November 29, 2007

Churchill:  Manifest Destiny = Holocaust

Churchill, several audience members erupt into heated argumentsThough Churchill made national headlines for his commentary about Sept. 11, he spent most of his lecture arguing that the United States' westward expansion in the 19th century and "extermination" of American Indians was akin to the ideology behind the Holocaust.

"You find in the later pages of Mein Kampf an articulation of Hitler that comes from an analysis of empires," Churchill said. "He's examining the other European powers for models that would be an applicable model of the German destiny. He points directly to what he calls the Nordics of North America. The United States is the model."
Churchill links Nazism to Zionism:In the last 15 minutes of his hour-long lecture, Churchill shifted his emphasis to Israel, arguing that Zionists use the same justifications as did Hitler to perpetrate what he believes is a Palestinian genocide.

"How did it become the Palestinians who bore the onus of responsibility to compensate [the Jews] for what had been done to them by Northwest Europeans?" Churchill asked.
Churchill defends his 9/11 remarks:"Three young high school students were traveling on a plane to an award ceremony. Of course, they never made it," Markevich said. "They were murdered."

"By Bush and Cheney," someone shouted, to wild applause by some of the audience. Churchill smiled and shrugged, but did not comment.

"My question is, were those three students part of a cog in a capitalist machine and were they also 'little Eichmanns' who deserved to die as you claimed?" Markevich said.

"That was an amazingly stupid question," Churchill said. "If you have a reading comprehension above the eighth grade, which you should have, since you appear to be impersonating a student up there, then you'd understand that those three … could not be construed as the technocratic core of the empire, and that's who I described as little Eichmanns. That's disingenuous bullshit you just spit out."
Churchill argues with a professor:"You came here propelling the thesis that Zionism, which most Jews consider to be the national movement of the Jewish people, is comparable to Nazis'," the professor said, citing Palestinian population figures.

"Yes, it is," Churchill responded.

"I think you failed in your thesis, and I'm in a position to give you a grade," the audience member responded. "What I want to know is where are the God-damned Jews of Poland and Romania and Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia. And they were God-damned! Where are they? We know where the Palestinians are," the professor said.
Comment:  Does anyone have a problem with Churchill's comparing the American credo of Manifest Destiny to the Nazi policies of conquest and extermination? Because I made the same argument in Adolf Hitler:  A True American.


Unknown said...

I just saw your comments and blog. I stand foursquare with Dr. Revilo P. Oliver and agree 110% with him and with Teddy Roosevelt.

Rob said...

Revilo P. Oliver's name is a palindrome, obviously, but I don't know who he is.

Do you agree with this quote of Roosevelt's?

"I suppose I should be ashamed to say that I take the Western view of the Indian. I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of every ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth."

Rob said...

Here's some info on Revilo P. Oliver. He appears to have white-supremacy views similar to Roosevelt's:

Revilo Pendleton Oliver (7 July 1908–10 August 1994) was an American professor of Classical philology, Spanish, and Italian at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, who wrote and polemicized extensively for Racial Nationalist causes. He has been described as "one of America's most notorious fascists" and, according to B'nai Brith Canada, was "a long time proponent of antisemitism."

A superior race has a moral right, perhaps even a moral imperative, to displace an inferior race in desirable territory. Aryans were obviously greatly superior to Indians and therefore had a natural right to take North American for themselves. I do not say that our race's superiority to the Indians was shown by our greater intelligence and our unique culture, for that would be only a tautology. Our superiority was conclusively demonstrated by the fact that we subjugated the Indians and conquered the country that was ours until we discarded it.

This alternative, needless to say, is the only one that rationally recognizes the real world, a universe that was not made for man and is totally devoid of moral values. Morality is a code that each nation must devise for itself, and the morality that is highest for that nation is the one that most conduces to its survival and to its expansion at the expense of inferior peoples.

Rob said...

So the Nazis were morally superior to Jews they exterminated? Interesting argument, but not one I'd make in polite society. Not if I want to remain healthy and whole.

If Oliver is right, the US should surrender to Vietnam immediately. After all, the Vietnamese proved their "moral superiority" to us by defeating us in battle. If not the Vietnamese, we should surrender to Osama bin Laden, since he kicked our butts on 9/11.

Aryans were "morally superior" to Indians because they were disease-ridden vermin while the Indians were squeaky clean. Is that what Oliver means? By that asinine "logic," microbes and mosquitoes are morally superior to the humans they kill.


alanajoli said...

Huh. That sounds a lot like the whole trial by combat thing that happened in European history but was later dismissed as barbaric and too close to pagan origins for God-fearing people to participate in (if I remember my medieval history well enough).

Funny how those ideas continue to crop up in one form or another.

Rob said...

Oliver also considered genocide a potentially good idea. As he put it:

III. When Indians had been defeated and subdued, it was obviously necessary to provide against a resumption of hostilities and renewed massacres of Americans. There were only two possible solutions of that problem, either:

(a) The surviving Indians could be disarmed, confined to reservations, and there protected against themselves, especially by preventing them from obtaining whisky and similar liquors, which they were physiologically incapable of using without becoming insane; or

(b) The survivors could be killed and the inferior race exterminated.

Which of the only feasible alternatives was morally preferable may be left to your decision.

Anonymous said...

Anyone can become emotional about an issue when they feel personally connected to or affected by it and ignore the similarities between Zionist Israelis, Nazi Germans and colonizing Americans/Brits.

The truth is, while nationality/race has a lot to do with the way these periods of time have gone down and are going down, it's ultimately about power and rigidity.

In all three situations, the powerful abused their power and the targets of their abuse suffered greatly...just because Jewish people were victims of the Holocaust does not make every single one of them magically exempt from, in turn, becoming the oppressor.

In fact, I think it makes it more likely that they would become extremists---rationalizing such a position based on their collective history of oppression...."never again" becomes "never compromise, never yield".