« An Anti-Capitalism Anarcho-Capitalist | Main | Free speech dead. »

March 30, 2005

The last word (or not) on Churchill.

Ward, that is, not Winston. This entry on Catallarchy got me thinking about it again.

Since his essay came out, or rather, since anybody has paid attention to it, Churchill has been blasted, demonized, threatened with death, and, worst of all, they wanted to take his tenure. Finally, sick of the whole mess I would guess, Churchill resigned his position. Let's put it in perspective, shall we? Churchill, speaking of the government functionaries installed in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, called them "litte Eichmanns," probably one of the more unfortunate (if apt) choices of epithet in academic history. But how apt was it? Well, Eichmann was supposedly shown at his trial to have no deep rooted feelings of animosity towards Jews (I could not find the relevant passage, but you're welcome to look for it). He, by trucking them across Europe to places like Dachau and Auschwitz, was just doing his bureaucratic best for the State. Assuming Eichmann really didn't hate Jews, and was, in fact, a functionary "just doing his job," then the comparison is appropriate. The US and UN did, indeed, impose sanctions on Iraq which contributed directly to the deaths of thousands of people, and no direct action against any of those people was ever taken by their murderers, most of whom were "just following orders." By this reasoning, however, every soldier, civil servant, and taxpayer in Germany should have been hanged like Eichmann was, in other words, anyone who had contributed to the maintenance of the Reich. And, by extension, all of the good little work units who support the atrocities currently being perpetrated by this government should share the same fate. A little extreme, one might say? Not to an Iraqi widow or orphan. Not to an Afghani farmer who's just had his poppy field and with it his year's income burnt to the ground yet again.

Now, before the hate comments start, do I advocate hanging, shooting, or otherwise disposing of American taxpayers? No. I advocate tax avoidance. The State, through its Department of Homeland Plundering, claims a $300 billion tax gap. Looking at the appropriate document ("Internal Revenue Collections, Costs, etc., Fiscal Years 1971-2004"), in 2004 the Plunder Dept. took in well over $2 trillion, yet managed to rack up over $300 billion in debt. Odd, isn't it, that the supposed "tax shortfall" and the amount of debt the government racked up by reckless overspending are almost identical? Almost like they're trying to blame "tax cheats" who aren't paying "their fair share" to the US welfare-warfare machine for the costly, blood-soaked blunders the Congress is making by rubber-stamping idiotic, unrealistic budgets and wars.

What has all this to do with Churchill? As I said, assuming that Eichmann had no hatred of the Jews whom he, merely by drawing up timetables, undeniably helped to kill, Churchill is dead on the mark with the comparison to him of State employees as abettors of murder. They are, as surely as Eichmann abetted genocide by efficiently getting Jews on trains. However, shouldn't the soldiers who herded them on to the trains have been hanged? The engineer? The commanadant's cleaning lady? Anyone who helped in any way, actively or passively? There is a gray area here, I think. After all, Hitler's valet only got ten years (albeit in the tender hands of the KGB), and he held an SS rank identical to Eichmann's.

The real question is, how far down the chain does responsibility stop? Does it ever? From presidents to legislators to judges to soldiers to cops to civil servants to taxpayers, who is the most guilty for atrocities committed in the name of the people? I lack the answer, but they all help. If you don't want to be a "little Eichmann," don't file a 1040 next month. I realize that's not a viable option for most of you, but it has to start somewhere, and that somewhere for most folks is tax evasion.

Posted by Patrick Yancey at March 30, 2005 06:30 PM

Comments

Funny thing is Ward Churchill is a State employee (i.e. he is a professor at a public university). Therefore, the "little Eichmanns" reference is more appropriate for himself than the victims of the World Trade Center.

Posted by: Jer [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 1, 2005 05:22 PM

Eichmann and all the rest of the people tried for abetting in genocide try to use the "following orders excuse".

Whether true or not, he is morally responsible for whatever he did. Tuff choice to be sure, but then would you rather be shot by the Gestapo for not helping in mass murder, or tracked down like a dog and hanged for doing so?

Posted by: Ali_Massoud [TypeKey Profile Page] at April 2, 2005 08:59 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?