Hearing the term «conspiracy theory» many begin to smile condescendingly. Others react differently – they become agitated, use «conspiratorial terms» and thus sometimes amuse those around them. There’s an interesting fact: although conspiracy theories are often considered the delirium of paranoids, the topic itself never fades from the agenda.
One way or another, the discussion of such theories, even in the form of mockery, has been ongoing for many years. At one point, Douglas Rushkoff – one of the most famous media analysts – cited the main reason for Ross Perot’s defeat in the 1992 presidential race as his belief in a conspiracy by part of the U.S. elite who found it disadvantageous for someone who belonged neither to the Democratic nor Republican parties to come to power. Having brilliantly started his campaign, Perot suddenly «went underground» at the height of the battle, curtailing his activities, citing fear of his competitors’ machinations. Meanwhile, it’s impossible to call billionaire and seasoned politician Perot a paranoid outsider. When he resumed his campaign, it was too late, and Perot failed to make up for lost time. This event became a subject of intensive discussion in American media, often with a sympathetic tone: this is what happens to those who believe in conspiracies. But did Perot truly believe in a conspiracy?
Or, perhaps, did he use it as an excuse, since winning was not his goal? Some said that by participating in the race, he simply wanted to advertise his business. It was claimed that his real goal was to take votes away from Bush so that Clinton would become president, while others saw it as a folly of a satiated rich man. However, in this case, what’s important is that the «conspiracy theory factor» can be used, even as noise cover or an excuse. It seems that if the principles on which conspiracism is built are so absurd that they provoke mocking smiles, why are conspiracy theories so frequently discussed? Why is significant effort spent on ridiculing and caricaturizing such ideas, pushing them to complete and obvious absurdity? When something is either not discussed at all, or, conversely, is too intensively mocked, it’s worth paying close attention to what’s happening.
To silence a topic, one must have, first, significant power, and second, a serious motive. And the same is required to launch a large-scale, long-term discussion. The attitude towards conspiracy theories is very telling. When you start analyzing this phenomenon, you immediately encounter typical signs of manipulation of consciousness. Conspiracy theory, you say? Ha-ha-ha. And to the question of what made you laugh, sometimes there’s not even a condescending answer. Just think, such nonsense. That is, the dialogue does not develop, the approach to the problem is so firmly rooted in the mind that it does not even require evidence. However, if you do manage to get an opponent to talk, often no real arguments are provided, but a mocking response is given, such as: «Ah, you’re also going to say that reptilians organized everything».
This happens if the acceptance of an idea occurred without its critical understanding and comprehension of its essence. And this is the core of manipulative techniques. Look, if a conspiracy theory is so absurd, then why was manipulation needed to combat it? Tell everything as it is, show why such a theory is incorrect and absurd, and forget about it. But no. Instead of explanations – manipulation, ridicule, and caricature, meaning, in essence, there is no refutation. The lack of clarity on the issue allows manipulators to label a whole spectrum of diverse phenomena.
So, let’s first understand what we’re talking about. According to the theory of conspiracy, the subjects of social processes are a relatively narrow group of influential people who have set a specific goal for themselves and achieve it. Tell me, what is absurd and so funny in this interpretation that it almost completely blocks any discussions on the validity of the conspiracy theory? The existence of lobbying activities by certain influential organizations surprises no one.
The term «lobbyism» does not provoke skeptical giggles, yet this term clearly corresponds to the essence of the conspiracy theory. No one doubts the fundamental possibility of the existence of financial-industrial or, for example, criminal groups that bring politicians to power who are then obliged to serve their interests. And how many such influential people are there? Of course, not many, precisely because we are talking about individuals who have the ability to promote laws and decisions beneficial to them. Thus, we have another element of the conspiracy theory – the presence of a narrow group of influential people.
Moving on. Is it so incredible to assert that a significant part of the economies of various countries is controlled by a few clans? Is the assumption that their representatives are capable of coordinating their activities among themselves, making agreements, conducting a coordinated policy, really that wild? What’s absurd about this assumption? Renowned Western journalist Richard Conniff spent a long time studying the lifestyle of the world’s richest families. He outlined his observations in the book «The Natural History of the Rich». Conniff does not write about the conspiracy theory, but here’s an interesting thing: from his book, it’s clear that representatives of the global business elite know each other well. They dress with the same couturiers, buy the same exclusive cars from the same dealers. For entertainment, they visit the same private clubs, vacation at the same resorts.
The global elite consists of representatives of different peoples, yet they share a common system of values. Is it necessary to explain that where there’s economy, there’s politics? Is it necessary to say that the heads of the largest media empires are part of the elite? That is, political, economic, and information issues are decided by a narrow group of influential people whose interests are closely intertwined. Putting the pieces of the puzzle together, we get the «conspiracy theory» in its purest form:
- There are groups of influential people in different countries.
- These individuals have the ability to conduct successful lobbying activities, promoting decisions beneficial to them.
- Influential people are capable of making agreements among themselves, thus conducting a coordinated policy.
Each point is far from comical, and, putting them together, we get a «conspiracy theory». Now, let’s think, is it in the interest of the global elite to publicize their activities? They lead quite a closed lifestyle. Conniff provides a telling example: Kenneth Thomson, at one time one of the richest and most influential people in the world, was only known by face to a few in his hometown. For quite natural reasons, it’s not in the ruling elite’s interest to publicize their activities. There’s no need for them to publicly take responsibility. Presidents are elected every few years, governments change even more frequently, but financial-industrial clans and their interests exist much longer. And the continuity of policy often persists for decades, even though many heads of state have changed during this time.
This says something. But simply silencing information about oneself is not an efficient way to remain the grey cardinals. It’s much more reliable to ensure that the activity of the ruling elite, the true, not the public one, does not become the subject of serious discussion. And for this, there is nothing better than to caricature and ridicule any attempts to see in historical events not a blind combination of coincidences, not the action of objective laws that are independent of man, but the will of individual influential people and narrow elite groups. Isn’t that why the conspiracy theory is presented in a ridiculous form? Images of fabricated «conspirators» wearing masks and gathering in gloomy dungeons, indeed evoke distrust. Now, imagine another picture. In a private club, respectable people gather to discuss their affairs. Since business, politics, and PR are closely related, in this club, you can meet businessmen, politicians, and media executives. Absurd? Not at all. The principle of «follow the money» known since ancient times, has not lost its relevance.
If something important happens in the world, one should first think about who benefits from it, not attributing processes to some historical laws with which one can «explain» almost anything. Concluding the introduction, I would like to say the following. In physics, the scientific method of the «black box» is successfully applied, but a similar method, when used to analyze historical events, is often declared as conspiracism and ridiculed. The «black box» is a term denoting a system whose mechanism is unknown. Nonetheless, if it’s currently impossible to directly measure its characteristics, this does not mean that such a system is not studied. It is studied precisely by applying the «black box» method.
The essence of it is as follows: observe the signal at the entrance to the «black box» then something happens inside the «black box» itself, and then track what comes out of it. That is, the visible part is what happens at the entrance and exit, and based on this data, a hypothesis is made about what happened inside the «black box». Something similar is applied in other areas of life. For example, a poor student writes a test and ends up getting an A. Directly, it was not seen how he managed to perform the tasks flawlessly.
However, this does not prevent making the assumption that someone helped the poor student, since it is known that he does not have the preparation sufficient to solve the problems excellently. Such reasoning would hardly be called conspiracism or foolish speculation, and rightly so. If he didn’t manage on his own, then it’s possible to speculate who exactly helped him. A familiar picture, isn’t it? But an attempt to introduce the unknown into the analysis of historical events is often immediately dismissed and declared an unscientific approach. «Show the specific document!», «No document?», «Then, you are just fantasizing and there’s nothing to talk about here» – a familiar reaction? The exact science of physics not only does not shy away from the «black box» method but also applies it, so why not use a similar approach in historical science and political science?
Throughout history, the elite have faced the question of how to justify their right to power. Why does this particular person rule and not another? Under monarchy, the answer was obvious: the king inherited his power. You inherit a house from your parents, and he inherits a state. In the modern world, another answer is widespread: «We rule because you chose us». In other words, the principle of democracy is declared on the socio-political scene. Everyone, having reached a certain age, has the right to vote and be elected. Of course, democracy was proclaimed the most progressive, the best system that ever existed. However, the idea of true popular sovereignty, despite its outward attractiveness, does not withstand any criticism. Consider this. According to the principle of democracy, it is believed that everyone who has reached adulthood can vote and thus indirectly govern the country. But would everyone be allowed to perform surgeries?
Of course not. Would a person be allowed to drive a car simply because they have reached adulthood? Again, no. You need to pass a driving test first. So, is managing an entire country simpler than driving a car? Obviously, making the right decisions in politics, economy, defense, and other key areas requires special knowledge. A little reflection on this topic immediately reveals a terrible thing: the very principle of democracy grants the right to engage in the most complex matter to millions who lack the appropriate training. Imagine engineers performing surgeries in hospitals, entomologists designing bridges, and truck drivers at the helm of airplanes? Would you say that’s nonsense and unacceptable? Of course, it is unacceptable, because it’s clear that disaster would ensue.
Soldiers do not choose their commander, the head of a company is not appointed by a general vote of the employees. Imagine deciding when to sow wheat by referendum. And the city dwellers, by a majority vote, decide for the farmer how to manage his farm. And if he does not comply with their decision, the farmer is imprisoned. Incredible? Ridiculous? Indeed, this is true democracy in action, which in practice turns into anarchy, which has happened repeatedly in history and led to very lamentable results. How then to explain that in democratic countries, for example, in the West, there was no collapse of everything? It is reasonable to assume: key decisions there are not made by those who officially hold government positions, having won elections.
That is, instead of real democracy, its imitation is in place. Yes, there are different parties, their representatives conduct election campaigns, argue with each other, the media widely cover their activities, and so on. But all this is only tangentially related to real power. Moreover, neocolonialism has not been abolished, where formally independent states are actually controlled by foreign elites. Formal rulers change there as a result of elections or, say, coups, but the management, on the whole, occurs in the interests of other, much stronger states. A fact, in general, obvious and yet officially not recognized by the authorities of countries in neocolonial dependence. Perhaps the reader already demands a transition from reasoning based on general logic to practical examples of non-publicized politics. Indeed, abstractions should be supported by specifics, and now I will try to do that.
On February 7, 1992, the Maastricht Treaty was signed by the countries of the European Communities, becoming an important milestone in the process of creating the European Union. Let’s ask an «extra» question at first glance: which countries were the initiators of this union? It seems everything is clear here. The stages of EU formation are known, and which states were among those signing the corresponding agreements is also known.
It is believed that the first step was the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, signed in 1951 by West Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Belgium. These same states founded the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community in 1957. Subsequent treaties followed, and this chain eventually led to the agreements in Maastricht. Among the initiating states, West Germany was the most economically powerful, and it is widely believed that Germany played the main role in the creation of the European Union in terms of stimulating integration processes.
Accordingly, Germany reaped the main benefits from the creation of the European Union. Sounds logical. Indeed, if Germany sought to establish some organization, it should have acted primarily in its interests. However, in my opinion, there are reasons to disagree with such an interpretation. I believe that Germany is not the creator of the European Union, and I will try to prove my assumption by the method of contradiction. According to this approach, the opposite version is considered true. That is, Germany is the creator of the European Union. But if, in the process of proving this version, we encounter a contradiction, we will have to discard it. And what remains? That it was not Germany, not the German elite, that created the European Union.
So, let’s begin. Already in 1912, Kaiser Wilhelm II, in a conversation with industrialist Walter Rathenau, outlined the idea of the continent’s economic union, which could be briefly characterized as «The United States of Europe against America» . In turn, Rathenau had a conversation with Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann-Hollweg the same year, where the same issues were raised. Rathenau’s speech mentioned a customs union with Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc., with closer association with them. Agree, it’s very similar to the contours of the later formed European Union, since the EU is, in essence, also a customs union.
This is related to the concept of «Mitteleuropa» envisaging the creation of a community, the core of which should be the German-Austro-Hungarian customs union, to which a whole range of states would join. Bethmann-Hollweg voiced this idea, and he also tasked State Secretary for Internal Affairs Clemens von Delbrück with developing the corresponding project.
Delbrück reasoned about the «freedom of activity» over a vast area: from the Pyrenees to Memel (now Klaipėda), from the Black and to the North, from the Mediterranean and to the Baltic Seas. According to his thought, «freedom of activity» (referring to the economy) was to replace the protectionist policy pursued by Germany in relations with other states. A whole range of representatives of the establishment of the German Empire advocated similar ideas. While differing in details, they nevertheless adhered to the same key thought—to establish a union in Western Europe, primarily in the interests of Germany. For Berlin, the realization of the «Mitteleuropa» concept became one of the keys in World War I.
But one thing is cabinet constructions, another—reality. The war did not go according to the German scenario. The plan of the command of the German Empire was based on the ideas of Schlieffen. As head of the German General Staff, he developed a strategy for a two-front war. It was planned to concentrate the maximum number of troops against France and first defeat it with a rapid strike, and then, turning around, unleash the full force on Russia. It was assumed that our army would not be able to take advantage of the fact that the Germans left a relatively insignificant screen in the East. But if Schlieffen’s plan worked, millions of German soldiers would move on Russia.
This could not be allowed, and the Russian command tried to thwart the German blitzkrieg. In that situation, the count was literally on days. We needed to act as quickly as possible, could not wait for full mobilization, pull up significant reserves, strengthen the rear, and… face the entire German army alone. Prominent German military leader Max Hoffmann later recalled that the appearance of two Russian armies was expected by the Germans between August 15 and 20, 1914. However, even before August 14, they received information that large Russian forces were advancing south and north of the Rominten Forest (the Kaiser’s hunting residence) .
By launching an offensive in Prussia, Russia was not acting for France’s sake but fought for its interests and solved its main task. German General Rüdiger von der Goltz directly wrote that «it was precisely the cries at the invasion of the Russians into East Prussia that forced our High Command to immediately send army corps there, which contributed to the loss of the entire war» .
The blitzkrieg was thwarted. The Germans failed to press the French army, getting stuck in trench warfare, and thus could not move to the second stage of the plan, that is, to deliver the most energetic blow to Russia. As a result, throughout the war, the main forces of Germany were on the Western Front. Realizing the failure of the planned plan, Chief of the General Staff Erich Falkenhayn understood that Germany now faced the grim prospect of a protracted war on two fronts and spoke in favor of the idea of a separate peace with Russia. The possibility of peace with Britain was also considered. But influential industrial circles objected. Their representatives insisted on the implementation of Germany’s original designs.
It should be said that the annexationist goals that Berlin set during World War I were closely related to the economic sphere. For example, Bethmann-Hollweg planned to sharply increase the role of German exports in France, undermining the positions of English trade there, and including the French ore basin of Longwy-Briey in Germany would hit the French ferrous metallurgy. As for Belgium and Romania, they were prepared for the status of Germany’s actual colonies. Regarding the future of that part of historical Poland that was part of the Russian Empire, there was no consensus in German influential circles. Various options for its political fate were considered. For instance, Kaiser Wilhelm II believed it necessary to transfer Poland to Austria-Hungary. However, Hindenburg and Ludendorff opposed, demanding to ensure maximum German influence in Poland. Ultimately, the discussion turned to integrating Poland with both Austria-Hungary and Germany, that is, in essence, its partition.
The Kaiser also had designs on the Baltic lands that were part of the Russian state. Lithuania and Courland were planned to be annexed to Germany, and Wilhelm II considered a union as the form of such annexation. At the same time, the sphere of German interests would have expanded to Livonia and Estonia. Berlin sought to establish itself in Finland, which was reflected in the unequal trade treaty between these countries. Finland was obliged to import German goods duty-free, but Germany retained the right to levy tariffs on Finnish goods. It is also important that Finland became a kingdom, and its king was elected by the Sejm Friedrich Karl of Hesse, married to Wilhelm II’s sister.
Germany’s expansionist plans extended very far. Despite the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk signed on March 3, 1918, the Germans entered Crimea and Kharkov in April, Taganrog and Rostov-on-Don in May. The Donetsk Basin also fell into the hands of the Germans. Thus, Germany violated the treaty signed with the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk. Berlin and Vienna agreed that the Yekaterinoslav province would go to Austria-Hungary. Ludendorff wanted to turn Sevastopol into the «German Gibraltar».
He advocated the idea of creating the state of Crimea-Taurida, where Germans from the entire territory of the former Russian Empire were planned to be invited. Berlin was to provide state support to the «future colonists». The German Foreign Office believed that Crimea should be transferred to Ukraine. Finally, there was also a project to create a South Russian Federation under German control, consisting of Ukraine, Crimea, and Georgia. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk did not actually become a peace treaty. On August 27, 1918, additional agreements were concluded between Germany and Russia. Among other things, they contained the following provisions: «Recognizing the de facto existing situation in Estonia and Livonia, Russia renounces sovereignty over these regions…», also «Russia agrees that Germany recognizes Georgia as an independent state entity», and moreover, Russia was to pay six billion marks in gold, credit notes, and goods deliveries.
Even on the verge of complete military defeat, the German leadership desperately clung to dreams of Mitteleuropa and expansion to the East. Thus, the idea of creating a kind of «European Union» under Germany’s leadership was one of the key policies of Berlin during World War I. It is also clear that Germany’s intentions were in sharp conflict with the interests of many states, and they by no means agreed with the restructuring of Europe according to the patterns developed in the circles of the German establishment. So, even at the height of its economic and military-political power, Germany did not have sufficient opportunities to implement its plans. Let’s be straightforward: the great powers did not allow the creation of a «German-style European Union».
The Kaiser was overthrown, the story of the Weimar Republic began, then Hitler came to power, and what do we see? The Nazis took the same idea of Mitteleuropa as the basis of their foreign policy, not repeating it literally, but preserving the main essence, which was the subjugation of other states to Berlin’s will. The world quite rightly and justifiably resisted Germany’s second attempt to «lead Europe». And again, Germany suffered defeat, this time even more severe than in 1918.
As we see, in the first half of the 20th century, Germany grew stronger twice. Both times it tried to «convert» its increased military-political and economic power into hegemony over Europe. And both times—complete failure. Germany, fortunately, could not break the resistance of other states. And suddenly, after the war, defeated Germany turns out to be the main initiator of the creation of the European Union, and this attempt is crowned with success! In my opinion, the contradiction is obvious. How could a defeated country achieve what it could not achieve earlier, being much stronger? I believe, in no way. But the fact remains—the European Union exists. Thus, Germany did not create it.
If the presented version is true, it in itself proves the existence of a non-publicized sphere of global-scale politics, since the fact of the creation of the European Union not by Germany is not publicized. Perhaps, on the contrary, a completely different interpretation of events is widely circulated, while in the hidden sphere, at least some key decisions are made.
Now let’s apply the «black box» method. Let’s assume that the «black box» contains the decision-making process on the creation of the European Union. That is, we assume that we do not know this, we have no information on this account and no way to directly record it, say, by obtaining some documents. But we know that at the input we have Germany’s desire to create such a union, and at the output, we see the existing European Union. We also know that Germany does not have enough influence to implement its aspirations. So, in the «black box» there are decisions not made by Germany.
Based on this, let’s now try to build a hypothesis about the functioning of the «black box». If not Germany, then which state (states) could do it? It is logical to assume that not the losing side, but the winning side is the real initiator of European integration. It hardly needs to be proven that the USSR is not the creator of the European Union. Obviously, not the USSR. Then, perhaps, the USA? But America would rather benefit from a «divide and rule» policy. Why strengthen competition for oneself? The question is rhetorical.
France is one of the victors of World War II, but during the war, it was occupied, its influence on the course of historical processes clearly diminished. That leaves Britain, which was in sharp competition with the USA, and indeed, it would have benefited from the creation of a union of European countries. In 1960, the United Kingdom, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, and Portugal founded the European Free Trade Association. And in relations with the European Economic Community, London kept its distance. It joined quite late, only in 1973, retained its currency, not switching to the euro, and then declared Brexit altogether. Apparently, Britain benefited from European integration for a long time while striving to minimize its dependence on the decisions of European organizations.
Of course, I cannot exclude that the capabilities of the British state were used by a hypothetical international elite. That is, the creation of the European Union was not a decision of the British ruling elite specifically, and we are talking about influential global structures? Possibly. But now I would like to say something else. If there is a real, yet hidden power, it means there are those who possess such power. Who are they? It’s difficult to answer this question precisely because these people officially do not possess power, and if they do hold any state post, their authority is far greater than what is openly granted to them. However, I believe that there is an analytical tool that can name, at least, some people closely related to such power, and possibly even part of it. Essentially, an approach similar to what was used in the analysis of the creation of the European Union.
Studying the biographies of some people, I sometimes encountered such facts that, in my opinion, do not fit into the widely publicized, so to speak, «official» picture of what is happening. The arising contradictions can be explained if we assume that these people were close to the real ruling elite, not publicizing its influence.
PS
This text is from “Politics of the Underworld” by Dionis Kaptar. The book is on Amazon