What do you think?
Rate this book
Among the Truthers: A Journey Through America's Growing Conspiracist Underground
From 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and UFO obsessives, to the cult of Ayn Rand and Birther crusaders, America is suffering from an explosion in post-rationalist ideological movements. In Among the Truthers, journalist Jonathan Kay offers a thoughtful and sobering look at how social networking, and Web-based video sharing, have engendered a flourishing of new conspiracism. Kay details the sociological profiles of ten brands of modern conspiracists - the Failed Historian,the Mid-Life Crack-Up, the Damaged Survivor, the Campus Revolutionary, the Stoner, the Clinical Case, the Puzzle Solver, the Christian Doomsayer, the Cosmic Voyager, and the Egomaniac - in a compelling exploration of America’s departure from reason, and what it means for the very future of rational discourse, as the nation steps further into the 21st century.
368 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2011
15 people are currently reading
797 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews
April 15, 2020
Update Arsonists targetted 51 5G towers in the UK. On my island, the online news media is full of ignorant comments on the New World Order going to order vaccines that have microchips in and 5G is to weaken us. China and the US have each accused the other of creating the virus in their labs. Then of course there are the unoriginal anti-Semitic theories coming from influential politicians, journalists and Imams in Yemen, Argentina, Turkey, Switzerland, France, Iran etc. Jews were blamed for the Black Plague too. There you go, some people love them some conspiracy theory, much better than facts and reality.
__________
The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat 20 pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than 10 normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." —Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
"The defining feature of a true conspiracy theory is that it has, embedded within its syllogistic circuitry, an explanation for why insiders refuse to go public with their information: Either they are coconspirators themselves, or they have been paid off, or threatened." Author
On reading the book I'm a very pragmatic person, I'm an existentialist and not at all spiritual and I don't like conspiracy theories at all. I don't like myths that rise to 'truths' (like drinking 8 glasses of water a day being necessary to health. It was an advertising campaign by Nestle to sell their bottled water back in the 80s. Before that people drank tap water when they were thirsty).
Something I despise is misinformation despite all evidence to the contrary that actually harms people, like believing vaccinations cause autism. They don't. They never did. The doctor, since struck-off wanted to replace the all-in-one vaccination with his own from which he would make millions. He was also paid to 'prove' connections to autism that never existed.
There are many groups of people who deliberately spread misinfomation, either because they are schizophrenics living in an alternative interior world, or acting like them, or they have something to gain not necessarily material. Like the birthers, like those who think the moon landings were staged on earth, and especially those who think the US government (run by Bush and Rockefeller et al, who were definitely under the control of those hated Zionists/Jews (word interchangeable in this and many other context) as all of America is) actually planted bombs in the twin towers, and then sent American pilots (the real pilots they say, didn't have enough technical ability, despite being trained by Americans) in to bomb their own people.
Yes, there is often a nugget of truth that becomes of greater importance than it deserves. Like the disinformation that Bush would retire to Paraguay where he could hang out with his Nazi buddies. He didn't. He didn't have Nazi buddies anyway, but his grandfather had a business that did profit greatly from the Nazis. Red herring indeed.
The greatest sin in the Western world right now is giving offence. So we have to be PC and we have to state that we believe in things we do not actually believe in and deny what we know either to be true or are our true feelings. Because if we do not acknowledge the PC wisdom then we causing offence. But if we do, if we are fools to ourselves.
What I am getting from this book is somewhat uncomfortable but not for reasons you might think. At the bottom of almost every conspiracy theory, JFK's assassination, the cause of WWI, the high price of oil etc, is the Jews. They apparently run America, are the Saudi royal family and have almost all the world's money and media under their control. I'm uncomfortable because I am Jewish and I want to know what's wrong with me that I don't have My Share of these riches and power. None of my family, none of my extended family, friends, aquaintances or even enemies (Jewish). What is WRONG with all of us? Or is it just a conspiracy theory and Jews are just ordinary people like everyone else which means some of them are taxi drivers and some have bookshops and some are rich and powerful?
Everyone believes that they are logical and that when other people say that evolution is true and that creationism is a silly perhaps dangerous invention, or that no one ever turned water into wine, had burning bushes chat to them or were divinely inspired to insist that women walk around in shrouds, they get really upset.
Everyone thinks that their "truth" is universal despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, truth is what people believe and if enough people believe it then it becomes politically-incorrect to speak out against it or possibly even life-threatening. Free speech be damned. That is a myth too. There isn't any.
__________
The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat 20 pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than 10 normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists, as the late lawyer Louis Nizer once observed, that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained." —Vincent Bugliosi, Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
"The defining feature of a true conspiracy theory is that it has, embedded within its syllogistic circuitry, an explanation for why insiders refuse to go public with their information: Either they are coconspirators themselves, or they have been paid off, or threatened." Author
On reading the book I'm a very pragmatic person, I'm an existentialist and not at all spiritual and I don't like conspiracy theories at all. I don't like myths that rise to 'truths' (like drinking 8 glasses of water a day being necessary to health. It was an advertising campaign by Nestle to sell their bottled water back in the 80s. Before that people drank tap water when they were thirsty).
Something I despise is misinformation despite all evidence to the contrary that actually harms people, like believing vaccinations cause autism. They don't. They never did. The doctor, since struck-off wanted to replace the all-in-one vaccination with his own from which he would make millions. He was also paid to 'prove' connections to autism that never existed.
There are many groups of people who deliberately spread misinfomation, either because they are schizophrenics living in an alternative interior world, or acting like them, or they have something to gain not necessarily material. Like the birthers, like those who think the moon landings were staged on earth, and especially those who think the US government (run by Bush and Rockefeller et al, who were definitely under the control of those hated Zionists/Jews (word interchangeable in this and many other context) as all of America is) actually planted bombs in the twin towers, and then sent American pilots (the real pilots they say, didn't have enough technical ability, despite being trained by Americans) in to bomb their own people.
Yes, there is often a nugget of truth that becomes of greater importance than it deserves. Like the disinformation that Bush would retire to Paraguay where he could hang out with his Nazi buddies. He didn't. He didn't have Nazi buddies anyway, but his grandfather had a business that did profit greatly from the Nazis. Red herring indeed.
The greatest sin in the Western world right now is giving offence. So we have to be PC and we have to state that we believe in things we do not actually believe in and deny what we know either to be true or are our true feelings. Because if we do not acknowledge the PC wisdom then we causing offence. But if we do, if we are fools to ourselves.
What I am getting from this book is somewhat uncomfortable but not for reasons you might think. At the bottom of almost every conspiracy theory, JFK's assassination, the cause of WWI, the high price of oil etc, is the Jews. They apparently run America, are the Saudi royal family and have almost all the world's money and media under their control. I'm uncomfortable because I am Jewish and I want to know what's wrong with me that I don't have My Share of these riches and power. None of my family, none of my extended family, friends, aquaintances or even enemies (Jewish). What is WRONG with all of us? Or is it just a conspiracy theory and Jews are just ordinary people like everyone else which means some of them are taxi drivers and some have bookshops and some are rich and powerful?
Everyone believes that they are logical and that when other people say that evolution is true and that creationism is a silly perhaps dangerous invention, or that no one ever turned water into wine, had burning bushes chat to them or were divinely inspired to insist that women walk around in shrouds, they get really upset.
Everyone thinks that their "truth" is universal despite all evidence to the contrary. In other words, truth is what people believe and if enough people believe it then it becomes politically-incorrect to speak out against it or possibly even life-threatening. Free speech be damned. That is a myth too. There isn't any.
August 5, 2011
Let's start by making it clear that I'm not disputing what Kay writes regarding the wrongness of Truthers and other conspiracy nuts. Truthers, Birthers, Holocaust deniers, and anti-vaccine fanatics are wrong, and if you believe their garbage you are an idiot. It is unfortunate, then, that a high-profile and well researched book on the subject is such a failure. Kay undermines his own argument, injects petty political bias into the text, and just comes across as a jerk.
Understanding the psychological and cognitive processes involved in becoming a conspiracy theorist is the stated project of the book, and a very worthwhile topic. In some cases, Kay does so effectively and thoroughly. For example, his deft disassembling of the use of anecdotal evidence to support the vaccine/autism link may be the best I have ever read. Unfortunately, on other occasions his arguments are so poor that they seem to give a modicum of credibility to the cranks. For example, Kay argues that some people are paranoid about current conspiracies (9/11, NWO, vaccines) because of lack of faith in government. Fair enough. He then goes on to link lack of faith in government with previous conspiracies (Teapot Dome Scandal, Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin) that actually happened. Which makes perfect sense to me, and is most likely true. But when you break it down, he is arguing that conspiracists are wrong because part of their evidence comes from the existence of real-life conspiracies. Which is not exactly logically solid.
Kay is also willing to leave out key facts to make his point, which more seriously undermines his arguments because it could be construed as evidence of media manipulation. For example, in one section on the Bilderburg group, Kay provides a quote from Conrad Black, one of the members of the group, describing what takes place at the meeting. Kay casually mentions that Black "happens to be a colleague of mine". This conjures up the image of another hard-working, ethical reporter or editor at a newspaper. Nowhere is it mentioned that Black was the owner of the National Post and therefore Kay's boss, or that he is currently serving a prison sentence in an American jail for fraud and obstruction of justice. Does Kay honestly think that Black's credibility is not an issue at all? This crosses the line from disingenuous shading of the truth into an outright lie of omission. More importantly, this is precisely the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists believe the media is willfully doing to manipulate information. Is Kay trying to give the wingnuts more ammunition? He readily attacks the credibility of others using their criminal histories, personal lives, or choice of profession (Kay seems to hate poets), so it was evident that some thoughtfulness went into this decision.
At some point, one notices that Kay is seeing conspiracists where none exist. For example, his description of "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein ("full-fledged conspiratorial fantasy") is so disconnected from its actual contents and from the construct of a conspiracy theory, that the reader wonders if he has even read Klein's book (or his own, for that matter): "Klein had convinced herself that the world was controlled by a cabal of hypercapitalists who'd been personally recruited and indoctrinatted by US economist Milton Friedman". Eventually you realize that Kay is not content to write about the topic of conspiracy theories. Instead, he broadens his reach to include include any belief that powerful, wealthy individuals or groups sometimes use their resources for their own good at the expense of others. Such a belief does not require a conspiracy theory, and more importantly is blatantly obvious; all people look out for their own self-interest, and the powerful are able to do so more effectively. Of course, Kay only mentions or challenges such beliefs when the source is left of center or directed at the state of Israel (which in Kay's mind is by definition anti-Semitic and conspiracist).
Equal time does not mean equal treatment
Kay seems to believe that by including both right- and left-wing cranks, he is being unbiased and objective. What he is actually doing in "Truthers" is advancing a center-right wing agenda by carefully, subtly, and selectively describing both sides so that mainstream conservatives come out in a much more favourable light. For example, when describing the right-wing conspiracy fringe, he describes them with words like "extreme right" and "right wing fanatics". One gets the impression (correctly) that only the extreme fringe of conservatives is involved in such conspiracy theories. But when describing conspiracists on the left, he uses terms such as "leftist college students", "left-wingers", "Stewart-ites", or my personal favourite "the vegan left". This is designed to give the false impression that anyone more liberal than centre-left is a crackpot. Kay's descriptions carve out a place along the political spectrum where one is not a conspiracist, and it is clear that he believes there is more room in this space on the right than on the left.
For example, on one occasion, Kay mentions in passing that the mainstream Left was not able to accept that "one of their own" had assassinated JFK. For Kay, once you are a hair more liberal than left of center, there are no more shades of gray, and all are painted with the same communist/conspiracist brush. At some points, this crosses the line from bias into absurdity, caricature, and pettiness. For example, read the following paragraph and try not to roll your eyes: "Solway's political attitudes had hewn faithfully to the left-wing cant expected of a man who makes his living with poetry. He was anti-American, anti-Isreal, antiglobalization. He read Chomsky with approval, railed against George W. Bush, expressed solidarity with the Palestinaians, smoked pot, went to demonstrations, and lived off government grants". Seriously, was that necessary to make the point that this fellow was liberal before he became a conspiracist nut?
Kay states that he realizes his book will not sway the opinions of any Truthers or other conspiracy nuts, and he is right. Don't bother reading "Among the Truthers" if you want an analysis of the psychological motivations behind conspiracy theories; Michel Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, has already done so much more scientifically, more effectively and without needlessly injecting his personal political opinions into his argument. If you are interested in technical debunking of 9/11 Truther myths, read the excellent article in Popular Mechanics. More importantly, if you are interested in conspiracy theories, read the 9/11 Commission Report and you will realize that there was in fact a conspiracy of evil people (Al Qaeda) responsible for the attacks. Having given these recommendations, there are very few people to whom I would recommend "Among the Truthers". I suppose that if you want to congratulate yourself for having the exact same worldview as the editor of the National Post, this is excellent intellectual-masturbatory fodder.
Understanding the psychological and cognitive processes involved in becoming a conspiracy theorist is the stated project of the book, and a very worthwhile topic. In some cases, Kay does so effectively and thoroughly. For example, his deft disassembling of the use of anecdotal evidence to support the vaccine/autism link may be the best I have ever read. Unfortunately, on other occasions his arguments are so poor that they seem to give a modicum of credibility to the cranks. For example, Kay argues that some people are paranoid about current conspiracies (9/11, NWO, vaccines) because of lack of faith in government. Fair enough. He then goes on to link lack of faith in government with previous conspiracies (Teapot Dome Scandal, Watergate, Gulf of Tonkin) that actually happened. Which makes perfect sense to me, and is most likely true. But when you break it down, he is arguing that conspiracists are wrong because part of their evidence comes from the existence of real-life conspiracies. Which is not exactly logically solid.
Kay is also willing to leave out key facts to make his point, which more seriously undermines his arguments because it could be construed as evidence of media manipulation. For example, in one section on the Bilderburg group, Kay provides a quote from Conrad Black, one of the members of the group, describing what takes place at the meeting. Kay casually mentions that Black "happens to be a colleague of mine". This conjures up the image of another hard-working, ethical reporter or editor at a newspaper. Nowhere is it mentioned that Black was the owner of the National Post and therefore Kay's boss, or that he is currently serving a prison sentence in an American jail for fraud and obstruction of justice. Does Kay honestly think that Black's credibility is not an issue at all? This crosses the line from disingenuous shading of the truth into an outright lie of omission. More importantly, this is precisely the sort of thing that conspiracy theorists believe the media is willfully doing to manipulate information. Is Kay trying to give the wingnuts more ammunition? He readily attacks the credibility of others using their criminal histories, personal lives, or choice of profession (Kay seems to hate poets), so it was evident that some thoughtfulness went into this decision.
At some point, one notices that Kay is seeing conspiracists where none exist. For example, his description of "The Shock Doctrine" by Naomi Klein ("full-fledged conspiratorial fantasy") is so disconnected from its actual contents and from the construct of a conspiracy theory, that the reader wonders if he has even read Klein's book (or his own, for that matter): "Klein had convinced herself that the world was controlled by a cabal of hypercapitalists who'd been personally recruited and indoctrinatted by US economist Milton Friedman". Eventually you realize that Kay is not content to write about the topic of conspiracy theories. Instead, he broadens his reach to include include any belief that powerful, wealthy individuals or groups sometimes use their resources for their own good at the expense of others. Such a belief does not require a conspiracy theory, and more importantly is blatantly obvious; all people look out for their own self-interest, and the powerful are able to do so more effectively. Of course, Kay only mentions or challenges such beliefs when the source is left of center or directed at the state of Israel (which in Kay's mind is by definition anti-Semitic and conspiracist).
Equal time does not mean equal treatment
Kay seems to believe that by including both right- and left-wing cranks, he is being unbiased and objective. What he is actually doing in "Truthers" is advancing a center-right wing agenda by carefully, subtly, and selectively describing both sides so that mainstream conservatives come out in a much more favourable light. For example, when describing the right-wing conspiracy fringe, he describes them with words like "extreme right" and "right wing fanatics". One gets the impression (correctly) that only the extreme fringe of conservatives is involved in such conspiracy theories. But when describing conspiracists on the left, he uses terms such as "leftist college students", "left-wingers", "Stewart-ites", or my personal favourite "the vegan left". This is designed to give the false impression that anyone more liberal than centre-left is a crackpot. Kay's descriptions carve out a place along the political spectrum where one is not a conspiracist, and it is clear that he believes there is more room in this space on the right than on the left.
For example, on one occasion, Kay mentions in passing that the mainstream Left was not able to accept that "one of their own" had assassinated JFK. For Kay, once you are a hair more liberal than left of center, there are no more shades of gray, and all are painted with the same communist/conspiracist brush. At some points, this crosses the line from bias into absurdity, caricature, and pettiness. For example, read the following paragraph and try not to roll your eyes: "Solway's political attitudes had hewn faithfully to the left-wing cant expected of a man who makes his living with poetry. He was anti-American, anti-Isreal, antiglobalization. He read Chomsky with approval, railed against George W. Bush, expressed solidarity with the Palestinaians, smoked pot, went to demonstrations, and lived off government grants". Seriously, was that necessary to make the point that this fellow was liberal before he became a conspiracist nut?
Kay states that he realizes his book will not sway the opinions of any Truthers or other conspiracy nuts, and he is right. Don't bother reading "Among the Truthers" if you want an analysis of the psychological motivations behind conspiracy theories; Michel Shermer, editor of Skeptic magazine, has already done so much more scientifically, more effectively and without needlessly injecting his personal political opinions into his argument. If you are interested in technical debunking of 9/11 Truther myths, read the excellent article in Popular Mechanics. More importantly, if you are interested in conspiracy theories, read the 9/11 Commission Report and you will realize that there was in fact a conspiracy of evil people (Al Qaeda) responsible for the attacks. Having given these recommendations, there are very few people to whom I would recommend "Among the Truthers". I suppose that if you want to congratulate yourself for having the exact same worldview as the editor of the National Post, this is excellent intellectual-masturbatory fodder.
March 17, 2025
Conspiracism is not so much a psychological ailment in and of itself as it is a symptom of a mind in flight from reality. The flight can be induced by any number of causes – including radical nationalism, tribalistic hatred, midlife ennui, narcissism, profound psychic trauma, spiritual longing, or even experimental drug use. (p. 150)
I once found myself staring down the rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory, wondering if I should take the plunge. I had just watched the Loose Change video about 9/11, and it all sounded so – plausible. It made me wonder if I should consider alternative explanations. Then I remembered a conversation I once had with a retired police detective. Somehow we got to talking about the Kennedy assassination and he was asked if he thought it might have been a conspiracy. He said that there were still a number of open questions, and some of the evidence was badly handled, but he didn’t think there was a grand plot. His reasoning was simple: if you were part of a cabal intending to kill the President you would have to be absolutely sure you could pull it off, because the consequences of failure would destroy everyone involved. Getting everything in place would require a lot of coordination and a lot of people. And yet, in all this time, no one has ever admitted to taking part in it: no deathbed confessions, no plea bargain agreements, no drunken boasts, nothing. This did not sound like what he knew of human nature, and I thought about that when I considered 9/11 and the number of people it would take to pull it off. So I stepped away from the rabbit hole and decided to take my information from people who actually knew what they were talking about, real pilots and structural engineers and demolitions experts.
Once you go down the conspiracist path it is very difficult to come back. You find a congenial world of people who think like you, and who offer more and more “evidence” to support their positions. Alternative sources of information are shunned, as coming from either dupes or people who are themselves part of the conspiracy. And once you drink that Kool-Aid, you find there are plenty of other flavors to sample. “The only characteristic that strongly correlates with belief in any particular conspiracy theory is a belief in other conspiracy theories.” (p. 150) Before you know it you are a full fledged member of Crazy Town, with strong opinions on fluoridation, alien overlords, adrenochrome, the flat earth, and perhaps plots to steal precious bodily fluids (à la Dr. Strangelove).
The author of this book, Jonathan Kay, has a good working definition for conspiracy: “A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.” (p. 21)
This book shows plenty of true believers who have gone way off the deep end, practically frothing at the mouth with hatred and paranoia. The more disturbing ones, however, seem completely sane, at least in their carefully constructed and controlled internet presences. In person the facade starts to slip, and the author’s conversations with them became rambling streams of consciousness increasingly unmoored from the real world. To someone not invested in these theories they sound sad and pathetic. “For all their pretensions to sophisticated truth-seeking, conspiracists often seem stuck in the suburban-basement universe of secret decoder rings and Star Wars action figures.” (p. 92)
The key concept here is reality, and it is the most troubling. Mark Twain had a great quote, “You can’t reason someone out of something that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place.” It is almost impossible to reason a conspiracy believer out of their position. They reject evidence from what most of us consider experts, and immerse themselves in a welter of counterfactual data that only people like themselves know, and which, if later investigated, is found to be not just untrue, but preposterous.
If you can’t reason with them, then you have no middle ground from which to reach an understanding. The implications of this are serious: you are not just two people with different opinions, you inhabit different realities. This is taken advantage of by opportunistic politicians, religious leaders, and pundits, and it has dire consequences for democratic society. “It is not unusual for intellectuals and politicians to reject their opponents’ arguments. But it is the mark of an intellectually pathologized society that intellectuals and politicians will reject their opponents’ realities.” (p. xix-xx)
The author looks at what personality types and life events draw people into the conspiracist quagmire, and there are a number of them, some intellectual, some spiritual, some plain old ignorance and dumbassery. It can be energizing to believe oneself a stalwart truth seeker, heroically standing firm against the forces of evil and speaking truth to power. It is also comforting to believe that the bad things in life are not their fault. “In America...life’s losers have no one to blame but themselves. And so the conceit that they are up against some all-powerful corporate or governmental conspiracy comes as a relief: It removes the stigma of failure, and replaces it with the more psychologically manageable feeling of anger.” (p. 140)
And the saddest thing of all: they are gaining ground. The book was written in 2009-2010, and published in 2011. Things have only gotten worse. The most chilling quote comes when one of the Obama-haters extrapolates the future and summons what will be the specter of Donald Trump.
Having found that they can spin out Truthers’ distrust of experts and social institutions, the Right Wing media plays it for all it’s worth. If your position is illogical, attack logic. If history shows your ideas have never worked, attack history. Attack justice, attack equality, attack free speech. You will find plenty of people willing to believe you. “Conspiracism threatens the intellectual foundations of rationalism by eroding the baseline presumption that we all inhabit the same reality.” (p. 225)
We will all end up being pulled down that rabbit hole if a certain political party has its way. Where it ends no one can tell, but it will not be democratic, nor a respecter of individual liberties, nor tolerant of any beliefs but its own.
I once found myself staring down the rabbit hole of a conspiracy theory, wondering if I should take the plunge. I had just watched the Loose Change video about 9/11, and it all sounded so – plausible. It made me wonder if I should consider alternative explanations. Then I remembered a conversation I once had with a retired police detective. Somehow we got to talking about the Kennedy assassination and he was asked if he thought it might have been a conspiracy. He said that there were still a number of open questions, and some of the evidence was badly handled, but he didn’t think there was a grand plot. His reasoning was simple: if you were part of a cabal intending to kill the President you would have to be absolutely sure you could pull it off, because the consequences of failure would destroy everyone involved. Getting everything in place would require a lot of coordination and a lot of people. And yet, in all this time, no one has ever admitted to taking part in it: no deathbed confessions, no plea bargain agreements, no drunken boasts, nothing. This did not sound like what he knew of human nature, and I thought about that when I considered 9/11 and the number of people it would take to pull it off. So I stepped away from the rabbit hole and decided to take my information from people who actually knew what they were talking about, real pilots and structural engineers and demolitions experts.
Once you go down the conspiracist path it is very difficult to come back. You find a congenial world of people who think like you, and who offer more and more “evidence” to support their positions. Alternative sources of information are shunned, as coming from either dupes or people who are themselves part of the conspiracy. And once you drink that Kool-Aid, you find there are plenty of other flavors to sample. “The only characteristic that strongly correlates with belief in any particular conspiracy theory is a belief in other conspiracy theories.” (p. 150) Before you know it you are a full fledged member of Crazy Town, with strong opinions on fluoridation, alien overlords, adrenochrome, the flat earth, and perhaps plots to steal precious bodily fluids (à la Dr. Strangelove).
The author of this book, Jonathan Kay, has a good working definition for conspiracy: “A theory that traces important events to a secretive, nefarious cabal, and whose proponents consistently respond to contrary facts not by modifying their theory, but instead by insisting on the existence of ever-wider circles of high-level conspirators controlling most or all parts of society.” (p. 21)
This book shows plenty of true believers who have gone way off the deep end, practically frothing at the mouth with hatred and paranoia. The more disturbing ones, however, seem completely sane, at least in their carefully constructed and controlled internet presences. In person the facade starts to slip, and the author’s conversations with them became rambling streams of consciousness increasingly unmoored from the real world. To someone not invested in these theories they sound sad and pathetic. “For all their pretensions to sophisticated truth-seeking, conspiracists often seem stuck in the suburban-basement universe of secret decoder rings and Star Wars action figures.” (p. 92)
The key concept here is reality, and it is the most troubling. Mark Twain had a great quote, “You can’t reason someone out of something that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place.” It is almost impossible to reason a conspiracy believer out of their position. They reject evidence from what most of us consider experts, and immerse themselves in a welter of counterfactual data that only people like themselves know, and which, if later investigated, is found to be not just untrue, but preposterous.
If you can’t reason with them, then you have no middle ground from which to reach an understanding. The implications of this are serious: you are not just two people with different opinions, you inhabit different realities. This is taken advantage of by opportunistic politicians, religious leaders, and pundits, and it has dire consequences for democratic society. “It is not unusual for intellectuals and politicians to reject their opponents’ arguments. But it is the mark of an intellectually pathologized society that intellectuals and politicians will reject their opponents’ realities.” (p. xix-xx)
The author looks at what personality types and life events draw people into the conspiracist quagmire, and there are a number of them, some intellectual, some spiritual, some plain old ignorance and dumbassery. It can be energizing to believe oneself a stalwart truth seeker, heroically standing firm against the forces of evil and speaking truth to power. It is also comforting to believe that the bad things in life are not their fault. “In America...life’s losers have no one to blame but themselves. And so the conceit that they are up against some all-powerful corporate or governmental conspiracy comes as a relief: It removes the stigma of failure, and replaces it with the more psychologically manageable feeling of anger.” (p. 140)
And the saddest thing of all: they are gaining ground. The book was written in 2009-2010, and published in 2011. Things have only gotten worse. The most chilling quote comes when one of the Obama-haters extrapolates the future and summons what will be the specter of Donald Trump.
he also sees Obama as a possible blessing in disguise – as someone so offensive to American values that his presidency could provoke a revolutionary, rightward shift in the political landscape on a scale even greater than Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election victory: “Americans aren’t political. But with Obama, that’s changed. I haven’t seen anything like this in my life. This is bigger than the 1960s. That was just kids on campus. What we’re seeing now are ordinary Americans. This anger is finally clicking." (p. 122-123)
Having found that they can spin out Truthers’ distrust of experts and social institutions, the Right Wing media plays it for all it’s worth. If your position is illogical, attack logic. If history shows your ideas have never worked, attack history. Attack justice, attack equality, attack free speech. You will find plenty of people willing to believe you. “Conspiracism threatens the intellectual foundations of rationalism by eroding the baseline presumption that we all inhabit the same reality.” (p. 225)
We will all end up being pulled down that rabbit hole if a certain political party has its way. Where it ends no one can tell, but it will not be democratic, nor a respecter of individual liberties, nor tolerant of any beliefs but its own.
January 9, 2012
Oh, man, this book. I usually don't finish books I dislike this much, but I kept telling myself I had gotten this far and I really wanted to write a good review so I persevered with it and was able to finish. I guess that's an accomplishment?
I picked this book up because I have an ongoing interest in reading about conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them. "Truthers," or people who believe in "9/11 Truth", the idea that the American government was secretly behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, are certainly an intriguing group whose viewpoint is so different from my own (and reality) that I wanted to know what made them tick. Kay's stated mission statement for this book is to not only profile individual Truthers but to also connect them with the greater tradition of conspiracy theories in history and offer "concrete solutions" to combat the growth of such theories in the future. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, this mess of a book fails to live up to Kay's lofty ambitions.
First of all, before I get into any of my problems with Kay's ideas or politics, let's talk about the writing. Kay has a lively, journalistic style. You can tell that he has a background in reporting. However, this is not necessarily an asset when one is attempting to write a book that seriously analyzes a current movement, as well as broad swathes of history, and attempts to offer new ideas about psychology and politics. While Kay sometimes uses in-text citations, he just as often offers information without showing his source. There are no footnotes, no endnotes, nor even a bibliography. What's more, the language he uses often descends into jingoistic stereotypes. Structurally, he attempts to divide the book into three sections: the first giving a history of conspiracism, the second introducing us to the Truthers themselves, and the third examining the factors in society that enable such conspiracy theories to grow as well as offering solutions to restrict this growth. In reality, he doesn't stick to this format. He jumps from idea to idea and back through out the book, making for a confusing read.
Now, let's talk about the contents of the book. David Kay is a Canadian conservative. I have nothing wrong with this. My problem is with the fact that he never comes out and states that he is a conservative. The book jacket describes him as an editor and columnist for Canada's National Post newspaper. I wasn't familiar with this paper, and I am comfortable stating that the majority of American's probably aren't either. I had to look up the National Post to learn that it's a newspaper known, indeed founded, for its conservative editorial perspective. Kay's conservative views permeate the entire book. This isn't a shock; I don't expect anyone to be able to completely divorce themselves from their political opinions or viewpoint. I do, however, expect that when I am reading a nonfiction book or a piece of reporting, that the author will at least make an attempt at objectivity. Kay fails to do so. When he speaks of far-right conspiracists he is careful to call them "radical," "fringe," or at the very least "far right". When he talks about conspiracists on the opposite end of the spectrum, however, he describes them as "liberals", "left wing college activists--- the type who had constructed their image of America from books by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn," or the "university-educated, anti-American, left-wing side of the political spectrum."
One of the central tenets of Kay's book is that academics and the "Ivy League elitists" have pushed the idea that there is no literal, historical truth based on facts, that all truth is subjective. He, of course, knows better (much like the Truther and other conspiracists he profiles); there is inarguable, concrete truth, and it is Jonathan Kay's truth. Big government is evil and everyone knows it, whether they will admit it or not. Campuses have been overrun by "radical feminists" and the proponents of "radical identity politics" who insist on studying made up subjects like African-American or women's history. Anyone who questions Israel's actions towards Palestinians is an anti-Semite, hiding their hatred of Jews beneath the excuse of civil rights. This is like if I, as a liberal, were to right a book about conspiracy theories and label anyone who believe in laissez-faire capitalism or who opposes affirmative action as conspiracists. Kay comes dangerously close to embracing the kind of painting-with-a-broad-brush, blaming the world's ills on a singular group, thinking that he so despises in the conspiracists themselves. It's too bad, because Kay does have some kernels of interesting ideas regarding the psychology of those susceptible to conspiracy theories and how such ideas spread. His own biases and ranting against liberals make these valuable insights hard to take seriously though.
But then again, I'm probably just saying all of this because I am part of the problem, helplessly deluded with my "Marxist" political views and dangerous "anti-racist" thinking. It's all because I've read that nonsense by Chomsky and Zinn, you know.
Luckily for you, I have read a few other, better books about conspiracy theories and can recommend them to you. If you're looking for one tracing the history of conspiracy theories and their influence on politics, I recommend Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch. If you want interesting profiles of the people who hold these beliefs, read Jon Ronson's Them, which even features some of the same people interviewed by Kay, but in much more depth.
I picked this book up because I have an ongoing interest in reading about conspiracy theories and the people who believe in them. "Truthers," or people who believe in "9/11 Truth", the idea that the American government was secretly behind the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, are certainly an intriguing group whose viewpoint is so different from my own (and reality) that I wanted to know what made them tick. Kay's stated mission statement for this book is to not only profile individual Truthers but to also connect them with the greater tradition of conspiracy theories in history and offer "concrete solutions" to combat the growth of such theories in the future. Sounds great, right? Unfortunately, this mess of a book fails to live up to Kay's lofty ambitions.
First of all, before I get into any of my problems with Kay's ideas or politics, let's talk about the writing. Kay has a lively, journalistic style. You can tell that he has a background in reporting. However, this is not necessarily an asset when one is attempting to write a book that seriously analyzes a current movement, as well as broad swathes of history, and attempts to offer new ideas about psychology and politics. While Kay sometimes uses in-text citations, he just as often offers information without showing his source. There are no footnotes, no endnotes, nor even a bibliography. What's more, the language he uses often descends into jingoistic stereotypes. Structurally, he attempts to divide the book into three sections: the first giving a history of conspiracism, the second introducing us to the Truthers themselves, and the third examining the factors in society that enable such conspiracy theories to grow as well as offering solutions to restrict this growth. In reality, he doesn't stick to this format. He jumps from idea to idea and back through out the book, making for a confusing read.
Now, let's talk about the contents of the book. David Kay is a Canadian conservative. I have nothing wrong with this. My problem is with the fact that he never comes out and states that he is a conservative. The book jacket describes him as an editor and columnist for Canada's National Post newspaper. I wasn't familiar with this paper, and I am comfortable stating that the majority of American's probably aren't either. I had to look up the National Post to learn that it's a newspaper known, indeed founded, for its conservative editorial perspective. Kay's conservative views permeate the entire book. This isn't a shock; I don't expect anyone to be able to completely divorce themselves from their political opinions or viewpoint. I do, however, expect that when I am reading a nonfiction book or a piece of reporting, that the author will at least make an attempt at objectivity. Kay fails to do so. When he speaks of far-right conspiracists he is careful to call them "radical," "fringe," or at the very least "far right". When he talks about conspiracists on the opposite end of the spectrum, however, he describes them as "liberals", "left wing college activists--- the type who had constructed their image of America from books by Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn," or the "university-educated, anti-American, left-wing side of the political spectrum."
One of the central tenets of Kay's book is that academics and the "Ivy League elitists" have pushed the idea that there is no literal, historical truth based on facts, that all truth is subjective. He, of course, knows better (much like the Truther and other conspiracists he profiles); there is inarguable, concrete truth, and it is Jonathan Kay's truth. Big government is evil and everyone knows it, whether they will admit it or not. Campuses have been overrun by "radical feminists" and the proponents of "radical identity politics" who insist on studying made up subjects like African-American or women's history. Anyone who questions Israel's actions towards Palestinians is an anti-Semite, hiding their hatred of Jews beneath the excuse of civil rights. This is like if I, as a liberal, were to right a book about conspiracy theories and label anyone who believe in laissez-faire capitalism or who opposes affirmative action as conspiracists. Kay comes dangerously close to embracing the kind of painting-with-a-broad-brush, blaming the world's ills on a singular group, thinking that he so despises in the conspiracists themselves. It's too bad, because Kay does have some kernels of interesting ideas regarding the psychology of those susceptible to conspiracy theories and how such ideas spread. His own biases and ranting against liberals make these valuable insights hard to take seriously though.
But then again, I'm probably just saying all of this because I am part of the problem, helplessly deluded with my "Marxist" political views and dangerous "anti-racist" thinking. It's all because I've read that nonsense by Chomsky and Zinn, you know.
Luckily for you, I have read a few other, better books about conspiracy theories and can recommend them to you. If you're looking for one tracing the history of conspiracy theories and their influence on politics, I recommend Voodoo Histories by David Aaronovitch. If you want interesting profiles of the people who hold these beliefs, read Jon Ronson's Them, which even features some of the same people interviewed by Kay, but in much more depth.
April 10, 2022
Truthiness about Truthers.
Kay's overall argument is apparently that anyone who is skeptical of the government is by definition mentally ill: that sounds like Soviet Russia to me, not what America or the Enlightenment is supposed to be about. Very scary.
This book is not objective. The author starts by calling the Truthers "nutbars" but at no point does he debunk what they believe. Toward the end of the book, he says he had to cut out several chapters on facts because his editor said no one would read that. The book is then nothing more than a he said-they said rant. This is a sad commentary on journalism today. The Daily Show does fact-checking, but for a full-length non-fiction book, that is felt to be unnecessary. Kay's lack of reliance on evidence is especially jarring in the context of his grandiose introduction about how the truthers are attacking the very foundations of Enlightenment rationality. Why assume the truthers are crazy simply because they are skeptical of a government that Kay acknowledges has lied repeatedly to start wars? I thought the truthers were wrong before I read the book, but if this is the best proof of their nuttiness, then that's concerning, because they make more sense than the author. For example, Kay goes into great detail about the Northwoods memo, which I had never heard of before, that makes the truther case much more plausible, not less plausible.
He goes out of his way to bring in completely unrelated topics like vaccines, but then gets basic facts wrong, e.g. Hib doesn't cause influenza, it causes bacterial meningitis. Much of the fear about vaccines and autism came from the experts at EPA/CDC/AAP/FDA etc. when they realized there was a very high total dose of mercury in vaccines and then decided to take the mercury out of vaccines. This was never proof of vaccines causing autism, but it was also not just made up by anti-vaccine fanatics. Kay conveniently omits these facts.
Please see comments below for detailed clarifications (?) on above points.
Kay's overall argument is apparently that anyone who is skeptical of the government is by definition mentally ill: that sounds like Soviet Russia to me, not what America or the Enlightenment is supposed to be about. Very scary.
This book is not objective. The author starts by calling the Truthers "nutbars" but at no point does he debunk what they believe. Toward the end of the book, he says he had to cut out several chapters on facts because his editor said no one would read that. The book is then nothing more than a he said-they said rant. This is a sad commentary on journalism today. The Daily Show does fact-checking, but for a full-length non-fiction book, that is felt to be unnecessary. Kay's lack of reliance on evidence is especially jarring in the context of his grandiose introduction about how the truthers are attacking the very foundations of Enlightenment rationality. Why assume the truthers are crazy simply because they are skeptical of a government that Kay acknowledges has lied repeatedly to start wars? I thought the truthers were wrong before I read the book, but if this is the best proof of their nuttiness, then that's concerning, because they make more sense than the author. For example, Kay goes into great detail about the Northwoods memo, which I had never heard of before, that makes the truther case much more plausible, not less plausible.
He goes out of his way to bring in completely unrelated topics like vaccines, but then gets basic facts wrong, e.g. Hib doesn't cause influenza, it causes bacterial meningitis. Much of the fear about vaccines and autism came from the experts at EPA/CDC/AAP/FDA etc. when they realized there was a very high total dose of mercury in vaccines and then decided to take the mercury out of vaccines. This was never proof of vaccines causing autism, but it was also not just made up by anti-vaccine fanatics. Kay conveniently omits these facts.
Please see comments below for detailed clarifications (?) on above points.
February 6, 2019
Conspiracy theories both right and left-wing are examined in AMONG THE TRUTHERS. Neither political outlook has a hold on specious and at times downright bizarre beliefs, as detailed by the author.
We live in an era when people don’t just disagree on politics and opinions, they disagree on entire realities. Kay notes that a certain type of person tends to be attracted into the miasma of conspiracy theories. Those in periods of transition and upheaval in their lives seem especially vulnerable to seizing upon these ideas. Once a person becomes a conspiracy theorist, only they can pull themselves back out. As many have realized, arguing with a person who is completely convinced that their worldview is the only correct one is fruitless and frustrating. The author’s suggestions for educating students on vetting information before they get sucked into this world were interesting and edifying.
There are times when Kay goes off on his own little tangents regarding his personal opinions of subjects such as political correctness. He’s welcome to his views, but I thought the link to conspiracy theories was tenuous. In addition, I think at times the author is a little too accepting of the American way of politics in his repudiation of conspiracy theorists. It is one thing to claim that the US government is controlled by the Illuminati or space aliens; it is quite another to argue that industry lobbyists and PACs steer a great deal of legislative maneuvers through their monetary donations—and many of these measures are not in the best interest of everyday citizens.
I do wish to comment on a small part of this book that I found unnecessarily offensive. When discussing anti-vaxxers and their penchant for huckster “miracle cures,” Kay writes that these beliefs are most commonly associated with the “vegan Left.” I chose to become a vegan because I don’t want to participate in the extreme animal cruelty of factory farming—pure and simple. And if the subject of food choices weren’t such an emotional one, I would argue that a significant percentage of people would agree that what we do to animals isn’t right. Have I met subscribers to bizarre and potentially dangerous medical beliefs in the vegan community? Absolutely. But I’ve met just as many in the mainstream, omnivorous world. All sorts of people are vulnerable to being sucked into the world of conspiracy theories.
We live in an era when people don’t just disagree on politics and opinions, they disagree on entire realities. Kay notes that a certain type of person tends to be attracted into the miasma of conspiracy theories. Those in periods of transition and upheaval in their lives seem especially vulnerable to seizing upon these ideas. Once a person becomes a conspiracy theorist, only they can pull themselves back out. As many have realized, arguing with a person who is completely convinced that their worldview is the only correct one is fruitless and frustrating. The author’s suggestions for educating students on vetting information before they get sucked into this world were interesting and edifying.
There are times when Kay goes off on his own little tangents regarding his personal opinions of subjects such as political correctness. He’s welcome to his views, but I thought the link to conspiracy theories was tenuous. In addition, I think at times the author is a little too accepting of the American way of politics in his repudiation of conspiracy theorists. It is one thing to claim that the US government is controlled by the Illuminati or space aliens; it is quite another to argue that industry lobbyists and PACs steer a great deal of legislative maneuvers through their monetary donations—and many of these measures are not in the best interest of everyday citizens.
I do wish to comment on a small part of this book that I found unnecessarily offensive. When discussing anti-vaxxers and their penchant for huckster “miracle cures,” Kay writes that these beliefs are most commonly associated with the “vegan Left.” I chose to become a vegan because I don’t want to participate in the extreme animal cruelty of factory farming—pure and simple. And if the subject of food choices weren’t such an emotional one, I would argue that a significant percentage of people would agree that what we do to animals isn’t right. Have I met subscribers to bizarre and potentially dangerous medical beliefs in the vegan community? Absolutely. But I’ve met just as many in the mainstream, omnivorous world. All sorts of people are vulnerable to being sucked into the world of conspiracy theories.
June 22, 2011
This book was a bit like a sandwich with great bread and just OK filling. The beginning in which Kay traces the history of conspiracy movements in the U.S. and worldwide was quite well done and fascinating. Ditto the end in which he theorizes and tries to explain why, even though some of the conspiracists are educated people, they persist in their wacko delusions. He links the rise of the "truthers" to the internet (in which all narrative is presented uncritically) and postmodernism (in which every idea is presented uncritically and none privileged over another). I am not necessarily on the same page with him about education -- a PhD in engineering does not make one a critical thinker or one who can think about big pictures or understand context. Like medicine, it is a very narrow and technical degree which needs to be supplemented by some social science material. I do agree with him about the fact that fringe elements exist on the right and on the left of the political spectrum. And both of them are equally as annoying.
The problem I had with this book was that the middle dragged. I became quite weary of Kay's interviews with 9/11 conspirasists which was repetetive. I mean one wacko theory about 9/11 is not that much different than anothers. I thought it would have helped had he introduced more crazy conspiracies instead of emphasizing so much in the way of 9/11 and broadened the discussion. For example, Poland has its own version of truthers who believe that the Smolensk airplane crash was orchestrated by the Russians, despite overwhelming evidence that it was pilot bad judgement. This one example underscores the universality of "strange thinking" and the reluctance of many people to accept that there may not necessarily be simple explanations for every catastrophe or every event. Overall a good book and worthwhile read.
The problem I had with this book was that the middle dragged. I became quite weary of Kay's interviews with 9/11 conspirasists which was repetetive. I mean one wacko theory about 9/11 is not that much different than anothers. I thought it would have helped had he introduced more crazy conspiracies instead of emphasizing so much in the way of 9/11 and broadened the discussion. For example, Poland has its own version of truthers who believe that the Smolensk airplane crash was orchestrated by the Russians, despite overwhelming evidence that it was pilot bad judgement. This one example underscores the universality of "strange thinking" and the reluctance of many people to accept that there may not necessarily be simple explanations for every catastrophe or every event. Overall a good book and worthwhile read.
February 4, 2013
I am amazed (and sickened, frankly) at how dumb (for want of a better word) America has become: I do not understand how it has become socially acceptable, for example, to deny evolution and how it is even acceptable that an adult have the position that they "don't believe it". It is not something to be believed or not believed but rather understood or not understood. This extends to all kinds of truths and our society in general. Why, oh why, has the Catholic Church not simply been disbanded after we found out that it essentially serves as an organization to protect pedophiles from being caught?
Jonathan Kay does not cover these specific topics (and does not attempt to) but he does cover quite well the cognitive dissonance that is necessary, and exists, in individuals, to believe things that are quite simply not true, or at least have no factual basis for believing. For me, it made an interesting companion piece to "Whose Freedom?" by George Lakoff that I recently finished--Lakoff concentrates on how the right wing and the left wing polities of America can believe diametrically opposed things, and how we all vote on items that are precisely against our best interests (e.g., why do poor conservatives support tax cuts for the richest people in America?)
The author loses the thread at about the 3/4 point and too much of his point revolves around discussion of how conspiracy theories revolve around Jews. Not necessarily inaccurate, but the writing loses its earlier focus and it is not clear what he is going at.
There a probably better books on the topic available, but this is worth a read.
Jonathan Kay does not cover these specific topics (and does not attempt to) but he does cover quite well the cognitive dissonance that is necessary, and exists, in individuals, to believe things that are quite simply not true, or at least have no factual basis for believing. For me, it made an interesting companion piece to "Whose Freedom?" by George Lakoff that I recently finished--Lakoff concentrates on how the right wing and the left wing polities of America can believe diametrically opposed things, and how we all vote on items that are precisely against our best interests (e.g., why do poor conservatives support tax cuts for the richest people in America?)
The author loses the thread at about the 3/4 point and too much of his point revolves around discussion of how conspiracy theories revolve around Jews. Not necessarily inaccurate, but the writing loses its earlier focus and it is not clear what he is going at.
There a probably better books on the topic available, but this is worth a read.
March 22, 2018
My friend is concerned about me, so he asked me to read this book. And so I read it, underlining and marking dozens of passages along the way. There are a few major problems with this book. For one, Kay assumes he is right on every issue and that anybody who believes differently is wrong. No proof of his positions is ever presented. He simply makes blanket statements declaring certain views as "false" or "debunked." Secondly, he criticizes the use of certain tactics, then turns around and uses those same tactics in the book! Thirdly, one of his favorite tactics is to admit repeatedly throughout the book that "there is a grain of truth" or "a sliver of truth" in many of the views he criticizes. This is the use of a damaging admission to build trust with his readers. Fourthly, this book reeks of arrogance. In Kay's world, those who believe in any alternate explanation for historical events must be "mentally damaged" or have some other psychological issue that prevents them from seeing the truth. Fifthly, Kay is a Jewish Zionist who throughout the book defends Jewish Zionists -- although he never discloses this fact. This reminds me of when a cop kills an unarmed man, then the police department says, "Don't worry, we'll conduct an internal investigation." Bottom line: How am I supposed to view Kay's book as anything but a heavily biased piece of propaganda designed to discredit truth seekers?
December 23, 2011
Leave it to a Canadian to offer what may be the most intelligent critique of American Political Discourse in this Age of Competing Horseshit Noise:
"The war is not only shrill, but endless: Since most American conservatives would never actually accept the much smaller government they claim as their goal, their war demands will never be met...so instead, populist conservatives send waves of culture warriors into an unending series of proxy battles...all without much changing of government or preventing it from performing the functions on which we have come to depend. This has pathologized political debate--turning every discussion about legitimate policy areas into a screaming match." (145-46)
I found this book to be mistitled; anyone looking for a in depth treatment of Conspiracy Movements in this country is going to be disappointed. If you want some top-notch political analysis of the effects of conspiracies on the current discourse, this is the book for you. One of the things that most of the Amazon reviewers tend to miss about this text is the emphasis on "pseudo history". I enjoyed Holy Blood, Holy Grail as much as the next guy, but it contained no evidence to support anything. Of course, in this culture, opinion masquerades as fact, and the lack of evidence is consigned to some nebulous conspiracy.
Kay puts this ideology into politics, and there are quite damaging repercussions for politics. If opinions are taken for fact (Bush=Nazi, Obama=Socialist), reason cannot exist. Glenn Beck is a past master at this sort of shit, simply because he does what I call the ol' "Chapter and Verse" trick. Whenever someone challenges Beck on the Fed, or Woodrow Wilson, he pulls out a somewhat obscure piece of legislation about it and challenges the person to explain it to him. When that person cannot, he pounces. It is the same trick used by the Fallwells and Swaggerts of the world; when someone says "The Bible says love your neighbor" they ask "what is the chapter and verse of that?" When that person cannot answer a very obscure question, the loudmouth becomes expert and their opinions carry the weight as facts for people who have limited knowledge.
Watch the Republican Debates or the President's pedantic soundbites. No one ever challenges these people on anything; when they (or anyone else in this fucking country) is questioned, it is a personal attack. We label and do not analyze because we are lazy and really enjoy a good story. Kay finds this a toxic brew for most anything, and I agree completely.
"The war is not only shrill, but endless: Since most American conservatives would never actually accept the much smaller government they claim as their goal, their war demands will never be met...so instead, populist conservatives send waves of culture warriors into an unending series of proxy battles...all without much changing of government or preventing it from performing the functions on which we have come to depend. This has pathologized political debate--turning every discussion about legitimate policy areas into a screaming match." (145-46)
I found this book to be mistitled; anyone looking for a in depth treatment of Conspiracy Movements in this country is going to be disappointed. If you want some top-notch political analysis of the effects of conspiracies on the current discourse, this is the book for you. One of the things that most of the Amazon reviewers tend to miss about this text is the emphasis on "pseudo history". I enjoyed Holy Blood, Holy Grail as much as the next guy, but it contained no evidence to support anything. Of course, in this culture, opinion masquerades as fact, and the lack of evidence is consigned to some nebulous conspiracy.
Kay puts this ideology into politics, and there are quite damaging repercussions for politics. If opinions are taken for fact (Bush=Nazi, Obama=Socialist), reason cannot exist. Glenn Beck is a past master at this sort of shit, simply because he does what I call the ol' "Chapter and Verse" trick. Whenever someone challenges Beck on the Fed, or Woodrow Wilson, he pulls out a somewhat obscure piece of legislation about it and challenges the person to explain it to him. When that person cannot, he pounces. It is the same trick used by the Fallwells and Swaggerts of the world; when someone says "The Bible says love your neighbor" they ask "what is the chapter and verse of that?" When that person cannot answer a very obscure question, the loudmouth becomes expert and their opinions carry the weight as facts for people who have limited knowledge.
Watch the Republican Debates or the President's pedantic soundbites. No one ever challenges these people on anything; when they (or anyone else in this fucking country) is questioned, it is a personal attack. We label and do not analyze because we are lazy and really enjoy a good story. Kay finds this a toxic brew for most anything, and I agree completely.
April 1, 2016
It is frightening what the human mind can believe. Jonathan Kay does us a favor by steeping himself in the culture of conspiracism, reporting what he's learned and placing an honestly eye-opening look at the vast sea of conspiracy that exists in America as well as the world. The takeaway is this: you can't fight conspiracists. Treatment is not an option, you have to prevent the growth of conspiracism by educating young minds about it, laying down what leads people to conspiracism and highlighting ways to spot it and understand the underlying causes. Conspiracists are not going away any time soon - and its better that we understand them and recognize what the underlying causes are, rather than engage them and provide them with platforms on which to overturn reality.
This was a very informative book, and it's worth looking at. I had no idea half of the conspiracies covered in this book existed, or that conspiracists are such a varied bunch, spanning race, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, and nationality. It's so eclectic, it's hard to define them. I feel much more informed now and I am really glad I read this book. If anything, it is an exercise in social studies.
This was a very informative book, and it's worth looking at. I had no idea half of the conspiracies covered in this book existed, or that conspiracists are such a varied bunch, spanning race, religion, political beliefs, sexual orientation, gender, and nationality. It's so eclectic, it's hard to define them. I feel much more informed now and I am really glad I read this book. If anything, it is an exercise in social studies.
April 17, 2011
I managed to get an advanced copy of this book, due to hit shelves sometime in May. I have high praise for this work. I could never fully wrap my mind around how so many of my quite intelligent and articulate friends could fall so deeply for so many of the popular conspiracy theories out there, but this book went a long way in furthering my understanding of why and how folks get sucked into such conspiracy theories. The prose and analysis are sharp, and the historical, political, psychological, and sociological forces behind conspiracy theories are well researched, discussed, and captured. If you've ever tried arguing with a committed conspiracy theorist and have almost died from exasperation, this book is for you.
December 23, 2012
This book is not just about 9/11 conspiracy theories, but about conspiratorial thinking in general. As such, it is a vast and very important piece of work. I was amazed at the depth of Kay's analysis. The many negative reviews I've read on this website IMO speak not so much to the quality of the book as to the fact that the author is very even-handed in his handling of the topic. It's great to see ~other~ people's sacred cows getting de-pedestaled, but when one's ~own~ sacred cow gets knocked down, that's another story!
March 15, 2014
Here we have a book on that most intriguing and, unfortunately, growing ever more common, species, the North American Loonbat. We all know at least one. That guy (as Kay points out, it's invariably a guy) who believes that 9/11 was an inside job, that the world is controlled by a shadowy group of super villains who are so competent that they stand astride the world like a colossus, yet somehow you can still figure out everything they're up to by reading a few books and doing some internet searches. It's the paranoid who thinks that Obama is plotting to take away our guns and force women to have abortions so that he can usher in a Sharia backed socialist Muslim theocracy after all of the good upstanding Christians and patriots have been shuffled off to the FEMA death camps or murdered in their sleep with public health care.
That guy.
Kay set out to write a sort of scholarly, sociological analysis of that guy, delving in to the history, politics, and psychological motives of the common Loonbat and their theories. The result is both very informative and entertaining at the same time. Kudos to the author for achieving such a rare and difficult combination. Anyone who has looked around at the alarmingly fast decay of public discourse and "thought" over the past decade or so will find this one well worth their time.
Politics is a factor here, of course. Conspiracy theorists tend to accumulate at the far ends of the spectrum, after all. Of interesting note is the fact that Kay is a self identified conservative. It speaks volumes that I didn't even realize this until part way through the book, and I had to check an outside source to confirm it. Kay's conservative leanings are far more nuanced and even handed than most of what passes for conservatism these days, and I found myself wishing that more conservatives were like him. Although some of that comes down to the fact that Kay is Canadian - as he himself points out.
Of course, as with any subject with political overtones, one's stance does shape at least some of how they view the situation, and Kay, for his part, just can't resist taking some pot shots, although to his credit he made it most of the way through the book before venting his spleen. The chapter on "Tin-foil mortarboards" is as much about his disdain for ivy league academics as anything, and seemed to me to be only tangentially related to the book's actual subject. As well, he seems to have a bit of the conspiracist in himself from time to time, as he seems to blame a wide variety of conspiracy theories on Marxism. This leads to a few howlers on his part as well, such as when he tries to lay some of the origins of 9/11 trutherism at the feet of Liberals. That said, he does do a very good job of staying pretty balanced, and profiles right wing loonbats with as much probing and precision as he brings to bear on the left wing variety. Literally, by the way - I read an electronic copy of this one, and a simple text search shows that words like "leftist", "Marxist," "conservative," and "right wing" all appear in roughly the same amounts throughout the text.
No matter where you fall, you'll learn something from reading this book. I had watched "Collapse" with some interest, but hadn't realized what an outright crank Micheal Ruppert was , or what the hell the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion was or what the big deal was about, until I read this book.
All in all, totally worth the price of purchase, and a book I look forward to reading again in the future.
That guy.
Kay set out to write a sort of scholarly, sociological analysis of that guy, delving in to the history, politics, and psychological motives of the common Loonbat and their theories. The result is both very informative and entertaining at the same time. Kudos to the author for achieving such a rare and difficult combination. Anyone who has looked around at the alarmingly fast decay of public discourse and "thought" over the past decade or so will find this one well worth their time.
Politics is a factor here, of course. Conspiracy theorists tend to accumulate at the far ends of the spectrum, after all. Of interesting note is the fact that Kay is a self identified conservative. It speaks volumes that I didn't even realize this until part way through the book, and I had to check an outside source to confirm it. Kay's conservative leanings are far more nuanced and even handed than most of what passes for conservatism these days, and I found myself wishing that more conservatives were like him. Although some of that comes down to the fact that Kay is Canadian - as he himself points out.
Of course, as with any subject with political overtones, one's stance does shape at least some of how they view the situation, and Kay, for his part, just can't resist taking some pot shots, although to his credit he made it most of the way through the book before venting his spleen. The chapter on "Tin-foil mortarboards" is as much about his disdain for ivy league academics as anything, and seemed to me to be only tangentially related to the book's actual subject. As well, he seems to have a bit of the conspiracist in himself from time to time, as he seems to blame a wide variety of conspiracy theories on Marxism. This leads to a few howlers on his part as well, such as when he tries to lay some of the origins of 9/11 trutherism at the feet of Liberals. That said, he does do a very good job of staying pretty balanced, and profiles right wing loonbats with as much probing and precision as he brings to bear on the left wing variety. Literally, by the way - I read an electronic copy of this one, and a simple text search shows that words like "leftist", "Marxist," "conservative," and "right wing" all appear in roughly the same amounts throughout the text.
No matter where you fall, you'll learn something from reading this book. I had watched "Collapse" with some interest, but hadn't realized what an outright crank Micheal Ruppert was , or what the hell the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion was or what the big deal was about, until I read this book.
All in all, totally worth the price of purchase, and a book I look forward to reading again in the future.
January 2, 2015
I read a lot of books about politics. From all sides. I've read die hard libertarians books, biographies about presidents and other political figures, communist manifestos, books about alternative political scenarios, books written by politicians for their campaigns and plenty of books written by Fox News hosts. I would have to say that this book is the first book I agree with nearly 99% of it and I'm a registered Republican!
The one thing that I didn't agree with was his implications of 9/11 truthers as being the sole cause of today's brand of conspiracy theory. However, it is an easy place to start. Which is probably why he started writing this book about them. I have the same feeling he has towards the Paulbots. Because I believe they are a larger group than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the last chapter about how to combat Conspiracism at a young age. Though I would suspect most CT's would just homeschool their kids (or at least say they would on the internet).
I enjoyed how balanced he was in his tone and the topics he chose to write about. That is rare in this day and age as well as this genre. At first glance I thought it would be a book that was mainly about how crazy 9/11 truthers were. I'm glad I read it anyway, because it's not so. He goes after all the usual culprits. The Tea Party Birthers, GMO activists, UFO nuts, Anti-vaccine people, AIDS conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones and the websites and sources these people use to peddle their snake oil! (Hint: It's all the same stuff!) He also connects the history of growing technology such as the newspapers, the printing press, "scary" medical devices, and the internet to growing belief in these and other conspiracy theories. He also actually defends the Mainstream Media, which I have never read a book that did!
What was shocking were the last couple of chapters. Instead of leaving it at conspiracy theories. He tackled, certain populist agendas that you aren't really "supposed" to go against. He does because they have certain Conspiracy qualities which he clearly lays out to the reader. These include agendas like: The antiracism agenda, the "tolerant" liberals, the anti-semitics, the feminists, and civil liberties activists who rally against the New World Order.
This is one of the best books on the subject and theory of conspiracy theory that I have read in a long time. I share his frustration that you can't really do anything about conspiracy theories, because they won't listen. And anybody who would read or listen to what Kay has to say about Conspiracy Theory doesn't really care because they think Conspiracy Theories are too crazy to deal with on any logical level. Well I do.
I want to want to thank Jonathan Kay for writing this book and actually doing it in the most balanced way imaginable.
The one thing that I didn't agree with was his implications of 9/11 truthers as being the sole cause of today's brand of conspiracy theory. However, it is an easy place to start. Which is probably why he started writing this book about them. I have the same feeling he has towards the Paulbots. Because I believe they are a larger group than the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
I thoroughly enjoyed reading the last chapter about how to combat Conspiracism at a young age. Though I would suspect most CT's would just homeschool their kids (or at least say they would on the internet).
I enjoyed how balanced he was in his tone and the topics he chose to write about. That is rare in this day and age as well as this genre. At first glance I thought it would be a book that was mainly about how crazy 9/11 truthers were. I'm glad I read it anyway, because it's not so. He goes after all the usual culprits. The Tea Party Birthers, GMO activists, UFO nuts, Anti-vaccine people, AIDS conspiracy theorists, Alex Jones and the websites and sources these people use to peddle their snake oil! (Hint: It's all the same stuff!) He also connects the history of growing technology such as the newspapers, the printing press, "scary" medical devices, and the internet to growing belief in these and other conspiracy theories. He also actually defends the Mainstream Media, which I have never read a book that did!
What was shocking were the last couple of chapters. Instead of leaving it at conspiracy theories. He tackled, certain populist agendas that you aren't really "supposed" to go against. He does because they have certain Conspiracy qualities which he clearly lays out to the reader. These include agendas like: The antiracism agenda, the "tolerant" liberals, the anti-semitics, the feminists, and civil liberties activists who rally against the New World Order.
This is one of the best books on the subject and theory of conspiracy theory that I have read in a long time. I share his frustration that you can't really do anything about conspiracy theories, because they won't listen. And anybody who would read or listen to what Kay has to say about Conspiracy Theory doesn't really care because they think Conspiracy Theories are too crazy to deal with on any logical level. Well I do.
I want to want to thank Jonathan Kay for writing this book and actually doing it in the most balanced way imaginable.
August 24, 2019
I was pretty disappointed in this book after reading two other better books about conspiracist thinking: "Suspicious Minds" by Rob Brotherton (which does an excellent job on the psychological reasons people subscribe to these theories, reasons we're all guilty of to a degree), and "Republic of Lies" by Anna Merlan (which includes the rise of Trump, Pizzagate, and QAnon as it was published earlier this year).
Kay is very generous with his definition of a conspiracy theory. Along with the JFK Assassination, anti-vaxers, and 9/11 Truthers, he somehow ropes academia and those conservative bogeymen, identity politics and political correctness, into the mix. Check out this quote on page 265:
"In this regard, deconstructionism dovetailed with a separate intellectual trend that had been underway since the 1960s: modern identity politics, which involve the reconstruction (and in some cases, the wholesale invention) of history according to the viewpoint of women, blacks, gays, and other minorities - a project that replaced the historian's once-unquestioned goal of objective truth with an explicity political, Marxist-leaning agenda aimed at empowerment and solidarity building."
He spends entire chapters going on these tangents and it really hurts some of the better sections. People can see the same situation and come to different conclusions without one of them being a conspiracy, you know. It's not conspiracism to say that an audience's interpretation of a text in 1900 will probably not be the same as in 1990. It's not conspiracism to take another look at an event from the perspective of a marginalized population, one whose primary sources were largely ignored by early history books. That's not the same as saying the government staged the moon landing.
I don't wanna go on about this because another GoodReads user has already laid everything out wonderfully in her review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .
Just one more thing. I was real amused to find whoever had rented this book from the library before me had penciled in corrections in the margins. They added "the" to "based on [the] notion that Christ's bloodline did not perish on the Cross" on page 48, and on page 76 where Kay writes, "And why didn't Barack Obama spill the beans about all this when he took power in 2010?" they crossed out "2010" and wrote "2009."
Kay is very generous with his definition of a conspiracy theory. Along with the JFK Assassination, anti-vaxers, and 9/11 Truthers, he somehow ropes academia and those conservative bogeymen, identity politics and political correctness, into the mix. Check out this quote on page 265:
"In this regard, deconstructionism dovetailed with a separate intellectual trend that had been underway since the 1960s: modern identity politics, which involve the reconstruction (and in some cases, the wholesale invention) of history according to the viewpoint of women, blacks, gays, and other minorities - a project that replaced the historian's once-unquestioned goal of objective truth with an explicity political, Marxist-leaning agenda aimed at empowerment and solidarity building."
He spends entire chapters going on these tangents and it really hurts some of the better sections. People can see the same situation and come to different conclusions without one of them being a conspiracy, you know. It's not conspiracism to say that an audience's interpretation of a text in 1900 will probably not be the same as in 1990. It's not conspiracism to take another look at an event from the perspective of a marginalized population, one whose primary sources were largely ignored by early history books. That's not the same as saying the government staged the moon landing.
I don't wanna go on about this because another GoodReads user has already laid everything out wonderfully in her review here: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... .
Just one more thing. I was real amused to find whoever had rented this book from the library before me had penciled in corrections in the margins. They added "the" to "based on [the] notion that Christ's bloodline did not perish on the Cross" on page 48, and on page 76 where Kay writes, "And why didn't Barack Obama spill the beans about all this when he took power in 2010?" they crossed out "2010" and wrote "2009."
July 7, 2011
Very solid book, well researched, with details that were interesting to learn and well presented. I have good friends that are truthers and I have never understood what, why and how they believe what they do. This book helped me, as a logical researcher myself, to understand how seemingly rational people could believe what appear to be just plain crazy lines of thinking.
There were some stylistic downfalls to the massive amount of info presented: chapters that never seemed to logically end, rambling connections that did not seem to make sense together, and use of parenthesis that became annoying and distracting at times trying to help tie thoughts together. Most annoying for me were comments telling me to 'wait' until a later chapter to learn about something, sentences like 'as discussed in X chapter'. If it was relevant to mention in the current location, why not include and explain it here? Further don't expect the reader is dim enough to have forgotten what they read previously. I found these 'as discussed' comments the single most annoying part of reading the book.
The final chapter was one of the most interesting, and the book may benefit from moving it up. Reading how current events are influenced by these groups in broader terms than the individual detail that is covered in the majority of the book was very interesting to read. I can of course argue that leaving it as the end makes sense too, since it takes the minutia and shows how these individual beliefs have broad influence. Found myself shaking my head for example to hear the connections that people are 'protesting' against countries and organizations that actually SUPPORT their causes.
Overall I enjoyed this book, and have already shared it with a friend who is closer to a truther himself. I look forward to discussing it with him once he's done reading it. Thanks for the opportunity to review it.
There were some stylistic downfalls to the massive amount of info presented: chapters that never seemed to logically end, rambling connections that did not seem to make sense together, and use of parenthesis that became annoying and distracting at times trying to help tie thoughts together. Most annoying for me were comments telling me to 'wait' until a later chapter to learn about something, sentences like 'as discussed in X chapter'. If it was relevant to mention in the current location, why not include and explain it here? Further don't expect the reader is dim enough to have forgotten what they read previously. I found these 'as discussed' comments the single most annoying part of reading the book.
The final chapter was one of the most interesting, and the book may benefit from moving it up. Reading how current events are influenced by these groups in broader terms than the individual detail that is covered in the majority of the book was very interesting to read. I can of course argue that leaving it as the end makes sense too, since it takes the minutia and shows how these individual beliefs have broad influence. Found myself shaking my head for example to hear the connections that people are 'protesting' against countries and organizations that actually SUPPORT their causes.
Overall I enjoyed this book, and have already shared it with a friend who is closer to a truther himself. I look forward to discussing it with him once he's done reading it. Thanks for the opportunity to review it.
March 31, 2013
I gave Jonathan Kay’s Among the Truthers the full boat because his brilliant readability kept me riveted throughout.
He carefully describes the saga of the modern evolution of conspiracy theory, searching for its roots, the reasons why Truthers are so unequivocally convinced of their infallibility in the face of all rational discussion, all the while he maintains a professional journalistic detachment and admirable even-handedness.
This book stays with you; every day now I see examples of how conspiracism pervades all facets of our life – racial issues, feminism, political correctness, religion, politics, yes even the hallowed halls of academia, you name it, it’s kind of a new elephant in the room.
But even though I cannot see the world the same way anymore, I’m grateful to him for writing it. It’s an unpopular message and he probably won’t get rich from it (as Kay wryly observes, a wise old NY publisher warned him he wouldn’t make much money from this book) evidently people would rather read some juicy tommyrot theory totally unsupported by any sort of informed data.
But I am grateful that he stood up to the plate if only because too many of my friends have disappeared “down the rabbit-hole” (Kay’s phrase) of conspiracism never again to dwell in the rational world. Now is certainly a propitious moment in history for a journalist of stature to point out that the peddling of theoretical twaddle in these twitchy times is at least as reprehensible as the usual transgressions for which we hold society accountable.
He carefully describes the saga of the modern evolution of conspiracy theory, searching for its roots, the reasons why Truthers are so unequivocally convinced of their infallibility in the face of all rational discussion, all the while he maintains a professional journalistic detachment and admirable even-handedness.
This book stays with you; every day now I see examples of how conspiracism pervades all facets of our life – racial issues, feminism, political correctness, religion, politics, yes even the hallowed halls of academia, you name it, it’s kind of a new elephant in the room.
But even though I cannot see the world the same way anymore, I’m grateful to him for writing it. It’s an unpopular message and he probably won’t get rich from it (as Kay wryly observes, a wise old NY publisher warned him he wouldn’t make much money from this book) evidently people would rather read some juicy tommyrot theory totally unsupported by any sort of informed data.
But I am grateful that he stood up to the plate if only because too many of my friends have disappeared “down the rabbit-hole” (Kay’s phrase) of conspiracism never again to dwell in the rational world. Now is certainly a propitious moment in history for a journalist of stature to point out that the peddling of theoretical twaddle in these twitchy times is at least as reprehensible as the usual transgressions for which we hold society accountable.
June 4, 2013
At first, I wasn't really feeling this book. A book about conspiracy theories and the people who believe them and try to get the public at large to believe; not interested. It was fascinating because the author got a chance to meet with some of the people who believe these things. The book goes into a small history of the ideas of conspiracy theories and some of the earliest ones. The author gives an insightful look into to certain ideas and remains objective about his subjects. With the increase of technology and information being so readily available this "truther" movement has gained a foothold into today's society.
The book was interesting because it exposed certain ideas and many prejudices that persist in our society. This can create an idea based in F.E.A.R. (False Evidence Appearing Real). I know that this acronym has been a mantra for a lot of other movements but, it applies to this one as will. Many horrible actions in our society have been created because of fear. This author creates a book that will inspire discuss and many debates. Very thought-provoking.
The book was interesting because it exposed certain ideas and many prejudices that persist in our society. This can create an idea based in F.E.A.R. (False Evidence Appearing Real). I know that this acronym has been a mantra for a lot of other movements but, it applies to this one as will. Many horrible actions in our society have been created because of fear. This author creates a book that will inspire discuss and many debates. Very thought-provoking.
June 23, 2015
Like the author states this book is not about debunking conspiracy theorists and like someone he quoted said "Such a book wouldn't have an audience, truthers would ignore it and normal people wouldn't need to read it" ( Although many bad reviews complain that the book didn't debunk any theories ).
This book doesn't treat its subjects in a "point-and-laugh"-manner and doesn't go deep in their theories. It does give a glance in conspiracy theory culture from all kind of spectrums. Their inner culture seems to be pretty much the same and you could say for all fringe cultures. It shows how intelligent people can be captured by fringe theories and shows their confirmation bias. Another reason the book gets bad reviews is that people didn't like that also conspiracism from their ideologic spectrum was critcised.
People who expect a book mocking conspiracy theories or expect only conspiracy theorist from the "other" spectrum is attack, should better not read at all and watch some Louis Theroux.
This book doesn't treat its subjects in a "point-and-laugh"-manner and doesn't go deep in their theories. It does give a glance in conspiracy theory culture from all kind of spectrums. Their inner culture seems to be pretty much the same and you could say for all fringe cultures. It shows how intelligent people can be captured by fringe theories and shows their confirmation bias. Another reason the book gets bad reviews is that people didn't like that also conspiracism from their ideologic spectrum was critcised.
People who expect a book mocking conspiracy theories or expect only conspiracy theorist from the "other" spectrum is attack, should better not read at all and watch some Louis Theroux.
May 29, 2015
There's a tendency to believe that fundamentalist Christians pose a serious threat to the cultural and intellectual integrity of this country. While this may be true to one degree or another, there is no doubt that we are living in a time where there is almost no consensual reality, not even a consensual understanding of how to arrive at a consensual reality. Among the Truthers really shook me up, more so than any expose of super churches or snake handlers. I have always been fascinated by conspiracy theorists and their sub-cultures, but it feels now as if that way of thinking has sprung out of Pandora's Box and has seized our culture by its paranoid gonads. Pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and pseudo-philosophy is only the start. The methodologies long practiced by JFK assassination theorists, Rosewell autopsy researchers and Bigfoot hunters is now part of our mainstream culture. The WAY of thinking seems more dangerous than the CONTENT.
November 7, 2011
I was really disappointed with this book. I'm not a "truther," but I was looking forward to an objective inside look at the truth movement. This author was anything but objective. He started from the stance that all conspiracy theorists are fruitcakes, without really explaining *why* - it was just supposed to be obvious that they're all crazy. While I tried to labour through this, I found the author too smug for words, and didn't find any effective counter-arguments to the truth movement to back up that tone.
For anyone who is interested, the author appeared recently on CBC's The Sunday Edition to discuss this book. His interview was followed the next week by one of the subjects of his book who offered a thoughtful rebuttal to Kay's views. I think you can still download the podcast from CBC's website.
For anyone who is interested, the author appeared recently on CBC's The Sunday Edition to discuss this book. His interview was followed the next week by one of the subjects of his book who offered a thoughtful rebuttal to Kay's views. I think you can still download the podcast from CBC's website.
June 20, 2011
You know, it was OK but for a couple chapters, where Kay basically exhibits the exact same behavior he accuses the "truthers" and "birthers" of exhibiting. These chapters really undermined my enjoyment of the book and took my rating down a star.
May 12, 2013
The whole time I was reading this book, I was in an inexplicable sour mood. I think his negativity seeped into me somehow. I have no truck with truthers or any conspiracy theorists, but after reading such a pompous diatribe I just want to let them be. This review really sums a lot of my thoughts up:
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Here are some gems I flagged from this charmer:
1. The no more racism claim: "What helped me understand the benign origins of this surreal, emperor-has-no-clothes hunt for racist phantasms was the actual substance of my coursework-and, in particular-my classes on constitutional law-in which much of the material focused on the great victories against the very real racism in America's legal framework until well into the 1960's, and arguably beyond that."
Well, thank God THAT'S over with! In a mere generation we have wiped out racism with laws so any perceived vestiges must be our imagination!
2. All questioning of Israeli policies are actually latent anti-Semetic charges, especially if made by "leftists" and "university professors".
"Yet at the same time that an old breed of Jewish-focused conspiracism was dying, a new one was blooming on Israeli soil. As Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi wrote in the The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, the Jews who arrived in Israel from Europe were mostly white, well-educated, and politically sophisticated-alien beings amongs the largely rural, uneducated, and illiterate Arabs who populated the area."
I mean, the ingrates! How dare they not appreciate their civilizers?!! Those Arabs were just a bunch of hicks anyways...they didn't deserve that land. In other passages he goes on to dismiss the idea that there might be a real, tangible and undeserved bias against Muslims and only touches on the two main reasons that the conservative Right loves Israel -a) it's opposition to the Arab Middle East because Muslims are the new enemy of Christ and responsible for the War on Christmas (I made that up, but I'm sure it's out there) and b) they have a sinister eschatological purpose for Jews in Israel and it involves starting the Apocalypse where they all get sent to Hell for eternity anyway (see Left Behind et al)
3. A lot of feminism is conspiracy, in case you didn't know. You can almost feel the spit flying every time he mentions "lesbian feminists". And by the way, they are suuuch drama queens because
"Women, meanwhile, went from ornamental second-class citizens in the typing pool and kitchen to full-fledged business-world equals."
Sweet! I guess my raise and promotion start tomorrow!
In any event, skip or get from the library.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...
Here are some gems I flagged from this charmer:
1. The no more racism claim: "What helped me understand the benign origins of this surreal, emperor-has-no-clothes hunt for racist phantasms was the actual substance of my coursework-and, in particular-my classes on constitutional law-in which much of the material focused on the great victories against the very real racism in America's legal framework until well into the 1960's, and arguably beyond that."
Well, thank God THAT'S over with! In a mere generation we have wiped out racism with laws so any perceived vestiges must be our imagination!
2. All questioning of Israeli policies are actually latent anti-Semetic charges, especially if made by "leftists" and "university professors".
"Yet at the same time that an old breed of Jewish-focused conspiracism was dying, a new one was blooming on Israeli soil. As Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi wrote in the The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood, the Jews who arrived in Israel from Europe were mostly white, well-educated, and politically sophisticated-alien beings amongs the largely rural, uneducated, and illiterate Arabs who populated the area."
I mean, the ingrates! How dare they not appreciate their civilizers?!! Those Arabs were just a bunch of hicks anyways...they didn't deserve that land. In other passages he goes on to dismiss the idea that there might be a real, tangible and undeserved bias against Muslims and only touches on the two main reasons that the conservative Right loves Israel -a) it's opposition to the Arab Middle East because Muslims are the new enemy of Christ and responsible for the War on Christmas (I made that up, but I'm sure it's out there) and b) they have a sinister eschatological purpose for Jews in Israel and it involves starting the Apocalypse where they all get sent to Hell for eternity anyway (see Left Behind et al)
3. A lot of feminism is conspiracy, in case you didn't know. You can almost feel the spit flying every time he mentions "lesbian feminists". And by the way, they are suuuch drama queens because
"Women, meanwhile, went from ornamental second-class citizens in the typing pool and kitchen to full-fledged business-world equals."
Sweet! I guess my raise and promotion start tomorrow!
In any event, skip or get from the library.
August 22, 2011
Yikes. Well that is not what I was expecting.
I haven't felt compelled to write reviews for most books I've read recently, but this title deserves a PSA.
I always thought I was a fan of learning about people whose experiences are far removed from my own, and with an additional attraction to con artists and conspiracy theories.
Given the title and subtitle of this book, I was expecting something akin to Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do or Gig: Americans Talk About Their Jobs - something akin to Uncommon Carriers or Losers.
But that wasn't what I got. The wandering, rambling, clunky last chapter aside, this was more of a hand-waving pop-sociology/psychology ego trip deconstructing why people believe in conspiracy theories and touting Kay's inherent superiority.
Where was the part amount the truthers? Where was the journey through their underground? All I got was some pot shots from a safe distance and a trove of righteousness.
I haven't felt compelled to write reviews for most books I've read recently, but this title deserves a PSA.
I always thought I was a fan of learning about people whose experiences are far removed from my own, and with an additional attraction to con artists and conspiracy theories.
Given the title and subtitle of this book, I was expecting something akin to Working: People Talk About What They Do All Day and How They Feel About What They Do or Gig: Americans Talk About Their Jobs - something akin to Uncommon Carriers or Losers.
But that wasn't what I got. The wandering, rambling, clunky last chapter aside, this was more of a hand-waving pop-sociology/psychology ego trip deconstructing why people believe in conspiracy theories and touting Kay's inherent superiority.
Where was the part amount the truthers? Where was the journey through their underground? All I got was some pot shots from a safe distance and a trove of righteousness.
August 28, 2011
This book absolutely fascinated me from page one. Conspiracy theorists share awkward family Christmas dinners with me every year, so to hear that these types of kooks have existed for generations made me feel a little bit better about the future of our country. And I believe the erudite author was doing a bit of the same. As I read, I was already planning on RE-reading, knowing that this book would be a companion guide to holidays with the family. But by the middle of the book, I sensed the author was stalling. While it was fun to discover the roots of Truthers, Bilderburgs, and other nonsense groups, there was no counterpunch. In the end, this book had no teeth. There was no action plan. No conclusion. And it just got sooooo boring. I suggest you read the novella that is the first 100 pages, and then stop.
Read
July 3, 2013'Readers sympathetic to Kay’s skepticism are likely to cringe at the monologues of conspiracy theorists who find plots everywhere in a world where nothing is as it seems. Yet to read Among the Truthers is to surround oneself with breathless, mile-a-minute talkers insisting that vaccinations cause autism, the lunar landing occurred on a Hollywood set, and the Federal Emergency Management Administration blew up the New Orleans levees to exacerbate the destructiveness of Hurricane Katrina. Surely this is more than one person’s version of hell.
Conspiracy theorists are, in a word, bores. A book about them can’t help but be a bit boring, too.'
Read the full review, "Truthers, Birthers, and Other Ordinary Kooks," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
Conspiracy theorists are, in a word, bores. A book about them can’t help but be a bit boring, too.'
Read the full review, "Truthers, Birthers, and Other Ordinary Kooks," on our website:
http://www.theamericanconservative.co...
November 17, 2013
This one of the most anti-intellectual, pro-censorship propaganda pieces I have ever had the displeasure to read and deserves to be on any bookshelf alongside Michael Behe's anti-scientific treatise "Darwin's Black Box". I actually know some YECs who would advise Kay to be a little more open minded. It's the same whiny, name-calling, unsubstantiated establishment protectionist drivel you can readily find on the boob tube. I see a person's reaction to this book as a good indicator on whether they merely try to identify with an intellectual stereotype or whether they can actually think for themselves.
September 12, 2011
I was really interested and engaged with most of this book, but in chapters 8 (which is about academia and political correctness) and 9 (about Israel and Palestine) he went way off the rails. The last chapter brought it back a little, but what came just before left a really bad taste in my mouth.
Instead of reading this book, I would listen to the segment of the Big Picture Science podcast about the book: Plotting Along with Jonathan Kay
Instead of reading this book, I would listen to the segment of the Big Picture Science podcast about the book: Plotting Along with Jonathan Kay
January 18, 2013
A bizarre and rather disturbing journey through the American swamp of conspiracy theorists, "truthers"--who deny the facts of 9/11 despite overwhelming evidence, "birthers" and a potpourri of other conspiracies, the fanciful convictions behind them often held by otherwise normal, functional people. After a few chapters of this your brain begins getting a little soft and one's temperment irate. Jonathan Kay's analysis is a little more indulgent than mine is. Kay is a reporter with Canada's National Post.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 116 reviews