Sez you. Personally, I reject Churchill's entire intellectual framework. I find him to be a very cleverly disguised vulture, in fact. I don't need his work to know either the nature or the details of our history. Neither do I need him to radicalize my interpretation of it. In fact, I find his sophomoric and sloppy talk about "genocide" and "nations" and "perpetrator populations" to be a major diversion and obscurement of the actual truth and also of the things we need to address if we really want to change the course of history (rather than just striking poses about that). U.S. policies towards Indians were genocidal, but genocide has never really been the point. Land theft has been. It cheapens the idea of genocide to misuse it.
As to 911, my own personal first thought was "Goddamned Israel!" How does Churchill think foaming on about our collectively managed genocidal nature is ever going to get anybody to address the topic of altering our actual, on the ground foreign policy? For every poseur it brings on board, it drives away 10 potential allies. This guy stands for unreason and perpetual left marginality. If those two things don't scare you, then spare me the redder-than-thou self-presentations.