9/11 Dialectics + Barrett Responds to the Northwestern

If anything good can come out of the Kevin Barrett situation, it's that the press and more academics may finally start to take a serious look at the 9/11 Commission Report. I think the outrage in certain quarters (including comfortable academics) to what Barrett and other conspiracy theorists are doing has to do with what the late, great philosopher Bertrand Russell identified as Americans' hostility to dialectical thinking. I cannot find the exact source, but I remember in college reading an interview with Russell in which he said words to the effect that Americans (especially its leadership) believe that democracy is good and communism is evil, but they refuse to entertain even for debate purposes the opposite: democracy is evil and communism is good. To even entertain the "communism is good" position for debate purposes, in the 1950s, could get you in trouble.

Today we see a similar hostitily to dialectics. The government says, "al Qaeda operatives under orders from Osama bin Laden were responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11." The opposite proposition is then: "United States government operatives were responsible for the terrorist attacks on 9/11." Greek and Roman philosophers understood that only in the clash of opposites could the truth or probable truth emerge, and they were wise enough to understand that merely listening to advocates of the "shocking" side (i.e. the US government committed the atrocities) did not mean that you agreed with or sympathized with that side. I think they would see the way the Barrett situation has been handled as very weird indeed.

The hostility toward even entertaining the thought of US government involvement in 9/11 would make more sense to me personally if there existed a credible investigation of the events of that terrible day. Unfortunately such an investigation does not exist. Lee Hamilton and Tom Kean, the co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission, have themselves admitted that the Commission was not able to answer many questions related to that day due to Bush Administration and intelligence agency stonewalling, and they understand that conspiracy theories are the inevitable result of the incomplete study that resulted. The Barretts of the world will languish in obscurity when we finally get a serious, independent investigation of that day.

Forgetting about the Barrett situation for a moment, I do think it's time for responsible academics to help our society transcend the gut level resistance to dialectical thinking. Such resistance is not rational, scientific, or responsible. Rather, the resistance reflects fear of unscrupulous "legislators breathing down our necks" who have no problem equating our investigation of a troubling proposition with our actually advocating it. That's just McCarthyism 101 folks.

Now here's Barrett's response to the Northwestern followed by his statement about the trouble UW Madison students are having in trying to find faculty to defend the 9/11 Commission Report. I think "sifting and winnowing" should be replaced with "avoiding and caving" (as in avoiding controversy and caving in to pressure from onerous UW critics).

Kevin Barrett responds to Oshkosh Northwestern editorial

To the Oshkosh Northwestern,

Thank you for your editorial "A teachable moment on a terrible theory." I agree that academics who disagree with my analysis of 9/11 ought to scrutinize my statements, research the evidence I cite, and then--IF they still disagree with me--attempt to refute my views in a public debate.

9/11 skeptics, including dozens of former high-level military, intelligence, and executive branch officials--see patriotsquestion911.com--have been seeking honest debate for years. But
nobody will debate us. As you wrote:

"Unfortunately, those who might consider Barrett unqualified or dead wrong on 9/11 seem more inclined to let him control the discussion...Academia seems hesitant to dissect and destroy his theory." That is because no sane person trained in critical thinking who has researched the issue will dare to defend that monumental fraud known as the 9/11 Commission Report. Indeed, those who chose to do so would be setting themselves to be held in public contempt, and possibly even face future prosecution, as accessories to mass murder and high treason.

Please wake up to your journalistic responsibilities, investigate 9/11 for yourselves, tell the American people the truth, and help us get our democracy back.

Sincerely,

Kevin Barrett

It appears that Kevin Barrett and Jim Fetzer will debate two empty chairs Thursday, October 5th, 2006 at 6 p.m. at the Curti Lounge, 5243 Humanities, at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

The History Students' Association tried to find one or more U.W.-Madison professors willing to defend the 9/11 Commission Report in a debate with Barrett and Fetzer, to no avail.

The fact that not a single U.W.-Madison professor is willing to defend the 9/11 Commission Report in public speaks volumes.

Ironically, the Oshkosh Northwestern just ran an editorial bemoaning the fact that no academics are willing to debate Barrett.