Marc Lamont Hill and the “Little Eichmanns” - by Paul Cooper

Fox News contributor agrees with Ward Churchill that 9/11 World Trade Center victims deserved what they got.

_Click here for a summary of NewsReal’s ongoing coverage of the radical politics of Marc Lamont Hill._

More information is pouring in about Fox News contributor Marc Lamont Hill, who has been in a public battle with David Horowitz of late. Horowitz has drawn attention to the far-left radicalism of numerous people whom Hill regards as political and ideological luminaries of a high order.

In an O’Reilly Factor appearance two years ago, for instance, Hill defended the America-hating professor Ward Churchill, who was fired from the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2007.  The issue that cost Churchill his job was an essay he had written just after 911, titled “On the Justice of Roosting Chickens.” In that piece, the professor asserted that the victims who had perished in the World Trade Center were akin to “little Eichmanns” who, as a consequence of their status as faceless cogs in America’s (allegedly destructive and exploitative) capitalist economy, had essentially brought the terrorist attacks upon themselves. The controversy that resulted from this essay led to an investigation that ultimately revealed Churchill to be a plagiarist unqualified to teach in his specialty.

Does Churchill’s argument make sense? Of course not. It’s crazy talk. Yet Hill went on television two years ago and defended this guy — and in fact agreed with Churchill’s assessment:

Hill: “He [Churchill] has the right to make [those comments], in fact he has the responsibility to make [those comments] as an academic if he believes them to be true … and if he can empirically substantiate them.  And I think he’s done that.”

Hill went far beyond merely saying that Churchill should not have been fired.  He actually supported the argument Churchill had made, calling it “a valid point” that “we have to defend.”  Hill believes, like Churchill, that bond sellers and stock traders are essentially “little Eichmanns.” Both men believe that those who died in the Twin Towers were targeted because they were, as Hill puts it, “advancing an American global financial empire without any thinking about it.”

Here’s another tidbit which Churchill wrote (and Hill defended) about the two planes that ripped into the World Trade Center and killed thousands of innocent Americans:

“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.”

Such a view is even more contemptible than that of a 9-11 Truther who thinks the government caused the Twin Towers to go down. Churchill contends that the people who died in those towers deserved it; that they had allowed themselves to devolve into “little Eichmanns” and thus brought the ultimate penalty on themselves.

A disturbing twist to this whole affair is the fact that Bill O’Reilly is wholly aware of just how radical are the ideas that Hill is defending, but doesn’t seem to care at all.