Categories
NFU

Academic groupthinkers pile on a prof who dared raise questions about 9/11

Note that those academics slamming David Hughes’ paper, and hammering the editors who chose to publish it, all make their “arguments” on Twitter—i.e., just like Donald Trump, relying on insult and derision. Take out the vituperation and the ridicule, and there is nothing left.

One might say it’s Twitter that invites such crude attacks, since it’s so easy to pop off in little blasts online. Although it’s true that Hughes’ slanderers would probably be more restrained if they had had to write up their “critiques” in formal letters, it’s not the medium that dictates such vicious “argument,” but the authoritarian bias of those “scholars,” their academic discipline (IR), and Academia itself.

Go back and review all “arguments” against “conspiracy theory,” dating from the first deployments of that term way back in 1967, when it was first weaponized against those questioning the Warren Report, and going on (and on) in fierce defense of the Official Narratives of all the other key assassinations in the Sixties—and then the October Surprise, Iran/contra, Bush/Cheney’s election thefts, and (to note Hughes’ subject) 9/11, etc. 

In all such cases, those defending the Official Truth against those dissidents who question it have always relied primarily on mockery and insult, as well (of course) as sophistry, to make their “case” to shore up propaganda fictions that, though patently absurd, are sanctified by state authority.

Thus, when we’re attacked that way, the first thing we should note is just how much of the attack is mere ad hominem insult and/or derision, and then point out how much of it there is.

MCM

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.