On Apr 27, 2010, at 1:08 PM, Doug Henwood wrote:
> All the pseudo-science about the melting point of steel and the missing hole in the Pentagon becomes, as my blog commenter put it, is the form paranoia takes, regardless of the truth content of the original obsession.
So it's the fear of a spreading, culture wide insanity that lies at the root of your concern, regardless of the truth content of the original obsession. In that case, yours seems a responsible reaction to conditions.
Re Max post ...
> Conspiracizing is bad analysis and bad politics.
>
Discussion or theorizing too? I thought that conspiracizing was amply loaded without the bad/bad qualification.
> The narrative of U.S. historic involvement in the ME, the why and the
> how, is too important to be displaced by a bull story.
The history of the middle east seems to be about war. Understanding the current war seems part of US historic involvement. Is the event of 911 not related to our wars? If the event was used to justify the wars, while the wars seemed not to be concerned with redressing the event, it seems entirely within reason to question the 'bull story' that has displaced the historic narrative. When the 'broke and inshane' public seems to be willing to consider the event in the framework of the US history of false flag incidents, should they be discouraged, or should the conversation be engaged. (as a prerequisite for what - i dunno)
> Understanding
> that history, I humbly submit, is central to understanding U.S.
> foreign policy 'in the large,' and by extension to general
> consciousness-raising. It's prerequisite to a mass left politics.
>
This whole analysis seems a bit 'in the large'.
martin