"Conspirituality" is not all it cracks itself up to be

Conspirituality: How New Age Conspiracy Theories Became a Public Health Threat by Derek Beres
My rating: 2 of 5 stars

Ultimately, a mini-memoir rather than a sweeping observation, and simply wrong on all New Age conspiracy thinking coming from wingnuts.

Not bad but not new, other than the new name, the priority of which is disputed by a musician whose Twitter account reflects to a T ideas in this book — wingnuttery, conspiracy thinking, and appropriation of American Indian imagery.

Back to the “not new.” As I told two of the three authors on Twitter, this is to fair degree a narrow version of something I wrote about several years ago, how conspiracy theories are the new Gnosticism. Writing before Trump and COVID, the only thing I didn’t cover is a riff on Naomi Klein’s “Disaster Capitalism” to cover the money behind the new Gnosticism. The folks even mention “hermetic” near the end, but don’t tie things together to the degree they could.

Otherwise, the merger of New Ageism and right-wing authoritarianism is not a surprise, even if the book kind of presents it that way. Authoritarian gurus have been here in the US for 50 years. And, given the quasi-libertarian angle of much New Ageism, it shouldn’t be a surprise this authoritarianism is often winger. Quite possibly majority winger. But by no means only so.

Next? The authors dismiss with a rhetorical trope the number of left-wing conspiracy thinkers. Having been a Green Party voter for years, on things like 5G and antivaxxerism, I think they’re very much wrong. Of course, I also see a narrowness to their focus by this point in the book.

(The "spoiler" isn't so much that, as I've given the big picture, with the conclusion below, as it it the more extensive "receipts" supporting the conclusion.)

(view spoiler)[I’ve also seen “Jungian” pop up fairly early, as part the description of the teacher that misinfluenced one of the three authors, but it was not itself used negatively. Then, by page 65, I see “archetype” and my antennae are higher. And I see it again later in the book.

While ritual Satanic child abuse claims may all have become wingnut-weaponized, they weren’t originally that way.

Then, several more chapters of “yogaworld.” On Modi, I know enough about the RSS that I hadn’t paid attention to his attempts to weaponize yoga during the pandemic, but I don’t doubt it.

Being anti-materialistic as true yogis may be isn’t necessarily right-wing. It’s not necessarily left-wing either. It’s anti-humanistic, and not all anti-humaism is right-wing. At some point, yes, you get to horseshoe theory.

Beyond this, New Ageism covers much more than “yogaworld.” Think Barbara Ehrenreich’s “Bright-Sided” about believing your way out of cancer. (And, that’s not all wingnuts who were pushing that.) Or, to turn this back to politics and someone definitely not right-wing, and also since the authors focus on politics AND mention “A Course in Miracles,” Marianne Williamson.

I started heavy grokking at this point.

Page 223? Battling Bob La Follette was NOT a socialist. He was a Progressive. (hide spoiler)]

Kudos to the three for discussing their personal histories early on. But that’s the entire basis of the book — their personal histories, not a broad overview of New Ageism.

And, in fact, the skeptical self suspects, reading between lines, that they're gaslighting themselves on the claim that modern New Ageism is all wingnut. The one explicit "Jungian" reference, plus two "archetype" references I saw (and could have missed others, the amount I grokked, skimmed and outrightly skipped in the last half of the book) makes me think they're all earnest, left-of-center, and at least open to Jungianism. None strikes me as a Skeptics™"scientific skeptic," let alone a broader philosophical one. You will find "critical thinking" referenced in the conclusion, but neither variety of skepticism is mentioned anywhere.

I do note in the spoiler the short chapters come off as podcast episodic in length. And, speaking of that, I don't have much more need to listen to their podcast than I need to listen to the video of "History for Atheists" Tim O'Neill.

View all my reviews