by Gouda » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:30 pm
Parenti in <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--><em>Dirty Truths</em><!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> (pgs. 172 - 191) on Chomsky's aversion to alternative evidence regarding the Kennedy assassination (thanks to Malcontent X for having this all printed out online): <br><br>"Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered.<br><br>It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbour an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a “conspiracist” who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: 'However unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape.' (Z Magazine, 10/92).<br><br>I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.<br><br>As I pointed out in published exchanges with Cockburn and Chomsky (neither of whom responded to the argument), conspiracy and structure are not mutually exclusive dynamics.<br><br>Conspiracies are a component of the national security political system, not deviations from it. Ruling elites use both conspiratorial covert actions and overtly legitimating procedures at home and abroad. They finance everything from electoral campaigns and publishing houses to mobsters and death squads. They utilize every conceivable stratagem, including killing one of their own if they perceive him to be a barrier to their larger agenda of making the world safe for those who own it.<br><br>G. William Domhofff points out: 'If ‘conspiracy’ means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency.' After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: 'We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there’s some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world.” Conspiracy theories “encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world.'<br><br>To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: “I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed.” In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.<br><br>Chomsky claims that the Nazi-like appeals of rightist propagandists have a counterpart on the Left: 'It’s the conspiracy business. Hang around California, for example, and the left has just been torn to shreds because they see CIA conspiracies . . . secret governments [behind] the Kennedy assassination. This kind of stuff has just wiped out a large part of the left' (Against the Current 56, 1993). Chomsky offers no evidence to support this bizarre statement.<br> <p></p><i></i>
