crucial distinction I

well ryan. i was primarily upset with the weak interpretation of NC discourse- he is writing for a high-school educated target group and one would expect paul collins to read the whole thing and understand what chomsky was in fact trying to do (see comment below). and the distinction made is crucial. with the northwoods material, contrary to what collings is writing, the interests represented by the military with respect to the cuba crisis are very clear and is easily situated within the cold war anti-communist hysteria.

"that certain factions in the United States government created the bin Laden menace and actually desired the attacks"

now the case he's trying to make here is a bit more far-fetched- considering bin ladin sponsoring started in the 80s. a two-decade project, across several administrations?

which brings me to the reason for rejecting the material in question: nexus consistently stays away from analysis that might implicate any political stance- the rejection of a theoretical paradigm that may allow the interpretation of such seemingly out-of-the-ordinary plans (n.b not acts) within an institutional environment that permitted, if not fostered the occurrence of such daydreaming. without the introduction of predictability or any sort of causal pattern, the analysis becomes reductionist to the point of gloryfying power! his extensive quotations from a far-right paranoid idiot [content?] are telling enough:

information regarding the dangers of conspiracy T to progressive work here-

"Not only is it a way to rationalize horrible injustices and suffering without calling basic institutions into account, it is part and parcel of thinking that injustice is an inevitable part of the human equation. Some folks are bad, so we get lots of bad outcomes. We can't do anything beyond having a good district attorney and going on about our business. If everything is under the control of immensely powerful and incredibly evil forces, there is no point in fighting injustice."

i was in fact familiar with this material in connection with the one major 9-11 conspiracy theory. i do not think it is necessary to go as far as rejecting this theory as i have no interest in critical engagement with any of the other nexus magazine topics of concern ("Health Alternatives; Suppressed Science; Earth's Ancient Past; UFOs & the Unexplained; and Government Cover-Ups" [sic]). its interesting, but essentially misguided in nature ("wrong question"). what we need is interpretation of the best empirical evidence we can locate (and there certainly is material superior to fox news out there)- and to make out, as far as possible, the very real and often equally sad material outcomes- based on a theoretical framework that is reflective of knowledge production by bringing the question of interest into it. "It's all a goddamn fake. Like Lenin said, look for the person who will benefit."

and that's the crucial distinction. both types of analysis may correctly identify "abuse of power" as the enabling mechanism. next, either systemic outcomes are recognised for what they are, with a critical account challenging underlying ideas in the name of certain ideals, or it's all down to "evil people" and we end up with precisely the sort of language of nichomachean ethics that Bush is so famous for.

coincidence? (i'm joking now)

"Crop Circle Season Has Begun"

These are times of induction, not deduction, as facts are unreliable. [...] the induction of Chomsky and our author are roughly parrallel, tho emphasizing different aspects.

erm i don't really understand that induction/deduction bit, sorry. must say have never seen distinction made along those lines. i can tell you that the chomsky's interpretative method is based on deductive reasoning though. different aspects? i certainly concur.

"In the last four years while covering the United Nations, I have come face to face, on a regular basis with communism, fascism, and socialism. I found, as a result of my own ignorance, that I could not identify them and therefore not identify the true meaning of what was being put forth in all of the documents I was reading. While I understood the goal of world government to be behind everything the United Nations was doing, I did not know how -- what modus operandi -- they would use to convert people from a capitalistic system where the individual is the master and molder of his own destiny undergirded by personal property rights reinforced his claim to that destiny, to one of complete control where man did what the State directed, when the State directed, and in the process gave up his freedoms and private property so the State could better direct its use. I then found that the "modus operandi" being used for this transition was called the "Hegelian Dialectic" which is comprised of three parts: the thesis, antithesis, and synthesis."

what in the name of history is this? (link on bottom of "problem reaction paradigm", next to his disclaimer:

When reviewing this subject, keep in mind that The Hegelian Dialectic is the cornerstone of the Marxist interpretation of history and played a major role in the development of Marxist Communism. In every case when Communists seized control of a government, the Hegelian Dialectic principle was used.

popular movement? ding-dong? anyone in?