Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History |  | Author: David Aaronovitch
Publisher: Riverhead Hardcover
Category: Book
List Price: $26.95
Buy New: $13.46
as of 7/28/2010 14:52 MDT details
You Save: $13.49 (50%)
New (45) Used (11) Collectible (1) from $12.50
Seller: maumeeriverbooks
Rating:  37 reviews
Sales Rank: 81649
Media: Hardcover
Edition: 1
Pages: 400
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.4
Dimensions (in): 9 x 6.2 x 1.6
ISBN: 1594488959
Dewey Decimal Number: 909.08
EAN: 9781594488955
ASIN: 1594488959
Publication Date: February 4, 2010
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Features:
| • | ISBN13: 9781594488955 | | • | Condition: New | | • | Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed |
|
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
An absorbing, probing look at the conspiracy theories that operate on the sidelines of history and the reasons they continue to play such a seditious role, from an award-winning journalist.
Our age is obsessed by the idea of conspiracy. We see it everywhere- from Pearl Harbor to 9/11, from the assassination of Kennedy to the death of Diana. In this age of terrorism we live in, the role of conspiracy is a serious one, one that can fuel radical or fringe elements to violence.
For David Aaronovitch, there came a time when he started to see a pattern among these inflammatory theories. these theories used similarly murky methods with which to insinuate their claims: they linked themselves to the supposed conspiracies of the past (it happened then so it can happen now); they carefully manipulated their evidence to hide its holes; they relied on the authority of dubious academic sources. Most important, they elevated their believers to membership of an elite- a group of people able to see beyond lies to a higher reality. But why believe something that entails stretching the bounds of probability so far? Surely it is more likely that men did actually land on the moon in 1969 than that thousands of people were enlisted to fabricate an elaborate hoax.
In this entertaining and enlightening book -aimed at providing ammunition for those who have found themselves at the wrong end of a conversation about moon landings or the twin towers-Aaronovitch carefully probes and explodes a dozen of the major conspiracy theories. In doing so, he examines why people believe them, and makes an argument for a true skepticism: one based on a thorough knowledge of history and a strong dose of common sense.
|
| Customer Reviews:
Showing reviews 1-5 of 37
Interesting but not gripping June 28, 2010
R. Ryden (New Jersey)
The topics are fascinating, the research impressive, but the writing style is so convoluted that you wade through lots of unnecessary verbiage to get to the author's point. Often he uses big words in ways that seem inappropriate or just askew from their customary meaning, making it all the harder to read the otherwise very interesting material.
Voodoo Histories and voodoo politics June 27, 2010
Bill Ratcliffe (Elk Creek, California)
0 out of 2 found this review helpful
Most of the book I agreed with and found quite compelling and fascinating. I do recommend the book but, for me, his chapter 9 was a disaster. The major flaw in the book for me that this chapter revealed was not in the treatment of its subject matter but that the author was ultimately unable to resist the temptation to let his work to be taken over by his own political bias.
In the book, the author examines a phenomenon we all recognize, almost all of us have felt, and many believe. It is the phenomenon of the conspiracy theory. The author is also interested in examining the psychology of those who believe in such theories, so the book is as much about conspiracy theorists as it is about conspiracy theories. I learned of Aaronovitch and his book while watching a television documentary about the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 in which he was interviewed, and I was impressed with his remarks.
He begins with the story of how he himself first became intrigued by the subject when a colleague of his - normal, able, intelligent, apparently not at all given to loony ideas - had something to say to Aaronovitch that shocked him, and that common sense told him could not possibly be true even though he could not, as yet, provide any specific arguments to counter his friend's assertion. The assertion was that the Apollo moon landings had been faked. And from there Aaronovitch proceeds to take his reader on a most fascinating journey examining and debunking some of the more famous conspiracy theories (and theorists) over the last century, starting with the communist show trials of the 1930s in the Soviet Union. From there he proceeds chronologically through the 20th century, examining the conspiracy theory that FDR knew beforehand about Pearl Harbor and allowed it to happen so he would have a reason to bring America into World War II, the assassination of President Kennedy, the death of Marilyn Monroe, Princess Diana, and many other cases around which conspiracy theories have come to revolve and grow.
One of the more compelling segments of the book for me was where Aaronovitch deals with the conspiracy theories surrounding the death of Princess Diana. Those theories remind one of how quick and easy it is to shout a conspiratorial headline, like "oh, Diana, they had her killed!" compared to how ludicrous, even embarrassingly silly, that proposition becomes after examining even a mere few of the basic facts. For example, assuming there had been a conspiracy to kill Diana by tampering with the car, how did the conspirators know which car she would be driving? Or if it was to kill her by deliberating inducing a car wreck in that Paris tunnel where the accident occurred, how did the conspirators know beforehand what route she would be taking through the city? Indeed, it was entirely possible that Diana might have decided not to leave the Paris Ritz at all that night. What I thought a particularly illuminating point by Aaronovitch involved the fact that, even as it was, it is believed that had Diana been wearing a seatbelt, she probably would have survived. This is reinforced by the fact that her bodyguard, who was wearing his seatbelt, did survive the crash. So, in order to believe there was such a conspiracy, one has to assume that here was a plot to kill Diana in which the plotters gave their intended victim the power to save herself by simply taking a very ordinary safety precaution. Not exactly one of the more surefire plans I've ever heard of! Not to be daunted, however, conspiracy theorists deal with this problem by suggesting that the conspirators filed down the seatbelt pins so that they would come unbuckled at the slightest pressure! As Aaronvitch concludes, surely there are easier ways to kill someone. I might add to Aaronvitch's conclusion by noting that is especially true when one considers the kind of money and resources it's presumed was behind the conspiracy. Can you believe people actually stay up at night working on these problems? I think if the phrase "get a life" was invented for anybody, it must have been for conspiracy theorists. For sheer extravagance in idiocy that seatbelt pin concoction reminds me of the version of the Kennedy conspiracy that has one of the assassins waiting for the motorcade hiding in a sewer in Dealy Plaza.
It is astonishing the degree to which conspiracy theories prove resistant not only to evidence to the contrary, but even common sense. Furthermore, Aaronovitch points out how, in fact, conspiracy theories actually utilize such contrary evidence to support their theory. For example, to conspiracy believers, the presentation of such evidence is simply proof of how hard the conspirators have been working after the fact to make sure the door to the truth remains closed. Indeed, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that many such believers had come to the conclusion that Aaronovitch himself must be in the pocket of some of these conspirators for writing such a book! Thus, it begins dawn on the mind that true conspiracy believers are driven not at all by facts, but faith. They do not end with a conclusion; they start with it. For example, the conclusion, Diana was murdered. That's where they start. I don't know this, but my gut feeling is that most, maybe nearly all, of the people who believe Diana was the victim of a conspiracy to murder her came to that conclusion the minute they heard she was dead. But more than just starting there, the conspiracy theorist starts with that as the one absolute and immutable fact about the whole thing. Well, if the proposition "Diana was murdered" is the one absolute and immutable fact about the whole thing, then all other facts must logically be subordinate to it. Therefore, if a fact does emerge that seems to contradict it, that fact must be wrong, period. Even if it seems impossible for it to be wrong it must be, there must be some explanation, something's missing, we just haven't figured it out yet, etc., but it has to be wrong because we know Diana was murdered. And so on it goes, with the true believer in conspiracy apparently completely oblivious to the irony that in order to know anything, it is generally considered essential to know some facts about it, rather than devoting one's imaginative abilities to devising ways to explain facts away. I think this anti-logic quality in conspiracy believers is beautifully illustrated by Aaronovitch in the little anecdote about the seatbelt pins.
Furthermore, as a sometime student of psychology, I find it a fascinating question why conspiracy believers - many of whom have obviously published books, and are not only not delusional but often highly intelligent and even gifted - believe notions that are so at odds with the facts, so demonstrably disprovable, and often fly in the face of common sense and simple logic. I spoke of such belief a moment ago as being a matter of faith, but I did not mean that in a religious sense, because unlike so much of conspiracy belief, and contrary to what the anti-religious left would have us think, there is nothing at all about religion that is at odds with the facts. Indeed, most of the great religions place their most important assumptions well beyond the authority of this world and its facts, therefore religious faith cannot ultimately be either supported or disproven by the facts of this world. But that is not what one is dealing with with conspiracy theorists. They most emphatically do not place their assumptions beyond this world and its facts. They will tell you that the facts supporting the established version are wrong, and that there are other facts, very much of this world, that could show you very clearly that what they say is true if only those facts weren't being distorted, misrepresented, or hidden as part of the cover-up conspiracy that, for them, must necessarily always follow the initial one. But here's the promise, here's the glimmer of hope for truth and the world from the conspiracy theorist's point of view: If you, on the other hand, should come to believe as they do, it will demonstrate that you, too, are special and have acquired this great gift for looking beyond the smoke and mirrors that, sadly, pass for the truth for so many more ordinary and less gifted people, and that together, you and they, will work to bring out the truth and lead the rest of the world out of its benighted slumber and its nightmare of unknowing. In other words, if you should become a conspiracy theorist, then you too shall be a member of the enlightened and elect.
Of course, the world has its real conspiracies, big and small, but they're not Rube Goldberg contraptions, and they're not hidden, or at least they don't stay that way. There was a real conspiracy behind 9/11 but that was the straightforward one we all knew the details about very soon after the event. The other conspiracy behind 9/11 was the complicated, hidden one, and hidden it must forever remain - not because dark, deeply wicked, omnipotent forces have succeeding in covering it up, but because it simply never happened. But what did happen was the creation of the movement known as 9/11 Truth, that asserts that it did, and in so doing became one of the more regrettable cultural insults of our time. Even those who believe elements of the U.S. government were behind the Kennedy assassination are at least only talking about the murder of a single human being, not three thousand. I appreciated very much, therefore, the entire chapter Aaronovitch devoted to addressing the sick, sad silliness known as the 9/11 Truth movement, and I was glad to hear one more voice of reason exposing this anti-intellectual garbage for what it is.
I thought that one of Aaronovitch's best arguments against conspiracy theory in general had to do with Occam's razor. Occam's razor essentially states that you don't give more reasons for something than there needs to be. In other words, you shouldn't unnecessarily complicate an explanation. Yet another way of putting it is that if there are two (or more) explanations for the same thing, the simplest explanation will most likely be the right one. Also, when you add a part to something it doesn't need to fulfill its function, you have done nothing to improve its efficiency (or the likelihood it will succeed), but you have added another chance or way that it can fail, and, in the case of conspiracy, also added another source who can reveal the secret afterwards even if it does succeed.
As I suggested at the beginning, I disagreed with some of Aaronovitch's observations later in the book (chapter 9, to be specific, of a nine-chapter book with a conclusion), which in my opinion had little to do, sadly, with the kind of irrational conspiracy theory he had been addressing in the rest of the book. He seems to find himself in the not uncommon circumstance of losing perspective on an issue the more recent it becomes, and as it appears his politics turned out to be somewhat left of center, after all - he refers at one point to the "radical" conservatism of Margaret Thatcher - this failure follows a rather predictable course. That predictable course is to take examples of those with whose politics he disagrees the most, and who have obviously most upset him, and then try to dismiss them and their arguments by throwing them into the same lunatic bin he has, by this point in the book, so painstakingly detailed and described. In other words, he spends eight chapters building his loony bin - which I agreed with him about - and then in the ninth chapter he makes sure he throws his remaining enemies into it. For example, he slams Jerome Corsi's bestseller The Obama Nation, which I read recently and thought highly of, and which was critical of President Obama. So anxious is Aaronovitch to malign Corsi that he even stoops to the nitpicking level of criticizing the title of the book for its play on words, implying that no legitimate critic, but presumably only a mean-spirited and malicious one, would suggest that an Obama presidency would be an "abomination," since, according to Aaronovitch, the meaning of the word is even worse than hateful since it means "loathsome" and "disgusting." Even beyond the fact of allowing Corsi a little poetic license with his play on words, and remembering the difference between a figure speech and a literal meaning, I looked up the word and found that one of its meanings is simply something "horrible," denoting an object of intense disapproval or dislike. And if that's what he was trying to say, I think Corsi was right on the money; I think the Obama administration and his far-left policies are proving, and will prove in the years to come, horrible for this country. And I don't think there's anything malicious at all about that position. Furthermore, the play on words goes to the notion that the "abomination" is the nation under Obama, not Barack Obama himself personally. Finally, I would like to point out that "horrible" had to be without question one of least severe of the adjectives the left was routinely using to describe not only the Bush administration but Bush himself.
I think for Aaronovitch to lump concerns and criticisms about the Obama administration and even Barack Obama himself with the conspiracy theory fringe is wildly inaccurate and unfair. President Obama has, after all, written two books, one of which was an autobiography, and certainly critics have a right to put those books and anything else he asserts to the test and see if they stand up to examination, or simply disagree with him, without that somehow putting them in the same class as the conspiracy fringe.
So it was, sadly, that I felt Aaronovitch lost his breadth and eventually displayed his political loyalties in the narrowest and pettiest of ways. The lowest point of all for me was when Aaronovitch took what I considered to be a particularly vicious swipe at Corsi by suggesting that Corsi was appealing to "the oldest and darkest parts of the white American brain." When he did that, Aaronovitch sadly demonstrated that, given the issue was visceral enough to him, he was entirely willing to engage in the same kind of ugly, stereotyped, and factually unsupported innuendo that he'd just gotten through accusing Corsi of engaging in. It was a hackneyed and crude cheap shot, and the same kind of dark and malicious speculation that forms so prominent a part of the very conspiracy theories he denounces and criticizes so well, and even brilliantly, in the rest of the book.
I also thought the comment was the kind of observation that seems just a little too easy these days. What might have been a bit harder was for Aaronovitch to wield his impressive writing and analytical skills on the kinds of conspiracy theories we find, for example, in the rantings of the pastor Barack Obama listened to for twenty years, notions likes AIDS being created by the U.S. government. But save for a brief mention of it in passing in his conclusion (which shows he was quite well aware of it), Aaronovitch is utterly silent throughout his entire book about this manifestation of the conspiracy fringe, though one might think it rather timely to at least pay it a little mind in a book about conspiracy theories since the man who is now the leader of the world's only remaining superpower willingly listened to these rantings for many years, was married by this pastor, and contributed substantially to his church.
So that was definitely the low point, for me, to a book that elsewhere had ridden pretty high. Corsi's criticisms of Barack Obama are no more scathing than are many of Aaronovitch's criticisms of various conspiracy theorists, but even more to the point, I would say that Corsi was more fair to Barack Obama than Aaronovitch was to Corsi. Just think what we would have thought if Corsi had said that Barack Obama was appealing to "the oldest and darkest parts of the black American brain." Yet Aaronovitch gives himself the license to say precisely that about Corsi.
Furthermore, are journalists supposed to back off on a person when they become President of the United States? I thought the idea was our journalists were supposed to lean even heavier in that case because that was the nature of the arena any presidential candidate knew he was entering when he campaigned for the job, and for good reason, because if he's elected he'll become the leader of the world's only remaining superpower and we, the people, have a right and a need to know who is leading us, and how, and where. Of course, the left applied this standard ruthlessly when it came to George W. Bush. When it came to him, why, that was just good, tough investigative journalism, a patriotic duty, by goodness, the kind of thing that keeps our leaders honest and accountable to the people, right? Now, the current president, because they agree with him - because most journalists are at least liberals, if not leftists - they want to propagandize for Barack Obama rather than criticize or investigate his policies or his past as they were only too gleefully willing to do with George W. Bush. How clever and witty the left thought themselves with little rhymes like, "Bush lied, people died," and then have the gall to turn around without batting an eye and scold conservatives for using the rhetoric of hate! That's what they call chutzpah, baby! The fact is, I don't know any rhetoric of hate that conservatives are using. I think what the left means by hateful rhetoric is any criticism at all of Barack Obama, however mild, to say nothing of justified. And essentially calling the country racist, by the way, as another president recently did, just for opposing the policies of Barack Obama, that's not the rhetoric of hate? If it's a racist country now for opposing his policies, what kind of country was it just a little over a year ago at the beginning of his presidency when it gave him a 70-some-odd percent approval rating? Oh, and then there was that little fact a few months before that - he was elected president! Exactly what kind of a country was it when it did that, Mr. (former-President) Carter?
However, it could have been much worse. Aarovonitch's politics are not as skewed as they might have been since he does show himself capable of criticizing the left as well, which is more than I can say for most journalists and pundits on his side of the political spectrum. Indeed, for most of the book, he seemed, if anything, to be rather politically centrist, which was a relief. He even managed to be fairly measured in his treatment of Senator Joseph McCarthy and the so-called Red Scare of the 1950s (there was actually plenty to be scared of as it turned out), which when I came upon the subject of McCarthy in the book I braced myself for because it's one that can send even moderate liberals frothing at the mouth, and shifts even some conservatives (and probably all Republican politicians) squarely into the "me too" category. My ears did perk up, though, when Aaronovitch noted in passing that his mother was a member of the British Communist Party. I thought, well, at least he seems to have outgrown that unfortunate influence rather well. I certainly didn't expect him to be conservative. That would have been nice but I don't expect it. Unless I know already the nature of the book or the author's politics, my rule of thumb is to assume that most authors, being usually members of the educated class, are probably liberal to left. What I think happened is that Aaronovitch gave himself eight chapters and a conclusion to more or less analyze dispassionately, and then reserved for himself one chapter to vent. It was an expensive chapter, in my opinion, because it almost ruined the entire book, amounting, as it did, to a nearly successful attempt on Aaronovitch's part at credibility suicide. As it was, it left a very bad taste in the mouth to what could easily have been, and almost was, a first-rate, class act from cover to cover. But he just couldn't stand remaining above the fray entirely, so he wrapped up his Voodoo Histories with the voodoo politics of the left.
But to return to the theme of Aaronovitch's book. The point about conspiracy theory that takes it beyond the realm of an ordinary and ordinarily believable conspiracy is, I think, first of all, the belief in what Aaronovitch describes as the "hidden hand," that omnipotent-seeming "real power" that is forever operating behind the scenes of what seems to be. One can think of the marvelously entertaining science fiction film The Matrix as presenting an ultimate form of the "hidden hand" idea. The following are further common characteristics one can find in conspiracy theory: the improbably complicated form the conspiracy takes; the degree of perfidy and calculating evil with which relatively benign figures as FDR are imbued; the utter inflexibility of the conspiracy theorist to any degree of evidence to the contrary, no matter how ample; the penchant such theorists have for latching on to any unexplained aspect to the event in question, however trivial, as supporting evidence for their theory; and, finally, the improbable way in which it is thought these conspiracies manage to remain so successfully hidden so long after the fact. Can anyone name, for example, even one of these famous conspiracy theories that succumbed, even if only gradually, to the weight of facts and truth that, the conspiracy theorist would have us believe, have always been on its side? If there's even limited validity to the phrase "the truth will out," one might have thought it would have happened at least once with one of these theories.
My thought is that conspiracy theorists believe the way they do in part because they are uncomfortable with the assault on their sense of proportion that reality sometimes inflicts on us, an assault which, in their case, they are so uncomfortable with that they are ultimately unwilling to accept. That, for example, a narcissistic lifelong loser and half-loon communist who defected to the Soviet Union only to find that even they didn't want him, that this was the creature who, with two modest squeezes of his finger, ended the life of the most powerful man on earth, the President of the United States, sent an entire nation into mourning, and changed the history of the world just as, at the same time, he certainly secured forever his memorable place in it? For the conspiracy theorist, that just can't be. For so much to be so fatally dependent on so little, on such triviality and insignificance, is intolerable to him. That leaves too much in the world dependent on whim and accident and chaos. Yet this is exactly the way reality sometimes works. Thus, conspiracy theory becomes another form of escapism; it's really about people who are unwilling or unable, for one reason or another, to accept reality as it is. That whimsical, chaotic version of reality simply cannot stand, is what they're saying. To put it another way, conspiracy theory becomes to the conspiracy theorist not as faith is to religion, but rather more, I think, as a drug is to a drug addict. It's not about facts at all; it's about the way it makes you feel. It's a way not of believing in another reality, but of altering this one.
But there is also another element that, I think, perhaps influences the conspiracy theorist to believe the way he does, an element that is also a form of escapism. First of all, we should remember that the conspiracy theorist is ultimately a true believer. When I use that term, I'm referring to the kind of true believer that was described by the philosopher Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer. The conspiracy theorist is not only motivated by a wish to escape an undesirable reality, but also to escape an undesirable self. And the place from both of these unwanted situations that he seeks to escape to is one and the same; to a place that holds a higher purpose, a purpose, Hoffer argued, that the true believer could feel was larger and better than his despised self and that was big enough and meaningful enough to replace that self with something he felt his mere individual self by itself could never be - worthy and desirable.
A political ideology can work that way, too, like a conspiracy theory or a drug - make one feel better while he's in this reality and stuck with a self that is so miserable to him the way it is right now. I believe one sees more conspiracy theory on the political left than on the right, and I think there is a reason for that. There is, I believe, a philosophical link between left-wing politics and conspiracy theory. They both seem to share a profound distaste for the mundane, disordered, and unpredictable way reality (and the people who live in it) often works, so they both become committed to changing it, the leftist through revolution, the conspiracy theorist through revelation. They may hope it's "change you can believe in" but even if it isn't, they still know they're right and will be just as committed to making it happen, and be convinced that once it does you'll be happy it did, but even if not, you will in any case be better. Both left-wing politics, with its utopian longing, and conspiracy theory, with its truth yet to be accepted, also provide, if needed, that welcome extinction of an unwanted self through devotion to a higher cause. Having said this, however, I agree with a point that becomes clear as one reads Aaronovitch's book and considers his examples, and that is that if one goes far enough to the right, one also starts to see a great deal of conspiracy thinking, so it would seem to be a kind of thinking that tends to flourish in any atmosphere of political extremism, and I would suggest that the reason for that is that political extremism of both the left and the right eventually terminate in absolute collectivism as ideal, and the complete extermination of individual destiny as an acceptable object of effort or fulfillment. The problem with viewing the extremes of left and right equally, however, is that the far right has been marginalized in modern Western society and thoroughly exiled from the mainstream in a way the far left has not, and therefore poses far less a threat than does the far left. Indeed, some would argue - and I would be one of them - that the far left still remains, in fact, so acceptably mainstream that a very dedicated member of it currently occupies the White House.
Like the conspiracy theorist, the leftist wants reality to be governed by order and control, not accident and whim, for without order and control there's no hope for perfecting man and bringing about utopia on earth. And control is obviously more effective the less controllers you have and the further that control reaches. The trouble with this kind of control, of course, is that it is very hostile to individual freedom. After all, if you're controlling your own life, then it's obviously not being controlled by someone else. The leftist and conspiracy theorist, as true believers, also have another problem with individual freedom. Not only does individual freedom proclaim no "higher" purpose or common goal for all mankind, but it urges the individual to find and fulfill his own destiny, and that is exactly the opposite of what the true believer wants to do. He has already decided that his own individual destiny is anathema to him, and that only through dedicating himself to another kind of destiny - a cause higher and bigger than himself - can he ever hope to find relief from his self-disgust.
Individual freedom, to be sure, possesses elements that are not always easy to stomach. The burden of one's own self, even for one who has not succumbed to the hypnosis of true believing, is often heavy and nowhere likely to be heavier than when it is left alone. And yet we are not alone. In freedom, we pursue our own destinies as individuals, yet we are doing it together. The wonder of individual freedom includes the fact that when you step back from the individual and see the social forest for the trees, it all looks like a kind of accidental order. In other words, it's ordered not because any power on high ordered it to be ordered, but simply because of the happy coincidence of millions of free individuals fulfilling their own destiny according to their own dreams and wishes and desires and at the same time abiding by laws they themselves have indirectly created which define boundaries beyond which they agree not to go, usually because going beyond them means interfering with someone else's exercise of the rights we're all supposed to possess equally. But if you're a leftist, for whom the important reality is the collective and a cause for that collective, then a society of free individuals, however ordered or orderly they may be, is pointless. If you're a leftist, there can't be millions of points to it all, as many different points as there are individuals. But if you're a conservative, those millions of points are the point. It's my goal, it's your goal, it's his goal, it's her goal, and they're all different, as unique as the individuals themselves who cherish and pursue them. That is exactly the point of it all. Leftists don't like that. They don't like this "uncontrolled," "aimless" order with millions and millions of different points to it all being the point of it all. These individuals have to be made to stop behaving individually and following their own selfish dreams and start behaving in accordance with a single, common, collective goal, the "dream of all mankind" (as if there ever was or could be such a thing).
One of the prices of this individual freedom, however, is that not every individual will pursue his dream. Some, like Lee Harvey Oswald, will pursue their nightmares. And even little minds can sometimes hold very big nightmares, and sometimes the ability to make them come true. The only difference between the leftist's reaction to this problem and the conspiracy theorist's is that the leftist wants to impose a degree of control on the individual that will make him a slave of the state; the conspiracy theorist would have you believe that such control was already there, you just didn't know it.
 What the book is, and what it is not June 25, 2010
Oldballs
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
After reading several of the negative reviews, I thought a more pointed one was needed in response to clear a few things up for those who have not read the book.
First off, the book is very well written and in a fast-paced, easy to read styles. It's not boring (regardless of agreeing with the author or not), nor is it overly long.
That being said, it brings me to my main point: this is not a scholarly, historically exhaustive work of research; it is an investigative look into how conspiracies begin and the people who latch on to them. Does that mean that it's not researched? No, there is a fairly extensive bibliography, and he has clearly documented his sources. However, it is not done in the way a historical textbook would do so -- but there again, it's not written from that point of view.
The key to remember here -- and this is for those negative reviewers who so adamantly want to hold on to their theories -- is the theme of how these theories get started, and why they become popular. This is of special interest to me because it is clear that there has to be a motivation for believing in most conspiracy theories; one has to *want* them to be true at some level for them to get off the ground, otherwise they wouldn't due to the incredible lack of factual support.
But here we come to the famous rebuttal offered up (which I have seen in the reviews here): "We are just asking questions. That's why it's a 'theory' and it's not perfect. But you have to admit that ____ and ____ don't add up!" This statement -- or a similar form -- is offered up every time a conspiracy theorist is confronted with hard facts. And this book addresses that exact issue, rather than going down the road of saying "here's this reference, and this one, and this one, and this one..." The fact is, any story in history, if viewed long enough and from enough angles (if I stand on my head and close one eye) can be a questionable occurence that looks "suspicious." I think if one investigated hard enough, they could probably find evidence suggesting that the NFL is fixed, politicians are really aliens, the military is spying on cats, that Jews are actually Chinese and that your own Mom is not who she says she is.
For those of us who have actually held a security clearance and worked in government, however, this book is quite refreshing and right on the money -- as much as we would like everyone to believe that we can pull off some grand conspiracy and keep huge secrets, we're just not that capable. Really, I wish it were different.
And to answer the question of why I gave it four stars instead of five, well...it's not that it wasn't good, I just save the five-star rating for something that really sets my hair on fire. If I throw those things out with every book I like, it hurts the credibility of the rating system. That's how I roll.
 A book to defend the Contingency Theory June 10, 2010
Henrik Larsson (SWEDEN)
3 out of 9 found this review helpful
Let me first state that I do believe in Conspiracy Theories (not all of them). - But more so I believe in the existence of widespread corruption in our society. However, I bought this book since I do want to hear both sides of the story. Because of the raving reviews by the Daily Mail, Scotland on Sunday, The Guardian etc. I decided that this would be a wonderful antidote to my often troubling concerns about where society is heading.
Already in the Introduction I got a bad taste in my mouth. Readers should know that this is anything but an objectively written book. To start, he makes a lot of presumptions about us kooky conspiracy theorists. - That we have no objectivity and that we cherry pick facts for our own convenience. If anything, this describes exactly his style of researching and writing.
Although the book is lengthy and brings up many examples, the reader should know that "Voodoo Histories" hardly goes into the depth of the theories. Instead Aaronovitch in many cases, if not most, centers his arguments mainly on isolated errors in the theories. Fine. Except, NO ONE in their right mind has EVER said that a theory is the ultimate truth. They are theories just because all the facts aren't readily available. That means there will be errors, just like a heat seeking missile who adjusts to its course by its wrong turns.
Volumes could be written on the errors of the official 911 story and what never was included in the report - which by the way two of the panel members admitted is flawed! Aaronovitch breezes through 911, without highlighting the most disturbing FACTS that ARE true. This book is in my mind a "conspiracy theory" in itself, in the sense that he is theorizing and making speculative conclusions. That is his right, but I resent how he is implying that people who don't agree with the "contingency theory" either are gullible, paranoid or something to that effect.
As he says in the opening pages, he is disturbed by conspiracy theories and sees them as potentially dangerous. Well, yeah, if you want to preserve the status quo you may consider them as such. I for one see corrupt politicians and companies as a greater threat; Halliburton profiting from death, the so called WHO experts who was on the payroll of Big Pharma - duping millions of people to shoot up the poisonous H1N1 vaccine that has not been thoroughly tested. Greed runs this world, and according to the "contingency theory" anything that questions this system is a kooky conspiracy theory and outright dangerous...
However, if you decide to read this book, which supposedly is an authorative work from the opposite side of the spectrum, just keep in mind that it was recently declassified that the Gulf of Tonkin WAS in fact a false flag operation. Besides that, both Kissinger and Rumsfeld has admitted on tape that Nixon wasn't going to allow a potential failure with the moon landing, and therefore, they DID have a backup plan to stage it. - Now, please revisit the anomalies regarding the moon landing, and ask yourself if there is NO PROBABILITY that at least parts of it was fabricated. Furthermore, Aaronvitch claims that thousands would have had to been involved in the lie. Not at all. Again, he makes an assumption on key issues, rather than fully deconstructing the arguments. - BUT what can you expect when you cram in numerous theories in one book? This does nothing, but skim the surface and offer isolated facts that only are intended to make the frightened feel safer. - I personally believe this book is his psychological defense mechanism put on paper, and that it should be taken as such. Go ahead, and believe in his worldview if you want, but it is as much a theory riddled with logical flaws as even the kookiest conspiracy claim.
There is much to say about this book. For one, the author criticizes a woman for having initially been drawn to conspiracy theories by the fictional JFK. - So? Does that mean that all of her latter FACTUAL research then is to be ignored? The author also goes on the attack against David Ray Griffin for how he isn't a scholarly expert in aerodynamics etc. - Griffin never came into the debate claiming to be an expert on such topics. BUT he researched it and educated himself, and gradually became very knowledgeable on the issues. However, there are also Nobel Prize winners who have debunked the official story. Why didn't you mention that, Mr. Aaronovith? Furthermore, if Popular Mechanics is so sure, why didn't they take the debate with Charlie Sheen? Shouldn't they have been able to squash him immediately? He's hardly an expert, so why did they deny him the opportunity?
And considering how Aaronovitch attacks them, one must ask what makes him such an authority? Is it probable that he would know more about these issues than people who have studied them in minute detail for decades, sometimes up to 40 years, and even have insiders like Bilderberg members etc. providing inside information. - NO.
All this book will do is influence those who don't know anything, because anyone who is seriously researching conspiracy topics can pick this apart immediately.
A piece of disinformation June 1, 2010
W. Willers (Madison Wisconsin)
5 out of 16 found this review helpful
As the Internet has made it possible for everyone to be "investigative", and as the level of disinformation to which the masses have been exposed becomes verifiable, there has emerged a spate of attack on "conspiracy theorists" from self-appointed "skeptics" who seem skeptical of everything except formal, official, governmental accounts that stink. And here comes Aaronovitch whose book is so shallow, so empty of opposing and compelling information that has been available for years, that he is beyond merely ill-informed.
Because he covers a host of conspiracies in this book, I will deal with only two about which much has come to light: the assassination of JFK and 9/11. As to the first, his coverage is shamefully superficial. Regarding the Warren Commission Report he writes that skepticism "was catching ... housewives turned themselves into assiduous researchers... ", and he refers to Gerald Posner's dated (1993) and discredited book "Case Closed" as "one of the best debunkings of Kennedy conspiracy theories", while he fails to mention James Douglass's 2008, 500-page "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters", the result of a 12-year investigation that includes recently-released archival material and 100 pages references and notes. Really, I have to wonder how Aaronovitch ever garnered the reputation he has, or, for that matter, how he can justify the arrogance that spills onto his pages.
He has special venom for the 9/11 Truth Movement, which he characterizes as "... an assortment of geeks, teenagers, far leftists, far rightists, strange millionaires and perpetual dissidents." Amazingly, to support the 9/11 Commission's account he cites the discredited 2005 Popular Mechanics article on 9/11 but fails to mention the abundance of physical evidence for internal demolition amassed by the (at the time I write this) 1,200 physicists, architects and engineers in Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth who have staked their professional reputations to defend their thesis.
As an aside, he uses personal attack to diminish, as when he refers to David Ray Griffin, a soft-spoken scholar with impeccable credentials, as having a "boring voice and low-key didacticism" or his description of Webster Tarpley as "a wide, shiny sixty-year-old, bald and slick, who possesses the menacing amiability of a big-tent evangelist smilingly consigning sinners to eternal torment".
Important material is so scrupulously avoided as to make the book a piece of disinformation. As I "researched" Aaronovitch, I had to laugh at his having won an Orwell Award in 2001. Really, some things are so absolutely ironic that you want to freeze dry them for posterity. On the back of the book's jacket is a comment from The Times (UK) that refers to Voodoo Histories as a "tasty loaf". Right on. But a loaf of what?
Showing reviews 1-5 of 37
|
|
|
