The Goal

The goal of this short essay is to highlight the thin, subtle veil that separates the world of the Conspiracy Theorist from that of the Non-Conspiracy Theorist (Coincidence Theorist). We will first begin by highlighting and defining our terms, such that we're all on the same page.

Defining Vocabulary

Conspiracy Theorist

 

Black's Law Definition of Conspiracy

We'll be defining the term using Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

(From Black's Law, 5th, pp. 293)

A combination or confedera­cy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts, some unlawful or criminal act, or some act which is lawful in itself, but becomes unlawful when done by the concerted action of the conspirators, or for the pur­pose of using criminal or unlawful means to the commission of an act not in itself unlawful.

A person is guilty of conspiracy with another per­son or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. Model Penal Code, § 5.03.

Crime of conspiracy is distinct from the crime con­templated by the conspiracy (target crime), Com. v. Dyer, 243 Mass. 472, 509, 138 N.E. 296, 314, cert. denied, 262 U.S. 751, 43 S.Ct. 700, 67 L.Ed. 1214. Some jurisdictions do not require an overt act as an element of the crime, e.g. Com. v. Harris, 232 Mass. 588, 122 N.E. 749.

A conspiracy may be a continuing one; actors may drop out, and others drop in; the details of operation may change from time to time; the members need not know each other or the part played by others; a member need not know all the details of the plan or the operations; he must, however, know the purpose of the conspiracy and agree to become a party to a plan to effectuate that purpose. Craig v. U. S., C.C. A. Cal. , 81 F.2d 816, 822.

In the Words of George Carlin

Wherever interests converge, a conspiracy is irrelevant.

~ George Carlin

Meaning, whenever two or more people have converging interests, or a situation in which would be mutually beneficial to them, we need not consider whether they'll conspire as such is already been proven time and time again as one of the most fundamental laws of man.

Working Definition

For the sake of this essay, we will define the term Conspiracy Theorist to be one who does not readily accept information from those in positions of perceived authority, those who question what they are told, and moreover, those who take it upon themselves to do the research & digging required to find the truth in all things.

Myth: The CIA Invented The Term Conspiracy Theorist

From an article by the Associated Press

Claim

The terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” were created by the Central Intelligence Agency following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy as a way of discrediting people who doubted the government’s official reports.

AP’S ASSESSMENT

False. Recorded use of the phrase “conspiracy theory” dates back to at least 1863, and it was notably invoked in reports following the 1881 shooting of then-President James A. Garfield, more than 60 years before the CIA was established. An academic review of the digital library JSTOR found the term “conspiracy theorist” had been published at least in the year before Kennedy’s death.

THE FACTS

Following the National Archives’ release last month of an additional 12,879 documents related to Kennedy’s death, interest in longstanding myths about the president’s 1963 shooting has resurged on social media. Among these myths is what some scholars have called a “meta-conspiracy theory” — the belief that the CIA, as part of an unproven coverup, coined the term “conspiracy theory” to discredit people who accused the CIA of orchestrating Kennedy’s killing.

Interestingly enough, while the article debunks the myth that the term Conspiracy Theorist (Theory) originated in response to the Kennedy Assassination, the article does, in fact, trace the origins of the term to around the time of The American Civil War, and later, The Assassination of President James A. Garfield.

It would be safe to conclude that the term originated, in fact, in opposition or response to appeals from places of authority.

Non-Conspiracy Theorist or Coincidence Theorist

 

Simply put, a non-conspiracy theorist for the course of this essay is defined as any individual who readily accepts information given to them by those in positions of authority. Some of these authorities may be:

• The Government

• The News Media

• Perceived "Experts"

• Doctors / Lawyers

The Milgram Experiment (1961)

One of the most important studies ever conducted was The Milgram Experiment (1961) which studied the impact of authority figures in ones actions.

The Milgram Experiment (Article Link)

The experiments found, unexpectedly, that a very high proportion of subjects would fully obey the instructions, with every participant going up to 300 volts, and 65% going up to the full 450 volts. Milgram first described his research in a 1963 article in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View

~ Wikipedia Page on The Milgram Experiment

Using The Milgram Experiment as our grounds for the authority bias, with the preconceived notion that the percentages of those who would follow orders from those in perceived positions of authority have only INCREASED since 1961, we can safely say that the majority of the population is likely within the Non-Conspiracy Theorist camp.

An Introduction To The Conspiratorial View of History

A. Ralph Epperson's Introduction

The following are excerpts from A. Ralph Epperson's The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History (pp. 8, Introduction)

Wars start when one nation moves into the territory of another; depressions occur when markets take unexpected downturns; inflations occur when prices are driven up by shortages; revolutions start when the people, always spontaneously, rise up to overthrow the existing government.

These are the traditional explanations of historical events. Events happen by accident. There do not seem to be any causes.

But this explanation of history leaves gnawing questions in the minds of serious students. Is it possible that government leaders and others planned these events and then orchestrated them to their desired conclusions? Is it possible that even the great catastrophes of history were part of this plan?

There is an explanation of historical events that answers these questions in the affirmative. It is called the Conspiratorial View of History and it is the alternative to the Accidental View, the view that is commonly held today. It is possible, therefore, to summarize the major events of history into two alternative schools of thought:

The Two Primary Historical Schools of Thought

Continuing from above:

The Accidental View of History: historical events occur by accident, for no apparent reason. Rulers are powerless to intervene.

The Conspiratorial View of History: historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the people. James Warburg in his book, The West In Crisis, explains the Accidental View thus: "History is written more by accident than design, often by the wholly irrational acts of madmen."

Another who has offered the Accidental View as the explanation of the major events of the world is Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor. He has written: "History is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy. ... increasingly, policy makers are overwhelmed by events and information."

But there are those who disagree with the positions of Warburg and Brzezinski. One, for instance, was Franklin D. Roosevelt who certainly saw many monumental events occur during his consecutive administrations. President Roosevelt has been quoted as saying: "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, it was planned that way."

If harmful events are planned, it follows that the people who were about to suffer through the scheduled event would act to prevent the event from occurring if they knew about it in advance. The people expect government to protect them from harmful events.

But if the events still occur after the government officials had been expected to prevent them, the government officials have failed in their assigned duties. There are only two explanations as to why they failed:

1. The events overwhelmed them, and could not have been prevented; or

2. The events were allowed to occur because the officials wanted them to occur.

It is difficult for the casual observer to believe that these incredible events could not have been prevented, as humane people of conscience do not allow harmful events to occur.

If a planned and unwanted event is allowed to happen, those who planned the event would have to have acted in secret so as to prevent discovery of their plans by those who would be adversely affected.

Planners working in secret to plan an event that the people do not wish to occur are, by definition, members of a conspiracy. Webster's defines conspiracy as a "combination of people, working in secret, for an evil or unlawful purpose."

Not only must the Conspirators work in secret, they must make every effort to insure that their plans are not made public. The first task of a conspiracy, then, becomes that of convincing the people that the conspiracy itself does not exist.

This makes the task of uncovering the machinations of the conspiracy all the more difficult.

The Three Ways of Exposing a Conspiracy

Continuing from above:

The first is for any of the participants in the conspiracy to break with it and to expose his or her involvement. This takes an extremely courageous individual, and that type of exposure is indeed rare.

The second group of exposers are those who have unknowingly participated in a conspiratorial planning of an event but who didn't realize it until later. These individuals, and there aren't many in the history of the world, have also exposed the inner workings of the conspiracy at great peril to themselves.

The third method of exposing a conspiracy is for researchers to uncover conspiratorial designs in the events of the past. Your author is one of these researchers.

Epperson's Beliefs in a Conspiracy

Epperson goes on to outline his position, and the position of the book as a whole:

It will be the position of this book that a conspiracy does indeed exist, and that it is extremely large, deeply entrenched, and therefore extremely powerful. It is working to achieve absolute and brutal rule over the entire human race by using wars, depressions, inflations and revolutions to further its aims. The Conspiracy's one unchanging purpose has been to destroy all religion, all existing governments, and all traditional human institutions, and to build a new world order (this phrase will be defined later) upon the wreckage they have created.

Notice that if the Conspiracy does exist, it will do everything it can to deny the charges of both those who seek to expose it and those who claim to have been a part of it. T

here are those, perhaps not knowing the importance of their contributions to the study of the conspiracy, who have added estimates of the size of mis ruling group.
One was Walter Rathenau, who in 1909 controlled German General Electric. He said: "Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves."

Another informed observer, Joseph Kennedy, the father of the late president John Kennedy, identified the number of individuals who run America. He said: "Fifty men have run America and that's a high figure."

Dr. Carroll Quigley's Perspective

Dr. Carroll Quigley, a professor of History at Georgetown University's Foreign Service School, and who formerly taught at Princeton and Harvard, has written a thirteen hundred page book entitled Tragedy and Hope. This book, published in 1966, was, according to the author, the result of twenty years of research into the Conspiracy.

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any group, and frequently does so.

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960's, to examine its papers and secret records.

But Quigley took a step none of the exposers have publicly taken. He admits that he is a supporter of the Conspiracy he has written about:

I have no aversion to it or most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and many of its instruments.

I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies... but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

The Motives Behind the Conspiracy

Epperson goes on to explain the reasons behind the conspiracy:

The ultimate purpose of this Conspiracy is power. There are some who desire this more than even material goods, although the two frequently go together. One such individual was the previously mentioned Joseph Kennedy. Family admirer and author Pearl Buck wrote the following in her book, The Kennedy Women: "Rose Kennedy (the wife of Joseph Kennedy) knew that the man she loved loved a power beyond the power of money. He wanted the power of government, and he would have it."

The Conspiracy that Dr. Quigley and others saw, then, needs conspirators, and it is logical to ask why illustrious men of wealth and fortune would join such an enterprise. One who answered this question was author Blair Coan who wrote in his book, The Red Web: "The answer is quite the reverse of the question: These men (involved with the Conspiracy) became illustrious primarily because they were part of the Conspiracy."

So those involved do not become rich and/or illustrious and then join the Conspiracy; they become rich and illustrious because they are members of the Conspiracy.

But what is their motive? What prompts men to seek wealth and position? Former Congressman John Schmitz explains that there is an additional goal: Power! Men join the Conspiracy to gain money and then power. Schmitz wrote: "When a person has all the money he needs, his goal becomes power."

Benjamin Franklin explained this connection between money and power when he said: "There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men. These are... love of power and love of money.... When united... they have the most violent effects."

However, power itself has a corrupting influence on those who seek it. In an oft-quoted truth, Lord Acton explained power thus: "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Epperson continues:

Those who seek power will be corrupted by it. They will be willing to intentionally cause depressions, revolutions, and wars in order to further their desire for more power. This corrupting nature of the very pursuit of power explains why the moral mind of the individual who neither desires power over others nor understands the desire for such power cannot fathom why power-seekers would want to create human misery through wars, depressions, and revolutions.

In other words, the conspirators are successful because the moral citizen cannot accept the conclusion that other individuals would actually wish to create incredibly destructive acts against their fellow citizens.

Another power seeker, the Russian anarchist Bakunin, explained that this process of corruption even affected those dedicated to freedom who were given power to protect the powerless. He wrote that "... the possession of power transformed into a tyrant even the most devoted friend of liberty."

The delight in the possession of power over others was explained by another observer of the power-seeking Joseph Kennedy: "I like Joe Kennedy. He understands power. Power is the end. What other delight is there but to enjoy the sheer sense of control? He would say: 'Let me see any other motive in the people who command.' "

So the motive of the Conspirators has been identified: It is Power!

Breakdown & Analysis of Historical Models

Using the perspectives of A. Ralph Epperson & Dr. Carroll Quigley, we're left with our two perspectives to which this whole issue falls:

1. The Accidental View of History

2. The Conspiratorial View of History

In The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History by A. Ralph Epperson, the author explores two distinct perspectives on how historical events unfold: the Accidental View of History and the Conspiratorial View of History. These perspectives offer contrasting interpretations of the forces that shape our world, providing a framework for understanding how people might view the same events differently.

1. The Accidental View of History

The Accidental View of History suggests that events happen largely by chance or as the result of a series of unrelated actions and decisions. Proponents of this view believe that history is the outcome of random occurrences, mistakes, human error, and the natural progression of societal and political dynamics.

Key Characteristics:

• Randomness: History is seen as a series of unplanned events. Wars, revolutions, and major societal changes are often viewed as the result of random occurrences or the unpredictable actions of individuals.

• Human Error and Misjudgment: Mistakes made by leaders, governments, and individuals are central to this perspective. History is full of miscalculations, unforeseen consequences, and unintended outcomes.

• Evolutionary Process: Society is seen as evolving naturally over time, influenced by cultural, economic, and technological factors that are largely beyond human control.

• Innocent Intentions: When powerful individuals or groups are involved, their actions are generally seen as well-intentioned, even if they result in negative consequences.

Implications:

• Trust in Institutions: Those who adhere to the Accidental View are more likely to trust that governments and institutions are doing their best to manage the complexities of the world, even if they sometimes fail.

• Downplay of Conspiracy: This view tends to downplay the idea that hidden agendas or secret plots are responsible for major events in history. Instead, it attributes outcomes to more mundane factors like incompetence, chance, or unforeseen circumstances.

2. The Conspiratorial View of History

In contrast, the Conspiratorial View of History posits that events are the result of deliberate actions by powerful individuals or groups who manipulate circumstances to achieve their goals. According to this view, history is not a series of accidents, but rather a carefully orchestrated narrative driven by hidden agendas.

Key Characteristics:

• Deliberate Manipulation: Historical events are seen as the product of intentional efforts by a small, often secretive group of individuals who seek to control or influence global events.

• Hidden Agendas: There is a belief that behind the scenes, powerful entities—whether they are governments, secret societies, or influential elites—are pulling the strings to shape history according to their own interests.

• Suspicion of Official Narratives: This perspective is characterized by skepticism towards official explanations of events. Conspiratorial thinkers often believe that the truth is being concealed from the public.

• Pattern Recognition: Adherents of the Conspiratorial View often see patterns in events that others might dismiss as coincidences. They connect the dots between seemingly unrelated occurrences to reveal a hidden plan or conspiracy.

Implications:

• Distrust of Authority: People who subscribe to this view are likely to be more suspicious of governments, media, and other institutions. They may believe that these entities are complicit in hiding the truth.

• Focus on Elites: The Conspiratorial View often focuses on the role of elites—whether financial, political, or intellectual—in steering historical events to serve their own purposes, often at the expense of the general population.

• Alternative Explanations: This perspective encourages the exploration of alternative explanations for historical events, often leading to the questioning of widely accepted narratives.

Comparison and Analysis

• Agency vs. Chance: The key difference between these views lies in the role of human agency. The Accidental View emphasizes randomness and unintended consequences, while the Conspiratorial View stresses deliberate actions by those in power.

• Perception of Events: Someone who holds the Accidental View might see a war as the result of diplomatic failures and misunderstandings, while a Conspiratorial thinker might view the same war as the result of a premeditated plan by a cabal of elites seeking to achieve specific goals.

• Influence on Worldview: These perspectives shape how individuals interpret current events and history. The Accidental View fosters a more trusting, perhaps optimistic outlook, while the Conspiratorial View can lead to suspicion and a belief that nothing is as it seems.

Conclusion

Epperson’s distinction between these two views provides insight into the varying ways people understand history and the forces that shape it. Whether one believes in the Accidental or Conspiratorial View can profoundly influence their interpretation of past events and their perspective on current affairs. Understanding these views helps explain why debates about historical interpretation can be so contentious, as they often reflect deeper beliefs about the nature of power, control, and human agency.