Last year, I wrote a piece on ‘Complicity Theorists’ parodying the generic articles that the media puts out criticising conspiracy theorists. This article is the same sort of thing, except we are going to break down an article (with humour) rather than write a satirical essay. So let’s have a look on the ADL article on Conspiracy Theorists and see if we can’t have some fun with it:
Conspiracy Theories and How to Help Family and Friends Who Believe Them
Why assume we want your help?
Do you have someone in your life who has been drawn in by a conspiracy theory? Has their behavior changed and you’re not sure how you can help?
I was an obsessive weird loner before I became a ‘conspiracy theorist’, so yeah, don’t think I became one just because I watched too many videos from The Last American Vagabond and read too much Substack.
Perhaps your parents have ventured down the QAnon rabbit hole and have become obsessed with trying to decode social media posts by public figures. They send you a daily stream of articles and YouTube videos about how the government is controlled by pedophiles who are running a child sex trafficking ring, and they’re especially worried about the daycare center your kids attend.
I mean QAnon is a BS FBI psyop (no politician is gonna save you and that includes Donald ‘Warp Speed’ Trump), but has this person not heard of Jeffrey Epstein, Jimmy Savile, etc.?
When your family all got the Covid-19 vaccine, your mom warned you that the government implants chips in the vaccine to monitor people. Since your parents haven’t gotten the vaccine themselves because of this belief, you don’t visit them very often.
Sounds like the asshole in this scenario is the normie who doesn’t want to see his/her parents because they are not ‘vaccinated’.
Even though he doesn’t have children in the local school, your friend attends school board meetings because he is tired of “diversity” being taught to young children.
It’s not ‘diversity’ that’s the issue, people just don’t want sexualised drag queens performing in front of their kids.
You notice this friend has switched jobs every few months because he’s always getting into arguments with customers and his co-workers.
Ah yes all ‘conspiracy theorists’ argue about their politics at work.
Conspiracy theories can be defined in a variety of ways. In general, they reject established and accepted narratives, implying that sinister and powerful forces are manipulating various events and situations behind the scenes, usually for political gain.
Rejecting established narratives? Such as ‘Iraq has WMDs’, ‘Incubator Babies’ ‘Assad gassed his own people at Douma’, ‘Gulf of Tonkin’, those official narratives? How dare people think the people who pushed those narratives might be liars! How dare people question if, uh, Mike ‘We Lied We Cheated We Stole’ Pompeo is telling the truth?
As for ‘manipulation’ do people really believe that elites DON’T manipulate shit? ‘I can believe that so-and-so at work manipulates shit for petty office politics reasons, but that the most powerful people on the planet do this for their own political/economic gain, well, that’s beyond the pale.’
Conspiracy theories have been around for centuries, and often emerge from a need to make sense of the world around us.
No they emerge from the fact that official narratives don’t make fucking sense. Like the Skripals. Their own timeline that THEY put out THEMSELVES is nonsensical. We’re supposed to believe that Putin, allegedly the most competent 6d chess master on the planet, sent two cavorting assassins to Salisbury to smear the most deadly nerve agent on the planet on a doorknob and then hung around outside an antique shop rather than get the hell out of dodge. Just weeks before Russia was due to host the World Cup to promote itself on the world stage. I mean who could question this except someone who’s criminally insane?
Why do people get drawn into conspiracy theories?
Epistemic: This motivation is a need for knowledge, information and certainty. When a major event happens, people want an explanation for it and most importantly, they want to feel certain of that explanation. When people feel uncertain in specific situations or generally feel uncertain, they are drawn into conspiracy theories to help provide that certainty.
If they want ‘an explanation they can feel certain of’ surely they’d just believe the establishment narrative as those allow no criticism. Heck there is enough people who peddle the establishment’s crap who fall into that category.
Another key factor is people’s educational backgrounds; they may lack the critical thinking skills necessary to differentiate between credible and non-credible sources of information. As a result, they are looking for knowledge and certainty but do not have the tools and understanding to look in the right places.
Yeah those thick plebs don’t understand that the BBC and Reuters are supposed to be ‘trusted sources’ and you need to believe them without question, damn you!
Existential: This motivation drives the need for people to feel safe and secure in their world. People need to feel they have power over the things that happen to them and, conversely, they don’t like to feel out of control or powerless in their lives. Conspiracy theories help them believe that they have information that explains why they lack control in specific situations and more generally. Therefore, people who feel powerless tend to gravitate towards conspiracy theories.
The correct interpretation here: “People who have been screwed over by the establishment are more likely to consider perspectives that criticise the establishment.” Which is bleedingly obvious.
On an individual level, believing you have access to information and the truth, while others do not have that knowledge, gives one a feeling of superiority over others that can feed self-esteem.
Then why do ‘conspiracy theorists’ bash our heads against the wall trying to get normal people to see that, I dunno, the mRNA ‘vaccines’ are poison if all we want is for special knowledge to make us unique?
There are real reasons for people to distrust governments, corporations and other powerful figures and groups. Actual conspiracies and cover-ups occur quite regularly; Watergate, the Tuskegee experiments and COINTELPRO were all real events. However, while real conspiracies do exist, this doesn’t mean that every event or situation is the result of a nefarious plot or that powerful figures are always trying to hide the truth.
So conspiracies happened 50 years ago but don’t question if they are going on NOW you conspiracy theorist!
The Conspiracy Theory Handbook, published by Dr. Stephan Lewandowsky, a professor of cognitive science at the University of Bristol in the UK, and Dr. John Cook, a professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University, outlines seven traits of conspiratorial thinking, summarized with the acronym CONSPIR:
Contradictory ideas: People who have bought into conspiracy theories can simultaneously believe in ideas that contradict each other. For example, some believe that Covid-19 is a U.S.-created bioweapon but also that the virus is a hoax and doesn’t actually exist.
No, those are two separate theories that exist among those who question the Official Covid-19 Narrative. No one literally believes both. Someone might be willing to entertain both but that isn’t the same thing. Someone might say ‘On the balance of evidence I think 70% chance it is a lab virus, 30% it doesn’t exist’, that’s not the same thing either. In fact the ‘it came out of a lab’ people and the ‘no virus’ people will often argue with each other.
Overriding suspicion: Conspiracy theorists will dismiss “official” sources and any information that doesn’t “fit” neatly into the theory. They promote the idea that “traditional” sources of information–such as mainstream news outlets and academic researchers–are unreliable and are even “in on” the conspiracy, attempting to distract people from the truth.
Yes because official sources are full of fucking liars, see ‘Iraq has WMD’s’.
Journalists may sincerely believe establishment narratives, but they simply would not be hired if they did not, so mainstream media simply selects for the most dumb people on the planet who have a posh accent and sound like they know what they are talking about. Journalists are largely ‘useful idiots’ and aren’t important enough to be ‘in on the conspiracy’ a lot of the time (Dan Rather’s statement on Zapruder would be an example where the journalist was ‘in on the conspiracy’).
Nefarious intent: The people and groups behind these supposed conspiracies are always presumed to have nefarious intentions – their motivations are never benign.
Funny how all of their so called ‘mistakes’ have disastrous consequences for humanity though. I mean the guys that did Iraq then decided to go after Syria. You’d think if it was benign they’d have learned their lesson to not destroy countries?
Something must be wrong: Even if you can debunk a conspiracy theory, believers will still believe the theory because they fundamentally believe that “something must be wrong.” For conspiracy theorists, nothing is as it seems.
That’s because you probably haven’t ‘debunked’ it.
Persecuted victim: Conspiracy theorists believe that they are victims of the conspiracy. They also view themselves as heroes who are brave enough to stand up against the conspirators. If a fact-checker debunks a claim made by a conspiracy theorist, they’re seen as simply trying to discredit the believer and cast doubt on the truth.
Yeah because that’s the function of establishment funded fact checks.
I don’t think I’m important enough to be a ‘hero’, that’s generally the guys who go around talking about how they ‘destroy antivaxxers’ on Twitter, or whatever. Like that Ian Copeland guy.
Immune to evidence: Conspiracy theories cherry-pick “evidence,” selectively choosing bits of information that support the narrative and casting aside anything that contradicts the claim. Evidence that contradicts the conspiracy theory will be re-interpreted as originating from the conspiracy.
And the MSM doesn’t do this? No one is able to match up every single piece of evidence to a theory to 100% perfection (because reality is too complicated for this to be achievable), every theory has to emphasise or deemphasise certain facts. It’s about the theory that is most plausible. And conspiracy is the most plausible explanation in many cases (e.g. JFK assassination to take an obvious example).
Re-interpreting randomness: Conspiracy theories encourage believers to “do their own research” and collect their own “evidence” to prove the claim, looking for ways in which various events, people and situations are related. Events that have nothing to do with the conspiracy theory will be re-interpreted as being caused by the conspiracy.
As opposed to the establishment who tell you to uncritically believe everything out of their mouths. I know who I’m going with.
We can all fall for conspiracy theories and unintentionally aid their spread. That’s why it’s crucial for all of us to learn how to spot them. Here are some suggestions:
Check the source of the information. Additional red flags are raised when articles contain lots of grammatical errors, lack sources or are all written by the same author, or if a website contains an unusual URL or lacks an “About Us” section.
So if I get some guest authors I’m trustworthy then?
Check multiple sources. Are other, credible news outlets and experts sharing the same information? If a story is real, many publications will cover it. Have fact-checking sites like Snopes and PolitiFact refuted the claims?
Dr. Malone, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Kory, Dr. Yeadon, Dr. Bhakti, Dr. Vanden Bossche, etc, are all criticising mRNA jabs but they are all cranks according to you, despite the fact they are obviously credentialed experts. What you actually mean is if your ‘approved experts’ say something.
Evaluate photos and videos that accompany stories and social media posts. Conspiracy theorists will often use old and/or manipulated images to support their stance. Conduct a reverse image search on Google or TinEye to see if the image has shown up elsewhere and if it has been manipulated. If it has, there’s a good chance you’re being played.
What you can do (and not do) to help those who have fallen for conspiracy theories?
However, once a person has bought into a conspiracy theory, it can be difficult to help them see that the conspiracy theory is wrong, a lie and that it could lead to harm and danger.
“Once people have seen the evidence, it’s hard to stop making them see the evidence.” Well, no shit.
Learn more about the conspiracy theories: What are their central claims and where did they come from? This information puts you in a better position to understand what the person says and does.
Only make sure you read from ‘approved’ sources though, wouldn’t want to become a ‘conspiracy theorist’ yourself!
Don’t try to convince the person they are wrong, lying or ignorant. Many people think if they just send that person enough information to refute their claims, the person will change their mind. This denies the underlying need the person has to believe it and is unlikely to work. In fact, those who try to discourage a conspiracy theorist are often seen as being “in” on the conspiracy.
We don’t think you’re ‘in on the conspiracy’. We know you’re not that important.
Encourage the person to use critical thinking. You can do this by asking open-ended questions with genuine curiosity about what they believe and why. You can also encourage them to read different points of view on the topic.
Have you ever considered that we used to believe the establishment claims and then we learned more and then we rejected them?
Don’t come across as dismissive, judgmental or belittling.
If it becomes difficult to be around someone who has been drawn into a conspiracy theory, take a break. While you may take space away from the person, don’t close the door completely or cut them off. More than ever, they will need their loved ones when they stop believing the conspiracy theories.
Oh no, being around someone with different beliefs is just too hard, what am I going to do, BBC, SAVE ME!
Given the high level of compliance with official narratives advocated by the state and the mainstream media, it is worth analysing the psychological basis for such beliefs. There are several reasons why people may be psychologically prone to believing in these complicity theories. These fall under the categories of economic motivations, a desire to avoid cognitive dissonance, and high levels of mainstream media consumption.
Introduction
According to polling data, 25% of Americans believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman in the assassination of President Kennedy (Jensen, 2013). Furthermore, 16% of Americans believe that elite pedophile Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide (Shamsian, 2019). These are examples of complicity theories – “a theory that unquestionably accepts the standard explanation for an event offered by the political, religious, social or economic apparatus of the time or the main stream media” (Urban Dictionary, 2020). This article will examine the psychological basis of these beliefs. Many articles – both popular and academic – have been written regarding psychological motivations for belief in so called ‘conspiracy theories’ (for example, Cichocka, Douglas, and Sutton 2017). However, much less critical work has been done analysing complicity theories. Nevertheless, there are important hints in the literature on conspiracy theories that elucidate the psychology of complicity theorists.
Economic Reasons
Economic and educational factors are a key driver in complicity theory belief. Evidence indicates that more highly educated and economically well off people are more likely to be complicity theorists (Zitelman, 2020; Pierre, 2019). There are important psychological reasons for this. Being economically well off discourages criticism of the current political and economic system, as one is not inclined to criticise a system one is personally benefiting from. This drives those better off financially to be more accepting of the latest narrative from the government and mainstream media. Economic gain can also drive some groups – particularly those such as journalists, politicians and bureaucrats – to believe complicity theories. For example, journalists who bring forward evidence of conspiracy are much less likely to be published in the mainstream media, meaning that they will lose out financially. Higher levels of education also predispose one to complicity theories, partly for the economic reasons outlined above, but also because it gives one a longer period of exposure to official government narratives, therefore ingraining those narratives more closely into the individual psyche.
Levels of Mainstream Media Consumption
The mainstream media is the main disseminator of complicity theories in Western societies. The function of the mainstream media in Western society is to provide effective ‘narrative control’ for the current rulers (Johnstone, 2022). Furthermore, mainstream media serves as an effective echo chamber, with only a very narrow range of debate allowed. For example, in March 2020, questioning of lockdowns was practically non existent in the mainstream media. High levels of consumption of this complicity theory content will have the psychological effect of reinforcing belief in complicity theories, as well as the belief that everyone else believes in complicity theories (Seong, 2021).
A Need to Believe
A need to believe in the fundamental goodness and worthiness of the state and nation that they have been taught to believe in is a key influence on the complicity theorist. Entertaining the notion of conspiracy – such as, for example, that the CIA had John F. Kennedy assassinated – causes cognitive dissonance in the complicity theorist (Cherry, 2022). The complicity theorist cannot both hold that the American state is democratic and free and that a deep state exists that is capable of murdering the President. The underlying needs of the complicity theorist to both maintain their belief in the generally good (if imperfect) nature of the current state of affairs and to avoid cognitive dissonance causes them to unfairly dismiss evidence of conspiracy.
When do Complicity Theorists Become Conspiracy Theorists?
Nevertheless, there are certain conditions under which a complicity theorist will consider an explanation that could be classed as a conspiracy theory by any reasonable definition. These cases usually occur when the complicity theory supports one side of the ‘two party illusion’, that is, one side of the false paradigm that has been set up within the extremely limited debate allowed within the mainstream media (Cristian, 2020). Another circumstance under which conspiracy may be considered is when it involves another country constructed as an ‘enemy nation’ by the mainstream media – for example Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. For example, the idea that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to get elected in 2016 is an excellent example of these phenomena. By definition, this claim, if true, involved a conspiracy. Yet a large number of people who are usually complicity theorists believed in this conspiracy wholeheartedly, despite the fact that many other conspiracies they reject are backed by far more evidence.
Conclusion
The topic of complicity theories and the kind of individuals that believe them requires much more research to draw substantive conclusions. Nevertheless some preliminary conclusions can be drawn from the literature which suggest important reasons for beliefs in complicity theories separate from their truth.
Declaration of Conflicts of Interest
The author received no pay for this article and therefore has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Cichocka, A., Douglas, K., and Sutton, R. (2017) ‘The Psychology of Conspiracy Theories’, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26 (6), pp. 538-42, at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5724570/, accessed 29th May 2022.
The concept of conspiracy is much maligned by the mainstream media, the government, and random liberals on social media. The phrase ‘conspiracy theory’ and ‘conspiracy theorist’ is used to dismiss people who are cynical about the motivations of government and corporations.
Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance.
There would be no reason for this to be a concept in law if it was a non-existent phenomenon.
We know that people from all groups and all walks of life can conspire. Everyone is aware of this, as even things like petty office politics can inspire people to get together and plot against each other. To dismiss the idea of conspiracy prima facie is an unwarranted bias. If ordinary people can conspire on a small scale than politicians, bureaucrats, and military intelligence are clearly capable of conspiring on a large scale.
I will address three points that are often invoked by anti-conspiracy analysts, who dismiss the notion of conspiracy as a relevant mode of analysis. I will argue that these arguments are flawed as a reason to reject conspiracy as a relevant factor when examining the operation of government power.
Anti-conspiracy theorists like to invoke these sorts of examples to dismiss well-reasoned and well evidenced examples of conspiracies, or even critical questions about official narratives. This is a fallacious argument, as it involves attempting to marry the ridiculous to the reasonable in order to dismiss the reasonable.
The Psychological Analysis
Psychological analysis is used as a tool to subtly undermine the concept of conspiracy. I am not trying to argue that analysing why someone believes something, and possible psychological motivations for that belief that stem from other motivations than the factual nature of the belief, is always invalid.
However, these ‘why people believe in conspiracy theories’ articles are generally framed in a particular way. The articles start by dismissing the idea of the ‘conspiracy theory’ prima facie, leaving only possible psychological motives for belief. This is not the same as demonstrating why a belief is incorrect or flawed, and then putting forward suggestions as to why people believe it anyway.
In some cases, they will employ the invocation of the ridiculous in their introduction, by providing a list of conspiracy theories that includes the reasonable with the bizarre.
When people encounter disparate information, it is only natural to look for explanations that connect the dots. Conspiracy theories offer explanations that provide this connection. They also suggest that the underlying causes are hidden from public view. When confusing things happen, believers can then assume that it is because they are being intentionally deceived by outside forces.
The framing of this paragraph implies that explanations are just confusing because life is confusing. The idea of government manipulators is implicitly dismissed, as is the idea of ‘intentional deception’. The role of deception in government, however, is extremely relevant, the best examples being the lies that drove Western intervention in countries such as Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
There is also often a tinge of middle-class smugness about such articles. The above article is also quoted as saying:
Lower educational status tends to be associated with higher levels of conspiracy belief.
The most plausible explanation for this is that middle-class people who are doing well out of a particular system have less material reason to question that system.
Such articles also argue that the need to feel special drives a belief in conspiracy theories. For example, this article:
Big events attract conspiracies because the knowledge the theorist possesses wouldn’t be special otherwise. If the knowledge isn’t special, then they aren’t special for possessing it. The suggestion is therefore that a conspiracy theorist wants to feel special, and this desire emerges from self-worth based insecurities.
This argument would suggest that conspiracy theorists would keep their special knowledge to themselves, rather than trying to convince other people. After all, the conspiracist would no longer be special if he or she convinces others to believe in the conspiracy.
(If I were engaging in my own pop psychology argument here, I would suggest the need to feel special is not observable so much in conspiracy theorists as it is in obnoxious middle-class liberals. In their case, a sense of superiority stems from their faith in government. After all, how could any of us be so stupid as to question the authorities?)
The ‘irrelevancy’ argument
This is an argument that has been made by Noam Chomsky. On this issue he is generally compared with Michael Parenti, another left-wing scholar who believes in the relevance and importance of analysing conspiracy.
Take for example all this frenzy about the JFK assassination. I mean I don’t know who assassinated him and I don’t care, but what difference does it make? It’s not an issue of any general political interest. And there’s a huge amount of energy and effort going into that.
[Conspiracy theories] draw enormous amounts of time and energy away from serious activism on urgent matters (and may well be welcome to those in power for that reason, as the JFK assassination investigations have been, so internal government documents indicate).
I believe that on this issue, Parenti has by far the superior case. Chomsky is fairly hostile to the idea of high-level conspiracies, believing that they do not play an important role in government and that structural factors matter more when analysing the actions of capitalist states. Parenti rightly argues that this is a false distinction, as institutions such as the CIA are “an institutionalized conspiracy.”
As for such issues being a distraction, this argument is a weak one, because the evidence behind such conspiracies can demonstrate the true nature of power. As Parenti states:
To know the truth about the assassination of John Kennedy is to call into question the state security system and the entire politico-economic order it protects.
The Ulterior Motive for Anti-Conspiracy Thinking
Even an anti-conspiracist would have to acknowledge that certain conspiracies happened because they were exposed. Nixon conspired with his aides to cover up the burglary of the Watergate building. In that case we have extensive evidence of conspiracy due to the existence of recordings made by Nixon. We know that there was a conspiracy to undermine the candidate Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primary election due to the emails that were leaked to Wikileaks.
Why, given these proven cases, is it considered illegitimate to speculate about other events such as 9/11, JFK assassination, or the Skripal affair, where the full facts are not available but where evidence and reasoning can lead to reasonable inferences?
The reason is that the anti-conspiracist wants to keep certain topics off limits. According to the anti-conspiracist, criticism of government narratives can only go so far. When it comes to the current capitalist and imperialist system and the players within it, the reality is that no question should be taken off the table and evidence for all forms of evil should be critically considered.
Conclusion
The consideration of the conspiracy when it comes to analysing the function of governments is a valid approach that is unfairly criticised through the label ‘conspiracy theory’. Rather than reject the concept of conspiracy, we need to critically assess the evidence and motives for a conspiracy on a case-by-case basis. While there are some conspiracies that are not grounded in reality, there are many more that have strong evidence to support them. I will end with a quote from this article comparing Chomsky and Parenti, which is recommended to the reader:
Cassandra's Box 