{"id":21029,"date":"2012-08-27T12:00:40","date_gmt":"2012-08-27T11:00:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=21029"},"modified":"2012-08-26T20:22:03","modified_gmt":"2012-08-26T19:22:03","slug":"conspiracies-theories-and-hypotheses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2012\/08\/conspiracies-theories-and-hypotheses\/","title":{"rendered":"Conspiracies: Theories and Hypotheses"},"content":{"rendered":"

Conspiracies exist<\/em>.\u00a0 They are a part of social reality, have always been, and will always be; as confirmed conspiracy theories<\/em>, as unconfirmed conspiracy hypotheses<\/em>, as suspicions, as allegations.<\/p>\n

As usually conceived of, conspiracies involve several<\/em> persons or actors; the plan of action is kept secret<\/em> or at least not made public, except afterwards if it is successful. Conspiracies are about power<\/em>[i]<\/a> <\/em>— economic-cultural-political-military — and are usually negative<\/em> for somebody.<\/p>\n

Let us start by criticizing this definition.<\/p>\n

Does a conspiracy have to be negative?\u00a0 If some friends come together to prepare a pleasant surprise for somebody who turns, say, 80; there are several persons involved; a gift is also some kind of power (gift and return gift, don et contre-don<\/em>); but this is positive, pleasant, beautiful, warm, human in the best sense.\u00a0 Could it be that we are so influenced by negativism, the news media\u2019s staple food, being pushed down our throats and blinding us to positive possibilities?\u00a0 Yet, such possibilities are sources of delight and may be much more numerous. But there is always some kind of power involved, at the very least the power of surprise, catching the object of the conspiracy unprepared. The numerous secret agencies and services are the staple food of military power and its associates in modern and post-modern societies.\u00a0 No doubt military power has a model character, spreading the conspiracy approach to the other three forms of power.<\/p>\n

Thus, political parties in a parliament come together, “you vote with me on issue X and I with you on issue Y, keeping it secret” lest other parties concoct counter-conspiracies.\u00a0 Or: “I agree with you that there is something to salvation through faith only if you agree with us about salvation through good deeds only; but let us not be too explicit lest we alienate millions of faithful”.\u00a0 Or two companies: “let us join beating that upstart and then business as usual”.<\/p>\n

We are left with the numbers.\u00a0 Minimum 2.\u00a0 Really?<\/p>\n

There is a reason.\u00a0 One of the surprises may be in who have joined in the conspiracy, like the Soviet Union and nazi Germany once upon a time, or the P2 Free Mason Lodge and Gladio for the Bologna massacre blaming communists[ii]<\/a>.\u00a0 A single actor is predictable by the goals announced; two or more may come up with some surprises.<\/p>\n

But one actor alone is also capable of springing pleasant or unpleasant surprises on someone; do not demand collective action.<\/p>\n

More interesting is the person-free conspiracy, the structural conspiracy.\u00a0 Zero-0-actors.\u00a0 The economic power exercise associated with the global financial crisis of Sep\/2008 came as a highly unpleasant surprise to many, to most, to almost all; just think of the retired people who lost much\/all of their savings.\u00a0 But constituted a highly pleasant surprise to the famous 0.1, 1, 10% getting richer and richer by “taking risks” (with other peoples’ money).<\/p>\n

But, was it intended, a subjective intent, in some “actor”?\u00a0 Maybe in some but mainly not; maybe half-intended, -guessed, -intuited?\u00a0 In the deeper crevice of the mind known as the subconscious the actor vanishes, and we have parties performing their structural roles, swapping credits. Open for the structural, unintended, conspiracies.<\/p>\n

But then enters a genuine conspiracy hypothesis related to this.\u00a0 Strong rumors in the media about a high-powered lobby to promote the interests of the finance economy–one interest evidently being no regulation, “free market”.\u00a0 The head of the European Central Bank, Mario Draghi, is supposed to be a party to the lobby.\u00a0 A conspiracy theory?\u00a0 No, a conspiracy hypothesis, right now being investigated by the EU; the result to be made public in October.\u00a0\u00a0 Mario Draghi once worked for the icon of the finance economy, Goldman-Sachs, like many others in top political roles. We sense a hectic activity behind the scenes.\u00a0 But the basic point is simple: conspiracy is a hypothesis, to be confirmed or disconfirmed.<\/p>\n

Recently, journalists and politicians–often right wing–have learnt to issue “conspiracy theory” certificates to those who have such hypotheses about politics at high levels.\u00a0 This itself smacks of a conspiracy, to move the spotlight of investigative journalism away from high level politics; they themselves having no qualms against seeing conspiracies (communist, terrorist, anti-semitic, to mention some) in anything not mainstream.\u00a0 The conspiracy-labeling carries all the characteristics of a conspiracy, using the cultural power of the media to steer the discourse away from important issues.\u00a0 Unacceptable.<\/p>\n

A democracy–rule by rulers with the consent of the ruled–is meaningless unless hypotheses, even suspicions, of something secret can be aired.\u00a0 Democracy is preventive, not only punitive afterwards.\u00a0 Nipping in the bud.\u00a0 Here comes a Norwegian (me) about the Breivik case; am I simply paranoid, or is the hypothesis worth looking into?<\/p>\n

Consider:<\/p>\n