On the one hand we must always be skeptical of conspiracies. On the other hand, we must always pay homage to Margaret Mead's inspirational words, "Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world..... indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." Why can't Mead's musing apply to "black ops" as well as to activist groups? Of course, the world has changed in some ways that cannot have anything to do with any small group of individuals. The simple example of fluctuating economic growth is a case in point. I wonder if it is at all worthwhile to arbitrarily conceive of which groups may "change the world" before examining how the world does indeed change. The distinction is nevertheless a good one between conspiracies of small groups of influentials and grand conspiracies that link together Otto von Bismarck and Dien Bien Phu. Andrew Hagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Never believe in anything until it has been officially denied." -- Otto von Bismarck On Mon, 21 May 2001 09:15:06 -0700, Jim Devine wrote: >[was: Re: [PEN-L:11862] Re: Re: Re: Michael ???Re: Re: eonic effect] > >There are at least two types of conspiracy theories. On the one hand, there >are those which argue that some events were caused by hidden discussions of >powerful individuals pursuing their own interests, as for example, with the >US overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in 1954?. On the other hand, >there are Conspiracy Theories, in which a bunch of important events are >linked together in a Grand Theory of History, in which a permanent powerful >elite (e.g., the Illuminati) steers the path of history over long periods. >The problem with this theories are many: they don't have enough >information, enough power to micro-manage all sorts of events, they can't >keep all of their plans secret, while (most importantly) there are usually >competing elites or divisions within elites which prevent any elite from >being All-Powerful. > >At 01:01 AM 5/22/01 +0000, you wrote: >>G'day Doug, >> >> > One thought I've had is that after a couple of decades of >> > marginalization of the left, some remaining stalwarts are those for >> > whom their politics is a form of psychopathology: a paranoid, >> > conspiratorial public structure to hang their private fantasies on. >> > Them, and the more stubborn intellectual mediocrities. >> > >> > Maybe I'm just being too gloomy. >> >>Well, I think a sane person could suspect some conspiracy goes on within our >>institutions. >> >>Conspiracy theorists are more convincing than their adversaries (where there >>are any left) on stuff like JFK's shooting, the failure of the '68 peace >>initiative and Watergate, after all. And the 2000 'election' kicked up some >>pretty compelling stories, too. And are we to ignore completely the firm ties >>between Shrubya and those who seem to do best out of his pronouncements >>completely, for fear of being called 'conspiracy theorists? Didn't Adam Smith >>express the opinion that wherever you found two traders in conversation it'd >>be wise to assume something not to your advantage is being cooked up? And >>doesn't Chomsky defend himself against all those rabid charges of >>'conspiracist' by saying he's doing nothing but arguing that self-interest >>among the elites are sometimes shared by them? >> >>Seems to me that conventional wisdoms in the academy can have a way of >>producing entrenched vested interests (indeed sometimes representing certain >>interests from the off), institutional stasis, and hostility to heterodoxy, >>too. That said, John didn't capture the list's interest, and need not assume >>the worst for that. Some of us just didn't catch what he was throwing. But >>to throw it again and again is to risk being charged with using mailing lists >>as advertising media ... >> >>Cheers, >>Rob. > >Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
