There is here a strong, though implicit, claim that "common historical or current understanding[s] of events" should be taken as valid and that "manipulations by two or more individuals," unless of course incorporated into that "common understanding," have no weight as explanatory factors for historical events. I think this claim is completely unaccceptable, precisely because that "common"(=Official) understanding excludes the real activities and purposes of crucial human actors in those events. As an example take the well-established role of Philippe d'Orl´eans in the Taking of the Bastille. The Collier's Encyclopedia article on the French Revolution (Encyclopedias are the best expression of that famous "common understanding"), in its section on this epochal event, doesn't even mention Philippe-- though earlier it did refer to "agitators at the Palais Royale," again without a whisper that the Palais Royale was Philippe's political HQ as well as his Paris residence. Or consider the assassination of Caesar--the "common understanding," owing as much to Shakespeare as to Plutarch, gives total exoneration to Marcus Antonius even though he had much more to gain by Caesar's death than any of the known conspirators and the conspiracy would scarcely have had any chance of success without his at-least-passive cooperation (like "9/11" and Bush jr.)
I would submit that, in general, any understanding of historical events is crucially flawed if it does *not* include the conspiratorial element--defined as the existence of secret plans, understandings, or agreements among some key participants in those events. What would the common understanding of the causes of World War I look like if Trotsky had not published the Tsar's secret treaties?
Shane Mage
"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." (Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, Bk. I Ch. 10
p. 128 of the Modern Library edition.)
>Conspiracism
>
>According to Mintz, "conspiracism" denotes "belief in the primacy of
>conspiracies in the unfolding of history" (1985: 4).
>
>"Conspiracism serves the needs of diverse political and social
>groups in America and elsewhere. It identifies elites, blames them
>for economic and social catastrophes, and assumes that things will
>be better once popular action can remove them from positions of
>power. As such, conspiracy theories do not typify a particular epoch
>or ideology" (1985: 199).
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracism
To assert the "primacy" of conspiracies in the historical process would be as false as it would be to assert that the conspiratorial element is frequently absent from the concrete unfolding of the historical process.
Shane