Talk:Jonathan Black

Conspiracy theorist?

I've read both the books mentioned at the outset of this article, and while Mr Black certainly believes a lot of weird things, I don't see how the slight conspiratorial element in his books makes them - fundamentally - 'conspiracy theory books'. In fact, other than a brief reference to the Illuminati conspiracy theory in the first of his books, after which he makes it quite clear that he does not believe in a conspiracy ongoing in the present day, I cannot find a single other reference. It seems quite clear to me that the remark was motivated by the emotions of whoever made it, as a skeptic, rather than by the facts. I'm a sceptic too, but the truth is more important. There is a citation given, but being attached to a bitter review rather than to factual content, it's rather suspect. I suggest the comment is removed or toned down. Daedalus 96 (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

From the introduction to Secret History of the World:

Chapter 8 includes the transition into what is conventionally thought of as the historical period, but the narrative continues to tell stories of monsters and fabulous beasts, of miracles and prophecies and historical figures who conspired with disembodied beings to direct the course of events.

It is not a typical Judeo-Masonic conspiracy theory, and the conspiracy it imagines is an apparently benevolent one but it nonetheless asserts that "Zoroaster, Imhotep, Jesus, the Knights Templar, Dante, Joan of Arc, Leonardo, Shakespeare, Milton, Newton, Beethoven, Tolstoy, Gandhi - all were initiates into the occult secrets of the universe". It also claims that the Masons were behind the French Revolution, which is a conspiracy theory. "To say that this book feeds a paranoid mindset is not to abuse it or say its ideas are mad." Ian.thomson (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that Mr Black, the person, is in some sense a conspiracy theorist, only that his books aren't fundamentally about a conspiracy in the same sense that a book by - say - David Icke is. My point is that although the books reference conspiracy theories, and even endorse them, this is not their primary function, any more than any other books that make peripheral references to such theories. The central idea of both books (the second is really a rehash of the first) is that a benevolent, angelic intelligence is behind the unfolding of world events, but this doesn't seem to me to fall within the definition of a conspiracy theory, any more than the Christian view that God is behind those events would be one. Above all, I just think it's unfair on Black - who really seems a decent chap - that the first thing people see when they open this article should be a kind of smear. Anyway, I accept your point and thank you for your feedback. Daedalus 96 (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)