>We clearly disagree, <
About WHAT?!? Do you see how frustrating it is to discuss anything with you?
>but I do know something about the role of apocalyptic belief in
religiously-based social and political movements, and also
intelligence agency abuses, and how conspiracism undermines a structural
left analysis.<
But you don't respond to my point just made in the last post about how much conspiracism is used by people who are 'moderate' or 'mainstream'. Look at how conspiricism (e.g., Iraqi diplomats having clandestine meetings with Atta in Prague, so alleges the leader of the CIA), disguising what really happened, feeds the Bush regime.
For many moderate and fundamentalist Muslims, Wahabbism is the ultimate conspiracy between the west (first the British and now the US) and the House of Saud. OBL's rejection of Saudi Wahabbism motivates him, not a desire to perpetuate it.
> I have listed just some of my related articles below.<
But does this constitute a substantive contribution to the current thread? I think not.
> Again,
I question your need to claim I am clueless rather than just agreeing that
we disagree.<
What do we disagree about other than that I think most of your posts to LBO T are a complete waste of time?
> I am currently taking my ISA paper: "Mad as Hell: Right殆ing
Populism, Fascism, and Apocalyptic Millennialism" and turning it into a
chapter in an edited book on Alienation, a collection of Marxist and
Critical Studies approaches. It includes a section on the role of
apocalypticism in populist Islamic fundamentalist movements.<
Recycle, reissue, repackage. And what you'll do is what you always do, no doubt. You'll take your finite set of largely related preconceptions, match it with a limited set of historical and sociological data, cite a bunch of amenable 'scholars' and pass it off as 'explanatory' analysis.
Charles Jannuzi