NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.raelianews.org/news.php?extend.20


Bwahahaha. If it's true that's the funniest thing I've ever seen. Cause you know if the Raeilians are backing him he's trustworthy. Oh yeah.
*falls off chair and convulses with laughter for about 5 minutes*

My first impression:
Ooh! Pretty website! Eeee! Pink!

My second impression:
What in the nine Hells? Raelians and Ward Churchill?
Odd.

My first impression:
Ooh! Pretty website! Eeee! Pink!

My second impression:
What in the nine Hells? Raelians and Ward Churchill?
Odd.

It's not really that odd.

Mind if I ask what a Raelian is?

Mind if I ask what a Raelian is?

Something to do with UFOs.

More stuff on Ward. cliky (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~53~2702788,00.html)

I leik how he is no longer a native american.

Raelians claimed to have cloned a baby. Then a scientist was like, "Can we see it?" And the Raelians were like, "Uh, no."

Raelians claimed to have cloned a baby. Then a scientist was like, "Can we see it?" And the Raelians were like, "Uh, no."
He's their Precioussss

I leik how he is no longer a native american.

*shudder* nod ... as a true Native American (Nakohodotsi Caddo), this man offends me to my very core.

*shudder* nod ... as a true Native American (Nakohodotsi Caddo), this man offends me to my very core.
Wait, you're a Native American Muslim? I'm not accusing you of anything, I've just never heard of that before.

*shudder* nod ... as a true Native American (Nakohodotsi Caddo), this man offends me to my very core.

It's odd that he felt he had to claim that. Why couldn't he just be angry about history and still be whatever he is. You don't have to be black to condemn slavery, or jewish to condemn the holocaust. I wonder what he though he was getting from it?

It's odd that he felt he had to claim that. Why couldn't he just be angry about history and still be whatever he is. You don't have to be black to condemn slavery, or jewish to condemn the holocaust. I wonder what he though he was getting from it?
Easier tenure and more sympathy.

Easier tenure and more sympathy.

Well maybe at first, but you have to think that it would come out eventually, Then bye-bye tenure. (Which looks like it is going to happen).

Or if not that, make you a laughing stock.

Wait, you're a Native American Muslim? I'm not accusing you of anything, I've just never heard of that before.

Well you have now. :) Muslims come in all colors and nationalities. Many Native Americans are Christian (due in no small part to the missionaries), but every now and then you come across one who's Muslim. Wanna get even scarier? My mother is 1/2 Irish and a Jew.

I suppose that makes me a Native American Irish Muslim Jew. Gotta love the great melting pot. :D

Well you have now. :) Muslims come in all colors and nationalities. Many Native Americans are Christian (due in no small part to the missionaries), but every now and then you come across one who's Muslim. Wanna get even scarier? My mother is 1/2 Irish and a Jew.

I suppose that makes me a Native American Irish Muslim Jew. Gotta love the great melting pot. :D
Holy crap, you're like a triple plus minority. Thats not a melting pot, thats a blender :D

It's odd that he felt he had to claim that. Why couldn't he just be angry about history and still be whatever he is. You don't have to be black to condemn slavery, or jewish to condemn the holocaust. I wonder what he though he was getting from it?

I dunno, man. Maybe he felt a little low self-esteem about not having any sort of cultural identity he could be proud of, so he latched on to someone else's.

I've seen it happen before. We live in an age where the last 3 generations of European Americans, particularly Anglo-Saxon Americans, have been made to feel bad for their heritage. Since it's almost impossible to disprove a Native American ancestry (particularly among the southeastern tribes who refused the Dawes Rolls), it's an easy enough thing to grab onto and claim it.

I find it sad and I hope that reconciliation can be made. Anglo-Saxons have just as much right to cultural pride as anyone. Their history is as rich and fascinating as any.

Holy crap, you're like a triple plus minority. Thats not a melting pot, thats a blender :D

Add one more with my Cajun grandmother (she married the Caddo) and the recipe is complete.

I don't see myself in all that, though. I'm kinda glad for my diverse background because it allowed me to grow up in a family where racism simply wasn't an option.

When I refer to myself, I usually just say "James", but if pressed, I generally end with "Muslim". Before all things I am Muslim. In Islam, nationality ceases to matter at all.

*shudder* nod ... as a true Native American (Nakohodotsi Caddo), this man offends me to my very core.

for what? not having documentary evidence of the ancestry of the rest of his great-grandparents? or for making an inflammatory, but not incorrect, remark about the banality of evil and the guilt that the technocrats of capital share with the people who issue the orders that kill hundreds of thousands of people in foreign countries?

"You've got to learn... that when you push people around, some people push back."

churchill's only mistake was in not remembering that nobody in america actually knows who eichmann was or what he actually did. he's acknowledged this several times now - that he really should have made the reference to hannah arendt's work more explicit. because that's where his whole analogy takes its reference. eichmann was not the guy pushing jews into gas chambers. he was the guy sitting at a desk somewhere pushing paper. he killed no one. but his work ensured that the task of killing could run smoothly. churchill didn't call people nazis. he called them bureaucrats in a system that causes mass death and poverty. which they were.

he called them bureaucrats in a system that causes mass death and poverty. which they were.
Pretty much all systems cause mass death and poverty at some point. If europe can survive being socialist without this happening in hte next 100 years I'd be surprised. Eichmann was something quite different.

for what? not having documentary evidence of the ancestry of the rest of his great-grandparents? or for making an inflammatory, but not incorrect, remark about the banality of evil and the guilt that the technocrats of capital share with the people who issue the orders that kill hundreds of thousands of people in foreign countries?

"You've got to learn... that when you push people around, some people push back."

churchill's only mistake was in not remembering that nobody in america actually knows who eichmann was or what he actually did. he's acknowledged this several times now - that he really should have made the reference to hannah arendt's work more explicit. because that's where his whole analogy takes its reference. eichmann was not the guy pushing jews into gas chambers. he was the guy sitting at a desk somewhere pushing paper. he killed no one. but his work ensured that the task of killing could run smoothly. churchill didn't call people nazis. he called them bureaucrats in a system that causes mass death and poverty. which they were.

It's not his inflamitory remarks that are his downfall though is it. Chomsky does that all the time. It's ward's academic fraud that's going to loose him his job.

The point is, if you are going to piss a lot of people off, you better have your ducks in a row. Otherwise you look like you are saying things just to piss people off. Which would make you sort of a troll of academia.

Then you get forumbanned.

It's not his inflamitory remarks that are his downfall though is it. Chomsky does that all the time. It's ward's academic fraud that's going to loose him his job.

Exactly ... and I have nothing but respect for Chomsky.

Which would make you sort of a troll of academia.

Then you get forumbanned.

lol! Cool analogy.

Eichmann was something quite different.

not according to arendt. in her words, he was "terribly and terrifyingly normal". one of the main points of her articles was that he was not a monster. he could have been any one of us.

It's not his inflamitory remarks that are his downfall though is it. Chomsky does that all the time. It's ward's academic fraud that's going to loose him his job.

churchill's 'academic fraud' is on par with the 'lies' people accuse chomsky of.

Exactly ... and I have nothing but respect for Chomsky.

lol! Cool analogy.

dude, don't you see that this whole thing is just the first step in the plan to make academia yet another center of rightwing power and appologetics for the state? horowitz has been talking openly about it for years now. if they can get rid of churchill through the use of the rightwing media machine (and accusations of 'liberal media!' if any of the others don't jump in hard enough), how long do you think chomsky will last? or anyone else that has ever shown a light onto some comfortable cultural myth? not fucking long, my friend.

dude, don't you see that this whole thing is just the first step in the plan to make academia yet another center of rightwing power and appologetics for the state? horowitz has been talking openly about it for years now. if they can get rid of churchill through the use of the rightwing media machine (and accusations of 'liberal media!' if any of the others don't jump in hard enough), how long do you think chomsky will last? or anyone else that has ever shown a light onto some comfortable cultural myth? not fucking long, my friend.

What, you mean like with Lawrence Summers?

Churchill fakes data to support contraversial conclusions. *He* is doing more to legitimate the right, than anyone else could hope. If you are going to expose cultural myths, you better get your facts straight. If you don't and then demand the right of "academic" freedom, you not only discredit yourself, you discredit that as well.

dude, don't you see that this whole thing is just the first step in the plan to make academia yet another center of rightwing power and appologetics for the state?

It's possible, but highly unlikely. I'm pretty sure academia will stay seating firmly on the left as it has been for the last thousand years. Scholars and great thinkers tend to be secular and tend, also, to stray from conventional norms. Not all of them, mind you, but the vast majority of them.

Churchill just plain screwed the pooch. He tried to cash in on my peoples' plight and got caught. I'm pretty sure there's no conspiracy because it's all there in black and white for the world to see.

He should be nominated for UN Secretary General.

Which would make you sort of a troll of academia.

Then you get forumbanned.
LOL :D

Raelians claimed to have cloned a baby. Then a scientist was like, "Can we see it?" And the Raelians were like, "Uh, no."

Yeah, but then they did it again, and won't let anyone see that baby either, so that proves it, right?

;)

It's not his inflamitory remarks that are his downfall though is it. Chomsky does that all the time. It's ward's academic fraud that's going to loose him his job.

The point is, if you are going to piss a lot of people off, you better have your ducks in a row. Otherwise you look like you are saying things just to piss people off. Which would make you sort of a troll of academia.

Then you get forumbanned.

Although I generally agree with your principle about having your ducks in a row, I'm not as sure as you are that academic fraud is enough to get him banned. I'm inclined to think the politics will be the important bit. After all, before his death, Carlos Castaneda had long been recognized as having submitted fraudulent research to obtain his PhD; but even after being confronted with this information by anthropologists from other universities and by Native Americans for the past few decades, UCLA never did strip him of his degree.

OTOH, in the late '60s, Rutgers University (New Jersey) lost one of their history profs (Eugene Genovese, I think was his name) after complaints by Richard Nixon among others, who regarded Genovese as too "communist" to be one of their university lecturers. The university resisted the initial pressure by politicians to fire him because his academic work was first-rate and he had never allowed his politics to compromise his teaching, yet eventually Genovese was "frozen out" and left -- I think it was around 1969.

So I guess we'll just have to see what happens with Ward Churchill. My feeling is that, with a former Nixon groupie in the White House, his politics will be important in determining whether or not his career is safe.

Well you have now. :) Muslims come in all colors and nationalities. Many Native Americans are Christian (due in no small part to the missionaries), but every now and then you come across one who's Muslim. Wanna get even scarier? My mother is 1/2 Irish and a Jew.

I suppose that makes me a Native American Irish Muslim Jew. Gotta love the great melting pot. :D

I hope you had a big tent at your wedding K, cause with that gene pool, I'm sure it was a circus. I just hope there were no drunken, violent acts committed.

J/k Big guy... ;)

What, you mean like with Lawrence Summers?

Churchill fakes data to support contraversial conclusions. *He* is doing more to legitimate the right, than anyone else could hope. If you are going to expose cultural myths, you better get your facts straight. If you don't and then demand the right of "academic" freedom, you not only discredit yourself, you discredit that as well.

I thought it was Belesiles who did more to fake data and try to discredit "cultural myths".

You know, the "myth" that gun ownership is central to American history and to Americans themselves throughout history?

He faked data and got caught at Emory University. He even got a book published (and retracted) full of imagined crap he couldn't back up.

Lost his job and his reputation over it.

Many historians have stepped in and crushed his ideas - it is true, beyond a reasonable doubt, that firearms are central to American culture, have been a part of American life since the founding of the nation, and there is a continuum of firearms throughout our national history.

Every Belesiles that steps forward and lies blatantly for the Democrats is a man who is actively helping the Republicans.

Want to be known as the party of academic frauds, Hollywood child molesters, and effete snobs? The party of fraudulent documentarians? The party of irritable windbags with no audience? The handwringers with no solutions other than to run away and say America is Bad?

Good job!

churchill's 'academic fraud' is on par with the 'lies' people accuse chomsky of.
Uh, actually, no it isn't, as Chomsky, whilst being a pompous ass, is still using stuff that is truthful in some way or another, whils Ward is just lying and being a pompous ass.

Uh, actually, no it isn't, as Chomsky, whilst being a pompous ass, is still using stuff that is truthful in some way or another, whils Ward is just lying and being a pompous ass.

hmm, are you aware of david horowitz's longstanding grudgematch with chomsky? he and others have been accusing chomsky of lying and misrepresenting his sources and burying people with cites of his own work, etc for years. if it turns out that even the possiblity of a source being misrepresented is enough grounds to toss somebody provided you make enough of a media spectacle around it, there is no doubt that they won't just stop there.

ward churchill is a test case for a larger program - retribution for what horowitz and others believe to be a systematic purging of conservative academics, and widespread oppression of conservative students.

Churchill just plain screwed the pooch. He tried to cash in on my peoples' plight and got caught. I'm pretty sure there's no conspiracy because it's all there in black and white for the world to see.


cash in? he's been putting his ass on the line with aim for decades. there are easier and more effective ways to cash in. hell, if you really want to cash in, you don't become a college prof, you do what all the rightwingers did and go work for well-funded think tanks.

and there is no conspiracy in exactly the same way that there was no conspiracy by the neo-cons to get themselves an invasion of iraq. they wrote it all down in black and white years before they did it. the same is true here. the people on the right have been talking for years about getting rid of 'radicals' in the university (and they don't mean just churchill and chomsky and parenti, they mean left-leaning democrats), and replacing them with conservative professors. its the same trick they pulled with the media, except that they've been having a harder time getting the universities to quiver in fear. so they decided to make a media spectacle out of it and get people shouting about treason and such.

if someone tells you they intend to do something, and then that thing starts happening, and the people who told you they intended to do it are largely behind the noise leading up to it, how can you refuse to see it for what it is?

cash in? he's been putting his ass on the line with aim for decades. there are easier and more effective ways to cash in. hell, if you really want to cash in, you don't become a college prof, you do what all the rightwingers did and go work for well-funded think tanks.

and there is no conspiracy in exactly the same way that there was no conspiracy by the neo-cons to get themselves an invasion of iraq. they wrote it all down in black and white years before they did it. the same is true here. the people on the right have been talking for years about getting rid of 'radicals' in the university (and they don't mean just churchill and chomsky and parenti, they mean left-leaning democrats), and replacing them with conservative professors. its the same trick they pulled with the media, except that they've been having a harder time getting the universities to quiver in fear. so they decided to make a media spectacle out of it and get people shouting about treason and such.

if someone tells you they intend to do something, and then that thing starts happening, and the people who told you they intended to do it are largely behind the noise leading up to it, how can you refuse to see it for what it is?


I just read Churchill's essay.
He calls for publicly hanging Bill Clinton, Bush I, Madeline Albright, and Henry Kssinger.
That is extreme, that is radical, that is treasnous, and he should not be teaching.
Not to mention he has no knowledge of history...if I asked him what the Abbasid Dynasty was, he'd be dumbfounded...

I hope you had a big tent at your wedding K, cause with that gene pool, I'm sure it was a circus. I just hope there were no drunken, violent acts committed.

J/k Big guy... ;)

It was ... shall we say .... festive.

I just read Churchill's essay.
He calls for publicly hanging Bill Clinton, Bush I, Madeline Albright, and Henry Kssinger. That is extreme, that is radical, that is treasnous, and he should not be teaching.

kissinger can't leave the country without having a team of lawyers make sure that he won't be arrested and charged with war crimes when he gets off the plane. clinton ordered the missle strikes that destroyed pharmaceutical plants and water treatment facilities and all sorts of other bits of infrastructure necessary to prevent largescale suffering and death for the civilian populations of the nations he attacked. madeline albright personally said that killing 500,000 iraqi children was 'worth it'. etc. these people are responsible for massive crimes of violence against people around the world. you want people around the world to not hate the u.s. and not go out of their way to attack it, you have to stop attacking them and start holding people responsible for their actions.

I remember writing a short story for something in 8th grade that had a planet full of Raelians. The planet was Crazifrenchman, I think.

kissinger can't leave the country without having a team of lawyers make sure that he won't be arrested and charged with war crimes when he gets off the plane. clinton ordered the missle strikes that destroyed pharmaceutical plants and water treatment facilities and all sorts of other bits of infrastructure necessary to prevent largescale suffering and death for the civilian populations of the nations he attacked. madeline albright personally said that killing 500,000 iraqi children was 'worth it'. etc. these people are responsible for massive crimes of violence against people around the world. you want people around the world to not hate the u.s. and not go out of their way to attack it, you have to stop attacking them and start holding people responsible for their actions.
My first statement: ANYONE who tries to harm my government officials for something as vague as "war crimes" is very, very dumb...because there is no possible way you can go up against the US government and win. :)

Kissinger crafted the plan to help beat the Soviet Union without commiting American troops.
This called a war. Not war crimes. Deposing a government may be considered a war crime, but an entirely ridiculous one; they tried that before in the League of Nations, where they "outlawed" war. Nice work there. :rolleyes:

Clinton fought wars on a very limited to scale. He didn't even commit ground troops to Serbia. Be happy he showed such restraint.
Sudan was not our friend. Iraq was not our friend. Serbia was not our friend. Any country that insults the United States should realize that it is only through our morals that we even allow such nations to exist.
National security overrides vague notions of "war crimes".

Madeline Albright did not say the "killings" of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it. She said the "deaths" of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it, at the very most.
The US did not slaughter half a million Iraqi children. Besides, Saddam brought it upon himself.
I feel sympathy, but the right choice was made.

If people hate the United States because they are irrational and think "war is bad and we should all make love", by all means, I would rather be hated than loved.
Because to be "loved" in such a world is to be dead.


Back to Churchill...he said the terrorists were not extremists, and that they have the capacity to kill seven and a half million Americans, and that they only hold back out of the goodness of their hearts.
Churchill is a moron.
Period.
Morons should not be teaching people.
Period.

they tried that before in the League of Nations, where they "outlawed" war. Nice work there. :rolleyes:

The League of Nations never outlawed war.

You may be thinking of the Kellog-Briand Pact that got 60 countries to 'outlaw war.' Not that it worked mind, if anything it only served to undermine the League [further].
Any country that insults the United States should realize that it is only through our morals that we even allow such nations to exist.

Nice way to be wouldn't you say.

National security overrides vague notions of "war crimes".

Who's?

Period.
Morons should not be teaching people.
Period.

I agree, but then again. A lot of Western nations are short of teachers so what ever is available is taken.