Conspiracy Theories, History and Templars, Oh my

Here is an open letter in response to the podcast linked below. It bears relevance to far more than just a single podcast, which you do jot have to listen to in order to gain value from this short piece, so read on.

*

Very interesting stuff.

I liked the show very much – a good discussion, all in all. A few points, however:

I. I would avoid using the term “conspiracy theory”, since it is essentially meaningless, and worse, whatever meaning it has, is simply to imply that a certain view or theory is not credible or one that you personally believe to be accurate. Why not simply use the term “theory” – that would be more neutral, and then you can go on to use logic and evidence to support or refute it. That would be empirical and scholarly. Every time the term “conspiracy theory” is used, however, all recourse to logic or evidence is discarded, because the theory in question is presumed in advance to be false. The term “conspiracy theory” is therefore anti-intellectual, unscholarly, anti-science and anti-empirical. Please drop it.

2. Remember that myth does not mean a lie, untruth, illusion or falsehood. Be precise. Myth means a narrative. Myths can be accurate or inaccurate, honest or deceitful, sincere or manipulative propaganda (ie. Nazi mythology and ideology), literal or more often metaphorical, or some combination of the above. But myth itself means precisely a narrative, and not an untruth or an illusion, to repeat. See Joseph Campbell, the leading scholar on world mythology.)

3. You have proved nothing. Don’t be flippant. Have fun, keep the humour in, but don’t be flippant. You said the allegations against the Templars made by the King of France were disproven by the fact that Pope Clement absolved the Templars of all accusations, but you earlier noted that other popes had grievously erred, including Pope Boniface (not “bon-i-face”), who pronounced himself Caesar. Unless you assume all popes to be infallible, the jury remains out as to whether the Templars were corrupted or not.

4. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”, does not mean that the enemy of my enemy is infallible. If the King of France was in the wrong, and another power-monger, that does not mean his perceived enemies, the Templars, must therefore be virtuous and holy. Or in contemporary terms, if Trump said up, you do not have to automatically say down.

5. You overlooked an important point: the Templars had become so vastly rich during the Crusades that they not only became the bankers of Europe, but the King of France was deeply in debt to them. That was another motive for his attack on them. And it also raises questions about their supposed virtue if they were both monks vowed to poverty and the richest bankers in Europe.

Fascinating subject, but let’s be careful about leaping to conclusions when the history is so murky. You acknowledged that the history is unclear, but still fell into ungrounded and unsupported assumptions.

As I say, a well done show, all in all, and with a good-natured and articulate young posse to present it. These thoughts, I hope, can make it even better. I will check out your future shows. And thank you.

And to everyone else, I say, as always, think for yourself – question everything.

JTR,

March 12, 2021