I was surfing the net last night and came across the introduction to the book The Unseen Hand by Ralph Epperson. He writes about two types of history. The most accepted one is the accidental view of history: Historical events occur by accident, for no apparent reason. Rulers are powerless to intervene.
He also quotes James Warburg and Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, on accidental history. The first one wrote in a book entitled The West In Crisis that “history is written more by accident than by design, often by the wholly irrational acts of madmen.”
There is some truth to that, but I also think some of those madmen are designing or engineering events.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote that “history is much more the product of chaos than of conspiracy. …increasingly , policy makers are overwhelmed by events and information.”
The other type, which Epperson believes in, is the conspiratorial view of history: Historical events occur by design for reasons that are not generally made known to the people.
I’ve never heard about Epperson, but he sounds like a conspiracy buff. Maybe it’s just as well that I don’t know what he’s said and written, but these two definitions intrigued me. I guess the prevalent theory is that all history is accidental, but is that really realistic? I don’t get deeply involved with conspiracy theories, but at the same time I find it hard to believe that everything is a result of chaos and overwhelmed politicians.
This is what most people remember Colin Powell for:
He misled the UN, but said later that he was misled himself. The evidence Powell presented was viewed with skepticism in Europe, including the closest ally, Britain. I don’t think these weapons Powell talked about ever surfaced. So what happened? Did the USA want an invasion so badly that they lied? I believe the Bush administration lost many international supporters after this. It looked to me that Bush wanted to design history, and I believe this is the reason why many view the USA with skepticism. That is a shame when there are so many reasons to like this union.
What is going on with the ruble? The value dropped by 50 % against the US dollar in 2014, and this is mostly tied to the oil price. The oil price was relatively stable between 2010 and mid 2014 with an oil price of around $ 110 a barrel, but in a very short time it went down to under $ 50. The reason for this was most likely a weak growth in the entire world, according to BBC, but I believe the financial crisis started in 2007, and I’m not sure this was inevitable now. I’m sure this dramatic drop in the oil price has to do with oversupply, but the fact that the USA and OPEC don’t want to produce less is making it worse. If they can afford it, and Russia can’t, they can do a lot of damage.
Clearly the oil-producing countries would have made a lot more money if they had left the oil where it is for now, so why aren’t they? They could of course be desperate for any income they could get their hands on, or if I allow myself to speculate, they want to get Russia into trouble. The Russian economy was already showing signs of struggling, and as they get 70 % of their export income from oil and gas, they are probably bleeding heavily right now.
In another story the world is condemning Russia for breaking international law in Ukraine, and I have no doubt that they are, but the news seems to be one sided. Russia is all bad and Ukraine is all good. There are reports suggesting that there is violation of international law on both sides. According to Human Rights Watch Ukrainian government forces are probably responsible for using cluster munitions in the city Donetsk. Amnesty International are collecting evidence of atrocities on both sides of the conflict. It’s not surprising; war is ugly. There is no such thing as our boys and girls doing noble deeds to bring democracy where there used to be savages. We seem to be shocked every time a soldier breaks that illusion, or a baseball-player/athlete brings dope into our clean sport, or Norwegians are forced to admit that racism actually exists here too. We don’t talk much about that because we are the good guys.
I am just speculating about Russia and Ukraine, but it seems to me that this didn’t just happen. Incidentally, when the previous Ukrainian president, Viktor Yanukovych, was removed from power, the present president was very much involved. He owns a TV channel that covered the Orange Revolution. When Petro Porosjenko won the election and became president, Western media referred to him as an oligarch, which he clearly is. He represents the old Ukraine, but he is an oligarch that wanted independence from Russia. That’s why we support him.
This is why I am asking myself, what is going on? Is this just something that just happened? Ukraine, EU and the USA just happened to end up in the same bed in this ménage a trois? Personally I believe there was a strong will, and planning behind this development. It doesn’t matter what you call it. Some feel comfortable calling it a conspiracy; some want to distance themselves from that word and refer to it as accidental, or they might go as far as using the word design.
That makes more sense to me. Conflicts doesn’t just materialize out of nothing, with nothing or nobody doing anything consciously to set the wheels in motion. Someone designed or engineered the plans that started the movement towards a certain action. It may not be conspiracy in the sense that there is a small group called Illuminati (a secret order founded in Germany in 1776) that run the world, but I am not convinced of the coincidence theory either.
We are not told about most things our governments do. That doesn’t mean they don’t do it. If you want to talk conspiracy, you could of course argue about who influences the politicians.