Dave, use of the term "conspiracy" has come to connote reductionist thinking, unblinking adherence to ideology, and partisanism.
This is unfair. Conspiracies do exist, and have existed in the cases you mentioned. As another example, one of Chomsky's favorite discussion conspiracies is the case (a legitimate one, but established in a civil court, not a criminal court - the difference is critical) of automobile manufacturers and oil companies colluding to block the spread of public transportation.
These conspiracies deserve to be brought into the open. Journalistic standards need to be observed to do this correctly. This means that there is a process that must be strictly observed for gathering and verifying facts. Unfortunately, many journalists do not follow this process, and become rumormongers, shills, or dupes for people like Chomsky.
I think that Chomsky does in fact engage in reductionist thinking, unblinking adherence to ideology, and partisanism. The method of "relational analysis" precludes the scrutiny of his thesis, by his own claim! He thereby hurts the cause of uncovering conspiracies. Just read Rethinking Camelot. Even a Chomsky admirer would not claim that book to be his finest moment.
I'm not afraid of the truth, hurt though it may, and even if it comes from someone like Chomsky. Chomsky is influential among the left (to its detriment), but his methods are deeply flawed.
I realize that none of my arguments will matter to someone who agrees with Chomsky. Case in point. |
