Hope and Fear

Modern Myths, Conspiracy Theories and Pseudo History

Ronald H. Fritze

• Publisher: Reaktion Books
• Year: 2022
• ISBN:
  9781789145403
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

A myth-busting journey through the twilight world of fringe ideas and alternative facts.
 
Is a secret and corrupt Illuminati conspiring to control world affairs and bring about a New World Order? Was Donald Trump a victim of massive voter fraud? Is Elizabeth II a shapeshifting reptilian alien? Who is doing all this plotting?
 
In Hope and Fear, Ronald H. Fritze explores the fringe ideas and conspiracy theories people have turned to in order to make sense of the world around them, from myths about the Knights Templar and the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel, to Nazis and the occult, the Protocols of Zion and UFOs. As Fritze reveals, when conspiracy theories, myths, and pseudo-history dominate a society's thinking, facts, reality, and truth fall by the wayside.

ONE

Thinking about Pseudoscience, Pseudo-History, Modern Myths and Conspiracy Theories

A procession of the damned.

By the damned I mean the excluded.

We shall have a procession of the data that Science has excluded.

…

The power that has said to all these things that they are damned is Dogmatic Science.

CHARLES FORT¹

Humans are curious. While some people are reluctant learners or even seemingly impervious to learning, most of us enjoy it. We also recognize that ‘knowledge is power’, as Sir Francis Bacon succinctly stated in 1587. It is a truism that the fictional Tyrion Lannister exemplified in the television series Game of Thrones with his T-shirt-worthy aphorism, ‘I drink and I know things.’ Unlike Sir Francis and Tyrion, modern society is blessed with access to a universe of knowledge that is just a few clicks away on the computer. The problem is that modern society is also cursed by that same access, since it is entangled with an even more massive amount of purported knowledge that is actually false, fake, distorted, obsolete, corrosively propagandistic and/or taken out of context. Sometimes it can be hard to separate accurate and objective knowledge from the inaccurate and tendentious. The Internet is only one source of knowledge and is relatively recent in its impact on society, although that impact is prodigious. False knowledge, however, has been around for a long time and has been conveyed by books, newspapers, magazines, radio, films and television. And, of course, there were the perennial old-school conveyers – rumours, whispers, gossip and tall tales.

Besides being curious, humans like a good story. It has been that way from time out of mind: just think of Homer and the tales of Gilgamesh and Sinuhe. These ancient stories were fiction but they also had some basis in reality. Humans also like to experience wonder. We enjoy the exotic and the mysterious along with secrets and fantasy. Quite often fantasy and fiction can be more fun and enjoyable than reality and fact. The problem comes when people fail to distinguish between fact and fiction, or truth and falsehood, or reality and fantasy.

We live in a world where conspiracy theories proliferate. Accusations of fake news are common but are usually directed against truth-telling journalists. Pseudoscientific malarkey has sometimes adversely affected how AIDS/HIV has been treated, misleads people into becoming anti-vaxxers and hinders efforts to control the COVID-19 pandemic.² Calling the pandemic a hoax is particularly problematic: one of the minimizers, Boris Johnson, prime minister of the United Kingdom, contracted the disease and ended up in intensive care for a number of days before finally recovering. Later, a COVID-19 denialist, Jair Bolsonaro, president of Brazil, tested positive for the virus while the greatest COVID-19 repudiator, Donald Trump, president of the United States, became infected. Throughout the pandemic, some people seem to miss the incongruity of U.S. president Donald Trump downplaying the pandemic while getting himself and many of his staff tested frequently, and while he was ill, he received cutting-edge medical treatment (privileges not enjoyed by the vast majority of Americans). The situation was not helped when Trump recommended that people use unapproved, inadequately tested and potentially dangerous treatments such hydroxychloroquine as a preventative. Obviously there is a lot of bad information circulating, which many people do not recognize for what it is. Unfortunately, it is causing all sorts of bad decisions and actions. An appropriate name for this misinformation phenomenon is ‘junk thought’ or ‘junk knowledge’, a term coined by Susan Jacoby in 2008.³ It has also been called ‘fringe’ or ‘border’ knowledge, ‘counter-knowledge’ and ‘mumbo jumbo’. It has taken and continues to take many forms: myth, the paranormal, the supernatural, the occult, pseudoscience, pseudo-history and conspiracy theories.

‘Myth’ is a word with many different meanings. In everyday speech, one commonly used definition of myth, according to the New Oxford American Dictionary, is ‘a widely held but false belief or idea’. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary provides a similar but more detailed definition: ‘A widely held (esp. untrue or discredited popular) story or belief; a misconception or misrepresentation of the truth; an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person, institution, etc.; a person, institution, etc., widely idealized or misrepresented.’ Furthermore, in popular discourse, the terms ‘myth’ and ‘legend’ are commonly used interchangeably. Scholars, however, view myth and legend as distinct concepts. For them, a myth is an invented story which is used allegorically or tropologically to explain some natural event or phenomenon, or some aspect of the human condition or psyche. The story of Persephone’s abduction by Hades was a myth used to explain the changing of the seasons. A legend, on the other hand, is a story about the past that has some basis in real historical events, although the story has often been distorted with the passage of time.⁴ Heinrich Schliemann’s discovery of the ruins of Troy transformed the Trojan War from being a myth created by Homer to a legend. In a recent overview of the concept of myth, Robert Segal defined it as a story but he qualifies his definition by proposing ‘that to qualify as a myth, a story, which can of course express a conviction, must have a powerful hold on its adherents. But the story can be true or false.’ By conviction, Segal means that the adherents strongly believe what the myth proposes to claim or mean.⁵ The myths that this book will address are largely of the type that matches Segal’s definition, except that none of them will be true. So, they will also conform to the Oxford American Dictionary’s definition.

The paranormal, the supernatural and the occult are closely related to each other and are used to describe events or phenomena that are beyond the scope of normal scientific understanding and the laws of nature. ‘Paranormal’ is used more in scientific settings, like the study of phenomena such as remote viewing or telekinesis. In contrast, ‘supernatural’ tends to be used mostly in a magical context. The term ‘occult’ is used to describe mystical and magical powers and phenomena, but includes the idea that the occult is a body of knowledge and practices that has accumulated over the ages. The word comes from the Latin occultus, which means hidden, concealed or private. As the historian Eric Kurlander has pointed out, the occult also has a connotation of elitism. In his view, the occult did not encompass the border knowledge or pseudoscience and racial mythologies that were part of the popular culture of Nazism.⁶

Junk, pseudo- or fringe knowledge consists of knowledge that is non-standard and not considered part of mainstream scholarship, basically because it is seen as taking fallacious ideas as serious and valid. The German word for this phenomenon is Grenzwissenschaft, which means border knowledge or fringe knowledge. The two biggest components of junk knowledge in modern society are pseudoscience and pseudo-history (including the subset of pseudo-archaeology). To understand fully what pseudoscience and pseudo-history are, we need to understand what science and history are. Science is the methodical study of the natural world that is empirically based on observation and experimentation. History (including archaeology) is the methodical study of the human past that is based on evidence from the surviving records and artefacts. Both disciplines strive for conclusions that are drawn from evidence and data. Scientists and historians try to maintain objectivity and avoid cherry-picking their data or evidence to reach a predetermined conclusion. Furthermore, knowledge and conclusions in science and history are always tentative and subject to change based on new research findings. So, while science and history are bodies of knowledge, that knowledge is not written in stone.

Practitioners of science and history are only human. They can make mistakes and a few are even unethical or dishonest. Fortunately, science and history are also self-correcting and they engage in peer review. Scholars constructively criticize each other’s work. Making a new discovery or convincingly revising an existing interpretation or theory are the most dramatic ways to get ahead in the scholarly professions. On the other hand, sloppy work can attract derision while dishonest work can make one a pariah and unemployed. Scholarly works include footnotes, endnotes, charts, tables, graphs and bibliographies, all based on research. These types of scholarly apparatus provide a guide to how the research was done, what evidence was found and how the conclusions were reached. As a result, a consensus reality emerges among the great majority of scientists and historians. This consensus reality can shift to a greater or lesser degree as new research and new methods appear. For the most part, however, there is broad or consensus agreement among scholars. Needless to say, some extreme relativists and postmodernists do not want to concede that facts and reality exist or that open-mindedness and objectivity can be even partially achievable. For them, the discourses and narratives of science and history are just constructs, like pseudoscience and pseudo-history. Considerations of truth and accuracy are not relevant or valid. This, however, is not a work of postmodernism, so let’s move on.

Conspiracy theories are another component of junk knowledge or thought – and a big one at that. First, however, conspiracy theory needs to be defined. A conspiracy is a plan or agreement by two or more people to commit a crime or some other illegal or unethical act. The assassination of Abraham Lincoln was a conspiracy, as was the attempt to blow up the English Parliament by the Gunpowder Plotters in 1605. The Watergate scandal was all about conspiracies attempted by U.S. president Richard Nixon and his inner circle. All of these involved small groups of people involved in acts of violence or other criminal acts. More recently, there have been similar conspiracies, like Timothy McVeigh blowing up the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City or the 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center in New York by Al-Qaeda operatives. Both of these events also attracted the attention of conspiracy theorists. McVeigh claimed to be a lone patriot (actually he had a couple of accomplices) seeking to inflict retribution on the tyrannical U.S. government for the atrocity it committed at the siege of the Branch-Davidian compound at Waco, Texas. Some conspiracy theorists have labelled McVeigh’s heinous act as a false flag operation by the government to discredit the anti-government militia movement. Although Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda took credit for the 9/11 attacks and there is solid evidence that confirms their claim, conspiracy theorists have concocted various alternatives. These range from the attacks being the responsibility of the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad to bolster anti-Islamic or anti-Arab feelings among Americans to the U.S. government plotting the attacks to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Even more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought out a host of conspiracy theories, as discussed earlier in the Introduction.

These later conspiracy theories are a manifestation of conspiracism. Conspiracism is a belief in or a tendency to see conspiracies everywhere and to formulate conspiracy theories to explain why things happened the way they did. People who write about conspiracism tend to follow one of two schools of thought. One group takes a negative view. They see conspiracism as a tendency to explain events through a conspiracy theory even when there are more plausible explanations available. As a result, society suffers from unnecessary anxieties and confusion.⁷ In contrast, the other group takes a positive view of conspiracism. They argue that conspiracy theories are often true and so their revelations of conspiracies benefit society. A good example of this positive approach is Kathryn Olmsted’s Real Enemies: Conspiracy Theories and American Democracy, World War I to 9/11. She traces how the U.S. government conspired to get the country involved in both world wars and engaged in other plots and deceits such as the Watergate scandal and the Iran-Contra affair, among others. As she points out, during the twentieth century, American conspiracy theories were no longer primarily about external and/or internal groups conspiring against the United States and its government. Instead, the U.S. government was now conspiring against its own citizens. The growth in the size of the federal government that began with the First World War and has continued ever since is responsible for this shift. For her, ‘A conspiracy theory is a proposal about a conspiracy that may or may not be true; it has not yet been proven.’ That said, Olmsted does not regard conspiracism and conspiracy theories ultimately to be all that constructive.⁸

Other scholars of conspiracism and conspiracy theories limit their definition to beliefs that are not true and also tend to be unfalsifiable. This point of view began with the philosopher Karl Popper in 1934 with his book Logik der Forschung, which appeared in a revised English translation as The Logic of Scientific Discovery in 1959. As the political scientist Michael Barkun has put it, ‘The more sweeping a conspiracy theory’s claims, the less relevant evidence becomes … because conspiracy theories are nonfalsifiable.’ Every piece of evidence against the existence of a conspiracy is simply dismissed as being a part or a product of the vast conspiracy. Therefore, conspiracy theories in this more restrictive definition are inherently untrue. However, the journalist and student of conspiracy theories Anna Merlan cautions, ‘Anyone who tells you we can always easily distinguish fictitious plots from real ones probably hasn’t read much history.’⁹ The focus of this book is on the type of conspiracy theories studied by Barkun, Merlan and Thomas Konda, so it is probably a pretty safe bet that they are fiction, not fact. After all, so far nobody has captured a genuine reptilian or a verifiable agent of the Illuminati, and a lot of people have been looking for a long time.

What are the traits of a conspiracy theory? Kathryn Olmsted observes, ‘Conspiracy theories are easy ways of telling complicated stories.’¹⁰ The story is reduced to a battle between good and evil in many conspiracies but not all. As Anna Merlan points out, the narratives of conspiracies are sometimes not simple; rather, they can be complicated and confusing even to the point of incoherence in their ambiguities and contradictions. The conspiracy theories in Milton William Cooper’s underground classic Behold a Pale Horse (1991), along with his other writings and radio talks, are good examples of muddle and messy thinking. Merlan accurately observes, ‘The point is more often to identify an enemy than outline precisely what they’ve done.’¹¹

How does one go about evaluating the various conspiracies and conspiracy theories that make it into the news, social media and popular culture? One of the first principles is to apply Occam’s Razor – also known as the rule of parsimony. It suggests that the simple or simpler explanation of any event or phenomenon is always to be the preferred choice in the absence of evidence to the contrary. This is the principle followed by good mechanics and repairers as well as scholars. In other words, when the car or the computer is not working, first check if there is fuel in the tank or if the computer is plugged in.

Another important principle is to distinguish clearly between something being possible and something being probable. Ultimately, just about anything is possible. When someone states that we are in for an Independence Day-type alien invasion at some point in the future, it really cannot be said that that is impossible. It has never happened before (sorry, Ancient Aliens and Roswell fans) but that does not make it impossible. It does, however, make it highly improbable. So, it is important to assess the probability of something being true or false, not just whether it is theoretically possible.

The sceptic Michael Shermer has composed a list of characteristics of a conspiracy theory that are generally reliable indicators that it is not true. The first thing to evaluate is whether the dots supposedly connecting the parts of a conspiracy theory are really connected in a causal way or are simply random coincidences. Following the principle of Occam’s Razor, the simplest explanation is usually random coincidence. Another common component of conspiracy theories is to attribute almost limitless power and abilities to the conspirators. In real life, however, people make mistakes, plans or plots go awry, and there are definite limitations on the actual power of the conspirators or ruthless dictators. George Orwell’s Big Brother may have been invincible, omnipotent and omniscient, but Hitler and Stalin were not. Nor, apparently, are the Illuminati, since their two-centuries-old plot has not yet succeeded. The more complicated a conspiracy theory is, the more difficult it is to execute and the less likely it is to be true. Furthermore, the more people involved in a conspiracy, the harder it is to keep it a secret. So, the idea that the moon landing in 1969 was faked is ludicrous. Between 20 July 1969 and 11 December 1972, there were a total of six moon landings. It would have taken thousands of people to have pulled off such a deception. Yet in the course of over fifty years, no one has revealed the hoax or made a deathbed confession about...

Table of contents

• Front Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Thinking about Pseudoscience, Pseudo-History, Modern Myths and Conspiracy Theories
• 2 Why Do People Believe Strange Things?
• 3 The Many Journeys of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel
• 4 Templars, Secret Societies and Conspiracy Theories
• 5 A Road to Perdition: Germans, Nazis and a Culture of the Supernatural
• 6 The Myth of Roswell
• Conclusion
• REFERENCES
• SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
• INDEX