The core, the deep heart of conservatism and conspiratorial thinking, is an ego defense. We all engage in certain behaviors that, if examined critically, are probably harmful. We aren’t always careful about buying things from companies that don’t have a history of labor abuse, we eat meat that comes from a harmful and wasteful industry, and we probably drive when we could walk or bike. It kinda sucks to have those things pointed out; we don’t like to feel guilty about our actions.

This extends even to things that aren’t actually criticisms. It’s why vegans get so much hate; even if they’re only saying “this is a choice I’ve made”, it feels like they’re condemning everyone else for not making that same choice. The same goes for people who don’t drink, or people who bike to work everyday, or any number of things.

What’s important to understand is that these things feel like attacks because they call into question our own choices. Maybe you’ve never seriously thought about what eating meat entails, but if someone else has thought about it - and come out of that process deciding to act differently than you do - does that mean your choice is actually… wrong? Are you a bad person for eating meat? And even if you give it some thought and come out deciding that you can defend your choice not to be vegetarian or vegan, that process can be exhausting and painful.

So that’s one part of it; introspection is hard, and we don’t want to do it. To a certain extent, maybe we can’t do it, at least not for everything, or we’d never get anything done at all. But that isn’t the whole story. There’s a moral element that might be even greater.

There is a pervasive belief in the US (though it certainly isn’t exclusive to the US; at minimum, anywhere with a long tradition of Christianity has it as well) that any act can be forgiven if done in innocence. That is, you can do something bad and still be a “Good Person” as long as you didn’t know it was wrong. I’m not here to debate the merits of this belief, but it is necessary to understand just how influential this belief is. It feeds into the above; if you never give any thought to your purchases or to your dietary habits, then it doesn’t matter how abusive those industries are. You didn’t know, so it isn’t your fault.

This then creates an incentive to avoid learning about the things you participate in. In a very real sense, learning too much can rob you of your innocence. If someone tells you that you are participating in - or benefiting from - an unjust system, they are trying to make you into a Bad Person.

Enter the conspiracy theory. All conspiracy theories aim to simplify the world. All evil is the result of deliberate action by others, whether they are a single group with a written agenda or even a single person pulling the strings. There are no systemic problems, no nuances, no people who are just trying to get by with imperfect information. Most importantly, the bad things that happen, even the bad things that you might have some small part in, aren’t your fault; they were forced upon you by the real evil. You are a Good Person, beset on all sides by evil.

Conspiracy theories serve to give an easy way to discredit anyone who would try to make you question your decisions, and at the same time, they give you an airtight defense against introspection. It’s no wonder they appeal to so many.

E: Since this has been getting some attention, I might as well share some excellent essays that cover this topic in more detail.

First, “In Search of a Flat Earth” by Folding Ideas. It’s specific to the flat earth conspiracy theory, but it touches on why it’s so hard to get people out of conspiracy theories in general - the people who believe in them want to believe.

Second, “Why Are You so Angry?” by Innuendo Studios. This one is lengthy, but it’s broken up into sections, and each part is worth a watch on its own. It’s focused on GamerGate and how it became the blueprint and recruitment pool for the alt-right, and it’s the best breakdown I’ve seen of conspiracy theories as a defense mechanism.

Third, Neoreaction a Basilisk by Jack Graham and Elizabeth Sandifer. A warning: this is not an easy read. It’s an essay collection about the alt-right, and it touches on some truly fascinating concepts. Even if you’ve heard of Roko’s Basilisk - the thought experiment that gives this book its title - you probably don’t know much about its context or how the person arguably most responsible for popularizing it is deep in the conspiracy theory rabbit hole. Give this one a look, and give me a shout when you get to the part about “the right to be invaded”; I need to talk about this with someone else, but my friends keep putting me on mute.