Conspiracy Theories: A Guide to the World's Most Intriguing Mysteries

Product Information

But what I found is that those in fact aren’t outliers. I began to see a pattern emerge whereby there’s almost a template for fears of secret societies, of this invisible, undetectable group that is nonetheless doing terrible things behind the scenes. This is an excellent book. It reminds me in some ways of one of my favorite nonfiction works, Cultish: The Language of Fanaticism, and not just because there is some overlap in topic. Like Cultish, Conspiracy is written with good humor and a lot of compassion towards the people who fall down the rabbit hole. It's funny and generous, freely pointing out the places where conspiracy theories have proven completely true (#freebritney, anyone?), and where people in authority have really not HELPED the anti-conspiracy-theory cause (spoiler alert: the CIA features in several of these examples). The history of conspiracy theories, it turns out, is a fascinating one, rife with prejudice (especially antisemitism, with class prejudice coming in a close second), miscommunication, and cognitive distortions. It's written with a light hand, with liberal applications of snark. But the most interesting of all the literary retorts to the Warren report is Norman Mailer’s Oswald’s Tale: An American Mystery (1995), which used KGB material released in post-Soviet Russia to illuminate the formative period that Kennedy’s presumed assassin spent in the USSR as a young man. However, despite this period deepening the mystery of Oswald’s motives, the generally anarchistic Mailer eventually concludes: “Every insight we have gained of him suggests the solitary nature of his act.” Mailer’s sly comparison of the assassination with masturbation underlines his theory that the killer was driven by narcissistic egotism, rather than an external commission. Tom Phillips and Jonn Elledge have done a great job with this book. It was well explained yet not heavy and overwhelming, and it had some genuinely funny sections; I personally really enjoyed the footnotes. I have a feeling that I will be returning to this book again in the near future as I haven’t stopped thinking about it since I finished reading it.

But when it was revealed that billionaire Peter Thiel was behind Hogan's lawsuit, essentially providing infinite funds in a deliberate effort to destroy Gawker, opinion turned. Thiel was not beloved by the media, and the fact that he was a libertarian, and later a Trump supporter, cast the case in a new light for many. Now it was a story about a vengeful billionaire crushing the freedom of the press for hurting his feelings. I loved that this book went deep into history to explain conspiracy theories and show how they grow and adapt over time to fit various situations. I also really enjoyed the fact that we got to actually see the evolution and a lot of the time, the contradictions of conspiracy theories. Many people have opinions about the case based entirely on what they think of the principals. When Bollea aka "Hulk Hogan" first won his lawsuit against Gawker, public opinion was generally in his favor. The trial had shown amply that Gawker didn't care in the slightest about truth or journalistic ethics. They would publish anything without regard for the impact on its subjects. The rich and famous were favorite targets, and everyone enjoyed the schadenfreude of seeing yet another celebrity being humiliated. Worse, they operated on the principal that they were essentially untouchable. "Never start a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel" - they relied on strong First Amendment protections coupled with the fact that even for a rich celebrity, taking on a multimillion-dollar media empire was doomed to be a losing fight.Bernays gives an insight into how the elites actually subjugate the masses through the media, and this will resonate with those theorists who contend that humans are highly programmable through radio and television. It does seem to be a battle of brainwashing to an extent, with various government controlled media outlets each sending out propaganda to its citizens. Thus American, Russian and Chinese citizens are all given different propaganda and different versions of events. Bernays states in the book that: I think Conspiracy presents its information clearly, and is well structured. Thankfully the authors’ humour takes the edge of what could otherwise be a dry, and depressing read, it’s important to note however they don’t make fun of those caught it in the web of conspiracy thinking. It does succeed in being reflective though — causing you to think: is it ever right to seek revenge when you've been hurt? Is it right to destroy an individual or institution that you think is incredibly damaging or hurtful to a wide range of people? The word 'conspiracy' tends to be viewed as automatically 'bad', but Ryan forces his reader to question that. Ultimately, I remain unconvinced with Ryan's hypothesis that we need more conspiracies in the world than we currently have. This argument is counterintuitive, but not obviously wrong. And it's a good heuristic that when an argument is easy to dismiss but turns out to be hard to argue with, you should default to strongly believing it. If nothing else, when you find out you're wrong you do so in a way that leaves you better-informed than the conformists.

The interviews with Johnson himself that punctuate the book are genuinely intriguing, and not just for Dorries’s ability to somehow capture him sounding more thoughtful and statesmanlike than any previous interviewer. They’re interspersed with long, dramatic conversations between Dorries and various unnamed sources who all seemingly share her thesis, several of whom have a habit of speaking like characters in a bad spy novel. The one codenamed Moneypenny, who she hints could be a spook, fascinated me. Over the years, I’ve admittedly met only a handful of MI5 or MI6 types, but none said things like “for the first time ever, there is a man waiting in the wings who is connected to the money network of the world, and of course they hate it when the plan doesn’t go to plan”. You long for a proper explanation of how Johnson managed to hire so many people who hated him, or even why they hated him so much if he really was the man Dorries describes. Instead, we get Moneypenny’s analysis that Johnson never realised what the plotters were doing because “it’s the big picture for him, always … he was obsessed about delivering on his manifesto promises”, which suggests she isn’t destined for a long intelligence career. Some podcasts and articles have given me some insights, but this book definitely serves that purpose as well. In all, it's both scary and oddly calming to come to the well-researched realization that this 'golden age of the conspiracy theory' is neither the first nor the last time humanity finds itself in one. And speaking of agency: Thiel and Denton are clearly, in the words of Eric Weinstein, "high-agency people." They have a vision and execute on it. That trait is in limited supply, and tends to be selected-against in high-status education and the early stages of high-status jobs. In a sense, Denton was a class traitor, by using his Nietzschean will-to-power to build an institution that mostly swatted other unique people aside.

Top Conspiracy Theories

I’ve long been a fan of Ryan Holiday, so take that for what it’s worth, but I believe this to be yet another book that seeks to enlighten and educate. Who Really Killed Kennedy? (2013), by Dr Jerome R Corsi, also finds the mafia guilty, although with a little help from Richard Nixon and the French. Another work published to mark the 50th anniversary of JFK’s death, The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, by Roger Stone, a Trump associate, implicates President Lyndon Baines Johnson, in close association with mobsters and US intelligence. An early example was Freemasonry, the leading fraternal organisation of the 18th century with members including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, James Otis and Paul Revere. What began as a teacher of moral, intellectual and spiritual values came to be regarded with hostility and suspicion.

The author gets there in the end, but there was too much hand-wringing in my opinion about why people virulently reacted negatively once's Thiel's role in the Gawker takedown became revealed. Not that complicated...While she’s right to see something deeply undemocratic in Cameron, May, Johnson and Truss all departing office without the voters getting a say, Dorries omits to explore Johnson’s own starring role in kneecapping the first two. Does the movement control him too? Could he be Dr No? Makes you think.