I accept Churchill's parsing of his own essay in his followup , Janurary 21 statement before I accept suspicions that he harbors some kind of inappropriate "mass guilt" theories regarding the US people. There is nothing that I have seen that does not make me accept as absolutely accurate Churchill's statement that
"It should be emphasized that I applied the "little Eichmanns" characterization only to those described as "technicians." Thus, it was obviously not directed to the children, janitors, food service workers, firemen and random passers-by killed in the 9-1-1 attack..."
I have no reason to accept all the commentators' suspicions and characterizations of what Churchill thinks or meant over what _he_ says he meant and thinks in reference to "little Eichmanns" , the main "offending" words in this whole much ado about nothing, rightwing inspired , demogogic distortion, worthy of Goebbels and Nazi prevaricators, swallowed hook, line and sinker by way too much of the left.
And by letting the rightwing set the terms of the debate, obviously, "the left", by and large, has tied one hand behind its back in fighting back. In this regard , in this incident the quasi-independent left is mimicking the Democratic Party's approach to just about everything for a long time : Let the right set the terms of the debate, including the characterization of the left itself , then "fight" back half-armed.
The American people do bear some responsibility to get their rogue state under control. Who else is going to do it ? The central portrait of USers as the main victims in this whole scene is an expression of Romantic Americanism.
***************
I've been accused of some pretty ugly things in my time. Someone in an organization I once belonged to even called me a Kantian! But Romantic Americanist?!! This is the absolute limit! I demand that Brown be put on moderation immediately!