top of page

The peoples paradox? Conspiracy or counter conspiracy? Or both?

Stephen Hornsby-Smith

The peoples paradox? Conspiracy or counter conspiracy? Or both?

When does anger politicize itself into a sectarian outrage? Why is a conspiracy based on 'moral superiority' but made actionable by dominance not vulnerability? Does the coexistence of a counter conspiracy enable and animate, legitimize and mutually embolden polar opposites? Can mutual grievance and antagonism symbiotically bond the conflict together? Is there ever a conspiracy without a conflict of some description? Is there ever an outcome of conflict that resolves the conflict ? Or does a conspiracy and its opponent settle and achieve some agreement in a way that isn't always achieved via the most obvious route?

Political inheritance? Political gripes can last through being passed down through the generations, and exist because it forms social character, moral fibre and engages social classification thoroughly. Is it necessary? Is it morally justifiable to explicitly expose a social stratification that relies not just on an economic hierarchy, and a series of glass-ceilings that might afflict such a nation. Therefore, the ideological convictions of all in such a society in the 'modern world' would be reflected in self-interest, snobbery and inverted snobbery. So there is a very real need for such a society to not just align its political convictions along class lines but to need a high functioning and socially controlling network of conspiracies to feed and sustain it, regardless of any allegiances. So, such a political inheritance needs a legacy that envelopes and restores often adhering to social class enmity and mutual resentment.

The suffragettes got power only after they could prove women's invalubility to the economy by the running of the factories during the first and second world wars, rather than any campaigning or demonstrations. Likewise we were subjected to the Cold War for so long in order to invest in a global Capitalism via ex-Soviet regimes ,which,to a large part subscribe to the rejection of all that was Marxist. What link these two issues? They both were resolved by the indirect ,often haphazard nature of radical change. We have to accept that some of the very divisive conflicts that breed mutual suspicion via social control,social stratification and mutual conspiracy and the counter conspiracy, are the very matter that bond Britain together. No where else can power be so perverse, where change is whittled down to'reform' and its chief architects seen to be publicly kicked into the long grass and stigmatised but in the UK?

But it's a good thing stupid! Whilst the result will be very different from the original format, changes has come about via a circuitous route but nevertheless enacted upon and will change lives. As long as society is prepared to destroy would be heroes and would be heroines by devious methods, then their sacrifice should be whole-heartedly embraced! Why not demonize just to move all the moving parts of governance in place to accept 'modifications' to the prevailing status quo; it is a very healing process.

bottom of page