Dom Knigi: Quotes from a bookshop, what people read, what people believe, and the Guardian

Subject: Dom Knigi: Quotes from a bookshop, what people read, what people believe, and the Guardian
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2015 20:24:33 +0100
From: Antony Penaud <antonypenaud@yahoo.fr>

Quotes from a bookshop, what people read, what people believe, and the Guardian

Antony Penaud received his DPhil (University of Oxford) in 2000. He is French and lives in London.

A friendly pdf version of this essay (to download or to read by scrolling down) can be found on https://www.scribd.com/doc/275944943
His other essays are on www.scribd.com/antonykharms

INTRODUCTION

The subhead of a recent Guardian article (1) is “Conspiracies abound in the Dom Knigi store’s non-fiction section, but what is truly unknown is the extent to which Russians believe what is written”.

But the article that follows doesn’t prove anything: it consists of a few quotes from some books, a couple of comments by a “political analyst”, and no attempt is made to prove that Russians believe those quotes.

Imagine a journalist walking into Waterstone’s in London, quoting a few carefully chosen books, and then claiming that this is what British people believe.

In this essay we reproduce some polls conducted in different countries about different conspiracies, list the current best selling books, and discuss the Guardian article.

PLAN

1. Conspiracies (polls and comments)
2. What do Russians, Brits and Americans read?
Conclusion
Appendix A. Conspiracies in the Ukraine crisis
Appendix B. The first main quote in the Guardian article (Starikov)
Appendix C. The second main quote in the Guardian article (Prokopenko)

1. CONSPIRACIES

1.1. Some polls

9/11 (2008):

Let’s look at the results of a poll (2) conducted in 2008 in different countries re 9/11. The question was “Who do you think was behind the 9/11 attacks?”.
Below we only report the percentages for a few countries of interest (we include the country that gives the maximum percentages for each of the first three answers).
Below, the five percentages below correspond to the following answers: AQ, US, Israel , other perpetrator, don’t know:

Turkey: 39, 36, 3, 1, 21
Ukraine: 42, 15, 1, 5, 39
Italy: 56, 15, 1, 7, 21
Russia: 57, 15, 2, 6, 19
GB: 57, 5, 1, 12, 26
France: 63, 8, 0, 7, 23
Germany: 64, 23, 1, 2, 9
Egypt: 16, 12, 43, 11, 18

9/11 (2011):
According to a BBC poll conducted in 2011 (3) “14% of people questioned in the UK and 15% in the US did not believe the official explanation that al-Qaeda was responsible, and instead believed the US government was involved in a wider conspiracy. Among 16 to 24-year-olds that belief rises to around one in four.”

France:
Following the DSK (Strauss-Kahn) scandal, a poll was conducted in France (4): 57% believed it was a conspiracy. Note that as far as we know the poll didn’t specify what their theory was.

UK:
According to a 2013 yougov poll (5), 38% of Brits believe Diana’s death was not an accident (41% believe it was an accident, 21% don’t know).

US:
Public Pollicy Polling conducted some polls in the US in 2013 (6): it came out that
51% of voters say a larger conspiracy was at work in the JFK assassination
7% of voters think the moon landing was faked
5% of voters believe that Paul McCartney actually died in 1966
6% of voters believe Osama bin Laden is still alive
15% of voters think the medical industry and the pharmaceutical industry ‘invent’ new diseases to make money
28% of voters believe secretive power elite with a globalist agenda is conspiring to eventually rule the world through an authoritarian world government, or New World Order” .

While some of these high numbers might be partly caused by mistrust of the media or of the government (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Iraq war), some clearly false conspiracies have been actually generated by the media and the government: 28% of voters believe Saddam Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Finance:
We tried to find some polls about finance related conspiracies (creation of money, central banks, Goldman Sachs), but unfortunately couldn’t find any.

1.2. Le Monde Diplomatique article

Le Monde Diplomatique had a very long article about conspiracies in June 2015. For non subscribers, Robert Fisk mentioned the article at length in The Independent (7).

1.2.1 True false flags

Fisk: “that inestimable French journal Le Monde Diplomatique this month carries a wodge of articles under the title ‘Did you say conspiracy?’, painfully dissecting how many false-flag stories turned out to be true.
There’s the Mukden incident, for example, a 1931 Chinese attack on imperial Japan which turned out to be a Japanese attack on China and led to the Japanese invasion of Manchuria, the Rape of Nanking, et al.
Then there’s the 1933 burning of the Reichstag which might have been started by the Nazis rather than the communists;
the successful – and real – CIA-MI5 plot to overthrow Iran’s elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, in which bombs were supposedly planted by (yet again) communists;
Israel’s 1954 ‘Operation Susannah’ in which Israeli-organised attacks on UK and US buildings in Cairo were blamed on Egyptian nationalists;
and the 1964 Tonkin incident, when America reported totally imaginary North Vietnamese attacks on a US warship,
which led to the very real launching of the Vietnam War.
Interestingly, Latin America provides even more proof of real US plots: Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Nicaragua, Cuba, you name it.

The French monthly also carries a very fair critique of those who believe George W and his chums engineered the 9/11 attacks – as if a US president who screwed up everything he ever did in the Middle East was capable of bringing down the World Trade Centre – and of the Arab world’s obsession with Western conspiracies that allow dictators and nations to duck their own responsibility for terrible events.”

1.2.2. Disqualifying critical thought

Le Monde Diplomatique: “The accusation [of conspiracy] enjoys success in the media, where it often aims to disqualify critical thought

1.3. Comments

Below are the conclusions we draw:
– Russia doesn’t stand out in the only available poll in which we can compare countries.
– It seems that beliefs in conspiracies are a global phenomenon.
– People tend to blame unfriendly countries (or political opponents) rather than allies.
– Some false-flag stories turn out to be true.
– “The accusation enjoys success in the media, where it often aims to disqualify critical thought”.

Scepticism and rational thinking being the ideal to reach, we too often observe the two following extremes:
– Irrational questioning (eg people who believe that McCartney died in 1966 or that Elvis is alive).
– No questioning (eg people who believed unquestionably the propaganda in the run up to the Iraq war).

The second category also includes journalists (eg David Rose (9) from the Guardian’s sister paper, see Nick Davies’s book “Flat Earth News” for a comprehensive examination of propaganda before the Iraq war, and much more about journalism).

2. What Russians, Brits and Americans read

The lists below correspond to the best selling books on a particular week (or on an even shorter time period for the amazon lists).
A recently released book might be high in the list but might not stay in the list for very long. But still, there is some information in these lists, and we give the number of days (or weeks) the book has been in the list when they are available.

2.1. Russians

Since the Guardian specifically mentioned the bookstore Dom Knigi on Novy Arbat, we checked on their website what books were selling best. Here is what we found on 22 August 2015:
1. a thriller by Boris Akunin.
2. a sci fi book based on a video game (Metro 2035).
3. Secret Garden by Scottish author Johana Besford (a book of illustration that has been a worldwide bestseller).
4. A book by John Green, an “American author of young adult fiction” according to wikipedia.
5. A book by Primakov (PM in the late 90s who died recently).
6. A book by Jojo Moyes, a British journalist and romance novelist.
7. The Civil code.
8. 1984 by George Orwell.
9. A book by Polyakova (she seems to write about fitness but also fiction).
10. Another book by Jojo Moyes.

The above list is for ‘all categories’ and we couldn’t find more granular information.

We also checked the list for Moskva (9), the other large Moscow bookshop. The list is this time a top 100 and contains all categories.
There was at number 12 “Power”, Starikov’s new book (new entry in the top 100). Note that at number 16 was a book by Stephen Fry (not a new entry).

We found a website (10) that combined the sales of 11 bookshops (it is not clear which bookshops) to generate rankings. That top 100 for non fiction that was dated 05 August 2015 (the approximate date at which the Guardian article was written) did not contain any book by Starikov. The top 10 was quite close to the Dom Knigi top 10, apart from a book on Salinger by Beigbeder which was at number 2. Stephen Fry was at number 13.

2.2. Brits

We asked Waterstone’s on Piccadilly if they published a chart and they said no. So, to have an idea of what Brits read we checked the ‘non fiction’ bestsellers on amazon.co.uk. This is how it looked like on 20 August 2015:
1. River of Time by Jon Swain, 1 day in the top 100
2. The Scandalous Lady W by Hallie Rubenhold, 1 day in the top 100
3. 17 Carnations: The Windsors, The Nazis and The Cover-Up by Andrew Morton, 126 days in the top 100.

Note that in the US that book is called “17 Carnations: The Windsors, The Nazis and The Biggest Cover-Up in History”, the title was probably toned down for the UK.

2.3. Americans

2.3.1 Amazon

On amazon.com, the chart for ‘all books’ best sellers was (on 20 August 2015):
1 The Rabbit who want to fall asleep by Carl-Johan Forssen Ehrlin
2 It is about Islam: Exposing the Truth by Glenn Beck

According to Wikipedia, Beck is a host on Fox News, “his critics contend he promotes conspiracy theories and employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings” and he once said “There is more proof for the resurrection of Jesus than man-made climate change.”.

A huffingtonpost article called “The Top 9 Glenn Beck Conspiracy Theories” (11) includes his view that there was a cover-up regarding a Saudi national at the Boston bombing.

2.3.2. NYT

The number 1 (for the week of 23 August when it was a new entry and for the week 30 August too) of the NYT best sellers in the ‘hardback non fiction’ category is a book called Plunder and Deceit, by Mark Levin.

The NYT description of the book is “The talk-radio host urges young Americans to resist the statist masterminds who he says are burdening them with debt, inferior education and illegal immigration.”.

In February 2015, he said in his talk show: “You know what Obama’s doing today? He is building the Iranian Islamo-nazi caliphate.” (12).

2.4. Number of copies sold

According to Wikipedia, Starikov has written 14 books. Most books have been printed at around 5,000 copies (it is not clear how many were sold). The one that was most printed was printed at 40,000.
In 2010, Glenn Beck had sold 5 million copies of his books in the US (13).
Levin has sold over 1 million copies of his book “Liberty and Tiranny” (see Wikipedia).

CONCLUSION

A Guardian article states some conspiracies and claims that Russians believe them, on the grounds that some books could be found in bookstores.

We have studied some polls on conspiracy theories and in those polls Russia doesn’t stand out. We have found that some conspiracy theories are popular in the US, UK and France, but we have no reason to believe that their popularity is restricted to those countries.

We have looked at the current bestselling books in Russia, the UK and the US and found that some conspiracy related books sold well in the US, and also in the UK. Unlike the Guardian, we do not mock the entire population of these countries nor do we assume that the buyers of these books believe all that is in them.

One of the two most “outlandish” conspiracies mocked by the Guardian turns out to be true (the Prokopenko quote, see the BBC article quoted in Appendix C).

This poorly argumented Guardian article, which is more interested in demonising Russians than in trying to inform its readers, is – sadly – just one of many that one can read in Western media nowadays.

APPENDIX A: Conspiracies in the Ukraine crisis

The Ukraine crisis offers a good example of what we observed in the 9/11 polls per country: people tend to blame their political opponent.

The Maidan snipers

In a leaked conversation (14) between Catherine Ashton (Vice-President of the EU and High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the EU) and Urmas Paet (15) (Minister of Foreign Affairs for Estonia), Paet said “And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets, a doctor who helped the wounded] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides (…) And it’s really disturbing that the new coalition they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened, so that there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new
coalition.”.

The German TV channel ARD was one of the few Western media not ignoring (or mocking (16)) it. They screened their independent investigation about what happened that day and their conclusion was in line with the leaked conversation.

One year after the events the BBC also casted doubt about the official version (17), and a late 2014 Reuters investigation exposed “serious flaws” in the Ukrainian probe (18).

Research by Ottawa academic Ivan Katchanovski (19) was largely ignored by Western media. However, re MH17, blogger Eliot Higins was quoted by most Western media as a serious expert despite the fact he had no expertise and was described by Postol (MIT Professor of Science, Technology, and International Security) in these terms: “As far as his analysis, it’s so lacking any analytical foundation it’s clear he has no idea what he’s talking about.” (20).

“Yats is the guy”

In the infamous “f*ck the EU” leaked conversation between Nuland (Assistant Secretary of State) and Pyatt (US Ambassador to Ukraine), the two officials discussed who should be in the next Ukrainian government (21).

In particular Nuland said that Klitshko shouldn’t go into government and that “Yats is the guy”.

When a new government was formed shortly after this conversation, Klitshko didn’t go into government and Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister.

MH17

Here the natural scenario is that the airplane was shot down by rebels by accident.

However some US intelligence veterans are not convinced and have written an open letter to Obama asking to release evidence, if he had any (22).

Regardless of who shot the airplane down, we know that the rebels had shot down a Ukrainian military plane flying at a high altitude a few days before the MH17 tragedy.
One could therefore argue that the people responsible for keeping sending airliners (without the passengers knowing) in the rebel-held area should share responsibility.

MH370: On CNN, Jeff Wise, “a private pilot and science writer” explained that Putin had ordered Russian special forces to hijack Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 and fly it to a spaceport in Kazakhstan. “Maybe he wanted to demonstrate to the United States, which had imposed the first punitive sanctions on Russia the day before, that he could hurt the West and its allies anywhere in the world,” he wrote in New York Magazine. “Maybe what he was really after were the secrets of one of the plane’s passengers. Maybe there was something strategically crucial in the hold. Or maybe he wanted the plane to show up unexpectedly somewhere someday, packed with explosives. There’s no way to know.” (23)

Nemtsov

In this case the conspiracy became the natural theory for Western media and no effort was spared to find Putin some motives: Nemtsov was presented like a popular politician when only 1% of Russians trusted him (24) and it was claimed that Nemtsov was about to release a report (about the involvement of Russian troops in Ukraine) that would damage Putin immensely. It didn’t cross the mind of these journalists that his collaborators would be in possession of the report too. Nemtsov’s collaborators released the report a couple of months after Nemtsov’s murder (25), and it had no impact on Putin’s approval ratings.

APPENDIX B: The Starikov quote

Let’s now have a closer look at the two quotes that are the most shocking for the Guardian.

The quote

“Washington and London need fools to fight for them, because they don’t like to fight themselves. This is why they brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany in 1933. You need the person who will start the war, who will not flinch from committing crimes and shedding blood… It’s the same today. They need a madman who will start a new world war in order to save the dollar.”.

Comments

“Washington and London need fools to fight for them”

In a 1998 interview, Brzezinski (US National Security Advisor in 1980) said “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise. That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Soviets into the Afghan trap(…). The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, essentially “We now have the opportunity of giving to the Soviet Union its Vietnam War”.” (26).

“This is why they brought Adolf Hitler to power in Germany in 1933”

We have found online a Starikov article related to this view (27).

OSCE:

The article starts with “A recent resolution by the parliamentary assembly of the OSCE declared that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany held equal roles in unleashing WWII”.
When reading this we first thought that Starikov made up that OSCE declaration. But we checked, and it is true: the OSCE did make such a resolution in the Summer of 2009 (was this rather late resolution connected to diplomatic tensions following the 2008 Georgian war?).

In all cases we share Starikov’s indignation on this. We could ask ourselves many questions: was Versailles too harsh (see Keynes)? Should Germany have been dismantled like Austria-Hungary? Should France and Britain have started a war earlier? Should the Allies have gone to Berlin in 1918 (some in the German Army felt they hadn’t lost the war since the Allies didn’t enter Germany and that they had therefore been “stabbed in the back”, others like Chevenement see the 1918 German armistice as a tactical pause (28))? Was appeasement (Munich) a good idea (note that Poland and Hungary also annexed territories after Munich)? Was it wise for France and Britain to refuse a peace treaty with the Soviet Union in 1939 (and therefore pushing Stalin to do a pact with Germany) (29)?

These questions are valid questions, but France, Britain and other countries are not responsible for Germany starting WW2.

Conspiracy:

Back to Starikov: his article is indeed conspirationist (e.g. he claims that the 1929 crisis was unleashed to ensure that the Nazis would rise to power!).
In 2004 the Guardian ran an article called “How Bush’s grandfather helped Hitler’s rise to power” (30). But claiming that the people who funded the Nazis did so on orders of foreign governments so that Germany starts a war against the Soviet Union is a conspiracy theory on more than one level.

Tit for tat?

Would Starikov have written all this if the OSCE hadn’t made that declaration (this OSCE declaration is part of a trend that blames Russia for much: many Western media now insinuate that Russia started the 2008 Georgian war when a 2009 EU report blamed Georgia (31), and Ukrainian PM Yatseniuk declared in early 2015 “we all remember very well the Soviet invasion of Ukraine and Germany”)?

We could see Starikov’s conspiracy theory as a tit for tat (conscious or not?) response: ridiculous claims blaming Moscow are countered by ridiculous claims blaming Washington and London.

One should however note the difference: Starikov is only a writer, while the OSCE is an official European organisation.

“They need a madman who will start a new world war in order to save the dollar.”

Ron Paul

Ron Paul (32), former US congressman: “In November 2000 Saddam Hussein demanded Euros for his oil. His arrogance was a threat to the dollar; his lack of any military might was never a threat. At the first cabinet meeting with the new administration in 2001, as reported by Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, the major topic was how we would get rid of Saddam Hussein – though there was no evidence whatsoever he posed a threat to us. This deep concern for Saddam Hussein surprised and shocked O’Neill.

It now is common knowledge that the immediate reaction of the administration after 9/11 revolved around how they could connect Saddam Hussein to the attacks, to justify an invasion and overthrow of his government. Even with no evidence of any connection to 9/11, or evidence of weapons of mass destruction, public and congressional support was generated through distortions and flat out misrepresentation of the facts to justify overthrowing Saddam Hussein.

There was no public talk of removing Saddam Hussein because of his attack on the integrity of the dollar as a reserve currency by selling oil in Euros. Many believe this was the real reason for our obsession with Iraq. I doubt it was the only reason, but it may well have played a significant role in our motivation to wage war. Within a very short period after the military victory, all Iraqi oil sales were carried out in dollars. The Euro was abandoned.”

Although Ron Paul’s view is more nuanced than Starikov (Paul doesn’t think it was the only factor), he claims that many share the same view as Starikov.
Our point is to show that some US politicians have a view close to Starikov on this.

Causes?

Note also that arguing (like many politicians and journalists) as if morality was the sole factor when deciding for an intervention is absurd (see Chomsky, but also realists like Mearscheimer for example).

There are clearly different factors when deciding for an intervention, and one would be very naive to believe that economic factors (eg oil and gas) have little importance.

Finally, the will of the BRICS to change the world financial system has been a source of tension between Russia and the US for some time.

APPENDIX C: The Prokopenko quote

The second quote is described in the Guardian as “even more outlandish”.

The quote

“Recent scientific studies have shown that females will soon be able to take the male role in reproduction, with no external interference. The first cases of self-fertilisation have already been registered. Biologists say that without men, women will not die out immediately, but will instead slowly change their form, in a reverse process of evolution(…).”.

Comments

From a recent BBC article (33): “Ten years ago, Japanese researchers unveiled a mouse that had two mothers but no father (…) Should several female komodo dragons wash up on a virgin island, they’ll be able produce males and kick start a brand new colony. Likewise, parthenogenesis in sharks came to light after several incidents in which lone females kept in aquariums inexplicably fell pregnant”. The BBC article speculates that the same could apply to humans, but that it wouldn’t be a good idea because of the lack of genetic diversity it would generate in future generations.

Reference:

The Guardian mocks Prokopenko for his lack of “external reference”, when a simple google search would have found the BBC article.

An innocent error?

Furthermore, the Guardian totally transforms Prokopenko’s quote, saying mockingly that “women have evolved to be capable of reproducing without the need of sperm”. Prokopenko doesn’t say that at all, he says “the first cases of self-fertilisation have already been registred”: he is not talking about humans nor is he saying it has occured by evolution (it has happened in the laboratory). Besides, Prokopenko saying “females will soon be able to take the male role in reproduction” clearly implies that it hasn’t happened (and Prokopenko refers to other animals, not humans).

The Guardian concludes with patronising comments about Russian people: distortion of facts and demonisation of Russians is the recipe for many of its articles.

(1) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/14/hitler-was-an-anglo-american-stooge-the-tall-tales-in-a-moscow-bookshop
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
(3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-14572054
(4) http://archives-lepost.huffingtonpost.fr/article/2011/05/18/2498419_dsk-le-sondage-qui-fout-la-trouille.html
(5) https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/09/17/38-brits-princess-dianas-death-was-not-accident/
(6) http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2013/04/conspiracy-theory-poll-results-.html
(7) http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/america-siding-with-terrorists-like-alnusra-its-not-a-conspiracy-theory-10319370.html
(8) As far as we understand he has, unlike others, become much more sceptical now.
(9) http://www.moscowbooks.ru/catalog/bestsellers.asp
(10) http://pro-books.ru/raiting/nehud
(11) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/the-top-9-glenn-beck-cons_b_3361097.html
(12) http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/mark-levin-obama-building-iranian-islamo-nazi-caliphate
(13) http://www.dailyfinance.com/2010/06/29/glenn-beck-the-publishing-industrys-biggest-hope/
In the Guardian article a bookseller says he’s not sure that Russians read more conspiracies than Americans, but the Guardian dismisses him as “playing down the influence of these books”
(14) The conversation was leaked on 6 March. It can be found on youtube.
(15) Both Ashton and Paet went to Kiev to support the protest.
(16) Some media at first didn’t report the leaked conversation. When they finally reported it (possibly because of its large spread on social media), they mocked it.
(17) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-31359021
(18) http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-ukraine-killings-probe-special-report-idUSKCN0HZ0UH20141010
(19) http://uottawa.academia.edu/IvanKatchanovski
(20) The Postol quote is in relation to his blogs on Syria. His blogs on MH17 have also been criticised by professionals: http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/expert-criticizes-allegations-of-russian-mh17-manipulation-a-1037125.html
(21) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32695098
(22) https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/22/obama-should-release-mh-17-intel
(23) http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/flight-mh370-wreckage-the-14-conspiracy-theories-that-could-explain-where-the-plane-is–and-what-happened-to-it-10425327.html
(24) http://www.levada.ru/07-02-2014/uznavaemost-oppozitsionnykh-politikov
(25) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32705610
(26) http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/brzezinski_interview
(27) http://www.sott.net/article/298259-The-Americans-who-funded-Hitler-Nazis-German-economic-miracle-and-World-War-II
(28) http://www.chevenement.fr/1914-2014
(29) For example http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=3875
(30) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
(31) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/6247620/EU-blames-Georgia-for-starting-war-with-Russia.html
(32) https://www.lewrockwell.com/2006/02/ron-paul/why-the-us-hates-iraq-iran-and-venezuela/
(33) http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140530-do-we-need-sex-to-reproduce