The "conspiracy theory debunker" community's surprising non-attention to bigotry against atheists

[Diane_nyc]

One thing I've noticed that has struck me as very strange.

Most "conspiracy theory debunkers" have paid surprisingly little attention to the one very popular "conspiracy theory" which most specifically (though often just implicitly) targets most of them.

The "conspiracy theory debunker" movement overlaps heavily with the organized "Skeptic" movement which centers around organizations like CSICOP (Committee for the Scientific Investigation of the Claims of the Paranormal), publications like the Skeptical Inquirer, and websites like JREF. The organized "Skeptic" movement, in turn, overlaps heavily with the organized atheist/humanist movement. (For example, Paul Kurtz is a leading figure in both the organized "Skeptic" movement and the organized atheist/humanist movement.)

More generally, I've noticed that the majority of "conspiracy theory debunkers" seem to be atheists.

That being the case, why aren't more "conspiracy theory debunkers" more up-in-arms about the one very popular "conspiracy theory" which is to atheists as Protocols of the Elders of Zion is to Jews?

I mean the one which claims that the world is secretly ruled by a late-1700's Bavarian underground group of mostly atheists (who, at that time, needed to organize secretly because they were persecuted).

I mean the "Illuminati conspiracy theory," which I will refer to henceforth by its late 1700's name, "anti-Illuminism."

It seems to me that atheists should consider anti-Illluminism to be very, very scary. Why aren't more of them scared? Why isn't there more concern about anti-Illuminism in the JREF forum? (Here's http://forums.randi.org/tags/index.php/illuminati/">the list of "Illuminati" threads on JREF - they don't seem to be very frequent, and hardly any serious debunking goes into them.) Why aren't there a whole bunch of websites out there targeting and refuting anti-Illuminist claims in detail? In my opinion, there should be.

Of course, anti-Illuminism doesn't target just atheists. It also targets "Satanists," occultists, Pagans, Freemasons, feminists, and gays, among others. Some variants target Jews as well. However, the historical Bavarian Illuminati were mostly atheists. Thus, atheists should be regarded as the central target of anti-Illuminism, at least implicitly if not explicitly.

The historical Bavarian Illuminati also championed various ideals, such as the separation of church and state, which most of us today would regard as axiomatic to modern Western civilization. So, anti-Illuminism should be a matter of concern to anyone who values modern secular society.

Why aren't atheists more worried? Perhaps because, despite all the public disrespect they've gotten during the past few decades, atheists, like Jews, tend to be overrepresented in academia and in high-paid professions. No doubt this makes many atheists feel secure, kind of like the way many German Jews felt back in the early 1900's. Of course, the U.S.A. has a much more stable government than Weimar Germany had, so we're probably not headed for anything quite as bad as a Christian theocratic equivalent of Nazi Germany. Still, to whatever extent bigotry against Jews is still a real live problem, all the more so is bigotry against atheists, at least here in the U.S.A. At the very least, bigotry against atheists is considered much more respectable by many.

Not only atheists but also progressives, of whatever religion or cosmological worldview, should be concerned about the popularity of anti-Illuminism these days. It is a means by which the religious right wing has extended its influence into otherwise unrelated political movements, such as the anti-war movement, and into the very heart of the Democratic Party's base.

For example, anti-Illuminism has gotten popularized in the African-American community via various hip hop bands. (Google "hip hop lyrics Illuminati.")

And, at almost any anti-war rally, you will likely run into people talking about "the Illuminati." For the most part, the leaders don't talk about "the Illuminati" (probably because most anti-war rallies, at least here in New York, are organized by Communists). However, a great many rank-and-file rally attendees do believe in "the Illuminati."

Among atheists and among progressives, the usual reaction to anti-Illuminism seems to be to regard it as a joke. (See, for example, http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6177921">this recent joke thread about the Illuminati in the GD forum here on DU.) While there's nothing wrong with such humor as an in-joke, it should not be relied upon as the way to oppose anti-Illuminism. To the many people who believe in "the Illuminati," anti-populist ridicule will just come across as elitist, classist, and authoritarian.

What's needed, instead, is a patient, in-depth, and multi-faceted educational effort. Otherwise, in my opinion, many progressive political movements are in danger of being subverted by the religious right wing.

Also, in my opinion, the way to oppose anti-Illuminism is not via an overly broad attack on "conspiracy theory." The latter, too, will likely just put people on the defensive and not accomplish anything.

It is relevant and legitimate to oppose what has been called "the conspiracy theory of history," i.e. the view all (or most) major world events have been controlled and micromanaged, over a long period of time, by just one unified, hidden elite group of people. It is also relevant and legitimate to encourage skepticism toward what the 1997 sci.skeptic FAQ called "grand conspiracy theories," i.e. theories involving extraordinarily large conspiracies - but without overstating the case on this matter. (See my posts http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=216184">40. sci.skeptic FAQ (1997): 08: What is a "conspiracy theory"? and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=217222">65. Government secrets and the "size of conspiracy" argument in the thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=215928&mesg_id=215928">The multiple meanings of "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracism" - highly ambiguous and loaded terms.)

However, by no means do all so-called "conspiracy theories" imply either a "conspiracy theory of history" or an extraordinarily large number of conspirators. An overly broad attack on "conspiracy theory" comes across as forbidding people to think for themselves about possible government wrongdoing.

Later in this current thread, I'll dig up and comment on some other "Illuminati" threads here on DU, and perhaps a few JREF threads too.