friends, and who are their enemies. Garrison provides all this very sufficiently. In this situation the Black Nation constitutes the most oppressed. They have virtually no genuine allies close by. And their enemy is – the white nation, as a whole, in toto, and without significant quantitative exception.

This class analysis was exceptionally honest in its accuracy. It reflects the kind of honesty you can sometimes get from the better oppressor-nation liberals like William Lloyd Garrison when their feet are to the fire, i.e., when the threat from the oppressed is sufficiently clear and present. And that was certainly the case at the time. Garrison rightly perceived each reported slave revolt as potentially “the first step of the earthquake” that could rock white amerika right off its oppressor foundations.

The candor of Garrison’s class analysis is a job well done in the service of saving his oppressor nation from this Black cataclysm. As a good white nationalist his very first responsibility was the duty to warn, to ring the alarm bell loud and clear for the white nation. “Loud and clear” meant a categorically honest assessment of the risk at hand. No shuck. No jive. It absolutely would not do for the whites to have any misconceptions and make even one little misstep based on an overly optimistic appraisal of the situation. It was no time for foolishness.

So you heard Garrison getting very, very real with his white audience. “My country,” the white nation, is “guilty.” Read: “Remember the horror story about ‘Three savage negroes rushed into my house and killed my wife and my child before my face  …’? Well that’s what’s in store for each and every one of you because each and every one of you is complicit in the oppression to which such resistance will be a response.” It was a warning of such honest accuracy as to do white supremacist liberalism proud.

Now, as it turned out, John Brown couldn’t have agreed more with William Lloyd Garrison’s class analysis. “The crimes of this guilty land,” said John Brown’s own class analysis in similar wording, “will not be purged away but with blood.”

The difference, of course, was that John Brown arrived at that assessment from the point of view of the oppressed rather than, like Garrison, that of the oppressor. Comrade Mao would say that Comrade Brown correctly identified the primary contradiction at the time: the enslavement of the Black nation by the white nation. John Brown was greatly moved by all of the oppressions and exploitations he saw around him. But it was clear as day to him that the enslavement of the Black nation was absolutely the main thing going on from Kalifornia to the New Yorkkk islands, the main thing that needed fixing because it was the location of the greatest exploitation and oppression. So he agreed that Blacks were the most oppressed. And he agreed that Blacks had few true allies. John Brown had spent his whole adult life looking for real allies of the Black Nation among the whites. He had come up with the Harper’s Ferry handful. Consequently he was in fast agreement with Garrison that the white nation was just plain enemy.

And it turns out as well that Maoists too are in full agreement with the class analysis that Garrison advanced. Like Comrade John Brown, we see the circumstances from the ideological perspective of the oppressed rather than that of the oppressors. But also like John Brown we arrive at the same assessment of the balance of forces as did Garrison. See, sometimes serviceable class analysis doesn’t have to approach the mathematical complexity of an equation from quantum mechanics. Sometimes it can just be the most important honest thing to naturally say about a political situation.

Which brings us of course to Ward Churchill. Well not quite. First we have to talk about how the German communists dealt with their own nation of certified Little Eichmanns after the war. And then Ward Churchill. And then the oppressor nation white nationalist so-called “left.” All in good time. And maybe all in Part Three.

A few readers have astutely remarked that Lurleen (of Little Eichmann Jubilation) strikes them as “just very, very familiar.” And well she should. The only reason that these readers “can’t quite place her” is that this image catches Lurleen in an after hours capacity, or, as she would no doubt correct us, “off duty.” The readers’ ”vexation” at being unable to identify Lurleen is an itch that Shubel Morgan is happy to scratch, later.