\"Conspiracy Theories\" and Clandestine Politics\r\r\r\r\"Conspiracy Theories\" and Clandestine Politics<\/b>\r\rby Jeffrey M. Bale \r\r<\/p>
Very few notions generate as much intellectual resistance, hostility, and\rderision within academic circles as a belief in the historical importance or\refficacy of political conspiracies. Even when this belief is expressed in a\rvery cautious manner, limited to specific and restricted contexts, supported\rby reliable evidence, and hedged about with all sort of qualifications, it\rstill manages to transcend the boundaries of acceptable discourse and\rviolate unspoken academic taboos. The idea that particular groups of people\rmeet together secretly or in private to plan various courses of action, and\rthat some of these plans actually exert a significant influence on\rparticular historical developments, is typically rejected out of hand and\rassumed to be the figment of a paranoid imagination. The mere mention of the\rword \"conspiracy\" seems to set off an internal alarm bell which causes\rscholars to close their minds in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and\rpossible unpleasantness, since the popular image of conspiracy both\rfundamentally challenges the conception most educated, sophisticated people\rhave about how the world operates, and reminds them of the horrible\rpersecutions that absurd and unfounded conspiracy theories have precipitated\ror sustained in the past. So strong is this prejudice among academics that\reven when clear evidence of a plot is inadvertently discovered in the course\rof their own research, they frequently feel compelled, either out of a sense\rof embarrassment or a desire to defuse anticipated criticism, to preface\rtheir account of it by ostentatiously disclaiming a belief in conspiracies.(1)<\/p>\r\r
They then often attempt to downplay the significance of the plotting they\rhave uncovered. To do otherwise, that is to make a serious effort to\rincorporate the documented activities of conspiratorial groups into their\rgeneral political or historical analyses, would force them to stretch their\rmental horizons beyond customary bounds and, not infrequently, delve even\rfurther into certain sordid and politically sensitive topics. Most academic\rresearchers clearly prefer to ignore the implications of conspiratorial\rpolitics altogether rather than deal directly with such controversial\rmatters.<\/p>\r\r
A number of complex cultural and historical factors contribute to this\rreflexive and unwarranted reaction, but it is perhaps most often the direct\rresult of a simple failure to distinguish between \"conspiracy theories\" in\rthe strict sense of the term, which are essentially elaborate fables \reven though they may well be based upon a kernel of truth, and the\ractivities of actual clandestine and covert political groups, which are a\rcommon feature of modern politics. For this and other reasons, serious\rresearch into genuine conspiratorial networks has at worst been suppressed,\ras a rule been discouraged, and at best been looked upon with condescension\rby the academic community.(2) An entire dimension of political history and\rcontemporary politics has thus been consistently neglected.(3)<\/p>\r \r
For decades scholars interested in politics have directed their\rattention toward explicating and evaluating the merits of various political\rtheories, or toward analyzing the more conventional, formal, and overt\raspects of practical politics. Even a cursory examination of standard\rsocial science bibliographies reveals that tens of thousands of books and\rarticles have been written about staple subjects such as the structure and\rfunctioning of government bureaucracies, voting patterns and electoral\rresults, parliamentary procedures and activities, party organizations and\rfactions, the impact of constitutional provisions or laws, and the like. In\rmarked contrast, only a handful of scholarly publications have been devoted\rto the general theme of political conspiracies--as opposed to popular\ranti-conspiracy treatises, which are very numerous, and specific case\rstudies of events in which conspiratorial groups have played some role --\rand virtually all of these concern themselves with the deleterious social\rimpact of the \"paranoid style\" of thought manifested in classic conspiracy\rtheories rather than the characteristic features of real conspiratorial\rpolitics.(4)<\/p>\r \r
Only the academic literature dealing with specialized topics like\respionage, covert action, political corruption, terrorism, and revolutionary\rwarfare touches upon clandestine and covert political activities on a more \ror less regular basis, probably because such activities cannot be avoided\rwhen dealing with these topics. But the analyses and information contained\rtherein are rarely incorporated into standard works of history and social\rscience, and much of that specialized literature is itself unsatisfactory.\rHence there is an obvious need to place the study of conspiratorial politics\ron a sound theoretical, methodological, and empirical footing, since\rignoring the influence of such politics can lead to severe errors of\rhistorical interpretation.<\/p>\r \rClassic conspiracy theories and. . . .\r\r
This situation can only be remedied when a clear-cut analytical distinction\rhas been made between classic conspiracy theories and the more limited\rconspiratorial activities that are a regular feature of politics. \r\"Conspiracy theories\" share a number of distinguishing characteristics, but\rin all of them the essential element is a belief in the existence of a\r\"vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial\rnetwork designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character\", acts\rwhich aim to \"undermine and destroy a way of life.\"(5)<\/p> \r\r
Although this apocalyptic conception is generally regarded nowadays as the fantastic\rproduct of a paranoid mind set, in the past it was often accepted as an\raccurate description of reality by large numbers of people from all social\rstrata, including intellectuals and heads of state.(6) The fact that a belief\rin sinister, all-powerful conspiratorial forces has not been restricted to\rsmall groups of clinical paranoids and mental defectives suggests that it\rfulfills certain important social functions and psychological needs.(7)<\/p>\r \r
First of all, like many other intellectual constructs, conspiracy\rtheories help to make complex patterns of cause-and-effect in human affairs\rmore comprehensible by means of reductionism and over simplification.\rSecondly, they purport to identify the underlying source of misery and\rinjustice in the world, thereby accounting for current crises and upheavals\rand explaining why bad things are happening to good people or vice versa. \rThirdly, by personifying that source they paradoxically help people to\rreaffirm their own potential ability to control the course of future\rhistorical developments. After all, if evil conspirators are consciously\rcausing undesirable changes, the implication is that others, perhaps through\rthe adoption of similar techniques, may also consciously intervene to\rprotect a threatened way of life or otherwise alter the historical process. \rIn short, a belief in conspiracy theories helps people to make sense out of\ra confusing, inhospitable reality, rationalize their present difficulties,\rand partially assuage their feelings of powerlessness. In this sense, it is\rno different than any number of religious, social, or political beliefs, and\ris deserving of the same serious study.<\/p>\r \rEvil incarnate or?\r\r
The image of conspiracies promoted by conspiracy theorists needs to be\rfurther illuminated before it can be contrasted with genuine conspiratorial\rpolitics. In the first place, conspiracy theorists consider the alleged\rconspirators to be Evil incarnate. They are not simply people with differing\rvalues or run-of-the-mill political opponents, but inhuman, super-human,\rand\/or anti-human beings who regularly commit abominable acts and are\rimplacably attempting to subvert and destroy everything that is decent and\rworth preserving in the existing world. Thus, according to John Robison, the\rBavarian Illuminati were formed \"for the express purpose of ROOTING OUT ALL\rTHE RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE EXISTING GOVERNMENTS\rIN EUROPE.\" (8) This grandiose claim is fairly representative, in the sense\rthat most conspiracy theorists view the world in similarly Manichean and\rapocalyptic terms.<\/p>\r\r
Secondly, conspiracy theorists perceive the conspiratorial group as both\rmonolithic and unerring in the pursuit of its goals. This group is directed\rfrom a single conspiratorial center, acting as a sort of general staff,\rwhich plans and coordinates all of its activities down to the last detail. \rNote, for example, Prince Clemens von Metternich's claim that a \"directing\rcommittee\" of the radicals from all over Europe had been established in\rParis to pursue their insidious plotting against established governments.(9)<\/p>\r\r
Given that presumption, it is no accident that many conspiracy theorists \rrefer to \"the Conspiracy\" rather than (lower case) conspiracies or\rconspiratorial factions, since they perceive no internal divisions among\rthe conspirators. Rather, as a group the conspirators are believed to\rpossess an extraordinary degree of internal solidarity, which produces a\rcorresponding degree of counter solidarity vis-a-vis society at large; and\rindeed it is this very cohesion and singleness of purpose which enables them\rto effectively execute their plans to destroy existing institutions, seize\rpower, and eliminate all opposition.<\/p>\r\r
Thirdly, conspiracy theorists believe that the conspiratorial group is\romnipresent, at least within its own sphere of operations. While some\rconspiracy theories postulate a relatively localized group of conspirators,\rmost depict this group as both international in its spatial dimensions and\rcontinuous in its temporal dimensions. \"[T]he conspirators planned and\rcarried out evil in the past, they are successfully active in the present,\rand they will triumph in the future if they are not disturbed in their plans\rby those with information about their sinister designs.\"(10) The conspiratorial group is therefore capable of operating virtually everywhere. As a consequence of this ubiquity, anything that occurs which has a broadly negative impact or seems in any way related to the purported aims of the conspirators can thus be plausibly attributed to them.<\/p>\r \r
Fourthly, the conspiratorial group is viewed by conspiracy theorists as\rvirtually omnipotent. In the past this group has successfully overthrown\rempires and nations, corrupted whole societies, and destroyed entire\rcivilizations and cultures, and it is said to be in the process of\raccomplishing the same thing at this very moment. Its members are secretly\rworking in every nook and cranny of society, and are making use of every\rsubversive technique known to mankind to achieve their nefarious purposes. \rNothing appears to be able to stand in their way - unless the warnings of\rthe conspiracy theorists are heeded and acted upon at once. Even then there\ris no guarantee of ultimate victory against such powerful forces, but a\rfailure to recognize the danger and take immediate countervailing action\rassures the success of those forces in the near future.<\/p>\r\r
Finally, for conspiracy theorists conspiracies are not simply a regular\rfeature of politics whose importance varies in different historical\rcontexts, but rather the motive force of all historical change and\rdevelopment. The conspiratorial group can and does continually alter the\rcourse of history, invariably in negative and destructive ways, through\rconscious planning and direct intervention. Its members are not buffeted\rabout by structural forces beyond their control and understanding, like\reveryone else, but are themselves capable of controlling events more or less\rat will. This supposed ability is usually attributed to some combination of\rdemonic influence or sponsorship, the possession of arcane knowledge, the\rmastery of devilish techniques, and\/or the creation of a preternaturally\reffective clandestine organization. As a result, unpleasant occurrences\rwhich are perceived by others to be the products of coincidence or chance\rare viewed by conspiracy theorists as further evidence of the secret\rworkings of the conspiratorial group. For them, nothing that happens occurs\rby accident. Everything is the result of secret plotting in accordance with\rsome sinister design.<\/p>\r \rBlack holes\r\r
This central characteristic of conspiracy theories has been aptly summed up\rby Donna Kossy in a popular book on fringe ideas:<\/p>\r\r
\"Conspiracy theories are like black holes--they suck in everything that\rcomes their way, regardless of content or origin........... Everything\ryou've ever known or experienced, no matter how 'meaningless', once it\rcontacts the conspiratorial universe, is enveloped by and cloaked in\rsinister significance. Once inside, the vortex gains in size and strength, sucking in everything you touch.\"(11)<\/p>\r \r
As an example of this sort of mechanism, one has only to mention the\rso-called \"umbrella man\", a man who opened up an umbrella on a sunny day in\rDealey Plaza just as President John F. Kennedy's motorcade was passing. A\rnumber of \"conspiracy theorists\" have assumed that this man was signalling\rto the assassins, thus tying a seemingly trivial and inconsequential act\rinto the alleged plot to kill Kennedy. It is precisely this totalistic,\rall-encompassing quality that distinguishes \"conspiracy theories\" from the\rsecret but often mundane political planning that is carried out on a daily\rbasis by all sorts of groups, both within and outside of government. It\rshould, however, be pointed out that even if the \"umbrella man\" was wholly\rinnocent of any involvement in a plot, as he almost certainly was, this does\rnot mean that the Warren Commission's reconstruction of the assassination is\raccurate.<\/p>\r \rReal covert politics\r\r
However that may be, real covert politics, although by definition hidden\ror disguised and often deleterious in their impact, simply do not correspond\rto the bleak, simplistic image propounded by conspiracy theorists. Far from\rembodying metaphysical evil, they are perfectly and recognizably human, with\rall the positive and negative characteristics and potentialities which that\rimplies. At the most basic level, all the efforts of individuals privately\rto plan and secretly initiate actions for their own perceived mutual benefit\r-- insofar as these are intentionally withheld from outsiders and require\rthe maintenance of secrecy for their success -- are conspiracies. Moreover,\rin contrast to the claims of conspiracy theorists, covert politics are\ranything but monolithic. At any given point in time, there are dozens if\rnot thousands of competitive political and economic groups engaging in\rsecret planning and activities, and most are doing so in an effort to gain\rsome advantage over their rivals among the others. Such behind-the-scene\roperations are present on every level, from the mundane efforts of\rsmall-scale retailers to gain competitive advantage by being the first to\rdevelop new product lines to the crucially important attempts by rival\rsecret services to penetrate and manipulate each other. Sometimes the\rpatterns of these covert rivalries and struggles are relatively stable over\rtime, whereas at other times they appear fluid and kaleidoscopic, as\rdifferent groups secretly shift alliances and change tactics in accordance\rwith their perceived interests. Even internally, within particular groups\roperating clandestinely, there are typically bitter disagreements between\rvarious factions over the specific courses of action to be adopted.\rUnanimity of opinion and complete solidarity are not possible in any\rorganization, though ruthless purges can temporarily contribute to that\rimpression.<\/p>\r \r
Furthermore, the operational sphere of particular conspiratorial\rgroups is invariably restricted in time and space, though the precise extent\rof those temporal and spatial boundaries can vary quite widely. There is\rprobably not a single secret organization anywhere which has existed\rcontinuously from antiquity to the present, and only a small number could\rhave had a continuous existence for more than a century. And, with the\rpossible exception of those which are created and sponsored by the\rgovernments of major nations and the world's most powerful business and\rreligious institutions, the range of activity of specific clandestine groups\ris invariably limited to particular geographic or sectoral arenas.<\/p>\r\r
Given these great disparities and divergences in range and power, it is\robvious that actual conspiracies operate at varying levels of effectiveness.\rAlthough they are a typical facet of social and political life, in the\roverall scheme of things most conspiracies are narrow in scope, restricted\rin their effects, and of limited historical significance. But this is not\ralways the case. It should be obvious that whenever powerful political\rfigures engage in secret planning, the impact of their decisions on others\rwill be correspondingly greater and more difficult to resist. Therefore,\rwhen such influential figures meet to hatch and coordinate plots, these\rplots may well have a disproportionate impact on the course of events, and\rhence a broader historical significance. There is nothing mysterious about\rthis, however. It is simply a covert reflection of existing and sometimes\rreadily visible power relations, and should be recognized as such.<\/p>\r\rThe Protocols\r\r
Perhaps the easiest and quickest way to clarify the distinction between\r\"conspiracy theories\" and genuine conspiracies is by reference to the\rnotorious anti-Semitic tract, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This\rdocument, which purports to be the minutes from a secret meeting of a\rconspiratorial Jewish leadership group aiming to take control over the\rworld, has played a major role in stirring up fears of a Zionist conspiracy\rand catalyzing repressive actions against Jewish communities throughout\rEurope and beyond since its appearance in the late nineteenth century. Even\rtoday, it continues to be cited by conspiracy mongers and anti-Semites of\rall stripes as proof that there is a secret Jewish cabal which is carefully\rplanning and directing worldwide efforts to subvert and destroy all that is\rgood in the world of the goyim.<\/p>\r \r
It provides a perfect example of classic conspiracy theory literature,\rone which further exacerbated the \"paranoid style\" of thinking already\rcharacteristic of many of its readers. Of course, as Norman Cohn and others\rhave conclusively demonstrated, the Protocols are not what they purport to\rbe. Yet even though they are not ascribable to a hidden group of Jewish\rplotters, they are nonetheless the product of real conspiratorial politics,\rsince they were forged by persons affiliated with the Tsarist secret police,\rthe Okhrana. In short, they were produced at the behest of a genuine\rclandestine agency in order to fan anti-Semitism and otherwise exploit and\rmanipulate popular fears.<\/p>\r\r
It is clear, then, that there are fundamental differences between\r\"conspiracy theories\" and actual covert and clandestine politics,\rdifferences which must be taken into account if one wishes to avoid serious\rerrors of historical interpretation. The problem is that most people,\ramateurs and professionals alike, consistently fail to distinguish between\rthem. On the one hand, the vast majority of the self-appointed \"experts\"\rwho concern themselves with alleged conspiracies are in fact \"conspiracy\rtheorists\" in the negative sense outlined above. They seriously and\rpassionately believe in the existence of vast, preternaturally effective\rconspiracies which successfully manipulate and control historical events\rbehind the scenes, though they typically disagree with one another about\rexactly who is behind those conspiracies. This vocal lunatic fringe tends\rto discourage serious researchers from investigating such matters, in part\rbecause the latter do not wish, understandably, to be tarred by the same\rsoiled brush. In the process, however, most have unfortunately failed to\rheed the important qualification that Richard Hofstadter made in his\ranalysis of the \"paranoid style\" of political thinking - that real\rconspiracies do exist, even though they do not conform to the elaborate and\roften bizarre scenarios concocted by conspiracy theorists. How, indeed,\rcould it be otherwise in a world full of intelligence agencies, national\rsecurity bureaucracies, clandestine revolutionary organizations, economic\rpressure groups, secret societies with hidden political agendas, and the\rlike?<\/p>\r \rNo monolithic conspiracy\r\r
There has never been, to be sure, a single, monolithic Communist Conspiracy\rof the sort postulated by the American John Birch Society in the 1950s and\r1960s. Nor has there ever been an all-encompassing International Capitalist\rConspiracy, a Jewish World Conspiracy, a Masonic Conspiracy, or a Universal\rVatican Conspiracy. And nowadays, contrary to the apparent belief of\rmillions, neither a vast Underground Satanist Conspiracy nor an Alien\rAbduction Conspiracy exists. This reassuring knowledge should not, however,\rprompt anyone to throw out the baby with the bath water, as many academics\rhave been wont to do. For just as surely as none of the above-mentioned\rGrand Conspiracies has ever existed, diverse groups of communists,\rcapitalists, zionists, masons, and catholics have in fact secretly plotted,\roften against one another, to accomplish various specific but limited\rpolitical objectives.<\/p>\r\r
No sensible person would claim, for example, that the Soviet secret\rpolice has not been involved in a vast array of covert operations since the\restablishment of the Soviet Union, or that international front groups\rcontrolled by the Russian Communist Party have not systematically engaged in\rworldwide penetration and propaganda campaigns. It is nonetheless true that\rscholars have often hastened to deny the existence of genuine conspiratorial\rplots, without making any effort whatsoever to investigate them, simply\rbecause such schemes fall outside their own realm of knowledge and\rexperience or - even worse - directly challenge their sometimes naive\rconceptions about how the world functions.<\/p>\r \rThey do exist\r\r
If someone were to say, for example, that a secret masonic lodge in Italy\rhad infiltrated all of the state's security agencies and was involved in\rpromoting or exploiting acts of neo-fascist terrorism in order to\rcondition the political system and strengthen its own hold over the\rlevers of government, most newspaper readers would probably assume that they\rwere joking or accuse them of having taken leave of their senses. Ten years\rago I might have had the same reaction myself. Nevertheless, although the\rabove statement oversimplifies a far more complex pattern of interaction\rbetween the public and private spheres, such a lodge in fact existed. It\rwas known as Loggia Massonica Propaganda Due (P2), was affiliated with the\rGrand Orient branch of Italian masonry, and was headed by a former fascist\rmilitiaman named Licio Gelli.(12) In all probability something like P2 still\rexists today in an altered form, even though the lodge was officially\routlawed in 1982. Likewise, with the claim that an Afrikaner secret\rsociety, founded in the second decade of this century, had played a key role\rin establishing the system of apartheid in South Africa, and in the process\rhelped to ensure the preservation of ultra-conservative Afrikaner cultural\rvalues and Afrikaner political dominance until 1990. Yet this organization\ralso existed. It was known as the Afrikaner Broederbond (AB), and it formed\ra powerful \"state within a state\" in that country by virtue, among other\rthings, of its unchallenged control over the security services.(13) There\ris no doubt that specialists on contemporary Italian politics who fail to\rtake account of the activities of P2, like experts on South Africa who\rignore the AB, are missing an important dimension of political life there. \rNevertheless, neither of these two important organizations has been\rthoroughly investigated by academics. In these instances, as is so often the\rcase, investigative journalists have done most of the truly groundbreaking\rpreliminary research.<\/p>\r\rThe furtive fallacy\r\r
The above remarks are not meant to suggest that conspiratorial groups are\rthe propulsive force of most historical change, or that they alone are\rcapable of controlling our destiny, as legions of \"conspiracy theorists\"\rwould have us believe. For one thing, no group of individuals has that\rcapability, no matter how powerful they are. Fortunately for the rest of\rus, even powerful human beings are inherently flawed creatures who regularly\rcommit errors of judgement and other sorts of blunders. They not only have\rto cope with the formidable problem of unforeseen and unintended\rconsequences, but also have to contend with other powerful groups, with \rbroader social forces which are difficult if not impossible to control, and\rwith deep-rooted structural and cultural constraints which place limits on\rhow much they are able to accomplish. Moreover, to attribute that degree of\rpower and influence to secret conspirators would be to commit what David\rHackett Fischer has dubbed the \"furtive fallacy\": that is, to embrace the\ridea that everything tht is truly significant happens behind the scenes. On\rthe other hand, Fischer goes too far in the other direction when he implies\rthat only that which is above board is worth considering and that nothing\rthat happens in the shadows has real significance.(14) To accept those\runstated propositions uncritically could induce a person, among other\rthings, to overlook the bitter nineteenth century struggle between political\rsecret societies (or, at least, between revolutionaries using non-political\rsecret societies as a \"cover\") and the political police of powerful states\rlike Austria and Russia, to minimize the role played by revolutionary\rvanguard parties in the Russian and Communist Chinese revolutions, or to\rdeny that powerful intelligence services like the CIA and the KGB have\rfomented coups and intervened massively in the internal affairs of other\rsovereign states since the end of World War II. In short, it might well\rlead to the misinterpretation or falsification of history on a grand scale.<\/p>\r\r
It is easier to recognize such dangers when relatively well-known\rhistorical developments like these are used as illustrative examples, but\rproblems often arise when the possible role played by conspiratorial groups\rin more obscure events is brought up. It is above all in these cases, as\rwell as in high-profile cases where a comforting \"official\" version of\revents has been widely diffused, that commonplace academic prejudices\ragainst taking covert politics seriously come into play and can exert a\rpotentially detrimental effect on historical judgements.<\/p>\r \r
There is probably no way to prevent this sort of un-conscious reaction in\rthe current intellectual climate, but the least that can be expected of\rserious scholars is that they carefully examine the available evidence\rbefore dismissing these matters out of hand.<\/p>\r\r\r\rFootnotes \r\r
1. Compare Robin Ramsay, 'Conspiracy, Conspiracy Theories and Conspiracy Research', Lobster 19 (1990), p. 25: 'In intellectually respectable company it is necessary to preface any reference to actual political, economic, military or paramilitary conspiracies with the disclaimer that the speaker \"doesn't believe in the conspiracy theory of history (or politics)\".'This type of disclaimer quite clearly reveals the speaker's inability to distinguish between bona fide conspiracy theories and actual conspiratorial politics.<\/p> \r\r
2. The word 'suppress' is not too strong here. I personally know of at least one case in which a very bright graduate student at a prestigious East Coast university was unceremoniously told by his advisor that if he wanted to write a Ph.D. thesis on an interesting historical example of conspiratorial politics he would have to go elsewhere to do so. He ended up leaving academia altogether and became a professional journalist, in which capacity he has produced a number of interesting books and articles.<\/p> \r\r
3. Complaints about this general academic neglect have often been made by those few scholars who have done research on key aspects of covert and clandestine politics which are directly relevant to this study. See, for example, Gary Marx, 'Thoughts on a Neglected Category of Social Movement Participant: The Agent Provocateur and the Informant', American Journal of Sociology 80:2 (September 1974), especially pp. 402-3. One of the few dissertations dealing directly with this topic, though not in a particularly skilful fashion, is Frederick A. Hoffman, 'Secret Roles and Provocation: Covert Operations in Movements for social Change' (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation: UCLA Sociology Department, 1979). There are, of course, some excellent academic studies which have given due weight to these matters--for example, Nurit Schleifman, Undercover Agents in the Russian Revolutionary Movement: The SR Party, 1902-1914<\/i> (Basingstoke: Macmillan\/ St. Anthony's College, 1988); and Jean-Paul Brunet, La police de l'ombre: Indicateurs et provocateurs dans la France contemporaine <\/i>(Paris: Seuil, 1990)--but such studies areunfortunately few and far between.<\/p> \r\r
4. The standard academic treatments of conspiracy theories are Richard Hofstadter, 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics', in Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays<\/i> (New York: Knopf, 1966), pp. 3-40; Norman Cohn, Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World-Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion <\/i>(Chico, CA: Scholars, 1981 [1969]); J. M. Roberts, The Mythology of the Secret Societies <\/i>(London: Secker & Warburg, 1972); Johannes Rogallavon Bieberstein, Die These von der Verschwrung, 1776-1945: Philosophen, Freimaurer, Juden, Liberale und Sozialisten als Verschwrergegen die Sozialordnung<\/i> (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1976); and Carl F. Graumann and Serge Moscovici, eds., Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy <\/i>(New York: Springer, 1987). See also the journalistic studies by George Johnson, Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and paranoia in American Politics <\/i>(Los Angeles: Tarcher, 1983); and Jonathan Vankin, Conspiracies, Cover-Ups, and Crimes: Political Manipulation and Mind Control in America <\/i>(New York: Paragon House, 1992).<\/p> \r\r
5. See Hofstadter, 'Paranoid Style', pp. 14, 29.<\/p> \r\r
6. Although conspiracy theories have been widely accepted in the most disparate eras and parts of the world, and thus probably have a certain universality as explanatory models, at certain points in time they have taken on an added salience due to particular historical circumstances. Their development and diffusion seems to be broadly correlated with the level of social, economic, and political upheaval or change, though indigenous cultural values and intellectual traditions determine their specific form and condition their level of popularity.<\/p>\r\r
7. As many scholars have pointed out, if such ideas were restricted to clinical paranoids, they would have little or no historical importance. What makes the conspiratorial or paranoid style of thought interesting and historically significant is that it frequently tempts more or less normal people and has often been diffused among broad sections of the population in certain periods. Conspiracy theories are important as collective delusions, delusions which nevertheless reflect real fears and real social problems, rather than as evidence of individual pathologies. See, for example, Hofstadter,'Paranoid Style', pp. 3-4.<\/p> \r\r
8. See his Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe, Carried on in the Secret Meetings of free Masons, Illuminati, and Reading Societies, Collected from Good Authorities <\/i>(New York: G. Forman, 1798), p. 14. This exhibits yet another characteristic of 'conspiracy theorists'--the tendency to over-dramatize everything by using capital letters with reckless abandon.<\/p> \r\r
9. See his 'Geheime Denkschrift uber die Grundung eines Central-Comites der nordischen Machte in Wien', in Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren<\/i>, ed. by Richard Metternich-Winneburg (Vienna: 1881),vol. 1, p. 595, cited in Rogalla von Bieberstein, These von der Verschwrung<\/i>, pp. 139-40.<\/p> \r\r
10. Dieter Groh, 'Temptation of Conspiracy Theory, Part I', in Changing Conceptions of Conspiracy<\/i>, p. 3. A classic example of conspiratorial works that view modern revolutionary movements as little more than the latest manifestations of subversive forces with a very long historical pedigree is the influential book by Nesta H. Webster, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements<\/i> (London: Boswell, 1924). For more on Webster's background, see the biographical study by Richard M. Gilman, Behind World Revolution: The Strange Career of Nesta H. Webster <\/i>(Ann Arbor: Insight, 1982), of which only one volume has so far appeared.<\/p>\r\r\r
11. Kooks: A Guide to the Outer Limits of Human Belief <\/i>(Portland: Feral House, 1994), p. 191.<\/p> \r\r
12. For more on P2, see above all the materials published by the Italian parliamentary commission investigating the organization, which are divided into the majority (Anselmi) report, five dissenting minority reports, and over one hundred thick volumes of attached documents and verbatim testimony before the commission. Compare also Martin Berger, Historia de la loggia masonica P2 <\/i>(Buenos Aires: El Cid, 1983); Andrea Barbieri et al, L'Italia della P2 (Milan: Mondadori, 1981); Alberto Cecchi, Storia della P2 <\/i>(Rome: Riuniti, 1985); Roberto Fabiani, I massoni in Italia <\/i>(Milan: L'Espresso, 1978); Gianfranco Piazzesi, Gelli: La carriere di un eroe di questa Italia<\/i> (Milan: Garzanti, 1983); Marco Ramat et al, La resistabile ascesa della P2: Poteri occulti e stato democratico <\/i>(Bari: De Donato, 1983); Renato Risaliti, Licio Gelli, a carte scoperte <\/i>(Florence: Fernando Brancato, 1991); and Gianni Rossi and Franceso Lombrassa, In nome della 'loggia': Le prove di come lamassoneria segreta ha tentato di impadronarsi dello stato italiano. Iretroscena della P2<\/i> (Rome: Napoleone, 1981). Pro P2 works include those of Gelli supporter Pier Carpi, Il caso Gelli: La verita sulla loggia P2 <\/i>(Bologna: INEI, 1982); and the truly Orwellian work by Gelli himself, La verita<\/i> (Lugano: Demetra, 1989), which in spite of its title bears little resemblance to the truth.<\/p> \r\r
13. For the AB, see Ivor Wilkins and Hans Strydom, The Super-Afrikaners: Inside the Afrikaner Broederbond <\/i>(Johannesburg: Jonathan Ball, 1978); and J.H.P.Serfontein, Brotherhood of Power: An Expose of the Secret Afrikaner Broederbond <\/i>(Bloomington and London: Indiana University, 1978).Compare also B. M. Schoeman, Die Broederbond in die Afrikaner-politiek <\/i>(Pretoria: Aktuele, 1982); and Adrien Pelzer, Die Afrikaner-Broederbond: Eerste 50 jaar <\/i>(Cape Town: Tafelberg, 1979).<\/p> \r\r
14. See his Historians' Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought <\/i>(New York: Harper & Row, 1970), pp. 74-8.<\/p>\r\rwww.lobster-magazine.co.uk\r\r\r \n","contact":"","link":"http:\/\/www.lobster-magazine.co.uk","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"A useful analysis of distinctions which should be maintained between "conspiracy theory" (a pathological orientation) and "clandestine [or "deep"] politics". From Lobster #29, June 1995.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/","filesize":null,"article_url":"\/news\/2002\/06\/17381.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}