"I know that I know nothing".
Recently, I think, I read an intellectual maxim from Ivanov-Petrov. They say that many social phenomena such as the deliberate collapse of post-Soviet science have no logical explanations other than conspiracy theories. At the same time, conspiracy explanations are not accepted by our learned intellectuals in principle, since there are too many of them.
To admit that out of the multitude of conspiracy theories, there may be more probable, intellectuals scientists cannot, since they are "above all this." Although in fact the reason for this ideosyncrasy is a complete misunderstanding by the extraverted part of the intellectual elite of the essence of socio-psychological processes, especially at the political level. Introverted, deeply intuitive men and women from deep provinces understand politics much better, although they cannot express them in words, except in abusive ones.
In fact, political science of any level and quality - both the lowest and the highest, is by definition a "conspiracy" - a reconstruction of "secret" motives and logic of making or not making decisions that are significant for society. Machiavelli quite lucidly described that the logic of decisions at the political level is very different from ordinary logic, but at the same time one of the important duties of a political leader is to form a version of the motives and meaning of decisions that is acceptable to society. To paraphrase the well-known formula - if society and the political elite do not have their own generally accepted "conspiracy", that is, an ideological and propaganda model, then you will have to feed on alien conspiracy and feed an alien army of propagandists.
It can also be added that political science is not the only field of knowledge based on the reconstruction of mechanisms invisible to the observer directly. Just like the alien, and especially the soul of politicians - darkness, physicists cannot directly see the interaction of atoms and elementary particles, but reconstruct it following the tracks in sensitive devices. Astrophysicists are also building purely "conspiracy" versions of invisible "dark matter" and "dark energy" to try to explain the inexplicable "hydrodynamics" of distant galaxies. I'm not even talking about linguists who self-confidently argue about the phonetics of long-extinct languages only on the basis of some empirical laws.
Accordingly, political science, also known as political conspiracy theories, or applied psychology of the elites, also varies in quality, depending on the model used to reconstruct the political logic of events. Propaganda based on an ideological model is one quality of conspiracy theories accepted by the society, it is semi-official political science as a humanitarian discipline, not a science. Political analytics for the internal use of elite circles, based on empirical laws and historical experience - another level of quality. Finally, the still restless old man Kant predicted the emergence of a purely scientific conspiracy theories, it is also the fundamental science of social development, or "psychohistory", to use Asimov's fantastic term for this future science. As in quantum physics,a necessary basis for scientific conspiracy theories will be a universal model of all socio-psychological processes.
Does this mean that while there is no fundamental "psychohistory", then it is necessary to completely abandon any conspiracy theories and take the position of a "wise gudgeon", well, or a mythical ostrich hiding its head in the sand? However, in this case, even if the intellectual part of society refuses to assess the quality of certain versions of political analytics, that is, empirical “conspiracy theories”, society will not be able to get a universal scientific model in the end, even if it is presented on a silver platter. If all conspiracy theories - both propaganda and analytics - are equally rejected, then in fact, this is a choice in favor of liberal ideology and propaganda, which is convenient for the extroverted "scientific" corporation. Like, we refuse to listen and hear all other versions, except for the generally accepted in our environment,although this version does not explain anything and does not help to fix it. But on the other hand, it is convenient to condemn and not accept all these "conspiracy theorists" who offer non-kosher versions.
I beg your pardon for the long introduction, but how else to preface a specific conspiracy question? For example, like this:
Promotional video:
- Is there a connection between the simultaneous death and politics of two patriarchs and symbols of the old elites - American and Soviet, the generation of the end of the first Cold War and the global balance of power? Or does anyone think that Kobzon is not equal to McCain in his influence in the residual late Soviet elite?
If you follow the semi-official ideological models of propagandists or even empirical models of analysts - of course, no connection is visible, such as pure coincidence. Or is it still a manifestation of an unknown pattern - if we assume that everything in global politics is subject to universal laws, and each phase of development has its own political center - in the form of an elite community permeated with all sorts of connections, including unconscious symbolic threads. Then the departure from the political arena of different parts that made up the center of the global political elite will be gradual and synchronous. If, to the grandfathers McCain and Kobzon, we add the grandfather of Kissinger, who has just been squeezed out of his arbitration niche, as the patriarch of the third, pro-Israel branch of the left post-war elite, then the picture is complete.
Or here's another purely conspiracy question:
- Is there a connection between the funeral of Kobzon and the murder of Zakharchenko?
Empirical knowledge and analytical level are enough to answer.
It is clear that Kobzon was the leader of an important part of the Old Donetsk elite, and the part that has more interests in Russia, in addition to Donbass, and not in the West and in Kiev, like the other Akhmetov branch. Kobzon's departure decapitated, at least temporarily, this important support of the political regime in the DPR; accordingly, the other side of this “rotten compromise” was tempted to seize the moment while the pro-Russian wing of the local oligarchy would organize and find a new leader. The only question is whether the Kiev "Donetsk" have a specific momentary motive for which it makes sense to take risks in order to get an inevitable "response" in the future?
Akhmetov & Co. has such a short-term interest, and it is very important, in connection with the upcoming presidential elections in Kiev and the inevitable reformatting of the political regime into second hand. On the one hand, the murder of Zakharchenko, who knows where and how the infiltrated "Ukrainian" DRG scores political points for the half-hetman Pete. However, the transfer of power in the DPR from a "militant" to a "business executive" will greatly reduce the degree of military propaganda confrontation.
The likelihood of reformatting the regime in Kiev towards a nationalist military junta and strengthening Turchinov's wing is decreasing. Conversely, the likelihood of collusion and strengthening of the oligarchy increases in order to bail the hopelessly unelected "president" - but only on condition that the constitution be changed, for example, in favor of refusing presidential elections in general and electing a "guarantor" by the Verkhovna Rada.
After a warm-up on these simple conspiracy examples, you can move on to more complex issues, for example, the riddles of Putin's "pension reform" or Trump's strange "trade wars".
In the meantime, let us conclude the chapter with an important thesis: Often even politicians themselves do not understand why they made this or that significant decision, guided by unconscious intuition. Therefore, no ordinary "conspiracy theories" will help to explain and reconstruct political logic, but only psychological and historical science, which studies large and small "waves of history" colliding within the personality of politicians and directing the movement of these observed "Brownian particles".
Continuation: Part 2. Or back to pure Machiavellianism?