Customer Reviews

Voodoo Histories: The Role of the Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History

5 star:		(19)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(6)
1 star:		(18)

 

 

After reading several of the negative reviews, I thought a more pointed one was needed in response to clear a few things up for those who have not read the book.

First off, the book is very well written and in a fast-paced, easy to read styles. It's not boring (regardless of agreeing with the author or not), nor is it overly long.

That being said, it brings me to my main point: this is not a scholarly, historically exhaustive work of research; it is an investigative look into how conspiracies begin and the people who latch on to them. Does that mean that it's not researched? No, there is a fairly extensive bibliography, and he has clearly documented his sources. However, it is not done in the way a historical textbook would do so -- but there again, it's not written from that point of view.

The key to remember here -- and this is for those negative reviewers who so adamantly want to hold on to their theories -- is the theme of how these theories get started, and why they become popular. This is of special interest to me because it is clear that there has to be a motivation for believing in most conspiracy theories; one has to *want* them to be true at some level for them to get off the ground, otherwise they wouldn't due to the incredible lack of factual support.

But here we come to the famous rebuttal offered up (which I have seen in the reviews here): "We are just asking questions. That's why it's a 'theory' and it's not perfect. But you have to admit that ____ and ____ don't add up!" This statement -- or a similar form -- is offered up every time a conspiracy theorist is confronted with hard facts. And this book addresses that exact issue, rather than going down the road of saying "here's this reference, and this one, and this one, and this one..." The fact is, any story in history, if viewed long enough and from enough angles (if I stand on my head and close one eye) can be a questionable occurence that looks "suspicious." I think if one investigated hard enough, they could probably find evidence suggesting that the NFL is fixed, politicians are really aliens, the military is spying on cats, that Jews are actually Chinese and that your own Mom is not who she says she is.

For those of us who have actually held a security clearance and worked in government, however, this book is quite refreshing and right on the money -- as much as we would like everyone to believe that we can pull off some grand conspiracy and keep huge secrets, we're just not that capable. Really, I wish it were different.

And to answer the question of why I gave it four stars instead of five, well...it's not that it wasn't good, I just save the five-star rating for something that really sets my hair on fire. If I throw those things out with every book I like, it hurts the credibility of the rating system. That's how I roll.

The author, a journalist, recounts a number of leading conspiracy theories, rebuts them, and exposes their common themes. With respect to some conspriacies -- such as the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (the alleged Jewish conspiracy for world domination) -- he absolutely obliterates them with great panache. Others -- such as the Kennedy Assassination theories -- he rebuts in a more cursory fashion. What unites the conspiracy theories is part resentment of shadowy elites, part desire to explain the failure of one's own political movement to succeed, and part a desire to impose some rational explanation on random acts of evil or misfortune.

Conspiracy theories show staying power by defining some event as logically impossible -- for example the magic bullet that hit Kennedy and Connolly or the inability of Marilyn Monroe's body to absorb the amount of barbituates found in her or the lack of wreckage resembling an airplane by the Pentagon on 9/11. Such an impossible fact justifies conspiracy proponents to reject the conventional explantion and to propose all sorts of wild alternative theories. Such theories are resistant even to an attack on the core -- such as evidence showing that Oswald did not have to be a particularly great shot to hit Kennedy and that the path of the bullet does have a rational explanation. Such attacks involve too many details and complexities, thereby allowing the conspiracy proponent to refuse to see their truth.

This is interesting as far as it goes. But instead of exploring the reasons in human nature, politics, and history for such conspiracy theories, Aaronovitch just keeps jumping to new conspiracies and saying the same thing. Thus, the book does become a bit tiresome after a while.

I bought this review primarily on the basis of the review by "H.Josson". No-one in their right mind could write a review along the lines of the book being "delusional [and] lazy" (it simply isn't). The reviewer's hysterical reaction to what is a well-written and thought-provoking (if very depressing) book simply doesn't stack up. Why would a reviewer buy an early copy of this book - write a review which is borderline out-of-control and put their rantings up on Amazon UK and US? Could it be that Mr Aaronovitch has written this review himself? It has all the hallmarks of what he himself describes: ignore facts and focus on specious rumour, "no-one understands the secret mysteries as I do because I have special insights", throw mud at objective analysis to distract attention from the reviewer's own fantasies and, of course, the throw-away line "as crooked as a banker". This resonates with the anti-semitism described in Chapter One of the book, where the Jews were blamed for all the evils of the world. (I'm not defending the bankers here, but "crooked as a banker" is just so tacky!) If H.Josson is David Aaronovitch, it makes a very good conspiracy - unfortunately seen through rather quickly by the raft of comments on the review on Amazon UK.

The book is well-documented and the sources are of real writers, not, as in the case of the usual conspiracy-revealers, all referring to other "famous conspiracy experts".

My own view is that it is an extremely thoughtful explanation of why the gullible lock on to secret mysteries, conspiracies and insights and avoid any historical analysis, belying any familiarity with reality and current affairs or historical occurrences. The twelve selected conspiracies are all cogently explained and the psychological analysis of why the sad/gullible choose conspiracy over the most likely explanation (Ockham's razor) is depressingly rational. There are no shortage of people in the world who would rather believe fantasy over reality and, I suppose, for that reason alone I gave the book four stars. It presents a very sad, but convincing truth.

If you want to understand why people believe complete eyewash, this book is a very good place to start.

Ignore the reviewers who gave this book one star - they're conspiracy kooks who have not read the book. I have and it's brilliant.

A fabulous book that exposes the uproarious and troubling lapses of reason that bedevil American political culture. This is a lively look at conspiracy theories from Pearl Harbor to 9/11, from the assassination of Kennedy to the death of Diana.

Essential Reading.

The hyperventilating criticism of this book goes to demonstrate just how important Voodoo Histories is and how opportune is its US Publication. Scholarly, exhaustively researched and forensic in its analysis, it explodes the myth of various conspiracy theories at just the moment when their constant repetition seems to be establishing them as fact.
It is worth adding that it is also a hugely entertaining read which informs both fundamental issues around race, political dissent, notions of 'proof' etc. while proving invaluable when arguing with the the amateur, armchair conspiracy theorist who just doesn't believe in 'cock-ups' any more.
So, a book that makes the world a little less belligerent and also helps one to win fights around the dinner table. What more could anyone ask for..?

There is very little to criticize in this book. It is well-researched and timely, exposing some of the more deranged pathologies currently in danger of becoming mainstream. Aaronovitch examines the nuttier thoeries, such as the "truthers" of 9/11, and easily exposes the crass stupidity and paranoia of those who are gulled by them.
He makes one mistake, which I feel I must point out. He includes Immanuel Velikovsky among the "voodoo" historians. With all due respect to Mr Aaronovitch, this is to confuse the victim of pseudo-scholarship with the perpetrator. I can only assume that Aaronovitch never researched the Velikovsky Affair for himself, but relied on another, second-hand, source for his information. In fact, the destruction of Velikovsky's academic reputation was one of the most disgraceful episodes of American academic history. The Dean of Harvard, Harlow Shapley (a Marxist and by definition a fully-paid up voodoo historian himself), threatened Velikovsky's publisher Macmillan with a boycott of their books in every educational and academic instutition in America. Since Macmillan made about 90% of their profits from textbook sales to schools and universities, they were threatened with ruin, and had to ask Velikovsky to take his book ealsewhere. This was pure Stalinism, and without precedent in American publishing history.
Incidentally, the offending book, "Worlds in Collision", was highly praised by Albert Einstein, a close friend of Velikovsky; and he died with a heavily-annotated copy of Worlds in Collision open on his desk. And if Velikovsky was a voodoo historian, then so was Einstein, for Einstein wrote to Velikovsky that he had "proved beyond question" that cosmic catastrophes had afflicted the earth in historical times. Einstein's letter to that effect is still in the possession of Velikovsky's estate, and Mr Aaronovitch is welcome to view it, if he cares to contact the estate.

I read the entire thing, in the same way that one cannot seem to change the television channel from a news report about some gruesome train wreck.

This book is apparently a sequel to the famous work by Dr. Floyd Ferris, "Why Do You Think You Think?" and is aimed at the same audience. As Ferris said, "if this book were addressed to a thinking audience ... one would have to be concerned with such matters as accuracy, validity, logic and the prestige of science. But it isn't. It's addressed to the public."

The author starts off his argument that we are a believer of conspiracies. Faith in crimes with multiple offenders. And, he may be right. In fact, he should be right in part. Was Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the death of Princess Diana all conspiracies? Hmmm.

Conspiracy is probably a lot more prevalent than one would think. Or, one would want. The author makes a point that there are reasons to believe them. From all kinds of crimes, the author examines the "whys" of why people believe them in conjunction with common sense. Read it for yourself and decide...

You can be reasonably confident in advance that a book will be worth reading if it has conspiracy theorists in rant-mode and foaming with indignation: a raw nerve has obviously been poked. Such a book is David Aaronovitch's `Voodoo Histories' which exposes the delusional ideological framework at the heart of conspiracy-theorist psychology.

This US version of Aaronovitch's original UK-biased text, which includes the conspiracy theories surrounding Obama's birth, doesn't disappoint - though it might have had more bite. Radical anti-establishment journalist Aaronovitch looks into why many otherwise sane and rational people buy into the more outlandish conspiracy theories which litter modern social history. From the fraudulent 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion,' manufactured by 19th century Czarist police to justify the persecution of Jewish people and enthusiastically promoted by Adolf Hitler and Henry Ford (of all people); to the '9/11 was an inside job' fantasists who employ ignorant pseudo-science to feed dogmatic belief-systems and multiple fringe political-propagandist agendas, Aaronovitch takes us on a fascinating, instructive and frequently amusing ride through a parade of delusional ideologies to be found just beneath the surface of contemporary society, and does a mostly effective job in deconstructing them.

In addition to those cited above, other conspiracy theories examined in the book are:

- the Stalinist show trials of the 1930s, where every failure of the Soviet industrial system was scape-goated onto 'conspiracists' singled out for persecution

- the conspiracy manufactured by right-wing 'America First' elements in the USA to discredit FDR by claiming he had foreknowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack by the Imperial Japanese Navy in December 1941

- Senator McCarthy's witch-hunts in the 1950s against largely non-existent communists allegedly trying to wreck the USA from within

- attempts to 'conspiracize' the deaths of JFK, Marilyn Munro and Diana POW

- the highly profitable and surprisingly durable fantasy perpetrated by Baigent, Leigh et al about the alleged bloodline of Christ surviving through the Merovingians and the Templars up to modern times (which enabled fiction-writer Dan Brown to become a millionaire), side-tracking into the theories of such diverse and successful alternative-history authors as Erich Von Daniken and Graham Hancock

Aaronovitch is a thorough investigative journalist who takes the trouble to read and study all the pro-conspiracy books and to attend the meetings; he understands his source material and has done his research. A list of common CT-components is identified: the citing of historical precedent and employment of flawed logic ("there were conspiracies before in history, so this must be one too"); parroting the weak and lazy "we're just asking questions" and "challenging the official version"; the focus on supposed `anomalies' in the absence of supporting evidence for the CT; and a determination to ignore, bury and discount all evidence which might prove the CT to be wrong. Promoters also ape the academic convention of citations and footnotes, but only cite each other in a closed loop which passes the gullible enquirer from one believer to the next, whilst brushing aside all the really hard evidence as "supporting the official story."

In attempting to explain why some otherwise apparently rational folks fall for this stuff, Aaronovitch has insight enough to see that the superficial subject of the theory (whether the death of Diana POW seen as a "murder by MI6" or "there were no planes on 9/11: it was all holograms") has little to do with the reason people cling to it so zealously. People hold on to these delusions for personal psychological reasons, so adherence to such dogmas cannot be effectively argued with because the normal rules of logic and evidence do not apply in the proponents' world. Like other writers before him (Professor Michael Barkun for example) Aaronovitch identifies a proneness to CT-thinking as a characteristic of political and economic losers; there is 'a quantum of solace' in adopting an ideology that 'THEY' (the so-called `New World Order', the Trilateral Commission or the `Bilderburgers', the UN, the `Secret World Government' or whatever) can be blamed for everything. It is more comforting to believe in evil puppet-masters flawlessly executing massive conspiracies to fool millions of people and further their own agendas than to work with the deeply nuanced complexities of the real world: no investment of work or time is needed to become part of a small band of heroes who `know the truth.'

So conspiracy theories, Aaronovitch argues, attempt to impose order on the random chaos of the real world and so "improve on reality." Whilst offering a more complex and improbable narrative and ignoring the principles embodied in the Occam's Razor rule, they infantilize adherents by explaining events in terms crafted to force-fit their limited paradigms, offering an easily digestible and dumbed-down narrative. Look at a website promoting a CT-view of the world, or watch a 10-minute video on youtube, and suddenly you can become privy to secret knowledge and understanding, superior to the 'sheeple' (a common CT pejorative, like 'shill') who haven't wasted their time with these things (or just as likely, have seen through their pretensions) and therefore don't understand the conspiracy like you do. You can now justify your own relative failures because the sinister `THEY' are responsible for everything; you have hate-figures to rail against, suddenly "everything is connected" and makes sense.

Far from heaping (often deserved?) scorn on conspiracy theorists, Aaronovitch exhibits generosity of spirit and seeks to understand rather than condemn. In fact, he lets CT-proponents off much more lightly than might be expected (an exception might be Mohammed Fayed who - together with his brother-in-law and Dodi's uncle, the notorious arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi - were responsible for manufacturing and disseminating ALL the Diana murder-conspiracy narratives to a gullible international constituency).

Even if you have little interest in the propagation of CT-ideologies, 'Voodoo Histories' can be recommended as a commendable piece of writing. It's witty, dispassionate and thought-provoking, and a fine - if not entirely original - analysis of an interesting modern phenomenon. The author does demonstrate that adherence to these delusional ideologies occasionally has serious consequences - i.e. the fraudulent `Protocols' were used by the Nazis to convince people that "(Jewish) bankers, financiers and internationalists" were planning a sinister conspiracy to "erode the borders between nation-states, take over the world and enslave the people": persecution, and eventually mass exterminations as official State policy, were thus justified.

Readers genuinely interested in the psychology of the CT-phenomenon might also like to check out `The Nature and Purpose of Political Conspiracy Theories', 'Political Paranoia v. Political Realism: On Distinguishing between Bogus Conspiracy Theories and Genuine Conspiratorial Politics' and `Conspiracy Theories and Clandestine Politics' by Jeffrey M. Bale. Professor Michael Barkun's `A Cult of Conspiracy - Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America' in which the author analyses the historical development of pick-and-mix `Improvisational Millennialism' and categorizes conspiracy theories into distinct types which each perform a different psychological function, also makes a good (and more academically rigorous) companion to Aaronovitch's more populist work.

I gave the book two stars because it is a scholarly work, well researched and with an extensive bibliography. However, I feel Aaronovitch spends a lot of time beating around the bush instead of getting to the point. He seems to expect his reader to infer too much. His writing style does not flow well; his sentences are often awkward and just too crammed with facts, and his paragraphs sometimes seem randomly indented.
To be honest, I did not finish the book. I just couldn't stand it.