I was browsing Amazon not too long ago and clicked on a program simply titled King Arthur: The Legend of the Holy Grail. The cover image for the show said that it featured some author, so I figured it must have been a historical documentary of some kind. I clicked on it and– whoa– boredom instantly.
So, what I clicked on wasn’t a historical documentary. As is often the case with these Amazon programs, what I actually, briefly, consumed, was far worse than what I originally thought– it was conspiracy. (The Fun thing about searching for things on Amazon– you never know what kind of crap you are going to get; if this program was a box of chocolates, all of them would be those chalky candies.)
What the program was, was an episode of the short-lived British TV (?) show called On the Edge. I cannot find anything about it on Google but I would venture a guess that it was a low-budget Infowars-style show; the host, Theo Chalmers, appears to be a generic Alex Jones: after clicking on his name on Amazon and finding numerous other conspiracy shrilling– such as “Crop Circles: What Do They Mean?” and “New World Order: The Battle for Your Mind and the Truth to UFOs”– he doesn’t seem remarkable in himself. But, that is what guests are for!
Chalmer’s guest this time around was Alan Wilson. Wilson is an academic wannabe who has written several trashy conspiracy-theory peddling books. His most notable book is The King Arthur Conspiracy, a work, evidently, loved by crypto-fascist An-Caps and Zionists alike.
Why is, of course, because Wilson peddles an elaborate conspiracy theory realized via racialism. If you like nutter nonsense such as “the ten lost tribes of Israel,” and are super preoccupied about race, then Wilson is the sort of yokel who panders to your ignorance. Think Dan Brown but for real (and thus absurd).
I will not go over this much more because I do not want to make a short review long. To do so would require a debunking of the inane claims made by the sort of folk who push these anti-Semitic, Zionist narratives and I don’t have the time to do so (neither the inclination). Instead, I will leave you with a review left by another Amazon user, “Donald B. Ball,” as he reviews Wilson’s The King Arthur Conspiracy:
My interest in this book derives from having worked as an archaeologist in the Ohio Valley region for over 25 years and though my comments will be largely restricted to matters which pertain to this specific geographic area in large part they are applicable to much of the book’s content. Despite otherwise glowing reviews which have appeared in this forum, I personally found the volume woefully lacking as a worthwhile scholarly effort. Grandiose and sweeping claims are made with abandon throughout the book yet remain either poorly documented or, in most instances, simply not documented at all. Among these claims are assertions that numerous reputed ancient Welsh Coelbren inscriptions in the form of petroglyphs (rock carvings) have been found in Kentucky. Early in the book (pg. 9) the reader is shown an illustration of this supposed 7th century alphabet which consists of 40 letters, each formed only with straight lines. However, as one progresses in the volume and critically examines the so-called Coelbren inscriptions found within the region (see Chapters 16 and 17) it cannot escape the reader’s attention that many of these are fashioned from characters utilizing curved lines. Moreover, elsewhere in the text (pages 120-124) the author glibly informs us that early Coelbren contained only 16 letters. As is true to course with the vast majority of this long and rambling tome, no supporting epigraphic or documentary evidence is offered to explain this anomaly. Buried deep within the volume’s 583 pages, the answer to this conundrum appears on page 400, and I quote:
“At all times, Jim Michael, Alan Wilson, and Barem Blackett [research collaborators in the study examined by Berkley], have been careful never to reveal the Coelbren Ciphers to anyone in America. So which Sign corresponds to what modern letter is kept as secret as possible. This has to be done to avoid allegations of forgery, although the majority of Coelbren inscriptions have been well known for very long periods and were never before identified as British Coelbren. It also serves to prevent any ‘helpful’ forged inscriptions being made.”
In actuality, what the reader is being told – and is expected to unquestioning believe – is that: (1) no other scholars know the “secret code” required to “translate” such inscriptions; (2) there is no way that anything they say can be either confirmed or disproved; and therefore (3) “you’ll just have to trust us” concerning the accuracy (or lack thereof) of any given translation. In plain and simple terms, any inscription can convey any meaning they wish. Such cult “scholarship” in concert with claims of esoteric knowledge and a self-imposed aura of infallibility is an unabashed display of outlandish arrogance which has all the trappings of outright fraud. Indeed, this approach must surely qualify as the type of snake-oil show which would have made P. T. Barnum smile and say to himself, “Now why didn’t I think of that!” “Why,” one is left to reasonably ponder, “are these the only people capable of reading this reputed ancient script in a nation not lacking in qualified scholars capable of translating any number of dead languages from Ogham to cuneiform to hieroglyphics to Linear B?” One must further wonder how it is that historians and archaeologists alike in the British Isles can ferret out obscure stones bearing Ogham or Latin inscriptions yet are presumably intellectually incapable of recognizing a form of writing said to be indigenous to their own country. Perhaps even more amazing is the assertion (pages 507-523) that the copper scroll (scroll 3Q15) found near Qumran, Israel, was written in Colbren rather than Hebrew and the Welsh were part of the “Ten Lost Tribes of Israel”. Likewise, any and all serious and academically respected Arthurian or Welsh scholars such as Geoffrey Ashe, Leslie Alcock, or Griffith John Williams are arbitrarily dismissed as completely inept, untrustworthy, and agenda driven. It accordingly comes as little surprise that serious scholars reject the work of Wilson and Blackett and their associates. For those who enjoy fairy tales, this book will provide several hours of entertainment. At the same time, it should be kept in mind that in common with Swiss cheese, this volume offers a little bit of substance replete with a good many holes. Conversely, individuals seeking serious and critical scholarship regarding Arthur, Madoc, and Welsh lore would be well advised to seek out more substantive and reliable sources. Regrettably, the greatest “conspiracy” evidenced in this book is aimed at attacking the intelligence of its readers.
Well, back to browsing.