In case you had not guessed, our theme today is about the symbiotic relationship between conspiracy culture (broadly defined) and the media, which enable and empower it.
Last week, I discussed former Nevada senator Harry Reid’s recent interview with Las Vegas TV journalist and UFO media personality George Knapp, but I didn’t have time last week to discuss the follow-up piece that Knapp presented a few days later. In it, Reid offered a depressing piece of information about the multi-million-dollar UFO investigation program at the Pentagon that he helped arrange and fund.
According to the article, “One focus of the study, Reid says, was a ranch in Utah known as the site of unusual activity for many years.” Knapp appears to be disingenuously referencing Skinwalker Ranch, the alleged paranormal hotspot where Knapp spent years documenting Robert Bigelow’s search for poltergeists and interdimensional portals, research that we now know concluded with government funding for the big wad of nothing that Bigelow’s own team admitted in a recent documentary based in part on Knapp’s work was the end result of years of hiding out in the desert and hoping to catch boogeymen on camera. Bigelow sold the ranch around the time Pentagon funding ran dry, and his team—which included To the Stars executive Hal Puthoff and other members of Tom DeLonge’s UFO-hunting crew—insisted that the lack of evidence was simply proof that poltergeists from other dimensions are too clever for humans to detect. And now we know that the U.S. government took this bullshit seriously and diverted Pentagon resources to the hunt for space ghosts.
Meanwhile, the once and future host of America Unearthed, Scott F. Wolter, went on a tirade on Twitter in the wake of last week’s episode of America’s Lost Vikings—but not because of the show. Instead, Wolter became upset at reviews of the episode that doubted the authenticity of the Kensington Runestone, which the vast majority of mainstream researchers consider a nineteenth century hoax but Wolter insists is an authentic Norse artifact from 1362. The show caused some difficulty for Wolter because he is friends with his fellow ex-History Channel personalities Mike Arbuthnot and Blue Nelson who host the show on the Science Channel, which is itself part of the same conglomerate that owns the Travel Channel, the new home of Wolter’s own TV series. As a result, he did not directly challenge the show’s conclusion that there is no compelling evidence for the stone’s authenticity and instead focused his upset on reviewers. Normally, I would not consider social media tirades by Scott Wolter to be newsworthy, but since he is once again a television personality who will have a mass following, his words now carry more weight. I won’t go through a blow-by-blow discussion of Wolter’s tweets (in which he claims I am “hate blogger” he caught “lying”), but I do want to highlight a couple of points. Let’s look at some representative tweets:
In this tweet, you will see that Wolter alleges that America’s founders perpetuated Templar “ideology.” The Knights Templar did not support freedom of religion since they were Catholics and actively supported what they saw as the One True Faith. Even accepting the allegations that they were blasphemers who worshiped Baphomet doesn’t make them interested in religious pluralism. But more to the point, freedom of religion is not an original tenet of the American Constitution as written. Restrictions on the federal government’s ability to establish an official religion were added in the First Amendment specifically because the Founders hadn’t included them in the original document and several states refused to ratify the Constitution without such protections. This did not restrict the ability of the states to establish their own official religions until the Fourteenth Amendment applied the First Amendment to the states.
Having just finished writing a book about this subject, it’s fairly clear that the American government never tried to treat Native Americans “fairly.” From the earliest colonial times, the belief was that Native Americans would die off naturally because of their racial inferiority. From the late eighteenth century onward, removal was the preferred method of emptying the land of Native peoples. Here is no less a conspirator than Thomas Jefferson, a Founding Father of the highest standing, explaining to future president William Henry Harrison his hope that Native people would self-deport when white Americans forced them into crippling debt:
To promote this disposition to exchange lands, which they have to spare and we want, for necessaries, which we have to spare and they want, we shall push our trading uses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals among them run in debt, because we observe that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they become willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.... In this way our settlements will gradually circumscribe and approach the Indians, and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mississippi. The former is certainly the termination of their history most happy for themselves; but, in the whole course of this, it is essential to cultivate their love. As to their fear, we presume that our strength and their weakness is now so visible that they must see we have only to shut our hand to crush them, and that all our liberalities to them proceed from motives of pure humanity only. Should any tribe be foolhardy enough to take up the hatchet at any time, the seizing the whole country of that tribe, and driving them across the Mississippi, as the only condition of peace, would be an example to others, and a furtherance of our final consolidation.
Jefferson wrote this in 1803, almost three decades before Andrew Jackson’s removal policy became law. In fact, he and Jackson discussed Indian removal that year, helping to inspire Jackson to pursue removal, despite the two men’s profound political differences. There was never an attempt to be fair.
And finally:
Ugh.
Messy for whom? A land claim isn’t worth anything if no one knows about it—especially if it’s written in what Wolter believes to be a secret code that no one but him can read—and current governments do not derive their authority from colonial-era land claims. The Templars, not being a sovereign government, had no legal authority to claim land in their own name, since European governments only recognized the rights of sovereigns to claim territory. Otherwise, every colonial family would have set up their own little kingdom by claiming this land in the name of Martha and Steve. There is no way the Templars, or their imaginary descendants like Wolter’s friends in the Sinclair family, could waltz in to the Capitol and declare themselves Grail Kings. And even if they could, their claim would be useless since the land was not terra nullius but was, by Wolter’s own admission, occupied by Native Americans, who would have held the original legal rights to the territory. In American legal theory, these rights passed to the British crown and then the American government in some cases and were transferred to the United States by treaty in others. (Whether you agree with how treaties were signed or not is a different issue.) Since Wolter offers no treaty between local Native tribes and representatives of a European crown prior to the colonial era, this whole claim is nothing but hot air.
30 Comments
FOUNDING FATHERS & TEMPLARS
3/13/2019 09:44:44 am
The Founding Fathers were the exact opposite of the Knights Templars
Reply
FOUNDING FATHERS & TEMPLARS
3/13/2019 09:54:01 am
On Thomas Paine's gravestone is inscribed the following quote by John Adams in relation to the American Revolution: "Without the pen of Paine the sword of Washington would have been wielded in vain"
Reply
A C
3/14/2019 05:31:14 am
Fundamentalist Catholic is a contradiction in terms and the Knights Templar were dissolved long before the Protestant Reformation.
Reply
Founding Fathers & Templars
3/14/2019 07:43:38 am
Biblical Apologetic Scepticism is pseudo-scepticism, also known as double-talk
Founding Fathers & Templars
3/14/2019 07:46:01 am
In other words, Biblical Apologetic Scepticism is as bad as Scott Wolter because they both have a common nonsensical source. Belief in the irrational.
Lynn Witherington
3/17/2019 08:19:12 pm
It's so hard on Scott Wolters to be made to think of large issues he was just about to address, but hadn't gotten around to it because of having his hair done, darn it.
Reply
MasonTemplar
4/7/2019 09:47:55 pm
There's more to it than a land claim. 200+ years ago, land claims might've been more problematic. It's not that the modern day governance of the land would, itself, become all of a sudden in question. What might be in question is anything, artifact/documents, etc., that are discovered as a result.
Reply
Arnold Layne
3/13/2019 09:46:46 am
"tennents" :) I don't see anything about freedom from the monarchies of Europe. The U.S. was already independent when the Constitution was drafted.
Reply
zane
3/17/2019 05:57:50 pm
Whoa! Declared independence and granted independence from the Mother Country are two different things.
Reply
BL
3/13/2019 10:12:27 am
Mistake early in paragraph #3.... I assume you probably meant something like "former Nevada senator and long time Democratic Party leader Harry Reid" based on past posts that perpetually point out when the fool of the day is a Republican.
Reply
Joe Scales
3/13/2019 11:23:08 am
"There was never an attempt to be fair."
Reply
A C
3/14/2019 05:44:42 am
When the European powers had treaties that recognized those natives as members of sovereign nations, when despite horrible treatment natives in latin America can still be found on their original land, when George Washington first became interested in secession after the British wouldn't let him claim resources he prospected on native land, when they could have just talked to said natives how they felt about wanting to keep their lands and culture, when they did talk to said natives and made treaties with them only to plot to turn around and break them?
Reply
Joe Scales
3/14/2019 10:29:30 am
You lose at "Nazis"...
Jim
3/13/2019 11:36:12 am
and,,,,,,,,,,Wolter blocks everyone disagreeing with him,,,,,,,,,,,,,surprise, surprise.
Reply
Joe Scales
3/13/2019 01:27:27 pm
And there you have it. Just like his blog, Wolter must censor his critics when they prove him wrong again and again. He always falsely claims that his critics have no evidence and resort solely to attacks upon his character; then of course he proves his own lack of character by not allowing his critics to present facts contrary to his imbecilic falsifications.
Reply
Jim
3/13/2019 05:16:26 pm
" His legacy will be that of an idiot, who posed as a historian on television shows that pushed absolute nonsense."
Doc Rock
3/13/2019 02:09:59 pm
I'm still not sure if Wolters is really that stupid and ignorant or if it is an act to appeal to the core consumers of his crap.
Reply
Jim
3/13/2019 02:51:54 pm
I have found that his outright lies (rather than speculation) and strongest venom is directed to questions concerning his competency at geology.
Reply
Whiskey Richard
3/13/2019 04:17:21 pm
That there city slicker Ignatius Donnelly wrote a book aboot them rascal Vikings and some comet. The man was also from Minnesota home to the Minnesota Viking stone rune. Iggy was also part of them thar Order of Good Templars. He lived right there in that great state when the Minnesota Viking stone was found too and the varmit never even commented on it that we know of. That factor alone is kind of surprising dudes.The only Knights of the Temple involved in creatin' this here country wuz the ones that were existin' after about 1760 and even then they was only play actin' like they were real Poor Knights of Solomon. An old cow poke knows when he is smelling cow patties and this here is one of them cases pardners.
Reply
PNO TECH
3/13/2019 04:27:40 pm
So, I read Wolter's reply to Sara several times trying to get my head around it. Seems like he's saying that he's straight-up trolling. Right? He wants to believe in the KRS because it will cause trouble for the church, portions of the government, and academia.
Reply
gdave
3/13/2019 07:43:20 pm
The only way I can make any sense out of Scott Wolter's reply is that when Sara Head states, "I truly want to understand why solid evidence is ignored in favor of a more fantastic story," Wolter thinks that she is referring to *skeptics*. He's telling her why he thinks *skeptics* ignore all of the "solid evidence" *for* the authenticity of the KRS.
Reply
Jim
3/13/2019 07:56:53 pm
Par for the course with him. Since the question was already out there and somewhat boxing him in, he non-answered / deflected and then blocked the person asking.
Reply
Paul
3/13/2019 08:08:54 pm
Scottie, decide if you are speaking of the tenets of the Declaration or the Constitution but then, facts really do not stand in your way. Maybe it is a conspiracy of cable tv, the pseudohistory crap will be the fare du jour then they will turn on it and do reality documentaries on how it is responsible for the ills of society. Scottie with 2400 fans in his facebook fanclub and 11500 followers in the twitterverse, how you rate another show with your insanity is beyond, is beyond what, I do not know.
Reply
Hans
3/15/2019 10:54:15 pm
Jason's reference to the secret code on the KRS is interesting too. I presume he refers to Wolter's paper about the "Ritual code" of Freemasonry. Wolter concludes that:
Reply
Joe Scales
3/16/2019 10:33:53 am
Only 8 and 22 appeared together in the York Rites ritual Wolter used for that bout of idiocy; and there were plenty of number sequences to choose from. The rest he put together by ignoring numbers that appeared out of order and fabricating other numbers by assigning them to named people or objects. He even outright lied about where certain numbers appeared in the text. Wolter in a nutshell here. Falsifying data and willfully misrepresenting his source material.
Reply
Accumulated Wisdom
3/16/2019 02:02:24 pm
Attabash Cipher
Reply
James Ford
3/16/2019 02:47:35 pm
No big surprise but Wolter is doing some major censoring on the comments section of his blog. Refusing to post comments that are polite and simply provide citations for published sources that punch holes in everything he says about the alleged Great Copper Heist.
Reply
Richard Rogers
3/17/2019 11:31:25 pm
I'm not sure why I bothered to scroll through all the meaningless nonsense spewing from Scott Wolters tweet storm, but then I saw Sara Head got involved in the debate, and I said to myself "what fun this has become."
Reply
JimJim
3/18/2019 03:04:21 pm
I watched only one episode of AU,S1E7, about the Roanoke stones. When a scientist tells him they're fake after testing them, Wolter glares at him in disbelief, then continues on as if it didn't happen. Cognitive dissonance, at its worst.
Reply
Joe Scales
3/22/2019 10:15:59 am
Another gem from Wolter on his blog when confronted with sanity from a new guest:
Reply
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorI am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab. Newsletters
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Categories
All
Terms & ConditionsPlease read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.
Archives
November 2024
|