Skip to content

Marc Lamont Hill Supported Notorious “Little Eichmanns” Attack on 9/11 Victims

October 6, 2009

ward-churchill

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 9/11, 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.

Advertisements
16 Comments
  1. motorboat Jones permalink
    October 6, 2009 3:36 pm

    FOX needs to step up and fire this radical but they obviously won’t since he has continued to work there after uttering that nonsense.

    O’Reilly is a sellout.

  2. michiganruth permalink
    October 6, 2009 6:33 pm

    I agree that Hill and Churchill are both unpleasant people, but in point of fact Churchill DIDN’T get in trouble for writing an essay. he got in trouble for falsifying research and not being the author of work he was supposed to have been the author of.

    fortunately, we’re not at at a point yet in this country where you can be fired for what you think…usually.

    • The Inquisitor permalink
      October 7, 2009 5:26 am

      To be precise Churchill DID “get in trouble for writing an essay.”

      He got fired for “falsifying research and not being the author of work he was supposed to have been the author of.”

  3. Kevroc permalink
    October 6, 2009 10:33 pm

    There is a reason O’Reilly is the most watched news program. Look at the bile that comes up when we see and hear these comments! It makes for good television. I’m 100% sure Bill agrees that these views are ridiculous but, we aren’t the side that wishes to silence people. We are in the interest of protecting our freedoms. Freedom of speech is one of them. I worked in the WTC, I was there during 9/11. I enjoy Entenmann’s Chocolate Donuts but, I am no Little Eichmann. Let these feebs speak their puny pro-socialism minds in the name of free speech and we will be able to continue to enjoy the fresh-air voices of Beck, Miller, Gallagher etc etc

    • Paul Cooper permalink
      October 7, 2009 7:54 am

      The problem I have with this interview of Hill is that BOR lets him slide. Instead of holding Hill to the same standard he holds Churchill too – he spends half the interview with some hypothetical comparison. He saves Hill from the public realizing that he just echoed the same point of Churchill. Why call Churchill someone who shouldn’t be teaching in a college and a crazy person – and then gloss over Hill agreeing with Churchill?

      • Jack Hampton permalink
        October 7, 2009 12:31 pm

        Paul very good point. Thumbs up for you.

  4. Kevroc permalink
    October 6, 2009 10:36 pm

    EDIT: I was thinking Prager when I said Miller but, you get the idea..

  5. Linda permalink
    October 7, 2009 6:24 am

    Is it true that Axlerod paid a visit to Roger Ails and since Shepherd Smith has espoused the public option on Obamacare. Could there be some pressure being exerted on Fox to go along with the leftist ideology?

  6. Jack Hampton permalink
    October 7, 2009 6:26 am

    Great article Mr. Swindle. I want to be just like you when I grow up. I e mailed Wild Bill and informed him I will watch no segment that includes Lamont Hill and will change the channel.

  7. jac mills permalink
    October 7, 2009 6:39 am

    Paul Cooper wrote:”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.”

    BOR, always totally engrossed in himself, hears but does not listen, Paul.

    When Hill first appeared on The Factor I wrote to BOR that Hill was dangerous, comfortable and committed in his radical world, and cannot disguise it. I sensed a while back that Hill had been told to maybe soften his comments on Fox, and I think he tried, but if he says more than more two sentences, he reverts quickly. BOR is incapable of handling someone like Hill — or Churchill, or Barney Frank — because he also reverts, to shouting and bullying, and loses, although BOR always thinks and boasts that he won the debate.

  8. October 7, 2009 7:48 am

    The truly frightening thing about Hill is that his number is legion, not only on college campuses, but in our public and Catholic parochial high schools, as well. Is it any wonder that so many of our youth have been seduced leftward? Thank the fates (Horowitz is an avowed agnostic, so I can’t say “God” or even “Yahweh” :–))) for Horowitz and the splendid work he is doing on our college campuses!

    • October 7, 2009 8:17 am

      You can say God or Yahweh.

  9. MaryAnn permalink
    October 7, 2009 9:06 am

    I agree that BOR is totally engrossed with himself. Whoever he’s talking to, about any subject, he brings the conversation back to himself.

  10. swathdiver permalink
    October 7, 2009 9:06 am

    Hill and Churchill are Statists, they love Communism and expouse Marxism. Don’t remember the exact words anymore but on one Fox show(Probably O-Reilly’s) Hill admitted to being a Commie.

Trackbacks

  1. PoliGazette » O’Reilly’s Best Radical Friend: 9/11 Victims Deserved It
  2. NewsReal’s Victory: Marc Lamont Hill Has Been Held Accountable « NewsReal Blog

Comments are closed.