Quiz One Flashcards
(75 cards)
Three aspects of conspiracy thinking that make it persuasive to those that believe in it.
- Big events MUST have big causes. 2. No big event is EVER random or accidental, it is the directly willed outcome of deliberate intentions and actions by a GROUP of individuals 3. The most complex explanation for any major historical event must be the right one.
The Principle of Commensurate Scale
Big events = big causes. ex) The assassination of JFK, who was such a significant individual, that it can’t have possibly been a single nobody like Oswald.
Military Industrial Complex
Warmongering arms manufacturers, rogue elements with in intelligence establishments and corrupt politicians that subvert democracy to distort and deflect important national aspirations.
The ineradicable human need to believe in an orderly and controlled world
Everything is under control, and there must be some ultimate control being exerted over events ‘behind the scenes.’ It is more comfortable to think that bad people are in charge, as long as someone is in charge.
3 Core Events in the late 20th c. that led to the collapse of Trust in the Government (The State)
Vietnam War, OPEC Crisis & Stagflation, Watergate
Vietnam War
Even the most powerful cannot win every war they fight, and left unease in the American populace that their country might not be ‘good’ or ‘just.’
OPEC Crisis & Stagflation
Government could not ensure that postwar prosperity would last forever.
Watergate
President Richard Nixon had broken the law in his campaign, providing proof that the nation’s most trusted and admired leaders might be villains, or
crooks.
Why were the 1970s the golden age of conspiracy thinking?
Conspiracy thinking arose during a wave of events that led to the collapse of wide-spread public confidence in the power of the State to do good for the lives of the people it served.
How is conspiracy thinking a mode of historical thinking?
Conspiracy thinking blends early history that has mostly fallen out of use of academics with a new, favored history.
Conspiracists vs Historians
Historians admit things can change, conspiracists doubt that things can change.
Early History
History is the directly willed outcome of powerful individuals seeking to turn events to their purposes
Recent History
History is the working out of large, impersonal forces that shape events behind the scenes - timing is everything.
The irresistible intellectual appeal of baroque obscurantism (complexity)
The more complex facts and linked causes seemed to be, the more persuasive they seem to conspiracy thinkers. (Complexity is the attraction)
Why does complexity appeals to conspiracy thinkers?
It affirms their intelligence. Using ‘theorist’ makes them seem smart. They use bogus, pseudo - intellectual terminology to disguise or distract from the dubiousness of the assertions or underlying presumptions of their conspiracy.
Professional vs Amateur Knowledge
The desire not to be taken in by conventional thinking and challenge and reject passive thinking, rebelling against the standard acceptance of authority and academics.
3 paradoxical facts that conspiracy thinkers embrace
- “Facts” 2. Abstruse and frail connections “arguments” 3. Who is more gullible?
Absence of Evidence is the Evidence
Evidence to support theory is usually wrongly assessed, hard to follow, hard to get access to, has been destroyed or stolen.
Renegade
Figure in pop culture, a repetend conspirator who could deliver secret information to the outside world ‘just in time.’ Figure has some applications IRL - have existed in history.
The definite proof is almost here
“If only enough people of good will (renegade) would join the hunt for more evidence.” Biblical revelation - wish for the end of times b/c that’s when the “truth” will be revealed.
Great spirits have always encounter violent opposition from mediocre minds
Theorists accuse people who doubt conspiracies of lacking enough moral and intellectual courage.
Can you prove that it did not happen?
Believing something because that is what suits them best. Also absence of proof = proof of conspiracy. “Prove I’m wrong.”
The Rhetoric of Just Asking Questions
Lack of evidence makes conspirators throw blame elsewhere. Used to undermine competing accounts and open space for conspiracy thinking to fill, giving an alternate account as a more ‘complete’ explanation.
Where are YOU getting your ‘facts’ from?
Conspiracy thinking forces people of conventional knowledge to reflect seriously on facts. People accept the word of trusted authority, especially academic ones.