Is it possible that a small and secret although powerful group somehow manipulates global society and directs the course of history? No. All the evils supposedly explained by the conspiracy are fully explicable by economic processes and social interactions that anyone can study. Patet Veritas Omnibus ("Truth lies open to all" - the motto of Lancaster University).
If there were any such conspirators, then how would they do it? Economic and financial powers (i) are very great, (ii) can be centralized in very few hands and (iii) can be exercised by people who keep their names and faces out of the news. I think that the conspiracy theory is a "fantastic reflection" of the real world.
In SF
(i) In Poul Anderson's "Details" and "No Truce With Kings," two different sets of aliens concealed among us apply a superior social science in order to manipulate humanity - but fail.
(ii) Anderson's psychotechnicians advise governments but also operate secretly and dishonestly and are overthrown as a result.
(iii) Isaac Asimov's Second Foundationers apply a predictive science of society and also deploy fantastic mental powers.
(iv) According to Jerry Pournelle's and SM Stirling's "The Asteroid Queen," Marx, Charlemagne, Hitler and Brennan (the Belter who became a protector) were all members of the same ancient, secret, world-controlling Brotherhood. Not in our timeline! And maybe not in the Known Space timeline either? The Brotherhood suppresses knowledge and propagates:
"...slanted versions of past, present, and future." (Man-Kzin Wars V, p. 26) -
- so maybe it lies to itself about its own past?
-copied from here.
To show how imagination that could be invested in the writing of fiction is instead deployed to devise complicated conspiracy theories, let me quote some of what I heard last night:
the City of London controls the world financially;
the City of Washington controls the world militarily;
the City of Rome controls the world religiously;
behind the public "White Pope" is a "Black Pope," the head of the Jesuits;
behind the "Black Pope" is a "Grey Pope" who is - who or what exactly?
How does the Grey coerce or control the Black? How does the Black coerce the White? How does the White oversee anything but the beliefs of his co-religionists? (Is it possible that the term "Black Pope" has been used jocularly? - but no more than that.)
When I expressed skepticism about the Grey Pope, I was advised to do my research so I googled and read some nonsense which was cheek by jowl with vile propaganda. I think that, in this milieu, "research" means reading books or websites which merely state that there is a conspiracy.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Very amusing, what you said about your meeting with the no doubt well meaning gentleman you met!
And one thing I recall about Anderson's "Details" was how the reason why the aliens trying to use an allegedly advanced predictive "science" of society failed was due to the leader of the alien team assigned to Earth not truly understanding human beings and human politics.
And the bit about the "Grey Pope" immediately made me think of Cardinal Richelieu's friend and adviser Fr. Joseph, the original "grey eminence." A term which has come to be applied to powerful men considered to be the real rulers of the state, rather than the kings, presidents, or emperors they served.
Sean
Sean,
"Grey Eminence" helps to explain "Grey Pope." These guys will find such a reference and interpret it literally. Trying to reason with a conspiracist is very far from amusing!
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I recall Poul Anderson using the term "grey eminince" at least twice in his works, THE REBEL WORLDS and A STONE IN HEAVEN. In the first it was applied to the ambitions of Aaron Snelund and in the second Dominic Flandry said in Chapter XIV, "And for my part, well, my advice isn't the worst he [Emperor Gerhart] could get; and his son and heir isn't such a bad young fellow. I'm afraid I'll end my days as a kind of grey eminence." He paused. "Though scarcely in holy orders."
True, it can be very difficult to converse or reason with conspiracy theorists. They can make it too easy to dismiss or ignore all alleged conspiracies, even real ones!
Sean
I am reminded of "The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behaviour is Almost Always Good Politics" by Bruce Bueno de Mequita and Alastair Smith.
It is about how even if a dictator wanted to enact policies beneficial to the general populace, doing so would usually result in him being ousted by the people just below him who are rich and powerful because of policies that exploit the majority of the populace.
The authors also examine the cases which get around that problem by a substantial fraction of the population getting some power in the state, one of the first examples being UK post 1688.
Kaor, Jim!
My understanding of what happened after 1688 was, altho the Crown remained powerful, it had to be careful to rule in ways tolerable to a Whig/Tory gentry and aristocracy expressing their views and wishes via Parliament. Next, the beginning of the Industrial Revolution after about 1790 spurred the rise of a new class of mercantile/industrial magnates, large and small, who increasingly demanded having a cut of real power in the UK. Such agitations and pressures led to the first Reform Bill, extending the franchise, in 1832. The rest, as they say, is history.
Ad astra! Sean
Yes.
The ideas that Whig/Tory gentry used to justify their actions of 1688 made it hard for them to resist further extensions of the franchise without then being justly seen as hypocrites.
Kaor, Jim!
Exactly, it was better for the old Whig/Tory gentry to begin making concessions in 1832, rather than risk losing everything.
As Flandry said in THE REBEL WORLDS, some hypocrisy is necessary, as a social lubricant.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment