Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From

by Daniel Pipes

Was AIDS intentionally inflicted upon blacks by whites? Was JFK assassinated as part of an intricate conspiracy? Pipes traces conspiracy theories through history to show that "Conspiracism"—genuine and virulent belief in a conspiracy—dates back to the First Crusade and reached a peak in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, with the focus shifting from the Jews, groups such as Freemasons and the Rosicrucians, and back again.
— DanielPipes.org

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Conspiracy Theories, Psychology, The United States Of America

272 pages, Paperback

First published October 11, 1997

About the author

Daniel Pipes (born September 9, 1949) is an American historian, writer, and political commentator. He is the president of the Middle East Forum, and publisher of its Middle East Quarterly journal. His writing focuses on the American foreign policy and the Middle East. He is also an Expert at Wikistrat.

After graduating with a PhD from Harvard and studying abroad, Pipes taught at a number of universities. He then served as director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, before founding the Middle East Forum. His 2003 nomination by U.S. President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the U.S. Institute of Peace was protested by Islamists, Arab-American groups, and Democratic leaders, who cited his oft-stated belief that victory is the most effective way to terminate conflict. The Bush administration sidestepped the opposition with a recess appointment.

Pipes has written a dozen books, and served as an adviser to Rudolph Giuliani's 2008 presidential campaign. He was in 2008-11 the Taube Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

(Wikipedia)

Reviews

[Kuszma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Vajon lehetséges-e logikailag konzisztens szakmai munkát írni egy olyan témakörről, ami minden, csak nem logikailag konzisztens*, ez itt a kérdés. Hát, nem tudom. Így a kötet elolvasása után sem tudom.



Mert ugye az van, hogy a konzisztencia meg a konteó tulajdonképpen egymást kizáró fogalmak. Mert mi is az összeesküvés-elmélet? Egy nagyon is emberi vágy arra, hogy a világ néhány viszonylag egyszerű húzással megmagyarázható legyen. Szokás elméletnek nevezni, de ha az is (nem az), akkor azon kevés elmélet egyike, amelyik nem feltétlenül áll kapcsolatban a tárgyával. Merthogy ugye ahogy a valóban létező összeesküvő-csoportokhoz (például a Cosa Nostrához) nem feltétlenül kapcsolódnak összeesküvés-elméletek, úgy a világban honos összeesküvés-elméletek se igénylik, hogy valós alapjuk legyen, nagyon jól megvannak nélkülük. (Ami azt illeti, jellemzően maguk az összeesküvés-gyártók teremtik meg azt az összeesküvést, aminek leküzdését célul tűzik ki. Ami, valljuk meg, igen praktikus.)

Ez a folyamat pedig csak úgy lehetséges, ha a konteó-hívő nagyvonalúan kezeli a konzisztenciát. Ennek egyik módja a különböző értelmű szavak szinonimaként kezelése. Vegyük a "nem létezik" és a "titkos" szavunkat: itt vannak ugye a Templomosok. A Templomosokat Szép Fülöp francia király 1307-ben felszámolta, nagymesterüket nyilvános grillparti keretében máglyára vetette, slussz-passz. A történész erre azt mondaná, hogy a Templomos rend "nem létezik". A hívő viszont ravaszabb, szerinte ez pusztán azt bizonyítja, hogy a Templomos rend "titokban" működik. Így válik a titkos társaságok létének bizonyítékává az, hogy nincs bizonyíték. A történész meg kaparhatja az arcát, mert ebben a hülye játékban neki tulajdonképpen negatív bizonyítékokkal kéne harcolnia a hívő ellen: arra kéne adatokat hoznia, hogy egy szervezet nem "titkos", hanem "nem létezik" - de hát ez kvázi lehetetlen, vagy jobban mondva: erre az azóta eltelt évszázadok történelme maga a bizonyíték. De ez olyan széles spektrum, hogy a hívő kis spektrumú agyműködése nem fogadja be.

Persze a hívőt néha elönti a vágy, hogy ha nincs bizonyíték, akkor csináljon. Mégpedig azért, mert a lelke mélyén irigyli a történészt, aki - vele ellentétben - ért ahhoz, amiről beszél. Ilyenkor egyrészt elkezd szemezgetni a múlt svédasztaláról, összegyűjtve minden olyan információmorzsát, amely valahogyan értelmezve őt támasztja alá. Ha talál párat, akkor az egészet úgy mutatja be, mintha "minden jel arra mutatna", hogy neki igaza van - holott legjobb esetben is a rendelkezésre álló adatoknak egy mérhetetlenül csekély, bátran elhanyagolható szeletére tud hivatkozni. Ráadásul ezeknek az adatoknak a zöme hamis - mert igen, a hívő még hamisít is. És abban a pillanatban, amikor meghamisított valamit, társai úgy hivatkoznak majd e hamisítványra, mint perdöntő bizonyítékra.

De akárhogy teper is a hívő, konteói tartalmazni fognak olyan ismétlődő paneleket, amelyek alapján fel lehet ismerni őket - ugyanis a konteók mind egy kaptafára készülnek (ezt nevezik a témával foglalkozó szakemberek az összeesküvés-elméletek "szédítő monotóniájának"). Például minden konteó be van zárva a maga "végítélet előtti utolsó pillanat"-ába, magyarán: olyan idősíkot teremt, amiben a gonosz összeesküvők már csak egy centire vannak a célvonaltól, ami egyfelől észszerű indokot teremt a permanens pánikra, másfelől arra, hogy bármilyen eszköz megengedett legyen az ellenük vívott harcban. Ezen felül a konteó mindig minden mögött egyetlen nagy hatalmú, szupertitkos** csoportot lát (ezek gyanúsan gyakran a zsidók - na, ez is egy panel), akik mindenütt ott vannak és mindenhez közük van. Ezek a csoportok általában kábé annyira komplexek, mint egy rossz akciómozi antagonistája - a világhatalmat akarják, oszt jónapot. Az egyszerűség persze nem véletlen, hisz így válik az elmélet origójául szolgáló társaság bárkivel behelyettesíthetővé: ha akarjuk, Izraellel, ha akarjuk, a szabadkőművesekkel, ha akarjuk, a CIA-val, vagy akár a Fóti Gyöngytyúktenyésztők Szövetségével. És mivel ugye ez a társaság nem csak szupertitkos, hanem szupergonosz is, megint ott tartunk, hogy vele szemben bármilyen eszköz megengedhető***.

(Közbevetés 1.: persze a haladók folyamodhatnak a forráskritika klasszikus eszközéhez is, amivel a legtöbb ilyen elmélet jó hatásfokkal szétcincálható. Ugyanakkor a rutinos konteógyárosok képesek arra, hogy hivatkozásokkal tűzdeljék tele elmeszüleményeiket - persze ezek a hivatkozások gyakran nem létező dokumentumokra utalnak, illetve a felek szeretik körbehivatkozni egymást az elméleten belül, de ettől függetlenül meg tudják zavarni a tapasztalatlan forráskritikust.
Közbevetés 2.: ja, és egy botegyszerű szűrési szabály: egy elmélet valószerűsége fordítottan arányos a leírása során felhasznált felkiáltójelek és nagybetűk számával.)

Ez - hogy "bármilyen eszköz megengedett" - teszi amúgy az összeesküvés-elméleteket veszedelmes foglalatossággá. Mert hiába érezzük viccesnek őket, azért itt nagyon komoly dolgokról van szó. Ugyanis ha valaki hisz egy konteóban, és retteg attól, amit a titkos társaságok ellene elkövethetnek, akkor bizony bármire képes. Terrorcselekményeket hajthat végre, vagy létrehozhatja a maga ellen-összeesküvését, ami történelmi tényezővé is válhat. (Ironikus: a nem létező összeesküvés megszüli a maga nagyon is létező ellen-összeesküvését.) Pipes szerint a XX. század is értelmezhető úgy, mint a képzelt összeesküvések ellen alakult valódi összeesküvések véres diktatúrákká való fejlődése. Hisz mit csinált Lenin? Kitalálta, hogy az imperialisták összeesküdtek a munkásosztály ellen, és rabszolgasorba akarják taszítani - Sztálin pedig továbbfejlesztette ezt az elméletet, olyan világot konstruált, ahol külső és belső ellenségek milliói (lengyelek, kulákok, usákok, no és persze a zsidók) csak azzal a gondolattal kelnek és feküsznek, hogy őt (és vele együtt a Szovjetuniót) kifilézzék. És Hitler? No, Hitler meg azzal emelkedett a hatalomba, hogy a Németországon kívüli világot giganagy összeesküvésként írta le, amit a zsidók teremtettek csak azért, hogy a germán fajjal kicsesszenek. És mindketten ezekre az összeesküvésre hivatkozva követtek el elképesztő léptékű borzalmakat. Láthatjuk tehát, hová vezet a hülyeség. Szóval ne legyetek hülyék.


(Kulálellenes plakát a Szovjetunióból. Nem olyan az a pacák a képen, mint a Puskás Öcsi?)

Nem mondom, néha zavaros könyv - ez többnyire a téma zavarosságával kapcsolható össze. Pipes ugyanakkor néha mintha maga is ellenmondásokba keveredne a nagy konteóhajhászásban. Itt vannak például azok a különben masszív passzusok, amelyeket a (szerinte alulértékelt) baloldali összeesküvéseknek szentel. Nos, egyfelől egyetértek vele abban, hogy az összeesküvések nem a szélsőjobboldal privilégiumai, és ma is vannak olyan baloldali gondolkodók (például a Pipes által is előcitált Chomsky, aki páratlan nyelvész, de borzalmas politikai konteókat gyárt), akik ebből építenek várat maguknak. Ugyanakkor nem világos, hogy a szerző szerint mi különbözteti meg a bal- és jobboldali konteókat, illetve beszélhetünk-e egyáltalán ilyen felosztásról. Hisz több helyütt a Szovjetunió által terjesztett imperializmus- és Nyugat-ellenes konteókat is baloldaliként címkézi meg - ám ugyanezek a konteók per pillanat a jelenlegi orosz vezetés felől áradnak, gyakran a magyar kormányzat asszisztálásával. Vajon még mindig baloldali konteóknak kell tekintenünk őket, vagy ez az egész felosztás elavult? Másfelől így 2023-ból nézve hurráoptimizmusnak tűnik Pipes azon vélekedése, hogy Nyugaton az összeesküvés-elméletek már a politikai perifériára szorultak, hiszen láttuk, Trump képes volt egy rakás konteómaszlaggal választást nyerni.

Ja, és még valami: üdvös lett volna ezt az egész könyvet normálisan megszerkeszteni. Az egész tipográfia, no meg az elütések és értelemzavaró mondatok kifejezetten rosszul estek - néha olyan volt tőlük ez az amúgy jobb sorsra érdemes kötet, mintha maga is csak egy volna az ócska, csapnivaló kiadók által kiadott konteók közül.

* A "logikailag konzisztens" szókapcsolatban a "konzisztens" fontosabb, mint a "logika". Ugyanis a konteó is tud logikusnak tűnni - legtöbbször éppen abból indul ki, hogy egy történés logikusan kinek áll érdekében. Csak ez az okoskodás könnyen tévútra visz - egy szellemes okfejtés például levezeti, hogy a birodalmak szétesése az első világháború után nagyon jól jött a bélyeggyűjtőknek, mert így számtalan új állami bélyegre tudtak szert tenni. Következésképpen ki felel a világháború kirobbantásáért? A filatelisták.
** Egy szintén jellemző ellentmondás: hogy lehet, hogy a szupertitkos csoportokról mindig az olyan fotelhuszárok értesülnek először, akiknek a közösségi oldalak megosztásain kívül nem áll rendelkezésre más információforrás?
*** Szemléltető példának vegyünk egy fiktív csoportot, ami a klímaváltozás elleni fellépésre szólít fel. Hogyan döntsük el, hogy összeesküvés-elméletet hirdet-e, vagy sem? Egyfelől a csoport azt állítja, hogy a végórában vagyunk, mindjárt elpusztul a Föld, ha hagyjuk - ami arra utal, hogy összeesküvés-elméletről van szó. Ugyanakkor állítja-e, hogy ezért egyetlen nagy hatalmú csoport a felelős? Nos, ha azt állítja, hogy a klímaváltozást egyetlen csoport - mondjuk a gonosz olajlobbi, vagy a Bilderberg-csoport - okozta, akkor igen, konteóról beszélünk. Ha viszont azt mondja, hogy a klímaváltozás komplex emberi tevékenység eredménye, amit csak komplex válaszlépésekkel lehet megelőzni, akkor nem konteóról van szó. (Fontos: az adott helyzetben nem releváns, hogy van-e klímaváltozás, vagy sem. Van. De nem ez a lényeg.)

[Roland · Rating 2 out of 5]

Conspiracy by Daniel Pipes
Theories about Conspiracies

How did conspiracy theories evolve over time?
Pipes breaks the history of conspiracy theories into 6 acts:
1. Secret Society conspiracies emerge during the Crusades. He points to the Knights Templar and similar brotherhoods whose secrecy and power (they acted as bankers to many pilgrims) made them targets for when things went poorly (i.e. the loss of the holy land).
2. The Enlightenment saw petty conspiracies. The Freemasons emerged as liberal groups trying to find the best way to advance society. Conservatives saw this group and others like them as examples of secret societies trying to subvert the people’s will.
3. The French Revolution added seriousness to the idea of conspiracy theories. How could the divinely ordained be overthrown by mobs? Surely not inequality, mismanagement, and incompetence. No, it was the Illuminati and the Jews trying to take over for their own benefit.
4. Conspiracy Theories grew for a century gaining depth. Then another revolution in Russia in the 1890s.
5. Post WWI saw widespread paranoia about conspiracy theories grow. The devastation of the world powers and displacement was the perfect breeding ground for Conspiracy Theories. This resulted in the rise of Totalitarianism (Nazi, Communist). These ideologies almost took over the world.
6. The stability after WWII saw a retreat of Conspiracy Theories.
(Note: The book was published in 1997.)
How do you discover a real conspiracy (conspiracy to commit crime, coups, revolutions) without a theory first? Don’t all conspiracies that fail, fail after someone has developed a conspiracy theory?
It’s true that conspiracies exist and it’s also true that the rational human mind consistently tries to make connections between events and facts. Many times, these connections don’t exist. Our mind is trying to create a universal theory of the world that simply does not exist. The author does give us some technical ways we can differentiate real vs. fake.

How to unmask a conspiracy theory:
1. A knowledge of history: Historians have a “historical sense” which allows them to intuitively know when they are reading bullshit. They know how things DON’T happen.
2. Common sense: Conspiracies don’t happen in a vacuum. A conspiracy theory about an assassination by Putin is probably more likely than an assassination plot by Clinton or Trump. Also, the more elaborate the plot is, the less likely it is to exist. Rigorous conspiracy theories usually have more rigorous logic and fewer loose ends than real life. The facts can be true but the leap in connecting the causal relationships between the facts is what separates academics from conspiracy theorists.
3. Recognize the distinct patterns of conspiracies. The 2 main underlying qualities of conspiracy theories are their standards of evidence and basic assumptions.
a. Features of conspiracy theories’ poor standard of evidence include: Obscurity (reject conventional information), reluctance to divulge info, reliance on forgeries, inconsistencies, overabundant learned factoids and pedantic references, piling on other conspiracy theories, dismissing contradictory evidence, indiscriminately accepting any argument that points to conspiracy, oblivious to the passage of time (generations go by but nothing changes).
b. Features of conspiracy theories’ assumptions: power is always the goal, benefit indicates control (conspirators are not those that evidence points to but who would benefit most from the conspiracy), conspiracies drive all history, nothing is accidental or foolish, appearances deceive (to a reasonable person the absence of evidence means no conspiracy exists; the opposite is true of the conspiracy theorists)

Who believes in conspiracy theories?
“The politically disaffected and the culturally suspicious”
“Conspiracy theories titillate the sensible and inspire the disaffected”
“Conspiracy theory is the sophistication of the ignorant”

Why do people believe in conspiracy theories?
Control: Events that are so consequential can’t be random. The consequential death of JFK can’t be as inconsequential as a single assassin. A conspiracy adds weight to balance out the event and gives hope there is something more than chaos. Accused of killing JFK: CIA, anti-Castro Cubans, White Russians, mafia, FBI, military industrial complex, Texas oil millionaires, international bankers, and Lyndon Johnson.

Order: Conspiracies can develop into an alternative view of the world with answers to all questions and prescriptions for salvation. They are ideologies. Centuries of confusing history can be weaved into a universal seamless account of single conspiracy. A Universal Theory of History.

Understanding: Royalists during and after the French revolution tried to account for the fall of the old order and a divinely sanctioned system to unruly mob. Focusing on an intrinsic plot helps rulers or defenders of the old order to disregard incompetence and misrule. In focusing on conspirators, it gives them an enemy to focus on and hope: eliminating these enemies could bring back the old order. If you believe you have a good grasp on the world and how it should be, yet evidence does not support this truth: you can either change your understanding of the world or say that this truth is being undermined by a diabolical conspiracy against you.

Conspiracies are just silly, right?
Recently, yes. Historically, no. Pipes breaks conspiracies into two groups: antisemitism and anti-secret societies. The anti-secret societies sometimes can be frivolous or lack importance, but antisemitism is always serious. The author claims that both types of conspiracy theories were responsible for the rise in Totalitarianism (fascism and communism) in the 20th century and accredits 160 million deaths to them. Totalitarianism needs conspiracy theories to thrive.

Why does totalitarianism need conspiracy theories?
Conspiracies imply totalism. The cable of conspirators, with shadowy motives, power and identity, fosters a sense of emergency that can only be confronted through strong rule. Thus, it leads to dictatorship championed as democracy to deal with these plots.
It also harks back to the initial revolutions where, instead of having to face the real problems like mismanagement, incompetent governing or inequality, governments can point to failings because of a secret group trying to subvert them in way that doesn’t benefit the people. It also leads to mass murder as the only way to liquidate the imaginary plots that threaten the regime.

It’s interesting to note that Stalin and Hitler not only used these conspiracy theories to gain power but they both believed them. If things are going wrong, its easier to say there are plots against you than to admit you made a mistake, especially if you’ve told everyone you are incapable of mistakes.

Of note:
Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany on Twitter: “Twitter is against us. Big Tech is against us. The Swamp is against us. The Deep State is against us. The Hollywood Elite is against us. China is against us. But President Trump has the working man and woman and nothing can beath that.”

Why Anti-Semitism? Why are the Jews so many times targets of Conspiracy Theories?
Jews lived in close proximity with other religions in Europe and America. They are easily associated with modernity, thus are targets for those who fear progress. This is true of the Right and Left: extremists often find more in common with each other than moderates.

How do we combat conspiracies?
With openness, we can liquidate conspiracy theories. See glasnost when Gorbachev instituted a policy of openness and conspiracy theories rescinded.
Be knowledgeable about history.

A conspiracy of my own:
In the last chapters Pipes gets into the differences between right-wing and left-wing conspiracy. His premise here is that leftist conspiracies are taken more seriously because they are propagated by people with educational credentials and sometimes direct work experience (sometimes referred to as “Experts”). His examples include Lenin’s theory of financiers and manufacturers grouping together to extract riches not rightfully due to them by keeping down workers’ wages and controlling govt. This is compared to right wing conspiracists who are uneducated and have very little experience in the realm their conspiracies exist.
Why would he compare these two groups? Is he saying that the leftist academics aren’t comparable to right-wing academics? That these social theories populated by leftist academics are less academic studies and more conspiracy theories comparable to talk radio rantings? You could make the argument that people with having exerience in one field (Chomsky in linguistics) doesn’t necessarily translate to expertise in other fields. They can make leaps due to the confidence in their field. But Pipes does not make this point.
Pipes then compares Stalin and Hitler (Stalin representing the Left and Hitler the Right) saying the right isn’t as sophisticated using these theories as the left. He says Stalin and Mao lasted longer and their downfalls were slower than Hitlers so their ideas stuck around longer. “If Nazis were the creatures of conspiracies, Soviets were its masters”

Also of interest:
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, or the Protocols of the Meetings of the Learned Elders of Zion, was a forgery claiming to be notes from a meeting where the Jews had planned their conspiracy. The Nazis used these as proof of the Jewish conspiracy and then used ideas from the protocols to take control. These ideas include fomenting disorder, dictatorship, use of mobs, shows of force, press control. “To attain a serious end, it behooves us not to stop at any means or to count the victims sacrificed for the sake of that end.”

The main point?
Ideas have consequences. Marx’s idea of historical materialism (economic conditions determine other facets of life) has convinced society that economic interests drive history while ideas are only rationalizations for those interests. He shows the consequences of ideas in the 20th century as a contour argument.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

The author starts off by describing the basic tenants of conspiracy theory thinking, and then devotes several chapters to the history of conspiracy theories starting at the time of the Crusades when they were based on the fear of Jews and of secret societies (then the Knights Templar), with various detours throughout the centuries and culminating in the 20th century with the rise of mad conspiracy theorists like Hitler and Stalin, who made conspiracy theories official state policy. He then charts the spread of conspiracy theories to other parts of the world since the close of WW II.

He argues conspiracy theory thinking, or conspiracism as he calls it, has become relatively acceptable by the 1990s, arguing influential and powerful people (at least at the time the book was written) such as Pat Robertson, Ross Perot, and even Slobodan Milosevic had risen to a level of mainstream success despite their obvious deep-seated and paranoid conspiracism.

The author then describes the differences between Right Wing and Left Wing conspiracy theories, arguing Right Wing ones are less successful because they're often crass, vulgar, and mean-spirited while Left Wing ones are more successful because their proponents are often better educated and much better thinkers and writers making educators and reporters more sympathetic because (the author asserts) they tend to be more liberal. Its an interesting argument but things were beginning to change in the 90s, when the Right had learned from the Left about how to seem reasonable when talking about unsubstantiated conspiracy theories (what wouldn't Right Wing radio accuse Bill Clinton of in those days?), and the Right was beginning to have a lot more media at its disposal to influence public opinion. And the book was written a few years before the events of 9/11, in which the aftermath we've seen Left-Right ideology get muddled, which is what, I think, accounts for the popularity of the guys like Right Wing extremist Alex Jones and Libertarian politician Ron Paul among some liberal leaning people (at least in my circles), but you could also argue that has a lot more to do with the state of education in this country and why more people aren't critical thinkers.

I enjoyed this book a lot. Overall a good read, if a little dated now, well-researched but still with a few too many unsubstantiated assertions. Definitely worth a look for those interested in the subject.

[John-paul Pagano · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pipes pisses even more people off than his father (and he's a bit less talented), but as with Bernard Lewis, who is similarly received by similar people, and that author's Semites and Anti-Semites, this book is adjacent to Pipes' area of specialization, and thus might appeal to a wider audience, as it deserves. It's a fine book, even when making claims that seem off, such as its (brief) identification of Noam Chomsky as a conspiracy theorist. (Chomsky is many odious things, but at first it's hard to see where Pipes is coming from in making that judgment, which he does substantiate, if you stick with him.) The main value of the book is its heuristic classification of conspiracy theorists as two species -- the secret society type, and the anti-Semitic type -- which operate in two scopes -- petty, and world-class (I forget Pipes' exact phrase for the latter, and I'm too lazy right now to look it up). Also illuminating are Pipes' anatomies of right-wing and left-wing conspiracy theories, which rightly identify the former as "unwashed" and absurd, and the latter as "sophisticated" and analytical. General means are provided for diagnosing the paranoid style. This book is both fascinating and of pragmatic value, and I hope one day to read Pipes' The Hidden Hand: Middle East Fears of Conspiracy as a companion volume.

[Michael Connolly · Rating 4 out of 5]

About the Author: Daniel Pipes obtained a Ph.D. in history from Harvard University in 1978. He reads Arabic. He was director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute during 1986-93. In 1994 Dr. Pipes founded the Middle East Forum, which publishes the Middle East Quarterly and sponsors Campus Watch. Daniel is the son of the great Russian scholar, Richard Pipes.

Overview: This book describes the history of political conspiracies and conspiratorial thinking. Ironically, imaginary political conspiracies preceded actual political conspiracies, and, in fact, helped create them.

Christian Military Orders
• Knights Hospitallers of St. John
• Teutonic Knights
• Order of Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon
For short, this last group were called the Knights Templar. They existed but were not a conspiratorial organization. The Knights Templar were a banking system stretching between Europe and the Middle East that enabled people to transfer money over great distances. The King of France envied their wealth, stole it, and imprisoned their leaders. Many people believed that they continued to exist for centuries afterwards, but in hiding.

Freemasons: The Freemasons existed, and were a secret organization, but they had no plan to take over the world. The Grand lodge in London was founded in 1717. The Masons were reformists who spread Enlightenment ideas.

Order of the Illuminati: The Order of the Illuminati was real, founded in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. They lasted only 10-15 years. Their goal was political reform for Germany.

The French Revolution: Pipes goes into detail regarding the history of conspiratorial thinking, tracing it back to the French revolution of 1789. The French Revolution lead to a great increase in conspiratorial thinking. Some intellectuals saw the French Revolution not as a revival of the secular, classical era of the ancient Greeks and Romans, but rather as the result of a secret conspiracy. It was hard to understand how the powerful French monarchy had been overthrown by such apparently weak forces. The French suspected Great Britain (Perfidious Albion) and British Freemasons. A Scottish physicist wrote a book seeing the origins of the French Revolution in the Bavarian Illuminati and the continental Freemasons. Johann August Starck, a theologian from Königsberg, wrote books blaming the Illuminati and Freemasons for the French Revolution. At the time of the French Revolution, the Jews were not blamed for it, because they had too little power. But in later years, after the Jews of Europe became emancipated, they were retrospectively blamed for the French Revolution.

Augustin de Barruel: A French ex-Jesuit named Augustin de Barruel wrote books claiming that the French Revolution was the result of plotting by secret societies such as the Freemasons and the Bavarian Illuminati. Augustin de Barruel also accused Voltaire of plotting to destroy Christianity. The books of Augustin de Barruel had a wide and lasting impact.

Conspiracy of Equals: The first example of an actual conspiratorial organization of political Leftists was the Conspiracy of Equals of Gracchus Babeuf (1796).

Filippo Buonarroti: In 1828, the Italian utopian socialist, Filippo Buonarroti, wrote History of Babeuf’s ‘Conspiracy of Equals’. Buonarroti believed that mass uprisings would not be able to overthrow governments, so instead he turned to the creation of secret societies.

People’s Will: The first political terrorist organization was Russia’s People’s Will (Narodnaya Volya) of 1879. They were intellectuals who believed that they were representing the working class.

British Imperialism and International Zionism: During the late 19th and first half of the twentieth century, fear of secret societies was largely replaced by (a) left-wing fear of British imperialism, and (b) right-wing fear of Jews. Pipes writes that the German philosopher Immanuel Kant had conspiratorial fears of Great Britain. In 1902, John Atkinson Hobson published a book called Imperialism: A Study, which greatly influenced V. I. Lenin. Lenin was a left-wing conspiratorial thinker, who feared Anglo-American capitalism, which he called imperialism. The Knights Templar, Freemasons and Illuminati are also part of left-wing conspiratorial thinking. The right-wing conspiratorial thinkers, such as Adolf Hitler, feared the Jews.

Protocols of the Elders of Zion: Pipes talks about the famous Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which was forged by the secret police of Russian Tsar Nicholas II. Many Muslim Arabs in the Middle East still believe in the authenticity of this work, which claims that there is a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world. Napoleon’s revival of the Great Sanhedrin of historical Judaism was one of the sources of the theory of an international Zionist organization that plotted to take over the world. In Biblical times, the Great Sanhedrin was a kind of rabbinical supreme court.

Louis Farrakhan: Farrakhan proclaims that AIDS, drug addiction, birth control, and abortion are parts of a plot by white people to kill black people. He also exaggerates the role of Jews in the transatlantic slave trade.

Lyndon LaRouche: Lyndon LaRouche has created a conspiracy theory that is a blend of left-wing and right-wing paranoia. In particular, he accuses:
• British aristocracy
• Zionists
• Rockefellers
• Rothschilds
• Freemasons

Common Themes of Conspiracy Theorists
• Creating forgeries to support their assertions
• Asking: Who benefits? Those who benefit are accused of being behind it
• Nothing is accidental
• The Double Doctrine: Secret societies have both public beliefs and secret beliefs. New recruits are not informed of the true goals of the organization. A modern example is Britain’s National Front, which publicly opposes immigrants, but secretly opposes Jews.

[Aaron Baker · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very interesting read and a good intro to the world of conspiracy. It may be a little outdated now and focuses almost entirely on Jewish conspiracies but it does a good job of showing how ideas can get out of control and become a self justifying endeavour. It is a timeless warning against getting caught up in groupthink and the harmful ignorance that can go along with it.

[Dusan · Rating 1 out of 5]

Conservative author bundling together paranoiacs and some viable critics of capitalism to discredit the second. In all, not going much beyond author's neocon dogmas.

[Ian Divertie · Rating 5 out of 5]

The anatomy of conspiracies of all types. Read it you won't be sorry.

[Joe Donohue · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great explanation of conspiracy theories