Jonthan Kay's among the truther was much more interesting that "VoodHoo Historeis" I read earlier. Kay certainly is biased and I almost stopped reading at the beginning when it became clear that his status as a Secular Jew (maybe even an atheist of Jewish heritage) was influencing everything. Automatically throwing out conspiracies because they were "anti-semetic" and basically claiming that you can't believe anything people say who also believe in talking snakes and men born of virgins raising from the dead.

However chapter 7 really saved the book as he went on to talk about the problems of the conspiracy that poor blacks are disadvantageous and that admissions policies are unfair and the bullshit on the the conspiracy that women are paid less than men.

He is really stuck on firm belief that that which is most likely is probably true.

From an academic standpoint it was informative, looking at the psychology of conspiracy theorists, what makes them tick. He was surprised to learn most are not Kooks, and had interesting perspectives on how religion and conspiracies have worked together, and more recently how conspiracy theories have replaced religion for secular humanists. ( )

A good - and frightening - summary of how low the level of discourse has fallen in North America. We now believe in nothing and everything, regardless of how stupid and obviously nonsensical it is. There are a number of scary beliefs i here, but the anti-vaccination morons probably take the cake. A good read if you want to be convinced Western civilization is doomed. ( )

A bit of a disappointment. Got off to a promising start, discussing the ideas and motivations behind conspiracy theory, and how to identify conspiracy theories, with group psychology, etc. However, the subjects veer into things that the author dislikes, ranging from academia to civil rights, and atheism! Personal attacks, sparse citations, and logical fallacies which conspiracy theorists themselves might use. It's a shame.

The author does have a plan to fight conspiracy theories, and that is ... basic preventative education. Again, this is not a bad start, but what else is to be done?

It is oddly fortunate to live in a country which is so permissive in free speech, that such completely false and possibly harmful statements are allowed. ( )

A Canadian journalist's attempt to assess the growth of conspiracy theories on the American right and left in the early 21st century.

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. ( )