CONSPIRACY
THEORY
November 6th 2005 - December 11th 2005
You
may, dear reader, be one of those who believes that the world is run by
conspiracy. The theories range from old to new, from east to west, from
money to religion, from material genetics to mystical spirituality,
from singular to plural, from national to global. It might be as well
to point out a few facts relevant to these beliefs.
First,
history and analysis of current affairs prove that running a single
state, let alone the world, is not within the control of any group of
people except temporarily. The most powerful tyranny will fall in time.
Tyrannies, though they may impose secrecy, are not of themselves a
secret. To exercise control at national level the tyranny has to be
overt. Tyrannies may be considered benign by a substantial minority or
even a majority of the public who are subject to it. A national tyranny
may become so established that its overthrow may require external
intervention - the tyrannies of Hitler, Stalin and Saddam are examples.
But these were not conspiracies, even if groups within them conspired.
Legally, a conspiracy can be a crime without being secret. However, if
a conspiracy is not secret it is an offence for those with evidence of
its existence not to bring knowledge of such an illegal conspiracy to
the attention of the law. Therefore if we characterise or define
conspiracy as having its entirety or its main, supporting part, like an
iceberg, hidden, this limits the field of discussion when it comes to
claiming conspiracies that control nations, empires or the world
without accountability.
The
prime function of parliamentary democracy is to expose the workings of
government to scrutiny. This function is even more important than any
mathematical degree of representation of transitory or sustained
opinion in the electorate. Members of parliament are elected to take
decisions on behalf of those who elect them, not necessarily to reflect
their exact wishes. The reason for this is the variety of wishes in any
electorate is very great and to a considerable extent mutually
contradictory. So the only requirement with regard to representation is
that the members of parliament are familiar with and keep up to date
on, through personal experience and through meeting and understanding,
the people in their constituency, their lives, their circumstances,
their hopes and fears. That is why parliamentary democracy is chosen as
the system of government and why it protects us from conspiracies
But,
conspiracy theorists say, parliament just makes the laws. Day to day
actions are carried out by, individuals, organisations, institutions,
committees, government departments, businesses, all of which can be
subject to conspiracies. Secret organisations can have their members
planted everywhere, ensuring their promotion.in all areas where they
have gained access. There is a list of alleged conspiracy theories,
naturally, on the Web, I assumed, so went to look just now. Here's a
good one
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-alleged-conspiracy-theories
Now,
if we dig a little deeper, say by clicking on the Conspiracy Theory
discussion link near the beginning of that page, we can see some
entries like this::
Like
moral panics, conspiracy theories thus occur
more frequently within communities
which are experiencing social isolation or
political disempowerment. For example, the modern
form of anti-Semitism is identified in
Britannica 1911 as a conspiracy theory serving the
self-understanding of the European aristocracy,
whose social power waned with the rise of
bourgeois society.[The
apparent growth in
the popularity of conspiracy theories since the 1960s might be
understood in this light. Any such growth might equally be
understood as an expression of a tendency in news media and wider
culture to understand events through the prism of individual
agents, as opposed to more complex structural or institutional accounts.
That's
a well written comment (as opposed to my hastily typed diaries on this
web site). It leads nicely into what I was going to say: that
conspiracy is legally a crime when its aims are contrary to the laws of
the land,
and morally a crime if aimed at the manipulation of these laws to the
detriment of those who do
not merit it, but we must face the reality that ethnic groups tend
automatically and properly
to be self supporting. Any ethnic group that is actively
self-supporting will cause a feeling of exclusion in other ethnic
groups, regardless of how they are held in mutual regard.
So
we can see that in one sense, the outcome of history has always been
the sum of conspiracies. Ethnic groups, religious groups, cultural
groups have of necessity been responsible for there own maintenance and
promotion in a dynamic environment. The owners of any business must
clearly 'conspire' in some sense to promote their business. Any family
must look after its members. So let us go to the definition of the word
Conspiracy:
- An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or
subversive act.
- A group of conspirators.
- Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a
crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
- A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a
conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas
However,
there has to be some action, not just thought or talk, to further the
agreement, before it is a criminal conspiracy.
What
is coming out of the woodwork here is that 'Conspiracy Theorists' feel
that, as over time human laws advance to promote the common wealth,
equity and the means to survive with peace between families, tribes,
nations and cultures, there are those who conspire together to
frustrate these laws to their own advantage. In my opinion it is
undeniable that this is probably true. Such conspiracies are mostly
defensive, born out of fear, but occasionally aggressive (also born out
of fear). Some others are effectively harmless or even beneficial, and
the end of any conspiracy is often unintended.
But
if we are to look for conspiracies that affect world history in the
21st century in any significant way, they are going to have to be
international and interracial, as no single grouping in any category we
know of could conceivably, in public or private, significantly take
control or manipulate world affairs, other than by committing acts of
public terrorism and sabotage which would cause a reaction.
Indeed to get anything done officially outside of a crisis, such an
amount of organisation, communication and debate is required that no
matter how much anyone may conspire, secrecy is effectively impossible
as soon as action is on the horizon. If political or business leaders
of the world get together in private to plan possible futures, this
should hardly be considered as sinister. If they could not discuss
possibilities without the press (mis)reporting every word, there would
be no discussions, and that would be worse.
Yesterday,
November 5th, we commemorated a historic conspiracy. The experience of
having Catholic monarchs and Papal domination had been a bad one, and
as a result the laws against catholics in Britain were certainly very
restrictive. There is no doubt that the absolute determination never
again to have a catholic monarch had translated into policies designed
force, in a short time, all catholics to join the protestant Church of
England. Understandable though this rather paranoid position was, it
was not surprising it caused catholics to rebel. But here we have
classical 'Newtonian' politics: any undisguised action provokes an
equal and opposite reaction. The aim of
the conspirators was undeniably not just to relieve their oppression
but to do this by putting a catholic monarch on the
throne. The outcome was fortunate as, had they blown up parliament,
every catholic in the country would have been massacred. Of that there
is no possible doubt.
Our
newspapers have had quite a bit to say about it this year, and the
Radio and Television has been extraordinarily exercised to give
catholic commentators their airtime over the past few days. The showing
of Robert Bolt's terrific "A Man for All Seasons" was no doubt
carefully timed for the season too. If anyone was paranoid about
conspiracy theories they need look no further than our media for what
looks like evidence of a control across all broadcasted and printed
media at certain key moments, a control not linked to government or to
any specific national institution. But I would recommend an end to such
paranoia. It is intelligent planning in the media to use the right
moments in the calendar and in world events to stir some interest in
the public mind. Democracy depends on awareness, and that means
awareness of all points of view before the making up of minds on those
occasions when choices need to be made. The most common conspiracies
these days are those to rig elections; however, this is usually
detected even in Azerbaijan.
Summary
so far:
Although
there are conspirators aplenty, the 'bunch-of-guys' theory recently
coined by Al-Qaida analysts applies more or less to most of them. There
are those who take their secret societies very seriously, but at the
end of the day they are just a bunch of guys on a bigger scale. The
Internet has enabled any 'bunch of guys' to exist in cyberspace, but
not to hide. Rather than promote child abuse, for instance, the
Internet has helped to expose it and identify and locate the
perpetrators. The cock-up theory of history is what
rules. We do our best, but there are plenty of cockups. These are
caused by the freedom, including the freedom to make mistakes, that
human beings enjoy. The Universe is perfectly self-designing.
DECEMBER 11th 2005
It's time to have look at some examples. BBC Radio 4's 'Club Class' had
a look at Opus Dei today. Tomorrow evening Channel 4 TV has "Opus Dei
and the Da Vinci Code". The Radio 4 programme was well researched and
managed to give adequate information on the history and apparent
purpose of Opus Dei, as well as some of the concerns of those who find
it sinister. The latter included Cardinal Basil Hume, whose worries
centred around the secrecy and the recruitment process. It is somewhat
ironic that the head of the Catholic church in England should be
concerned about the recruitment process when the stratgey of the core
elements of the Roman Catholic Church has been to make sure they
recruit members as young as possible. We must suppose it is the
combination of secrecy (i.e. less than full disclosure of all the
functions and customs of Opus Dei) and the inexperience of the
inductees that together gave the cardinal cause for concern.
Indeed the one complaint one might have against Opus Dei is its methods
of induction. It's unspoken joint primary aim is to be self-supporting.
Indeed every organisation that aims to survive has to be self
perpetuating. Every club or society or movement is made up of a typical
combination of members: those who seek to lead and those who seek to
follow. Sometimes those who seek to follow wish to learn to lead,
sometimes not. The other qualification for membership is that people
like to be surrounded with people who make them feel secure. Wealthy
people like to join clubs which have members who are either wealthy
like themselves (and therefore not likely to beg, borrow or steal from
them) or who are not wealthy but hungry to make an impression/friends
and be of service to the organisation. There is nothing necssarily
sinister about this providing the latter are not selected from a pool
of young people who have been nurtured from birth for the process and
and manipulated by playing on their spiritual insecurity. Opus Dei has
very wealthy and no doubt generous member supporters and no doubt they
aim to remain wealthy. Other members are no doubt inducted with the
obvious aim of gaining their loyalty and their income in return for
giving them spiritual security and no doubt a helping hand when this is
appropriate.
So there are three criteria on which an outsider might judge Opus Dei:
(1) Does it through its existence add significantly to human wellbeing
by succeeding in its declared aims. (2) Are the aims and objectives
known to all the members and achieved with their knowledge (3) Is there
accountancy transparency (4) Apart from jealousy or sour grapes are
there any more serious complaints from non-members and ex-members along
the lines listed above. Perhaps the programme on Channel 4 TV tomorrow
will further enlighten us.
DEC 12th
Channel 4 is to be congratulated. A mature report on Opus Dei that will
have helped the public to understand what it is about and why some
people have had reservations about the recruitment. It should be
said right away that Dan Brown's book "The Da Vinci Code", which most
educated people will have known was rubbish from start to finish
(though the start was quite entertaining reading) will have
unintentionally done a great deal of good in that respect. pus Dei will
of course use the book to get new recruits, but the publicity and the
discussion will actually remove the one objection that might have been
valid: that some recruits would be too easily drawn into committing
themselves to the movement through their own inner spiritual insecurity
and certain external environmental factors. We know how some people are
susceptible to suggestion and how gifted speakers can virtually
hypnotise and audience. Mutually supporting individuals who have been
influenced in this way can carry along in their company people who have
no real personal commitment born of their own personality.
So now we have burst that bubble, what did the programme have to say of
Opus Dei itself? I have set the main points out below, with my comments.
1. It is unashamedly a conservative
organisation that runs counter to the modern mindset of hedonism and
limited responsibiity. But this is hardly a crime and an
inevitable product of the latter. Since Opus Dei is not interested in
imposing its values on others, only on itself, criticism on these
grounds would smack of paranoia.
2. It is unashamedly elitist, though
not in an objectionable way. It sets high standards, but the
standards are set by the members. There are different categories of
membership.
3. It has 'friends in high places',
but why not? There are naturally suspicions of the abuse of this
friendship, but no evidence.
4. It has been called the equivalent
of a catholic branch of the moonies. This comes back to the
first main reservation on recruitment. The current publicity should
help to remove this.
5. There is a cult of personality
growing round the founder, who was prematurely beatified. Yes,
that is one of those things that always happens. But what seems to be
fact is Opus Dei is no just a talking shop and a subscription
collecting mechanism. It acts. It does good. It does good where it is
needed - that is to say not rewarding those who are already gifted and
making their way but in places where life is difficult. This is the
acid test. Summer camps fro those whose lives will be changed by them.
6. There is an overt and a covert
agenda. But this is not really the case, as the so-called covert
agenda is not a secret now and if not discussed publicly before, this
was not for sinister or objectionable reasons.
7. It promotes Mortification and
Celibacy which are obsessions that do not relate to the modern world.
Yes, it does include these options, but they are not imposed, they are
options. Celibacy is a choice that many people have chosen historically
and many do today, in connection with a ministering role or quite
unconnected with any religious leaning. The wearing of a painful garter
is indeed curious to my thinking - it would be better to go for a run
twice a week till it hurt if you wish to benefit from a bit of pain -
but if the idea is not to benefit I suppose a barbed wire garter is
good. You never know though, it might gently stimulate the immune
system with beneficial results. I think some of this process involves
feelings of guilt, and if you don't have these it makes little sense.
I think Opus Dei is beneficial, though it could be open to abuse like
anything else. Mainstream religions have been open to terrible abuse.
Its secrecy has to my mind probably been because it was not interested
in drawing the attention of cynics and sceptics. It is an oganisation
that believes in positive action in the classic mould - not courting
celebrity. Its members seem to be transparently sincere. Collecting
like-minded people together in a cause is one of the ways society
achieves ends that are otherwise hard to attain. Why knock it?