A discussion of the so-called “Illuminati” won’t get very far.
History is entirely subjective, at least with regards to motives, forces, etc. There are usually a minimum of three good reasons for any major political event and the answer that becomes accepted must pass several criteria. Most importantly, it cannot create cognitive dissonance.
Persons who are inclined to reject “conspiracies” will reject any source material that “conspiracy theorists” cite. Even when conspiracies are revealed in mainstream historical and governmental data (Gulf of Tonkin, Bay of Pigs, Operation Northwoods, The American Revolution, The French Revolution, etc.) most anti-conspiracy folks will negate the influence of the conspiracy or assign it secondary or lesser significance. Debate is impossible and good conspiracies can never be proven. Self-deception to avoid cognitive dissonance will always trump reason. [/quote]
Yup cognitive dissonance is often subjective too. The label ‘conspiracy’ instantly negates any supportive evidence in so many minds. I read a book, possibly called ‘Global Conspiracies’ (I forget) which contained an anthropological evaluation of the importance of conspiracy theories as a social coping mechanism in reaction to the opaque nature of the American government.