Nick Terry
19th August 2009, 01:06 PM
Anyone else read this?
It's not a bad book, on CTs in US politics from WWI to 9/11, written by a professor of history.
Given that a prime CT/denialist trait is decontextualisation, her scrupulous attention to the historical context of the events works very well to explain (a) why particular CTs got rolling as bandwagons, and (b) why they are most often exercises in misunderstanding. The JFK assassination, for example, cannot be understood without reference to the Cold War context of the early 1960s. Most JFK conspiracists, of course, drew the wrong conclusions from that context.
Olmsted also has a few choice remarks in her conclusion. I especially liked the following line
"conspiracists can sometimes be like children who tell lies and must make up greater and more detailed lies when they fear discovery".
Sound familiar?:D
It's not a bad book, on CTs in US politics from WWI to 9/11, written by a professor of history.
Given that a prime CT/denialist trait is decontextualisation, her scrupulous attention to the historical context of the events works very well to explain (a) why particular CTs got rolling as bandwagons, and (b) why they are most often exercises in misunderstanding. The JFK assassination, for example, cannot be understood without reference to the Cold War context of the early 1960s. Most JFK conspiracists, of course, drew the wrong conclusions from that context.
Olmsted also has a few choice remarks in her conclusion. I especially liked the following line
"conspiracists can sometimes be like children who tell lies and must make up greater and more detailed lies when they fear discovery".
Sound familiar?:D