HOW TO DO CONSPIRACY - HISTORY
Posted by anthonynorth on June 4, 2008
To what extent can we know the world? We exist in the world, we sense the world, but is what we experience how the world really should be? Or is it more likely that ‘reality’ is fine tuned by a wider force?
The world we experience is the result of its past. We know this as history, and we take for granted that historians have a reasonably accurate account of that past. But if a wider force IS at work, maybe we should treat the subject with suspicion.
We are certainly suspicious of the contemporary world.
This is evident by the proliferation of conspiracy theories. Everything, it seems, is NOT how others say it is. A mentality is arising that nothing can be trusted.
Think JFK. Think Diana, Princess of Wales. These are just two iconic figures who met violent death. But it is just too unimaginable for most to accept that one was murdered by an inadequate loner, and the other a statistic from a drunk driver.
How did the more fantastic conspiracy theories arise?
Well, fundamental to the process were irregularities in the official view of what happened. This is inevitable, for official versions have to be built slowly out of the chaos of events.
The result of this is that conspiracy theorists fill the gaps quicker than the authorities. And the inevitable urge arises in those authorities to counter the theories to make the event even more mundane than it may have been.
The result of this process is that neither version is correct.
Hence, if the initial appreciation is wrong, how can we possibly be dealing with a ‘reality’ concerning what actually happened?
Such an inability to correctly record a definite ‘reality’ has led me to conclude that an event is more than the ‘event’ itself. Rather, ‘reality’ is an event, plus the appreciation of the event after it has occurred.
Now, this is obviously not a real ‘reality’.
Rather, ‘reality’ is relative to a consensus that later grows. The sociologist, Baudrillard, understood this with his idea of ‘infotainment’. Stated simply, media is such, today, that fact and fiction merge into a ‘reality’ that is not a true reflection of what ‘is’.
If this is so with the contemporary, so, too, with history. Nothing ever has been correctly documented, as always there is the parallel views of the mundane and fantastic battling it out for supremacy, and manipulating the ‘facts’ along the way.
This is further compounded by the on-going processes of historical writing. Whenever a historian writes about an event of the past, it is inevitable he will weigh it against the consensus of his day.
Thus, history is not only wrongly recorded at the beginning, but is constantly twisted by contemporary manipulations time and time again, as history moves on. Thus, nothing can ever be what it seems. And the wider force I speak of becomes the very recording of history itself.
For a long time, this didn’t really matter, as only high intellectuals were interested in knowledge. Now, in a mass information world, we all seem to want to know more. So maybe it is time to understand this process of history before conspiracy theorists begin writing history themselves.
© Anthony North, June 2008
June 4, 2008 at 11:20 am
You forgot 9/11 Tony.
“History is written by the winners” is a cliche, but it is true as well. Individual perspectives resemble the actual event, but not in a mathematical way such as fractals. Even quantum math doesn’t address the way each person views and remembers events. The history of us as individuals is self-centered and changes our reality. When reality, whatever that may be is affected, it’s because too many viewpoints distort the actual time line of events.
The ‘event’ is separate from the ‘individuals’ who were there.
June 4, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Interesting views, AN. I find the conspiracy craze both troubling and fascinating at the same time.
Your comment:
Whenever a historian writes about an event of the past, it is inevitable he will weigh it against the consensus of his day
reminded me about a book I heard about last week, by Pat Buchanan
Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (May 27, 200
ISBN 0-307-40515-X
I haven’t read the book but he apparently puts forward
“In this monumental and provocative history, Patrick Buchanan makes the case that, if not for the blunders of British statesmen—Winston Churchill first among them—the horrors of two world wars and the Holocaust might have been avoided and the British Empire might never have collapsed into ruins. Half a century of murderous oppression of scores of millions under the iron boot of Communist tyranny might never have happened, and Europe’s central role in world affairs might have been sustained for many generations”.
An example of what you were saying, AN ?
And what cheek!!!! I had been warming to Pat Buchanan as he has been fair to Hillary Clinton while other pubndits tried to discredit her - but I can’t now continue to give him any credit, having read reviews of this book!
June 4, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Hi Brian,
Yep, I can’t disagree with any of that. Infact, one of my many mantras says:
Reality, like time, is relative to the observer.
Hi Twilight,
That’s exactly the kind of thing I mean. And he said that about my hero?
Twit!
(What do you mean I’m just putting my own ‘reality’ on it?)
June 5, 2008 at 12:45 am
Lot’s of food for thought there, Mr. North. We tend to see the world as we are, not as it really is; couple this with society’s disregard and ignorance of history, and the ‘conspiracy theory’ door opens wide, allowing the passage of any number of speculations. From the Templars to 9/11, the ‘infotainment’ industry (and that’s what it is, an industry) has become the source of what we in the West have accept as knowledge. Everything has become a fad, a fleeting interest by a culture who needs to be constantly entertained. A very interesting article, Mr. North!
June 5, 2008 at 6:59 am
Hi John,
Thanks for that. Yes, it’s quite scary when you actually look at reality, and try to work out what’s real or not.
It doesn’t seem to be possible - a kind of cultural ‘uncertainty principle’.
June 5, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Very good point. This shows up in all areas. Theology, medicine, history, etc. and people will fight over which is correct never realizing that non are fully correct.
I really need to have a few people read your post lol.
Well done!
June 5, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Hi Johnny,
Thanks for that. I agree, this kind of thing happens in all disciplines and areas. It’s a serious cultural disease.
June 6, 2008 at 1:03 am
I like the propagandist operations of the officials in office.
They do not wait to rewrite history but spin it as it is happening.
That saves a step, so anyone wanting history without the propaganda automatically receives an Easter Egg Hunt.
June 6, 2008 at 7:27 am
Hi Batguano101,
I like the way you put it at the end, there.
August 6, 2008 at 11:53 am
It is bad enough that we have spin doctors rewriting history, but it is even worse when available history is ignored, and false ideas put about even though the evidence is available. Usually, the rewritten history has been from the past and little knowedge was available, but I know of history that is acknowledged in our area - just - but for decades has been ignored when teaching history in schools relating to the area in which we live.
I am referring to the history of County Durham, the Palatine, its satellite areas, and Bishop of Durham being known as a Prince Bishop. At the time of the Magna Carta signing, there was actually no Bishop of Durham in place as King John and the Pope were arguing about who should have the role. As the Bishop of Durham ruled his area “jura regalia”, that is as an equal to the monarch, no-one knew more about how to rule than both the King and the Bishop. Is it surprising then that the Barons did their best to control the King when there was no Bishop of Durham in place? Even when a Bishop was installed there was no representative from Co Durham in Parliament until the time of the reformation, under Henry VIII. This was the time when the Bishop of Durham of the time agreed to sign writs in the monarch’s name instead of his own.
There were also satellite areas in Northumberland, and one near York, which were under Co Durham control, and geographically were classed as part of that county. In the early 19th century the satellites were place geographically under their respective counties of Northumberland and Yorkshire, and more of the legal control of the Bishop was transferred to the monarch. But, right up until 1974 there were some aspects of legal control still in the hands of County Durham, and there are people who were born in the satellite areas whose birth certificates were issued under the auspices of the County Durham Palatine.
Whenever I ask people who live in the north east how much they know about these facts, many of them are totally ignorant even though they may have been born and bred here. What makes it worse is I have found an old text book, of the history of Northumberland, (the county, including Newcastle upon Tyne), and very little mention is made of the impact of the Bishop of Durham, and nothing is mentioned at all of the satellite areas. As this text book was used throughout most of the early 20th century it is not surprising that few people are aware of the historical significance of the Bishop of Durham.
I can name many other instances where history has either been suppressed or distorted so that people are unaware of the history of their area, or the implications as to what actually happened, and this covers not just my local area but a wider context, possibly even global.
But then, history is not treated as fact any more, but pure propaganda, and sometimes not even that but downright lies! How can anyone understand where they have come from if people keep changing the facts for their own ends?
August 6, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Hi Carol,
I’ve just quickly googled this and come up with this Wiki piece:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Durham
I’ve only scanned it quickly but it might be interesting to compare the two.
The Bishop of Durham is actually a perfect vehicle for showing how coincidence can so easily lead to conspiracy theory.
I remember David Jenkins, who denied the Virgin Birth, being made Bishop of Durham in York Minster - 1984 if my memory serves me right.
Soon afterwards, a bolt of lightning struck the Minster, causing a devastating fire. Jokes abounded concerning God’s anger.
August 6, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Thanks for the item Anthony. However, I have already done much research myself as I was born in South Shields (old County Durham borough town), and now live in Bedlington (one of the old satellite areas of Co Durham).
Even wikipedia doesn’t get all the facts right. Co Durham, came about from the time before the Norman Conquest when the land was owned by the Community of St Cuthbert - this was the community of monks which St Cuthbert was in charge of before he died. St Cuthbert had been given the land by one of the kings of Northumbria, and with this the “jura regalia” rules were passed down to his successors.
I would add that when the community retained the body of St Cuthbert in the area they ensured the right to holding the land. Other saints, namely Patrick, Wilfred, were moved to other orders situated in the south and through this lost the right to the land which their bodies gave them. This is why the only one of the three palatines to be made by William the Conqueror has a bishop for its leader. Chester was the other main one, also an old important settlement, and Lancaster which William the Conqueror created.
You are right about the Bishop of Durham, David Jenkins, denying the Virgin Birth, but he is not the only one. St Cuthbert was originally a Celtic Christian and Northumbria was for many centuries a follower of the Celtic Christian form of belief. It is too complicated to discuss here, and certainly more than just the date of Easter or the wearing of the tonsure as so many people try to portray it, although these were two of the issues discussed at the Synod of Whitby.
Also, were you aware that the year of this Synod, 664, there was a massive plague throughout the British Isles? Everyone who was anyone was at this synod from all over the British Isles, and it is said (I don’t know how accurate this is) that the Archbishop of Canterbury had the plague when he came to the synod which was why he couldn’t take charge of the debate and left it to Wilfred. If there was plague that year, and there were people who were carriers at that Synod, then it is possible they passed it on to others and the plague was sent back to the people’s own areas and therefore devestation occurred. This is but one small but possibly significant historical fact that keeps being omitted.
I would also add that whilst the Catholic Church always likes to state publicly that St Cuthbert took on the Roman ways and taught it to others under him, there is not a lot of proof. During the Norman period, one of the Bishops which was appointed, who was a Norman bishop from a southern England ecclesiastical house, was despised by the community of St Cuthbert because the ways being introduced were not the ways the community was used to. Clearly, the idea as to how christianity should be worshipped changed over the intevening centuries, but the community which had been taught by St Cuthbert lived their lives differently. Did Cuthbert really change as much as we have been led to believe? Somehow I don’t think so.
It is important to look in depth at how the celtic christian community functioned and the roman catholic one. There were many many differences. The celtic christians believed in equality of the sexes in religious matters but the romans only wanted men to rule. The position of the bishop within the hierarchy was different too: in celtic circles the Bishop was BELOW the Prior/Prioress of a Religious House, but in roman circles it was ABOVE. This is why so many celtic priors were demoted. You see, many of the priors/prioresses were already ordained bishops under the celtic rule! St Hilda was one such person!
There is much more to celtic christian way of life and if you read up on Peter Berrisford Ellis you will learn a great deal. What was the norm for Ireland at that time was also the norm for the north of England and southern Scotland. It was southern England that was different.
August 6, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Hi Carol,
I often class this period as the first real struggle of local authority verses a universal one. There are many echoes, here, with the for and against stances on the European Union - only now its Brussels where the ‘universal authority’ resides instead of Rome.