Conspiracies – a reasonable approach
It doesn't seem possible to get too far into any major issue of the
day without encountering the ideas of the conspiracy theorists.
When any major issue is discussed it seems its never too long before the notion of a huge conspiracy begins to creep in. A conspiracy on the part of "__________" to achieve "__________" (just fill in your own favourite candidates) that is witnessed as an attempt to persuade us, the general public, to buy into an interpretation of events that is claimed to be far removed from the truth.
Unfortunately, well-intentioned though conspiracy theorists may be, all too frequently their efforts to "open the public's eyes" are counter-productive for they fail to take account of certain fundamental characteristics of the human mind in approaching new and often extreme ideas.
Nor is allowance made for the antipathy generated by a minority of
conspiracy theorists whose presentation of opinions and ideas betrays
flawed reasoning and a remarkable degree of gullibility.
So let's see if we can bring some common sense to bear on this, and
dispel a few of the more wayward notions.
So many of the conspiracy theories that abound presuppose a level of
intelligence, organisation, efficiency and, in many cases, some sort
of "superhuman" power on the part of the conspirators that just doesn't
manifest in the real world.
For it should never be forgotten that, unless one subscribes to the
"aliens from outer space" theories, alleged conspirators are first
and foremost human beings. As such, they have as many foibles, weaknesses,
vulnerabilities, illogicalities, and simple stupid habits as everybody
else.
And they're just as prone to carelessness, inefficiency, lack of attention
to detail, and failure to correctly foresee the consequences of their
actions as the rest of us!
This is not to say that conspiracies don't exist. In fact, they're
even recognised in law (conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself
a criminal offence — at least in the UK!).
But what must be called into question is both the extent and motive
of an alleged conspiracy, and the nature of the perpetrators thereof.
Widespread conspiracies that involve large numbers of people, either
in their planning or their implementation, are improbable, particularly
if all those involved are privy to the details of the conspiracy.
Conspiracies are, implicitly, secretive. A secret shared by large
numbers of people cannot remain secret for very long. Human nature
won't allow it!
The only way this can work is through a technique of "pigeon-holing"
— utilising a "need to know" policy — and that creates
as many problems as it solves.
Conspiracies to "take over the world" or to decimate huge numbers of
the world population are also improbable — not in the sense that
they don't exist, but in the sense that they'd be extremely unlikely
to get very far before being revealed — and thwarted.
In the former case, humanity is simply too diverse to be encompassed
within one huge "master plan". And in the latter, well, the most "successful"
candidate so far was a scheme called "The Third Reich" — and
we all know what happened to that!
Therefore conspiracies must, of necessity, be circumscribed. They must always be a case of "the few against the many". This in itself is a limiting factor to their extent and power.
"Power" of course is a key issue. If those "in power" are party to
such a conspiracy then of course they're admirably placed to do their
evil deeds. However, here we have another limitation, for there can
never be a guarantee that those "in power" will remain "in power"
and, even more compelling than that, let us never forget that the
lot of us humans is "three score years and ten". Consequently, unless
some sort of "inherited conspiracy" is predicated, we run full tilt
into yet another insurmountable limitation.
If one determinedly argues for an "inherited conspiracy" it becomes
virtually certain that, with succeeding generations, the nature of
the conspiracy will change (reflecting changes in the characters of
the conspirators) and, in all likelihood, become diluted to the extent
that it could no longer be legitimately regarded as a conspiracy per
se.
Conspiracies must also, of necessity, be about "gain". And given the
nature of the world we presently occupy, the gain must inevitably
reduce to that of the material or economic sort. Thus, we can probably
refine this further and say that conspiracies will be focussed upon,
if not direct gain, then securing an advantage.
It must also be remembered that, having secured such an advantage,
there must also be the means to "cash in" on that advantage if it
is not to lose its value. Hence, conspiracies for gain become meaningless
if in the course of their implementation they impair the ability of
"the many" to interact meaningfully with, and to the benefit of, "the
few".
Of course, a "gain" or an "advantage" — having more than one's
fair share — is a two-edged sword. For what one possesses (at
least in the materialistic sense) can just as easily be lost. Thus
one's acquisitions, gains, and advantages become as much a vulnerability
as they are a strength. The person who has nothing, and seeks nothing,
is in many ways far stronger than the person who owns an entire kingdom.
Which brings us to the nature of the conspirators.
Putting aside the more "mundane" conspiracies (the local gang of hoodlums plotting to rob a bank, etc), who else qualifies?
Well, practically anyone really. But there are a few caveats,
and we could do a lot worse than steal a phrase from detective thrillers
— "motive, means, opportunity".
Motive is of course the easiest for, where gain (particularly of the
materialistic sort, as previously discussed) is concerned who amongst
us can truthfully say that we have never, or would never, be party
to a conspiracy?
The latter two are the stumbling blocks though and, the more extensive or ambitious the conspiracy, the greater the requirement for the conspirators to be highly placed in society. Whether that placement be in the political, military, or commercial spheres, it is nevertheless a given that means and opportunity can only accrue to those with significant "clout". We can add to the "Big Three" a fourth — organised religion. But, by and large, this is little more than a mask for a rather specialised union of the political/commercial.
However, despite what a number of classic conspiracy theories would have us believe, one class of conspirator that remains highly improbable is that of the "secret society" per se.
Now let's be very clear about this. Its easy to see how from within
one, or a combination of, the Big Three a number of people can get
together to conspire against the community as a whole and thus, by
virtue of their conspiratorial association, qualify as being a
sort of "secret society". Its similarly easy to see how members of
a sub-group within one of the Big Three may conspire amongst
themselves to gain some sort of advantage over the rest.
But, in most cases, high placement within one of the Big Three is
a necessary prerequisite for participation in such a sub-group.
Yet notions of a secret society that somehow exists "outside" of mainstream human activities; that is not a product of one of the Big Three; that is sufficiently long-established to span generations; and that harbours intentions for an ongoing infiltration of mainstream activities — well, this has rather more of the taint of delusional fantasy about it than hard fact.
Alas, it tends to find favour with many conspiracy theorists for no other reason than that its almost impossible to conclusively refute — in the same sense that in an earlier stage of human history it would've been impossible to persuade the ardent Jew-hater that Jews didn't actually eat babies!
The principal flaw in the theme though is that it offends against principles discussed right at the very beginning — it presupposes certain qualities that us humans simply don't possess! Not least of which is the ability to infiltrate and integrate with a given section of the community for an extended period yet somehow remain consciously apart from the community without revealing one's true loyalties.
Not impossible, certainly (its been achieved to a limited extent in the past with the "sleepers" of the Intelligence Community), but nowhere near as easy as may be commonly supposed. And, in the absence of fairly specialised training and/or a really deep-rooted motivation, the natural tendency would be to become completely absorbed by the surrounding community, fully taking on their values and standards. Either that, or eventually fall victim to all manner of stress-related maladies that will impact upon subsequent efficiency.
Moreover, for such infiltration to span generations simply beggars belief.
We then come to another huge class of conspiracy, the "conspiracy of
silence". This of course is a different matter entirely, and is not
necessarily ill-intentioned or gain-motivated.
Indeed, its doubtful whether one can even regard it as a conspiracy
at all in the sense that such implies a conscious and deliberate prior
agreement on the part of all the conspiring parties.
"Conspiracies of silence" are much more likely to be found where established
ideas, practises, or authority is challenged (the default "bias" of
the mainstream media springs instantly to mind), or where the interests
of a discrete group (professional associations being the classic example)
are threatened or called into question.
Another typical environment for such "conspiracies" is where some
form of negligence, malpractise, or simple stupidity has occurred.
The conspiracy here is not so much one of seeking to gain an advantage,
but rather of seeking to protect a reputation, maintain credibility,
or evade responsibility (and hence the consequences of an errant action).
Conspiracies such as these are implied rather than actual, and do not
necessarily require the conscious and deliberate prior assent or agreement
that is so much a feature of the conspiracy for gain.
However, the conspiracy of silence possesses the curious characteristic
of tending to "spread" rather easily and, the more people that are
dragged in as unwitting "conspirators", the more sinister the conspiracy
appears to be.
The simple truth is of course that all the investigator's really
encountering is an increasingly complex web of distinct and quite
separate interests that are being protected from exposure lest they
be jeopardised.
Moreover, unlike the classic "conspiracy for gain", it is less prone
to being thwarted by time (provided it remains confined to a very
few people), or by human mortality.
However, one feature it does share with the "conspiracy for
gain" is, despite and because of its rather disturbing tendency
to proliferate, a limitation on extent. The more people that become
privy to it, the greater the likelihood that a "whistle-blower" will
come to the fore.
Now the foregoing, whilst all well and good, doesn't actually seem to cover quite all the possibilities.
There's one final scenario that's left which in many respects possesses the qualities of a conspiracy yet can be fairly persuasively represented by its perpetrators as a legitimate, and even legal(!), activity.
What we're referring to of course is that whole class of activities
that are pursued by the Establishment but are deemed unsuitable to
be made known because such knowledge would in some way be "against
the public interest" — national security is one of the favoured
excuses, but by no means the only one.
For "the Establishment" you can read the Civil Service, the Military,
the Government, or virtually any other duly constituted body that
supposedly represents, or acts on behalf of, the electorate. If we
want to get really loose with definitions that can be extended
to include any private organisation or commercial venture under contract
to… the Civil Service, the Military, the Government, or virtually
any other duly constituted body that supposedly represents, or acts
on behalf of, the electorate.
Now given that most, if not all, of the multinational companies are, through any one or more of their various subsidiaries, probably under contract to one or another branch of the Establishment (and let's not be too finicky about which specific country's Establishment, for it really doesn't make that much difference!), and further given that many lesser — but still huge — companies are similarly under contract, we suddenly find ourselves in a situation where this incredible gorgon has virtual carte blanche to do what the hell it likes to society with practically no requirement for public accountability whatsoever.
Why bother messing around with petty conspiracies when you can proceed in your nefarious activities confident in the certainty that you have the implicit assent of the populace at large. And all that's required for that "implicit assent" to exist is an "arrangement" with… the Civil Service, the Military, the Government, or virtually any other duly constituted body that supposedly represents, or acts on behalf of, the electorate.
And this is no paranoid fantasy born of a fevered imagination. This
is the real-time situation as it exists, and over which we
have virtually no control.
Moroever this is the situation that will continue to exist
until such time as we choose to radically reform the manner in which
society's communal affairs are conducted.
So does this situation constitute a conspiracy or not?
Probably not. Because, by default, by our own lack of concerted action, by our own preoccupation with mundane and petty superficialities rather than involvement in the "big" issues, we are giving our tacit assent. We are, in a sense, co-conspirators to our own downfall.
Oh, and by the way… let's not forget that, at the end of the day, its the taxpayers' (i.e., our) money that's funding this colossus.
Putting it in the crudest possible terms, if you really want to get shafted wouldn't it be cheaper just to go to a brothel?
So, for "conspiracy theorists" to be effective in their presentation,
certain "ground rules" really should be observed.
Clearly at the outset a definition of the suspected conspiracy needs to be formulated, outlining its nature, extent, and motive, as far as is known or believed.
Most important of course is the type of evidence presented as proof
of a conspiracy.
By the very nature of conspiracy conclusive and irrefutable evidence
will almost certainly be difficult to come by. Hence, recourse has
to be made to "anecdotal" evidence, hearsay and the like. And far
too often such evidence consists of nothing more than a repetition
of what has been heard elsewhere, without even a cursory attempt to
check the facts.
Alas, this is simply not good enough. At best it can only ever create
doubts and suspicions. At worst it is rumour-mongering and can be
counter-productive, prompting dismissal of the suspected conspiracy
and leaving little hope of ever subsequently persuading the enquirer.
Moreover it is positively harmful to the credibility of the person
alleging the conspiracy.
Given the frequently insurmountable difficulties of securing acceptable
evidence, the only real alternative is to assess a suspected conspiracy
on the basis of common sense, probability, and observed effects.
Does such a conspiracy "make sense"? Is it probable/feasible (in terms
of both the conspiracy itself, and the character of the perpetrators
thereof)? Can one establish clear and indisputable links between observed
effects and probable causes?
(Its never a particularly good idea to argue from effects back to causes. Much more acceptable is to develop a "model" based upon the presumed cause and then test it by using it to predict effects that have not yet occurred. The greater the success rate of such predictions, the more likely it is that the model has something informative to say about "reality". Moreover, by employing this technique one can frequently gain insights that will assist in the process of acquiring more tangible evidence.)
If a conspiracy is suspected because of allegations made by others, a useful ploy is to look very closely at the person or persons making the allegation. Are they credible? Are they in a position to have "insider knowledge"? What is their motivation? What do they stand to gain — either in a purely materialistic sense or, as is more often the case, in the fulfillment of some less-than-obvious psychological/emotional need?
If the suspected conspiracy entails ideas of such magnitude that they run counter to all reason and common sense, or conflict substantially with "received wisdom", it has to be recognised that delivering the whole lot up on a plate in one huge meal as it were is likely to defeat its own ends.
For the newcomer to the shadowy world of the conspiracy theorist, one of the biggest pitfalls is to be deterred from a given set of facts simply because they are presented in a way that initially seems to offend common sense. The conspiracy theorists really should, if they are to have their theories seriously considered, take this fully on board.
With just a few exceptions, human receptivity to new ideas is a gradual
process rather than a spontaneous and unprepared acceptance. Thus,
far better to reveal a little at a time, linking each successive step
with evidence, reasoned argument, and infallible logic.
Using this technique the newcomer, without needing to be a genius,
can very often almost discover for themself the denouement.
Another advantage of this technique is that it lends itself to the
uncovering of flawed reasoning and misinterpretations of the evidence/information.
It may be that a mind fresh to the suspected conspiracy will develop
a different or even more accurate interpretation than the author of
the theory.
If the conspiracy theorist, the whistle-blower or whatever, is committed to discovering or revealing "the truth" rather than just pushing their own pet theory of the moment, then they should welcome such input and be open to modifying their own ideas accordingly.
