Skip to main content
Customer Review
Reviewed in the United States on March 18, 2010
It's probably our own fault if those of us who like to judge a book by its cover find this one a bit less juicy than we might have hoped. In this case, though the topics covered are often juicy enough, Aaronovich's evident presumption that conspiracy theories are always BS takes a lot of the narrative sauce off the ball. It may be the reason why his research seems a bit sloppy at times (he mentions Samuel FB Morse as having written a virulent anti-Masonic book in 1835; actually it was a virulent anti-Catholic book, not the same thing at all,) not to mention superficial. He seems, for instance, to swallow the Warren Report hook line and sinker, and to dismiss the notion of a JFK assassination conspiracy in terms that make you wonder if he ever really studied the subject. An approach this atheistic is bound to throw out many a baby with the bath.
My own approach learned to be a bit more agnostic a long time ago. The reality seems to be that on the one hand, from time to time, conspiracies (eg the JFK assassination) really do happen. On the other hand, sh** happens too, all the time (eg 9/11, Iraqi WMDs, death of Princess Diana,) and may often look like conspiracies to those with sufficiently vivid imaginations who need to get out more. And all too often (eg the BK/MLK assassinations,) you just plain can't be sure one way or the other, for a long time to come, if ever. In the end I suspect it's generally less a matter of hard evidence than of shrewd individual intuitive faculties and worldly experience, and the proneness of all of us to see or not see what we want to see or not see and disregard the rest.
Aaronovich starts with a couple of old chestnuts that one might wish had been put to rest a long time ago, ie the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Holocaust, and which might make you think you're in for some heavy sledding before he ever gets into the good stuff. Before he's done, however, this tends to work out better than expected. His Protocols discussion, in particular, strikes me as the best analysis I've ever read on this particular subject and, taken together with the Holocaust discussion, really does lay some solid groundwork for all the matter to come. He touches base on pretty much everything you might expect; FDR Pearl Harbor foreknowledge, McCarthy era paranoia, lone assassins or otherwise, the Marilyn Monroe murder, Diana car crash, DA VINCI CODE/HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL, etc. etc, all the way up to 9/11 and beyond to the Tea Baggers, etc. Along the way, the many milestones he misses or dismisses, sometimes rather selectively, may cause misgivings for buffs on these subjects, until we remind ourselves that the book is only some 350-odd pages long after all (with 30-odd additional pp of pretty good notes/biblio/index, it should be noted.)
In the main, there seem two defects, from my point of view. One is that Aaronvich being British, the perspective of the book is quite British, with a considerable section devoted, for instance, to the suspicious death of Hilda Murrell, an interesting case bearing some analogies with the death of American Karen Silkwood, but unfamiliar territory for most Americans. The other is its skeptical underpinnings. A need to get out more would seem to apply as much to Denyers as to Believers, in this as in every other field of inquiry. In the end, I wasn't quite sure just what Aaronovich's takeaway message to me was about the whole conspiracy business, yet was not left with any sense that the author had completely wasted my time. It's an interesting read withal; I was disappointed, but only mildly so.
My own approach learned to be a bit more agnostic a long time ago. The reality seems to be that on the one hand, from time to time, conspiracies (eg the JFK assassination) really do happen. On the other hand, sh** happens too, all the time (eg 9/11, Iraqi WMDs, death of Princess Diana,) and may often look like conspiracies to those with sufficiently vivid imaginations who need to get out more. And all too often (eg the BK/MLK assassinations,) you just plain can't be sure one way or the other, for a long time to come, if ever. In the end I suspect it's generally less a matter of hard evidence than of shrewd individual intuitive faculties and worldly experience, and the proneness of all of us to see or not see what we want to see or not see and disregard the rest.
Aaronovich starts with a couple of old chestnuts that one might wish had been put to rest a long time ago, ie the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the Holocaust, and which might make you think you're in for some heavy sledding before he ever gets into the good stuff. Before he's done, however, this tends to work out better than expected. His Protocols discussion, in particular, strikes me as the best analysis I've ever read on this particular subject and, taken together with the Holocaust discussion, really does lay some solid groundwork for all the matter to come. He touches base on pretty much everything you might expect; FDR Pearl Harbor foreknowledge, McCarthy era paranoia, lone assassins or otherwise, the Marilyn Monroe murder, Diana car crash, DA VINCI CODE/HOLY BLOOD HOLY GRAIL, etc. etc, all the way up to 9/11 and beyond to the Tea Baggers, etc. Along the way, the many milestones he misses or dismisses, sometimes rather selectively, may cause misgivings for buffs on these subjects, until we remind ourselves that the book is only some 350-odd pages long after all (with 30-odd additional pp of pretty good notes/biblio/index, it should be noted.)
In the main, there seem two defects, from my point of view. One is that Aaronvich being British, the perspective of the book is quite British, with a considerable section devoted, for instance, to the suspicious death of Hilda Murrell, an interesting case bearing some analogies with the death of American Karen Silkwood, but unfamiliar territory for most Americans. The other is its skeptical underpinnings. A need to get out more would seem to apply as much to Denyers as to Believers, in this as in every other field of inquiry. In the end, I wasn't quite sure just what Aaronovich's takeaway message to me was about the whole conspiracy business, yet was not left with any sense that the author had completely wasted my time. It's an interesting read withal; I was disappointed, but only mildly so.
