Conspiracy Theory
By Michael Albert

February 28, 2023
Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Media and individuals too often field too few questions about the systemic causes of trends and events. More often they ask about and study the membership of some rogue group even as they ignore the structure of government and corporations. How did this “fashion” come about? Where is it taking us?

A Conspiracy Theory is a hypothesis that some events were caused by the intractable secret machinations of rogue individuals. A prime example was, for example, to explain Iran-contra as the secret rogue actions of Oliver North and co-conspirators. Another conspiracy theory explained the hostage-holding in Carter’s last presidential year as the machinations of a “secret team” helping Reagan win the presidency. A conspiracy theory of Karen Silkwood’s murder would uncover the names of people who secretly planned and carried out the murder. Bending usage, we could even imagine a conspiracy theory of patriarchy as rogue men uniting to deny women status, or a conspiracy theory of the U.S. government as competing groups of rogue officials pursuing their own nefarious ends. And, then, more recently, well, take your pick…

Conspiracies do exist. Groups regularly do do things without issuing press releases and such secrecy becomes a conspiracy whenever their actions transcend “normal” behavior. We don’t talk of a conspiracy to win an election if the suspect activity includes only candidates and their handlers working privately to develop effective strategy. We do talk about a conspiracy if the resulting action involves stealing the other team’s plans, spiking their Whiskey Sours, or other exceptional activity. When a conspiracy cause’s some outcome, the outcome would not have happened had not the particular people with their particular inclinations and even hallucinations come together.

Conspiracy theories:

(a) Claim that a particular group acted outside usual norms in a rogue and generally secretive fashion.

(b) Disregard the structural features of institutions.

Personalities, personal timetables, secret meetings, and conspirators’ joint actions claim attention. Institutional relations drop from view. We ask, did North meet with Bush before or after the meeting between MacFarlane and Mr. X? Do we have a document that reveals the plan in advance? Do phone conversations implicate so and so? How credible is that witness? Conspiracy theories may or may not identify real coteries with real influence.

In an Institutional Theory, personalities and personal motivations enter the discussion only as effects of more basic factors. The personal actions that culminate in some event do not serve as explanation. Institutional theory explains phenomena via roles, incentives, and the dynamics of underlying institutions. An institutional theory doesn’t ignore human actions, but the point of an institutional theory is to move explanation from personal factors to structural factors. If the particular people hadn’t been there to do it, most likely someone else would have.

An institutional theory of Irancontra and the October surprise would explain how and why these activities arose in a society with our political, social, and economic forms. An institutional theory of Karen Silkwood’s murder would reveal nuclear industry and larger societal pressures that provoked her murder. An institutional theory of patriarchy explains gender relations in terms of marriage, the church, the market, socialization, etc. An institutional theory of government emphasizes the control and dissemination of information, the dynamics of bureaucracy, the role of subservience to class, race, and gender interests, etc.

Institutions exist. Whenever they have sufficient impact on events, developing an institutional theory makes sense. However, when an event arises from a unique conjuncture of particular rogue people and unique opportunities, while institutions undoubtedly play a role, it may not be generalized and an institutional theory may be out of place or even impossible to construct.

Institutional theories may or may not identify real relationships with real influence on the events they explain. Institutional theories:

(a) Claim that the normal operations of some institutions generate the behaviors and motivations leading to the events in question.

(b) Address personalities, personal interests, personal timetables, and meetings only as facts about the events needing explanation, not as explanations themselves.

(c) Organizational, motivational, and behavioral implications of institutions gain most attention. Particular people, while not becoming mere ciphers, are not accorded priority as causal agents.

To see the operational difference between conspiracy theory and institutional theory we can compare a smattering of the views of two critics of U.S. foreign policy, Noam Chomsky and Craig Hulet as they related to the war on Iraq thirty tears ago. Here is an indicative passage from each about that war (really one-sided massacre), which hopefully readers still know of.

HULET: “This isn’t about Kuwait. This isn’t about oil. It has nothing to do with those things. And it certainly doesn’t have anything to do with reinstalling a legitimate government [in Kuwait] when for the first time we’re trying to install a legitimate government which is a non-military despotism listed by Amnesty International as committing the same heinous crimes against his people [as Hussein]… What I am suggesting is that for the first time we’re going to expend American lives to put in a tyrant of only a smaller stature because of the size of his country…there is a foreign policy that is being orchestrated in violation of U.S. law, international law, and the U.S. constitution. Should that surprise anyone after Watergate, the Kennedy assassination?…

“Why should Americans die to restore a dictator invaded by another dictator? First it was to protect Saudi Arabia. Everybody now knows he [Hussein] had no intention of going any further than Kuwait. So they dropped that as a reason. They came up with the next one, that this is about oil. Then all of a sudden oil prices, right in the midst of the war, drop to $21 a barrel, which was where it was before the war. So it obviously can’t be about oil. So it can’t be our vital interests at stake. Is it about a legitimate government? If it’s about a legitimate government, then we’re putting back in power a despot under the Breshnev doctrine, not the Truman doctrine. The Breshnev doctrine being that we treat all nations as sovereign equalities regardless of how despotic they are, and we keep them in power. So for the first time George Bush is now acting out the Breshnev doctrine rather than installing a free republic or keeping a free people free. [There follows a long discussion of the U.S. holdings and influence of the Al Sabah ruling Kuwaiti family, followed by listener questions primarily focused on the efficacy of impeaching George Bush to which Hulet’s response is:] “It’s going to be up to the public whether or not George Bush–and I agree, it’s a ruling Junta–is impeached. It won’t be just up to Senators and Congressmen to make this decision. They won’t make the decision unless public opinion supports this kind of action.”

CHOMSKY: “If we hope to understand anything about the foreign policy of any state, it is a good idea to begin by investigating the domestic social structure: Who sets foreign policy? What interests do these people represent? What is the domestic source of their power? It is a reasonable surmise that the policy that evolves will reflect the special interests of those who design it. An honest study of history will reveal that this natural expectation is quite generally fulfilled. The evidence is overwhelming, in my opinion, that the United States is no exception to the general rule–a thesis that is often characterized as a ‘radical critique’… Some attention to the historical record, as well as common sense, leads to a second reasonable expectation: In every society there will emerge a caste of propagandists who labor to disguise the obvious, to conceal the actual workings of power, and to spin a web of mythical goals and purposes, utterly benign, that allegedly guide national policy… any horror, any atrocity will be explained away as an unfortunate–-or sometimes tragic–-deviation from the national purpose…. Since World War II there has been a continuing process of centralization of decision-making in the state executive, certainly with regard to foreign policy. Secondly, there has been a tendency through much of this period toward domestic economic concentration. Furthermore, these two processes are closely related, because of the enormous corporate influence over the state executive…”

The commonality often evidenced in these two thinkers is distaste for U.S. foreign policy. The difference is that Hulet generally understands policy as the preferences of particular groups of people–in this case, “a junta” and the Al Sabah family–-barely referring to institutions at all. Chomsky always understands the policies as arising from particular institutions–-for example, “the state executive” and corporations.

For Hulet, the implicit problem is to punish or “impeach” the immediate culprits, a general point which holds for all conspiracy theory. The modis operendi of the conspiracy theorist therefore makes sense when the aim is to attribute proximate personal blame for some occurrence. If we want to prosecute someone for a political assassination to extract retribution or to set a precedent that makes it harder to carry out such actions, the approach of the conspiracy theorist has relevance. But the conspiracy approach is beside the point for understanding the cause of political assassinations to develop a program to prevent all policies that thwart popular resistance. Conspiracy theorizing mimics the personality/dates/times approach to history. It is a casual sports fans’ or a gossipy voyeur’s view of complex circumstances. It can manipulate facts or it can present them accurately. When it’s done honestly, it has its place in a prosecutors tool chest.

For Chomsky, however, the problem is to discern the underlying institutional causes of foreign policy. The modus operandi of the institutional theorist would not make much sense for discovering which individuals conceived and argued for a policy, or who in particular decided to bomb a civilian shelter. To understand why these things happen, however, and under what conditions they will or will not continue to happen, institutional theory is indispensable and the motives, methods, and timetables of the actual perpetrators are beside the point.

Take the media. A conspiracy approach will highlight the actions of some coterie of editors, writers, newscasters, particular owners, or even a lobby. An institutional approach will mention the actions of these actors as evidence, but will highlight the corporate and ideological pressures giving rise to the outcomes. A person inclined toward finding conspiracies will listen to evidence of media subservience to power and see a cabal of bad guys, perhaps corporate, perhaps religious, perhaps federal, subverting the media from doing its proper job. The conspiracist will then at best want to know about the cabal and how people succumb to its will, etc. A person inclined toward institutional analysis will listen to evidence of media subservience to power and see how the media’s internal prganization, socialization processes, and the interests of its owners born of their institutional roles engender these results as part of the media succeeding at its job. The institutionalist will want to know about the media’s structural features and how they work, and about the guiding interests, how they arise, and what they imply.

The conspiracy approach to understanding media will lead people to believe that either:

(a) They should educate the malefactors to change their motives, or

(b) They should get rid of the malefactors and back new editors, writers, newscasters, or owners.

The institutional approach to understanding media may note the possible short term gains from changes in personnel, but will mainly explain how limited these changes will be. It will incline people

(a) Toward a campaign of constant popular pressure to offset the constant institutional pressures for malfeasance, or

(b) Toward the creation of new media free from the institutional pressures of the mainstream.

Conspiracy Theory and its associated personalistic methodology appeals to prosecutors and lawyers, since they must identify proximate causes and human actors. But why does it often appeal to people concerned to change society?

There are many possible answers that perhaps all operate, to varying degrees, for people who favor conspiracy theory. First, conspiracy theory is often emotionally compelling and the evidence conspiracy theories reveal is often useful. More, carefully unearthing detailed entwinements can become addictive. One puzzle and then another and another demands explanation. Conspiracy theory has the appeal of a mystery. It is dramatic, compelling, vivid, and human. Finally, the desire for retribution helps fuel continuing forays into personal details.

Second, conspiracy theories have manageable implications. They imply that all was okay once and that all can be okay again if only the conspirators can be pushed aside. Conspiracy theories therefore explain ills without forcing us to disavow society’s underlying institutions. Conspiracy theories allow us to admit horrors and to express our indignation and anger at them without rejecting the basic norms of society. We can confine our anger to the most blatant perpetrators. That government official or corporate lawyer is bad, but many others are good and the government and law per se are okay. That gun toting maniac in the elementary school or that rogue cop are bad, but the culture, the NRA, the police apparatus are okay. We need to get rid of the bad apples. But then all is well. All this is convenient and seductive. We can reject specific candidates but not government, specific CEOs but not corporations, specific writers, editors, and even owners of periodicals, but not mainstream media. We can reject some vile manipulators, but not society’s core institutions. We continue to petition the institutions to give us status or pay us.

Third, conspiracy theory provides an easy and quick outlet for pent up passion withheld from targets that seem unassailable or that might strike back. This is conspiracy theory turned into scapegoat theory.

It would be bad enough if endless personalistic attention to Irancontra, the October Surprise, Inslaw, assassinations, much less recent elections, and crazy delusional schemes, etc., were just attuning people to search after coteries while ignoring institutions. This was the effect, for example, of the many Kennedy Assassination theories of past decades. At least the values at play would be progressive and we could hope that people would soon gravitate toward real explanation highlighting more structural phenomena.

But the fact is, the values inspiring conspiratorial ways of trying to explain events have in recent years drastically diverged from progressive values. Even some sectors of left activists have become so hungry for quick-fix conspiracy explanations they gravitate toward any conspiracy claim, no matter how ridiculous.

Thus the field of conspiracy theorizing has become attractive and new entrants are no longer mainly progressive but often instead tilt toward reaction or downright fascism. The presentation of conspiracy theories has moved from little newsletters and journals to large audience radio talk shows and magazines and presidential campaigns and from identifying “secret teams” of CIA operatives to all-powerful networks of Arab financiers and worldwide Jewish bankers’ fraternities, not to mention liberal child sex traders. It is so ubiquitous it isn’t even called conspiracy theorizing any more. Now it is called electioneering. Now it is called journalism.

There is an ironic analogy here to some recent analysis of national Republican Party politics. In that arena, many journalists not long ago claimed that the Republican Party’s manipulations of race in prior years paved the way for David Duke by re-acclimating the public to racial stereotyping and increasing its appetite for more. Then Duke’s times led through Facebook and Twitter to Trump times, now leading to Santos times. In somewhat the same way, isn’t it plausible that the relatively huge resources thrown into progressive conspiracy writing, organizing, and proselytizing over the past few decades is now also coming home to roost? Of course, the changing times are partly responsible for growing public interest in conspiracies, but doesn’t past behavior by some progressives bear a share of responsibility as well?

Leftist institutional theorists generally ignore conspiracy theorists as irrelevant. To confront their arguments is to enter a miasma of potentially fabricated detail from which there is no escape. Nothing constructive emerges. But perhaps this view needs some rethinking. When Holly Sklar, Steve Shalom, Noam Chomsky or any of many other left analysts talked in the past about events, even about Iran-contra, say, or the October Surprise, they paid attention to proximate facts but also to the institutional context. That’s as it should be, but apparently it’s no longer good enough. Now, those who have an institutional critique may have two additional responsibilities. First, perhaps we should point out the inadequacy of left conspiracy theorizing even when it isn’t called by that name, showing that even at best it does not go far enough to be useful for organizers. Second, perhaps they should debunk and castigate rightist conspiracy theory, removing its aura of opposition and revealing its underlying racist and elitist allegiances.

Likewise, when progressive radio talk shows and left journals and magazines invite people to communicate with their public about world and national events, it is good to be sure the guest is coherent, has effective speaking or writing style, talks about the issues, identifies actors accurately, and knows about the relevant history. But that too isn’t enough. Fascists can fulfill these standards and still spout made-up statistics as if they were facts, make disgusting allegations about social groups as if they were objective commentary, and offer nothing at all about real institutional relations, while passing this whole mess off as a useful way to look at the world to understand and affect social events. Left media, even strapped as it is, should take responsibility for its offerings. People expect that if commentators appear on our shows and in our publications they have a degree of integrity, honesty, and sensitivity. We should not lend credence to right-wing garbage, whether it is blatant or so well concealed as to be civil but malicious. Even regarding progressive and left conspiracy theory, while it sometimes may uncover important evidence, left activists ought to always indicate its limits and augment it with institutional and contextual analysis.



Michael Albert
Michael Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. His personal interests, outside the political realm, focus on general science reading (with an emphasis on physics, math, and matters of evolution and cognitive science), computers, mystery and thriller/adventure novels, sea kayaking, and the more sedentary but no less challenging game of GO. Albert is the author of 21 books which include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World; Fanfare for the Future; Remembering Tomorrow; Realizing Hope; and Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Michael is currently host of the podcast Revolution Z and is a Friend of ZNetwork.

The Origin of American Conspiracy Theories

Americans are fascinated with conspiracy theories, in fact they generate the majority of them. Along with religious revivalism, conspiracy theories are second nature in the body politic of America.

Here is a fascinating thesis that shows that the conspiracy theory meme began in America with its founding during the revolutionary war. And since then conspiracy theory has dominated American politics.

Be it in the religious revivalism of the 1800's, the anti-Masonry movement, or the later Know Nothings, through out the history of American politics conspiracy theories have abounded, and have had major political impact. They are as American as apple pie.

This is a PhD. Thesis and is a full length book available for download as a PDF.

Conspiracy Theory and the Society of the Cincinnati, 1783-1790


At the same time, I became aware of a tradition of radical political dissent in
modern America, an abundance of conspiracy theories that also extended into popular culture. It was the time of Timothy McVeigh and the militia movement, of Waco, Ruby Ridge, Pat Robertson, and the X-Files. Suddenly conspiratorial explanations for current and historical events seemed everywhere. From Richard Hofstadter’s writings I realized that conspiracy theories occurred in episodic waves throughout American history, and from Bernard Bailyn and Gordon Wood I learned that the founding fathers believed in a secret English plot against American liberty. I decided to investigate, but soon became aware that other scholars were already writing on conspiracy theories in post-World War II America. Clearly, I had to look off the beaten path for a case study in American political “paranoia.”

It was then that I remembered a somewhat obscure document from my studies
on the Connecticut ratification debates. Just before the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, Dr. Benjamin Gale, an eccentric physician from Killingworth, wrote a long letter to Erasmus Wolcott.

In this diatribe, Gale complained about the machinations of the Society of the Cincinnati, a veterans organization of officers of the Continental Army. Gale charged that all the talk about the weakness of the Articles of Confederation was merely a smokescreen for the treasonous ambition of the Cincinnati. According to Gale, this society planned to establish a military dictatorship or monarchy and assume the mantle of hereditary nobility for themselves. Gale was obviously an Antifederalist, one who not only attacked the movement for a new Constitution as unnecessary and dangerous, but who felt it was the result of a deliberate conspiracy against American freedom.

I had found my topic. Apparently, a conspiracy theory existed in the 1780s, the
very period when the political culture and system of the United States was taking
shape, and it accused the leaders of the Continental Army of anti-republican subversion.

Small wonder then that such discourses of radical suspicion surfaced periodically
over the course of American history. If some American revolutionaries felt that even George Washington and Henry Knox could be traitors, we should not be surprised that so many Americans question the report of the Warren commission or distrust the federal government and the United Nations. The Deepest Piece of Cunning is a journey to the origins of conspiracy theories in the United States. It should shed some light on the political controversies of the 1780s as well as the persistence of conspiracy theories in American political culture.

Abstract

In May 1783, the officers of the Continental Army of the United States of America
organized themselves into the Society of the Cincinnati. Soon after, the veterans
organization became the focus of an elaborate conspiracy theory which falsely accused the officers of trying to establish a hereditary nobility and subvert the young republic.

Over the course of the mid-1780s, prominent revolutionary politicans such as John Adams and Elbridge Gerry joined in the outcry. The conspiracy theory became a major political controversy, and even impeded efforts to reform the Articles of Confederation.

However, despite their frantic tone and lack of a factual basis, the accusations were not merely a fringe phenomenon created by political crackpots. Instead, the conspiracy theory was deeply embedded in American political culture. When the political and economic problems of the 1780s threatened to disrupt the republican experiment, many revolutionaries looked for a threat that might explain the crisis. They found that threat in the Cincinnati, whose military background, federal organization, and aristocratic trappings made them suspect.

See:

1666 The Creation Of The World

Once More On the Fourth

Conspiracy Theory or Ruling Class Studies

Bilderberg

Conspiracy Theory

Conspiracy

Ruling Class

Freemasons



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
American Revolution, Federalists, Anti-Federalists, Federalist Papers, Secret Societies, NWO, New World Order, Society of the Cincinnati, Conspiracy, Conspiracy theory, Bohemian Grove, Conspiracy Theories, Ruling Class, Anglo-American Conspiracy,
USA, America, Christians, Deism, Deists, Jefferson, Adams, Know-nothings, Constitution,

Conspiracies are 'always theories of power'
Whether it's Area 51, the moon landing or the 9/11 attacks, it feels like a disproportionate amount of conspiracy theories have something to do with the US. Expert Michael Butter says that's not quite true.




DW: So many conspiracy theories seem to have their origin in the United States. Why?
Michael Butter: To a certain degree, this is a misperception. There are tons of conspiracy theories in eastern Europe, and also in central Europe, that also have their origins [in those locations], even though the US tends to play a big role in them. And this is, I think, because conspiracy theories are always also theories of power. If you look at the period after the Second World War, the US has clearly been the most powerful country in the world. And, therefore, those who are investigating who is really responsible, who is benefiting from that, inevitably end up pointing their finger at the US. No matter if they’re located inside or outside that country.

What’s your favorite German conspiracy theory?

When it comes to Germany, I must admit I don’t really have a favorite conspiracy theory. Because the popular, influential German conspiracy theories all had horrible consequences. Think of the conspiracy theory of a Jewish plot to dominate the world that basically led to the Holocaust. Or think of the Great Replacement theory that is currently so popular. I actually prefer the moon landing conspiracy theory because it’s so extremely convincing at first sight, and second, because nobody, to the best of my knowledge, has ever done any harm to anybody because of it.


Michael Butter is helping coordinate EU conspiracy theory research

And the Great Replacement theory would be the replacement of the current dominant ethnic groups through immigration?

Exactly. In Europe it’s usually about the replacement of the Christian population of Europe through a Muslim population by way of orchestrated migration. But for example, the El Paso shooter a couple of weeks ago also referred to the Great Replacement theory in his manifesto, and for him, it was clearly the replacement of US citizens through Mexicans. So there, you see there are always certain national variations.

What are some conspiracy theories that are unique, or special, to Europe?
It’s very difficult to say if they’re unique or special to Europe. We do of course have certain conspiracy theories in Poland, for example, about the plane crash of the former president in Smolensk. That blames Russia for orchestrating that plane crash. That would be a very specifically national conspiracy theory. What we usually have are conspiracy theories that circulate on a global scale, but nevertheless have certain national variations. So for example, the Great Replacement theory looks different in Hungary than in Poland, Germany, or the United States.


Conspiracy theorists in Berlin warn others of airplane "chemtrails," which they claim contain behavior-changing chemicals

You're one of about 150 people involved in something that’s happening at the EU level called the Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories. Nearly 40 countries are involved, and a dozen disciplines are represented. What are you doing there?
One goal was to actually synchronize the research on that topic, so that people don’t have to reinvent the wheel the whole time. Because, of course, nobody can research in Albanian, Polish, Czech, English, French, German, Italian, et cetera. So you bring these people together so that they talk to teach other in English. We’re currently editing a big handbook of conspiracy theories that will be state of the art. The other aim is to develop new research questions - to come up with comparative and transnational projects that, for example, trace exactly those transformations. So the Great Replacement theory that we talked about. And third, and finally, the goal is also to produce recommendations for stakeholders - for policymakers, for educators, for people concerned with the public communication of science that are more and more faced with conspiracy allegations in their daily work.

Michael Butter is the vice chair of the EU’s Comparative Analysis of Conspiracy Theories action group. He’s also the author of a number of books on conspiracy theories and is a professor of American Literary and Cultural History at the University of Tübingen in Germany.

• Date 20.09.2019
• Author Conor Dillon, Gabriel Borrud
• Related Subjects White House
• Keywords conspiracies, Area 51, 9/11, moon landing, European conspiracy theories, Power, United States
• Permalink https://p.dw.com/p/3PnK3

Thinking style differences associated with anti-immigrant conspiracy beliefs

Peer-Reviewed Publication

THE POLISH ASSOCIATION OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

 

IMAGE: ANTI TRUMP IMMIGRATION PROTEST IN BALTIMORE (USA). view more 

CREDIT: SOCIAL JUSTICE - BRUCE EMMERLING // WIKIMEDIA COMMONS HTTPS://WWW.FLICKR.COM/PHOTOS/35702931@N04/32557779976/

In recent years, anti-immigration sentiment and conspiracy theories have become widespread across the U.S. and Europe. 

In this context, a right-wing conspiracy theory has emerged that has become known as the “great replacement”. This conspiracy theory alleges that the recent flows of migration to Europe and the U.S. have been planned by global elites, which, with the support of international organizations and national politicians, seek to replace the autochthonous White and Christian population with Non-white and Muslim immigrants. This conspiracy theory appears particularly toxic, since far-right terrorists have already referred to it in their violent acts.

In their article, published in the peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal Social Psychological Bulletin, Alexander Jedinger, Lena Masch, and Axel Burger explore the extent to which individual differences in thinking are associated with belief in the “great replacement” narrative. Specifically, the scientists wanted to test whether people who naturally tend to be analytical rather than intuitive in their thinking style would be less susceptible to the “great replacement” conspiracy theory. 

To do this, they applied a widely used cognitive reflection test (CRT) in a survey among 906 German adults. The sample of participants was representative of the German population in terms of age, gender, region, and education.

The CRT consists of short quiz-style questions, which make an intuitive but wrong answer come to mind quickly. To find the correct solution, respondents have to overcome their first intuitive response by investing the effort of a second thought. Accuracy on the CRT reliably correlates with a range of social attitudes and beliefs, such as higher ‘faith’ in science, disbelief in paranormal phenomena, or lower religiosity.

For the purpose of the study, the team developed a novel scale designed to measure conspiratorial beliefs. It included statements, such as: “I think that, in 2015, the government planned to bring refugees to Germany to replace the native population with non-European immigrants”, and: “Powerful organizations are behind the migration crisis, which aims to bring large quantities of foreigners to Europe to create a multicultural society, in which natives are the minority”.

The results of the study support the authors’ hypothesis that people who think more analytically, rather than intuitively, are less likely to believe in the “great replacement” conspiracy. This association remained when individual differences in political ideology and education were statistically controlled in the analyses. 

On the other hand, left-wing political views and higher education proved to be associated with less endorsement of the conspiracy theory. 

In the meantime, gender and age were found to have no relation to either belief or disbelief in this specific anti-migration conspiracy theory.

The results of the study suggest that the appeal of the great replacement conspiracy theory to some individuals is rooted in intuitive processes rather than reflective thinking, which has implications for strategies to counter anti-immigration conspiracy sentiments.

As the authors write, “given that studies indicate that reflective thinking can be improved and facilitated by systematic training and interventions, this might be one component of the strategic responses of liberal democracies against the proliferation of the ‘great replacement’ conspiracy theory”.

 

Research article:

Jedinger, A., Masch, L., & Burger, A. M. (2023). Cognitive Reflection and Endorsement of the “Great Replacement” Conspiracy Theory. Social Psychological Bulletin, 18, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.10825

---

DOI

10.32872/spb.10825 

ARTICLE TITLE

Cognitive Reflection and Endorsement of the “Great Replacement” Conspiracy Theory

How conspiracy theories emerge -- and how their storylines fall apart

UCLA research uses artificial intelligence to analyze differences between a true story and a completely fabricated one

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA - LOS ANGELES

 

A new study by UCLA professors offers a new way to understand how unfounded conspiracy theories emerge online. The research, which combines sophisticated artificial intelligence and a deep knowledge of how folklore is structured, explains how unrelated facts and false information can connect into a narrative framework that would quickly fall apart if some of those elements are taken out of the mix.

The authors, from the UCLA College and the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering, illustrated the difference in the storytelling elements of a debunked conspiracy theory and those that emerged when journalists covered an actual event in the news media. Their approach could help shed light on how and why other conspiracy theories, including those around COVID-19, spread -- even in the absence of facts.

The study, published in the journal PLOS ONE, analyzed the spread of news about the 2013 "Bridgegate" scandal in New Jersey -- an actual conspiracy -- and the spread of misinformation about the 2016 "Pizzagate" myth, the completely fabricated conspiracy theory that a Washington, D.C., pizza restaurant was the center of a child sex-trafficking ring that involved prominent Democratic Party officials, including Hillary Clinton.

The researchers used machine learning, a form of artificial intelligence, to analyze the information that spread online about the Pizzagate story. The AI automatically can tease out all of the people, places, things and organizations in a story spreading online -- whether the story is true or fabricated -- and identify how they are related to each other.

Finding the puzzle pieces

In either case -- whether for a conspiracy theory or an actual news story -- the narrative framework is established by the relationships among all of the elements of the storyline. And, it turns out, conspiracy theories tend to form around certain elements that act as the adhesive holding the facts and characters together.

"Finding narratives hidden in social media forums is like solving a huge jigsaw puzzle, with the added complication of noise, where many of the pieces are just irrelevant," said Vwani Roychowdhury, a UCLA professor of electrical and computer engineering and an expert in machine learning, and a lead author of the paper.

In recent years, researchers have made great strides in developing artificial intelligence tools that can analyze batches of text and identify the pieces to those puzzles. As the AI learns to identify patterns, identities and interactions that are embedded in words and phrases, the narratives begin to make "sense." Drawing from the massive amount of data available on social media, and because of improving technology, the systems are increasingly able to teach themselves to "read" narratives, almost as if they were human.

The visual representations of those story frameworks showed the researchers how false conspiracy theory narratives are held together by threads that connect multiple characters, places and things. But they found that if even one of those threads is cut, the other elements often can't form a coherent story without it.

"One of the characteristics of a conspiracy theory narrative framework is that it is easily 'disconnected,'" said Timothy Tangherlini, one of the paper's lead authors, a professor in the UCLA Scandinavian section whose scholarship focuses on folklore, legend and popular culture. "If you take out one of the characters or story elements of a conspiracy theory, the connections between the other elements of the story fall apart."

Which elements stick?

In contrast, he said, the stories around actual conspiracies -- because they're true -- tend to stand up even if any given element of the story is removed from the framework. Consider Bridgegate, for example, in which New Jersey officials closed several lanes of the George Washington Bridge for politically motivated reasons. Even if any number of threads were removed from the news coverage of the scandal, the story would have held together: All of the characters involved had multiple points of connection by way of their roles in New Jersey politics.

"They are all within the same domain, in this case New Jersey politics, which will continue to exist irrespective of the deletions," Tangherlini said. "Those connections don't require the same 'glue' that a conspiracy theory does."

Tangherlini calls himself a "computational folklorist." Over the past several years, he has collaborated regularly with Roychowdhury to better understand the spread of information around hot-button issues like the anti-vaccination movement.

To analyze Pizzagate, in which the conspiracy theory arose from a creative interpretation of hacked emails released in 2016 by Wikileaks, the researchers analyzed nearly 18,000 posts from April 2016 through February 2018 from discussion boards on the websites Reddit and Voat.

"When we looked at the layers and structure of the narrative about Pizzagate, we found that if you take out Wikileaks as one of the elements in the story, the rest of the connections don't hold up," Tangherlini said. "In this conspiracy, the Wikileaks email dump and how theorists creatively interpreted the content of what was in the emails are the only glue holding the conspiracy together."

The data generated by the AI analysis enabled the researchers to produce a graphic representation of narratives, with layers for major subplots of each story, and lines connecting the key people, places and institutions within and among those layers.

Quick build versus slow burn

Another difference that emerged between real and false narratives concerned the time they take to build. Narrative structures around conspiracy theories tend to build and become stable quickly, while narrative frameworks around actual conspiracies can take years to emerge, Tangherlini said. For example, the narrative framework of Pizzagate stabilized within a month after the Wikileaks dump, and it stayed relatively consistent over the next three years.

"The fact that additional information related to an actual conspiracy emerged over a prolonged period of time (here five and half years) might be one of the telltale signs of distinguishing a conspiracy from a conspiracy theory," the authors wrote in the study.

Tangherlini said it's becoming increasingly important to understand how conspiracy theories abound, in part because stories like Pizzagate have inspired some to take actions that endanger other people.

"The threat narratives found in conspiracy theories can imply or present strategies that encourage people to take real-world action," he said. "Edgar Welch went to that Washington pizzeria with a gun looking for supposed caves hiding victims of sex trafficking."

The UCLA researchers have also written another paper examining the narrative frameworks surrounding conspiracy theories related to COVID-19. In that study, which has been published on an open-source forum, they track how the conspiracy theories are being layered on to previously circulated conspiracy theories such as those about the perceived danger of vaccines, and, in other cases how the pandemic has given rise to completely new ones, like the idea that 5G cellular networks spread the coronavirus.

"We're using the same pipeline on COVID-19 discussions as we did for Pizzagate," Tangherlini said. "In Pizzagate, the targets were more limited, and the conspiracy theory stabilized rapidly. With COVID-19, there are many competing conspiracy theories, and we are tracing the alignment of multiple, smaller conspiracy theories into larger ones. But the underlying theory is identical for all conspiracy theories."

###

Hitting the Books: Why that one uncle of yours continually refuses to believe in climate change


Andrew Tarantola
·Senior Editor
Sat, October 2, 2021

The holidays are fast approaching and you know what that means: pumpkin spice everything, seasonal cheer, and family gatherings — all while avoiding your QAnon adherent relatives like the plague. But when you do eventually get cornered by them, come prepared.

In his latest book, How to Talk to a Science Denier, author Lee McIntyre examines the phenomenon of denialism, exploring the conspiracy theories that drive it, and explains how you can most effectively address your relatives' misplaced concerns over everything from mRNA vaccines to why the Earth isn't actually flat.

asdf

How to Talk to a Science Denier: Conversations with Flat Earthers, Climate Deniers, and Other Who Defy Reason, by Lee McIntyre, published by The MIT Press.


Belief in conspiracy theories is one of the most toxic forms of human reasoning. This is not to say that real conspiracies do not exist. Watergate, the tobacco companies’ collusion to obfuscate the link between cigarette smoking and cancer, and the George W. Bush–era NSA program to secretly spy on civilian Internet users are all examples of real-life conspiracies, which were discovered through evidence and exposed after exhaustive investigation.

By contrast, what makes conspiracy theory reasoning so odious is that whether or not there is any evidence, the theory is asserted as true, which puts it beyond all reach of being tested or refuted by scientists and other debunkers. The distinction, therefore, should be between actual conspiracies (for which there should be some evidence) and conspiracy theories (which customarily have no credible evidence). We might define a conspiracy theory as an “explanation that makes reference to hidden, malevolent forces seeking to advance some nefarious aim.” Crucially, we need to add that these tend to be “highly speculative [and] based on no evidence. They are pure conjecture, without any basis in reality.”

When we talk about the danger of conspiracy theories for scientific reasoning, our focus should therefore be on their nonempirical nature, which means that they are not even capable of being tested in the first place. What is wrong with conspiracy theories is not normally that they have already been refuted (though many have), but that thousands of gullible people will continue to believe them even when they have been debunked.

If you scratch a science denier, chances are you’ll find a conspiracy theorist. Sadly, conspiracy theories seem to be quite common in the general population as well. In a recent study by Eric Oliver and Thomas Wood they found that 50 percent of Americans believed in at least one conspiracy theory.

This included the 9/11 truther and Obama birther conspiracies, but also the idea that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is deliberately withholding a cure for cancer, and that the Federal Reserve intentionally orchestrated the 2008 recession. (Notably, the JFK assassination conspiracy was so widely held that it was excluded from the study.)

Other common conspiracy theories — which run the range of popularity and outlandishness — are that “chemtrails” left by planes are part of a secret government mind-control spraying program, that the school shootings at Sandy Hook and Parkland were “false flag” operations, that the government is covering up the truth about UFOs, and of course the more “science-related” ones that the Earth is flat, that global warming is a hoax, that some corporations are intentionally creating toxic GMOs, and that COVID-19 is caused by 5G cell phone towers.

In its most basic form, a conspiracy theory is a non-evidentially justified belief that some tremendously unlikely thing is nonetheless true, but we just don’t realize it because there is a coordinated campaign run by powerful people to cover it up. Some have contended that conspiracy theories are especially prevalent in times of great societal upheaval. And, of course, this explains why conspiracy theories are not unique to modern times. As far back as the great fire of Rome in 64 AD, we saw conspiracy theories at work, when the citizens of Rome became suspicious over a weeklong blaze that consumed almost the entire city — while the emperor Nero was conveniently out of town. Rumors began to spread that Nero had started it in order to rebuild the city in his own design. While there was no evidence that this was true (nor for the legend that Nero sang while the city burned), Nero was apparently so upset by the accusation that he started his own conspiracy theory that it was in fact the Christians who were responsible, which led to the prevalence of burning them alive.

Here one understands immediately why conspiracy theories are anathema to scientific reasoning. In science, we test our beliefs against reality by looking for disconfirming evidence. If we find only evidence that fits our theory, then it might be true. But if we find any evidence that disconfirms our theory, it must be ruled out. With conspiracy theories, however, they don’t change their views even in the face of disconfirming evidence (nor do they seem to require much evidence, beyond gut instinct, that their views are true in the first place). Instead, conspiracy theorists tend to use the conspiracy itself as a way to explain any lack of evidence (because the clever conspirators must be hiding it) or the presence of evidence that disconfirms it (because the shills must be faking it). Thus, lack of evidence in favor of a conspiracy theory is in part explained by the conspiracy itself, which means that its adherents can count both evidence and lack of evidence in their favor.

Virtually all conspiracy theorists are what I call “cafeteria skeptics.” Although they profess to uphold the highest standards of reasoning, they do so inconsistently. Conspiracy theorists are famous for their double standard of evidence: they insist on an absurd standard of proof when it concerns something they do not want to believe, while accepting with scant to nonexistent evidence whatever they do want to believe. We have already seen the weakness of this type of selective reasoning with cherry-picking evidence. Add to this a predilection for the kind of paranoid suspicion that underlies most conspiracy-minded thinking, and we face an almost impenetrable wall of doubt. When a conspiracy theorist indulges their suspicions about the alleged dangers of vaccines, chemtrails, or fluoride — but then takes any contrary or debunking information as itself proof of a cover-up — they lock themselves in a hermetically sealed box of doubt that no amount of facts could ever get them out of. For all of their protests of skepticism, most conspiracy theorists are in fact quite gullible.

Belief in the flatness of the Earth is a great example. Time and again at FEIC 2018, I heard presenters say that any scientific evidence in favor of the curvature of the Earth had been faked. “There was no Moon landing; it happened on a Hollywood set.” “All the airline pilots and astronauts are in on the hoax.” “Those pictures from space are Photoshopped.” Not only did disconfirming evidence of these claims not cause the Flat Earthers to give up their beliefs, it was used as more evidence for the conspiracy! And of course to claim that the devil is behind the whole cover-up about Flat Earth could there be a bigger conspiracy theory? Indeed, most Flat Earthers would admit that themselves. A similar chain of reasoning is often used in climate change denial. President Trump has long held that global warming is a “Chinese hoax” meant to undermine the competitiveness of American manufacturing.

Others have contended that climate scientists are fudging the data or that they are biased because they are profiting from the money and attention being paid to their work. Some would argue that the plot is even more nefarious — that climate change is being used as a ruse to justify more government regulation or takeover of the world economy. Whatever evidence is presented to debunk these claims is explained as part of a conspiracy: it was faked, biased, or at least incomplete, and the real truth is being covered up. No amount of evidence can ever convince a hardcore science denier because they distrust the people who are gathering the evidence. So what is the explanation? Why do some people (like science deniers) engage in conspiracy theory thinking while others do not?

Various psychological theories have been offered, involving factors such as inflated self-confidence, narcissism, or low self-esteem. A more popular consensus seems to be that conspiracy theories are a coping mechanism that some people use to deal with feelings of anxiety and loss of control in the face of large, upsetting events. The human brain does not like random events, because we cannot learn from and therefore cannot plan for them. When we feel helpless (due to lack of understanding, the scale of an event, its personal impact on us, or our social position), we may feel drawn to explanations that identify an enemy we can confront. This is not a rational process, and researchers who have studied conspiracy theories note that those who tend to “go with their gut” are the most likely to indulge in conspiracy-based thinking. This is why ignorance is highly correlated with belief in conspiracy theories. When we are less able to understand something on the basis of our analytical faculties, we may feel more threatened by it.

There is also the fact that many are attracted to the idea of “hidden knowledge,” because it serves their ego to think that they are one of the few people to understand something that others don’t know. In one of the most fascinating studies of conspiracy-based thinking, Roland Imhoff invented a fictitious conspiracy theory, then measured how many subjects would believe it, depending on the epistemological context within which it was presented. Imhoff’s conspiracy was a doozy: he claimed that there was a German manufacturer of smoke alarms that emitted high-pitched sounds that made people feel nauseous and depressed. He alleged that the manufacturer knew about the problem but refused to fix it. When subjects thought that this was secret knowledge, they were much more likely to believe it. When Imhoff presented it as common knowledge, people were less likely to think that it was true.

One can’t help here but think of the six hundred cognoscenti in that ballroom in Denver. Out of six billion people on the planet, they were the self-appointed elite of the elite: the few who knew the “truth” about the flatness of the Earth and were now called upon to wake the others.

What is the harm from conspiracy theories? Some may seem benign, but note that the most likely factor in predicting belief in a conspiracy theory is belief in another one. And not all of those will be harmless. What about the anti-vaxxer who thinks that there is a government cover-

up of the data on thimerosal, whose child gives another measles? Or the belief that anthropogenic (human- caused) climate change is just a hoax, so our leaders in government feel justified in delay? As the clock ticks on averting disaster, the human consequences of the latter may end up being incalculable.

Musk mocked for trying to resurrect QAnon Pizzagate conspiracy following fake headline

X/Twitter owner uses meme from the hit show The Office to launch himself into fresh controversy days after endorsing an antisemitic conspiracy theory

Mike Bedigan
Los Angeles

Elon Musk has been criticised for seemingly attempting to resurrect the widely debunked QAnon conspiracy theory, “Pizzagate”.

Pizzagate was an anti-Hillary Clinton conspiracy theory promoted on 4chan, Reddit, Twitter and other platforms in the final days before the 2016 US presidential election, and is seen as a precursor to the QAnon movement.


Believers accused then presidential hopeful Ms Clinton and other senior Democrats of running a child sex trafficking ring out of the basement of a Washington DC pizza restaurant. The conspiracy theory led to a shooting at the restaurant – which turned out not to have a basement.


On Tuesday the billionaire tech entrepreneur shared a meme from from the US television comedy The Office on his social media platform X on Tuesday, which accused the “experts” that had debunked the theory of themselves being paedophiles.

The post, which was not labelled with a correctional “community note”, made reference to former ABC journalist James Gordon Meek who pleaded guilty to child sexual abuse image charges earlier this year.


“Does seem at least a little bit suspicious,” Mr Musk wrote, also linking to an article about Meek’s guilty plea.



Meme from The Office posted on X/Twitter by Elon Musk appearing to promote the QAnon Pizzagate conspiracy theory
(Elon Musk / X)

Other X users suggested that Mr Musk had fallen for a fake New York Post headline which was circulated on the platform that associated Meek with the debunking of Pizzagate. The former journalist was not involved in the exposing of the conspiracy theory, according to a fact check by the Reuters news agency.


“So... Community notes? He’s just wildly transparent,” wrote one user.

Another added: “Man who controls Twitter/X and, while we’re on it, a majority of the earth’s satellites, among other things, sharing a *wildly* debunked conspiracy theory.

“We don’t just have "experts" – we *know* it was invented on 4chan. This is flirting with some incredibly dangerous stuff.”

Shayan Sardarizadeh, of the BBC Verify team, wrote in response: “The meme shared by Elon Musk about the pizzagate conspiracy theory is itself based on the completely false claim…

“... that James Gordon Meek, a journalist who recently pleaded guilty to possessing child pornography, had debunked pizzagate. Meek never reported on pizzagate.”

Another BBC disinformation journalist, Alistair Coleman added: “Your regular reminder that Pizzagate was created as a joke on a 4Chan message board, but spread because far too many people on social media aren’t particularly good at critical thinking. And here we are.”
By Tuesday lunchtime Mr Musk had apparently deleted the tweet.

It comes shortly after another online post by Mr Musk that attempted to link the founder of Media Matters – a left-leaning non-profit group that has accused X of promoting adverts from global companies alongside pro-Hitler content – to the owner of the Pizzagate restaurant.

Earlier this month, a slew of big brands, including Disney and IBM, decided to stop advertising on X after a report by Media Matters said ads were appearing alongside pro-Nazi content and white nationalist posts.

Mr Musk boosted a post rehashing the claims of links between the company and the restaurant owner by replying to it, with the one-word phrase: “Weird.”

Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (centre) takes Elon Musk (left) on a tour of Kibbutz Kfar Aza
(Getty Images)

Self-described “free-speech absolutist” Mr Musk has also come under fire on multiple occasions recently over content promoting antisemitism on the site, sparking outrage over his own posts and comments which have promoted antisemitic content.

On Wednesday November 15, Mr Musk described a post that said a post, had appeared to push the “great replacement” conspiracy theory on X, was “the actual truth”. The post claimed that Jewish communities “have been pushing the exact kind of dialectical hatred against whites that they claim to want people to stop using against them”.

“You have said the actual truth,” Mr Musk wrote, a response which earned him praise from white nationalist Nick Fuentes – and accusations of antisemitism from dozens more, including the White House.

He later responded to the accusations of antisemitism, insisting “nothing could be further from the truth”.

Following the controversies, Mr Musk visited Israel on Monday, where he toured a kibbutz attacked by Hamas militants and held talks with top leaders.

The billionaire met with Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who scolded him over content on his platform, and joined Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a tour of the Kfar Azza kibbutz, a rural village that Hamas militants stormed on 7 October in a deadly assault that launched the war.

“The platforms you lead, unfortunately, have a huge reservoir of hatred, hatred of Jews and antisemitism,” Mr Herzog told him.

Study: Folklore structure reveals how conspiracy theories emerge, fall apart

Rumors swirling around 2016 Wikileaks dump was glue that held "Pizzagate" together.

JENNIFER OUELLETTE - 1/3/2021, 5:21 PM

Enlarge / Researchers produced a graphic representation of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory narrative, with layers for major subplots of each story, and lines connecting the key people, places and institutions within and among those layers.


There's rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we're once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2020, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: the structure of folklore can help explain how unrelated facts and false information connect into a compelling narrative framework, that can then go viral as a conspiracy theory.

Mark Twain is often credited with the saying, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.” Twain never actually said it; it appears to be a mutated version of something essayist Jonathan Swift once wrote—a misattribution that aptly illustrates the point. The same is true of a good conspiracy theory, comprised of unrelated facts and false information that somehow get connected into a loose narrative framework, which then spreads rapidly as perceived "truth." According to a June paper published in PLOS ONE, the structure of folklore can yield insights into precisely how these connections get made, and hence into the origins of conspiracy theories.

"We tell stories all the time, and we use them to explain and to signal our various cultural ideologies, norms, beliefs, and values," co-author Timothy Tangherlini, a self-described computational folklorist at the University of California, Berkeley, told Ars. "We're trying to get people either to acknowledge them or align with them." In the case of conspiracy theories, those stories can have serious real-world consequences. "Stories have been impactful throughout human history," he said. "People take real world action on these. A lot of genocide can be traced back to certain stories and 'rumors,' as well as conspiracy theories."


FURTHER READINGThe COVID-19 misinformation crisis is just beginning, but there is hope

Tangherlini and his co-authors at the University of California, Los Angeles, combined their knowledge of folklore with machine learning to analyze some 18,000 posts from Reddit and Voat discussion boards between April 2016 and February 2018, pertaining to the thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory dubbed "Pizzagate." They then used that data to produce a graphic representation of the emerging narratives, with multiple layers representing the various subplots. Relationships between key people ("actants"), places, things, organizations, and other elements were indicated by connecting lines within and among those layers.

Granted, there's a lot of noise in social media forums, with plenty of irrelevant pieces. But the AI enabled Tangherlini et al. to tease out the hidden narratives that fed into the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and determine the difference between the storytelling elements of a debunked conspiracy, and a fact-based real-world conspiracy.
Enlarge / The exterior of Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, DC, which was at the center of the "Pizzagate" conspiracy theory—a thoroughly debunked hoax.
Matt McClain/Washington Post/Getty Images

They found that conspiracy theories tend to form around certain narrative threads that connect various characters, places, and things, across discrete domains of interaction that are otherwise not aligned. It's a fragile construct: cut one of those crucial threads, and the story loses cohesiveness, and hence its viral power. This is not true of a factual conspiracy, which typically can hold up even if certain elements of the story are removed.Advertisement


Pizzagate, for example, emerged during the 2016 presidential election, after the March spear-phishing hack of the personal emails of then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta. Wikileaks published the emails in November 2016, and false rumors (or "creative interpretations," if one is feeling charitable) began swirling that the Podesta emails contained coded messages about an alleged human trafficking and child sex ring. (Meanwhile, mainstream liberals were obsessing over Podesta's apparently controversial recipe for risotto.)

The rumors soon blossomed into a full-scale conspiracy theory connecting high-ranking Democratic party officials and several US restaurants, most notably the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in Washington, DC. The hoax spread like wildfire on 4chan, 8chan, Reddit subgroups (/r/TheDonald and /r/pizzagate), Twitter, and various alt-right and conservative media outlets, including InfoWars. (InfoWars host Alex Jones would eventually apologize to Comet Ping Pong's owner, James Alefantis, in February 2017 for spreading the conspiracy theory, under threat of a libel lawsuit.)

Alefantis and several staff matters received multiple death threats from true believers as the conspiracy hoax spread far and wide. The mania culminated on December 4, 2016, when 28-year-old Edgar Maddison Welch of North Carolina came to DC and fired three shots from an AR-15-stye rifle into the pizzeria—convinced he would be a hero for rescuing the alleged child sex slaves being held in the restaurant's non-existent basement. Mercifully, no one was injured and Welch surrendered to police. He was found guilty of assault and firearm charges and sentenced to 4-1/2 years in prison, apologizing during sentencing for his "foolish and reckless" behavior.

Per Tangherlini et al.'s analysis, the Pizzagate conspiracy centered on Hillary Clinton, clearly a major player in Democratic politics in 2016—that would be one domain of interaction. As a mom, she might belong to a casual dining/going out for pizza domain, which (in the minds of conspiracy theorists) links her to Alefantis and Comet Ping Pong. John Podesta and his brother Tony belong to yet another domain (the Podesta family), and also like pizza, which would link them to Alefantis and the casual dining domain. And of course, Podesta's affiliation with Clinton puts him in the Democratic politics domain.

"You've got these three domains that wouldn't really interact, but they have alignments between them and those became important" in the minds of conspiracy theorists, Tangherlini said. This then mushrooms into coded messages in Podesta's emails, child sex trafficking, and so forth, fueled by the Wikileaks component. The narrative frameworks around conspiracy theories typically build up and stabilize fairly quickly, compared to factual conspiracies, which often take years to emerge, according to Tangherlini. Pizzagate stabilized within one month of the Wikileaks dump and remained relatively consistent for the next three years.
Enlarge / The New Jersey side of the George Washington Bridge, connecting Fort Lee, NJ, and New York City. It was central to "Bridgegate"—a bona fide factual conspiracy.
Andrew Burton/Getty Images

The good news is that as quickly and easily as a conspiracy theory forms, it can also fall apart, separating back into discrete non-interacting domains. In the case of Pizzagate, remove the Wikileaks element, and the other connections simply don't hold up. "It's a classic network thing," said Tangherlini. "Which nodes and edges do I have to delete to get it to fall apart? In this conspiracy, the Wikileaks email dump and how theorists creatively interpret the content of what was in the emails are the only glue holding the conspiracy together."Advertisement


That said, it's also fairly easy for a conspiracy theory to gain a second life with new interconnected circles. "It's not like you need a lot of actants and relationships to put them back together," Tangherlini said. Last June, Pizzagate found renewed popularity with young people on TikTok, where the hashtag garnered nearly 80 million views.

Tangherlini et al. tested all of this against a factual conspiracy: the 2013 Fort Lee lane closure scandal—aka "Bridgegate"—that helped tank former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's presidential aspirations. On September 9, there were unannounced closures during the morning rush hour of two of three toll lanes set aside for local traffic in Fort Lee, New Jersey. (The other lanes at that toll plaza feed onto the upper level of the George Washington Bridge, which connects Fort Lee to New York City.) The resulting gridlock caused major delays in school transportation and the ability of police, paramedics, and firefighters to respond to emergency calls. The issue wasn't resolved until Friday, September 13, after Port Authority Executive Director Patrick Foye directly intervened.

Initially, PA Deputy Executive Director Bill Baroni (a Christie appointee) told staffers it was part of a traffic flow study, and that giving advance notice would have adversely impacted the findings. But eventually hundreds of emails and internal documents came to light suggesting that the closures were orchestrated by Christie loyalists—Baroni; PA director of interstate capital projects David Wildstein (a former Christie high school chum); and Christie's deputy chief of staff, Bridget Anne Kelly—apparently as political retaliation against Fort Lee's mayor, Democrat Mark Sokolich, after Sokolich declined to endorse Christie in the 2013 New Jersey gubernatorial election.

Wildstein, Baroni, and Kelly were all found guilty of felony conspiracy in November 2016. Christie himself denied any involvement in the closures and pronounced himself "embarrassed and humiliated" by his staff's behavior in a January 2014 press conference. An official misconduct case was filed against Christie, but prosecutors ultimately dropped the complaint, because they didn't believe Christie's guilt could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Kelly''s and Baroni's convictions were later overturned by the US Supreme Court. (Wildstein entered into a plea agreement in exchange for testifying against Kelly and Baroni, and got probation.)

"Bridgegate fascinated me because, well, why would you do that?" Tangherlini said. "The stakes are so low and the impact is potentially so high. People were stuck in traffic for days." So is that factual conspiracy the same thing as a conspiracy theory from a narrative structure perspective? The answer is no. The team couldn't find any set of nodes of edges in the network—no key story element—they could delete that would make the network fall apart.

Tangherlini attributes this to the fact that even though all the major figures in Bridgegate had multiple points of connection, they all belonged to the same domain of interaction: New Jersey politics. "We're not aligning disparate domains," he said. "The narrative framework is robust to deletion. That might actually be one of the telltales between an actual conspiracy and a conspiracy theory."

DOI: PLOS ONE, 2020. 10.1371/journal.pone.0233879 (About DOIs).



JENNIFER OUELLETTE is a senio.r writer at Ars Technica with a particular focus on where science meets culture, covering everything from physics and related interdisciplinary topics to her favorite films and TV series. Jennifer lives in Los Angeles