Customer Reviews

Them

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is a book written by a journalist about his humorous interviews with extremists, and the penetration of terrorist organisations. The point he gets across is that much of the extremist-hysteria is just that, and he does this by telling stories of the KKK knight who forbids his followers to use "the n word" so as not to tarnish their image and the Islamic terrorist in London who hands out pamphlets preaching jihad and gets people to take them by saying they're about sex.

Besides these scattered stories, there's an overall theme of thee author's attempts to unmask a greater conspiracy - one of a club to which belong most of the world's major leaders and businessmen. In the finale where he stumbles onto a ceremony...--read the book!

He seems to be serious and I don't know how much of this is true, especially the grand conspiracy. But it's very thought provoking. If you're not the type of person who would take him literally and think all extremists are this funny/stupid/harmless and that the fascist state is just spewing propaganda to have a scapegoat (a nice conspiracy in itself!) - then you'll really enjoy this book. If you are that types of person then no book can help you!

I became a Jon Ronson fan with The Men Who Stare at Goats, more so when he wrote The Psychopath Test, and with THEM --a loyal fan dying for the next book he writes. THEM takes us on a journey through the outskirts of our society where the separatists, militias, and Ku Klux Klan members exist and thrive. He introduces us to sides of noteworthy people we only hear about, and sets out on a mission to find the secret Bilderberg Group who secretly controls everything in the world.

The book is jam packed with facts and stories that will inform you, make you wonder, and will make you laugh hard enough to choke. Ronson's delivery is remarkably the-guy-next-door and he speaks with you as to take you into his confidence where he reveals his real thoughts, hilarious as they are. This book is a good and very fast read, and one you will feel a bit of sadness for as it ends; readers want the entertainment to continue! This is the sort of man you could sit and speak with for hours and never find a boring moment if his books are any indication. Buy this book! (And read it!)

Jon Ronson's Amazon page is amazon.com/Jon-Ronson/e/B001H6KH4U/ref=sr_tc_img_2?qid=1307218796&sr=1-2-ent

Ronson has iron balls!! The Borat of serious journalism and heir to the throne of Hunter S. Thompson. You do not have to be a conspiracist to enjoy this work... Ronson isn't one himself. He just followed the bizarre trail of crumbs left by all the nuts he interviewed...and learned they were not so crazy after all.

This author makes a narrow point well: that those who "act" on perceptions that appear to be conspiracy based, are invariably among those considered more than just a bit kooky. As evidence he acts as a chauffeur for one of Britain's once most feared Jihadist; engages in target practice with Ruby Ridge survivors; attends a KKK rally, and monitors the meetings of the Bilderberg Group.

However, I think the author has made a category error here. The question is not whether some (or even most) who act to defend their views of what they see privately as conspiracies, are kooks, but whether or not there s a factual basis for such conspiracies to exist at all. Or said differently, whether there is a basis in fact at all for their views? Or, indeed whether conspiracy theories are needed to explain the actions that appear to them to be conspiracy-based? Either way, the logic follows the "old saw:" that just because one is paranoid does not mean that someone is not out to get them?

The same logic of that old saw applies to conspiracy theories in general: That just because many (if not most) of the people who act on their perceptions of conspiracies can be classified by others as kooky, does not mean that there are no events in their version of reality that look identical to conspiracies. Or, that no such events (cabals or coalition of forces and interests that they claim to see), could justifiably exist and thus explain the basis of their reality (and thus their paranoia or conspiratorial thinking).

Too bad the author did not stand back and look into the wall of secrecy that defines two different realities in U.S. political culture. One of these realities involve the privileges of the rich, high level government officials and a handful of others who arrogate unto themselves the right to redefine reality in ways that have proven again and again to be, at the very least, extra-legal -- so much so that much of what they do either is redefined as acceptable (even though illegal), or a wall of secrecy is pulled down so that those who engage in crimes are no longer held accountable to anyone. And the facts of their crimes are no longer made available for public scrutiny -- least of all to the only sovereign in the U.S. "we the people."

The very fact that this wall exists should give those such as this author who investigate conspiracies, cause to pause. The very existence of the wall is sufficient reason for discrepancies between the two competing realities to raise red flags. When one reality exits above the waterline (the one that believes that our leaders should be held accountable to the public for their crimes), and the other exits below the waterline (the one that is hidden behind a wall of secrecy), it is then no longer just a question of whether legitimate conspiracies exist, but a question of which reality is to take precedent.

Neither reality necessarily includes (or excludes) certified kooks, who we all assume have definable mental problems. The problem with books like this one is that anti-conspiracy nuts are just as deluded by their own thinking and beliefs in the non-existence of the wall of secrecy, as conspiracy nuts are deluded in their beliefs of its existence. However, I believe that the delusion of the former is a much more dangerous delusion, if only because if a conspiracy does indeed exist, they will have missed it. Obviously it is a more conservative error to see a conspiracy that "does not exist" than to fail to see one that "does exist."

As but one example we can submit as first hand evidence of the existence of the wall, the two government investigations (one by the House and another by the Senate) that concluded that JFK's death was "likely a murder" as a result of a conspiracy involving the mob. This is a fact that 78% or more of Americans had believed about that assassination since the late 1960s. Yet, are we to also call those governmental bodies that came independently to the same conclusion, conspiracy nuts too? Was there a wall of secrecy or not?

This book takes too much of a "tongue-and-cheek" approach to conspiracies, which in the U.S. political culture is a deadly serious business indeed. Three stars

I really liked this book. It was so funny to read about conspiracies and him getting caught up in it.

I couldn't put this book down! It is full of info that everyone must hear...about what is REALLY going on around us! And...after this read Ronson's other book "The Men Who Stare at Goats" it is even better!

_Them_ is not a thorough expose of popular extremist groups or conspiracy theories.

This book (like so much of Ronson's work) is a character study. Or rather, a study of characters. _Them_ is a first-hand account of one man's experience with some of the people closest (in one capacity or another) to these groups. And taken as such (instead of as an encyclopedic analysis of the groups themselves), it's an absorbing read.

If you're a conspiracy monger on a singular hunt for his next fix, you probably won't get much out of _Them_. But if you appreciate well-written narratives about interesting people in particular social contexts, I recommend it.