<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics Comments on Conspiracies!</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2002-2006 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Fri, 9 May 2003 11:17:59 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by mike on Conspiracies!</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/08/213417.php#comment-9282</link>
<description>No, Hofstader, first of all, was writing in the immediate aftermath of the McCarthy era, when right wing conspiracy thinking was riding high, so that is what he focused on.

But he also cited the Populists, a left wing movement of the 1880s and 90s, for its conspiracy thinking. Had he lived longer than he did, he very possibly would have become a neoconservative, since he ran with the Commentary crowd in its more liberal days.  

The real problem with Hofstader is that the historical precedents he cited were not as conspiracy minded as he thought. 
Scholarship has discounted his interpretation of these movements; but his charecterizations of the &quot;paranoid style&quot; are as relevant as ever.  As a leftist (with libertarian tendencies) who&#039;s always fighting with left conspiracy thinkers--excuse me, &quot;thinkers,&quot; I think he was spot on, as the British say.

You can actually retrieve the original essay the book was based on by Googling it; it&#039;s well worth reading.
<![CDATA[
<br /><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9282&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+11%3A17%3A59&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+mike+on+Conspiracies%21"><img border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9282&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+11%3A17%3A59&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+mike+on+Conspiracies%21" /></a>
]]>
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9282@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 May 2003 11:17:59 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Temple Stark on Conspiracies!</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/08/213417.php#comment-9270</link>
<description>Isn&#039;t this better under Etc. or Politics. Is there such a category? It is well written but seems to have nothing to do with books except one reference at the end. Ah well. I&#039;m just reacquainting myself with this site.
<![CDATA[
<br /><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9270&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+05%3A35%3A49&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+Temple+Stark+on+Conspiracies%21"><img border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9270&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+05%3A35%3A49&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+Temple+Stark+on+Conspiracies%21" /></a>
]]>
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9270@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 May 2003 05:35:49 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Dean Esmay on Conspiracies!</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/08/213417.php#comment-9266</link>
<description>Everything I&#039;ve read about Hofstader&#039;s book indicates that, while good, it suffers from the fatal flaw of blaming all paranoia and conspiracy-minded thinking on the radical right, and lets radical left-wing conspirators almost completely off the hook.

Pipes&#039; book offers a riveting analysis of both far-left and far-right conspiracy groups. Furthermore, it&#039;s far more up to date.
<![CDATA[
<br /><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9266&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+00%3A36%3A17&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+Dean+Esmay+on+Conspiracies%21"><img border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9266&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+00%3A36%3A17&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+Dean+Esmay+on+Conspiracies%21" /></a>
]]>
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9266@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 May 2003 00:36:17 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by mike on Conspiracies!</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2003/05/08/213417.php#comment-9265</link>
<description>An even better book is Richard Hofstader&#039;s &quot;The Paranoid Style in American Politics.&quot;

 http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0674654617/qid=1052454449/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-5030864-2811140?v=glance&amp;s=books
<![CDATA[
<br /><a href="http://www.pheedo.com/click.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9265&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+00%3A29%3A10&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+mike+on+Conspiracies%21"><img border="0" src="http://www.pheedo.com/img.phdo?feedUrl=http%3A//blogcritics.org/index.xml&amp;itemLink=http%3A%2F%2Fblogcritics.org%2Farchives%2F2003%2F05%2F08%2F213417.php%23comment-9265&amp;itemDate=2003-05-09+00%3A29%3A10&amp;itemTitle=Comment+by+mike+on+Conspiracies%21" /></a>
]]>
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">9265@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 9 May 2003 00:29:10 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>