Cursory scope into the Professor Joseph Uscinski (guy on Watters tonight). Haven't dug down into his background yet. Just a "meta" search of his viewpoints and scope of his work. Seems to make sense on why he led with the chin 'they believe that we are satanic pedos', i.e. they are the sick ones.

One of the articles of particular interest, in The Chronicle of Higher Education, stated the following:

"I'm interested in your perspective on conspiracy theories as a teacher of college students. Conspiracy theories are not superstitious or faith-based; they involve assembling evidence, analyzing it, making connections. Stylistically, it's not unlike what people learn to do in school. Do you talk to your students about how to tell the difference between critical thinking and conspiracy thinking?

Yeah, I teach a course on conspiracy theories, and one of the exercises is that I have them design their own conspiracy theory. I tell them, "The crazier the better." Some of them involve, like, "Donald Trump is a robot." All sorts of weird things. Then they go to the internet and get all the evidence they could, and sort of string it together. And by the time they’re done they have a fairly convincing case.

And then they had to switch with another student, who would then debunk it and tear it to shreds. When the student who made up the conspiracy theory had a chance to respond to the debunker, a lot of times they were offended, even knowing that they made it up.

Genuinely offended? Like, they weren't play-acting?

There were some who actually got upset. Like, "I've put all the evidence together for this, that shows it's true." People don't like being told they're wrong. And it's very easy, when you start collecting evidence for something, to just get into the mind-set of, "Oh, this is true."

I imagine the same thing happens with people who read and believe conspiracy theories, even if they didn't make them up themselves. It feels personal when somebody tries to debunk them. They might just dig in."

https://www.chronicle.com/article/What-Does-This-Professor-Know/244163

Other links:

https://twitter.com/JoeUscinski/status/1203459496099696640

https://people.miami.edu/profile/uscinski@miami.edu#panelCareer

https://www.joeuscinski.com/research.html

https://centerforinquiry.org/video/conspiracy-theories-are-for-losers-joseph-uscinski/

>>7452275

These are the sorts of questions that WaPo based their article on? These people are stupid.

https://www.joeuscinski.com

https://www.joeuscinski.com/uploads/7/1/9/5/71957435/irma_codebook_excerpt.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/08/30/the-qanon-conspiracy-movement-is-very-unpopular-our-new-poll-finds/

>>7452341

>>7452275

Conspiracy theories often come from losing parties

DAN DOUCET, Evergreen reporter

February 7, 2017

After an election, the losing party tends to throw accusations and conspiracy theories at the party in power, a University of Miami associate political science professor said.

As part of its Coffee and Politics series on Monday, the Foley Institute hosted Joseph Uscinski, who talked about conspiracy theories and why many people believe in them.

A recent poll showed 60 percent of Americans believe some sort of fraud was involved when their candidate doesn’t win an election, he said.

When Barack Obama won the presidential election in 2008, Uscinski said Republicans accused Democrats of registering unqualified voters. After Donald Trump won the election this year, many Democrats claimed the Russians had hacked the system.

Even in elections, Uscinski said candidates use conspiracy theories to gain support. Bernie Sanders ran on his one-percent theory, while Trump said there was a political elite focused on foreign interests rather than those of the U.S., he said.

Both were outsiders to the parties they ran for, Uscinski said; Sanders is a democratic socialist, and Trump is not a politician.

“There’s a strategy to (conspiracy theories),” Uscinski said. “They can actually be very good for your group if you’re on the outside.”

He said many conspiracies are real, but it is hard for people to determine which are true and which are phony.

Uscinski listed examples of real conspiracies, such as Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair and the Tuskegee experiment, in which the U.S. Public Health Service studied syphilis in a group of 600 men over 40 years while falsely claiming to be treating their diseases.

“Power does get abused by the people who have it from time to time,” he said. “Democracy requires that people be vigilant and keep an eye on people that have power, and we view them with skepticism.”

A conspiracy theory is an explanation for events that involves a secret group working against the common good, Uscinski said. They are hard to prove and are unaccepted by appropriate authorities.

Uscinski said conspiracy theories can actually be dangerous. If enough people believe in a theory, he said it can lead politicians to act on them, such as those who believe climate change is a hoax.

Another example of a dangerous conspiracy theory was when people were burned alive for being witches after Pope Innocent VIII declared witchcraft to be real in 1484.

The usual image that pops into people’s heads when they think of conspiracy theorists is probably middle-aged, white men with far-right political leanings. But everyone is inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, Uscinski said.

“To one degree or another, people are predisposed to viewing events and circumstances as a product of conspiracies,” Uscinski said.

Uscinski said that in his studies, he found that both the Republican and Democratic parties are equally inclined to believe in conspiracy theories, and race and gender are not determining factors. Indicators for someone believing in theories include education, income and whether the person belongs to a third party.

Sixty percent of Americans believe the Kennedy assassination was some sort of conspiracy, he said.

Twenty-five percent believe Obama was born outside the U.S., 20 percent believe officials are withholding facts about vaccines and four percent believe a reptilian elite is controlling the functions of the world’s governments, he said.

People usually blame political extremism, racism, cognitive shortcuts or the internet for many of these theories, but Uscinski said he believes it has more to do with socialization and partisanship.

People get trapped in their own spheres of information that they agree with and automatically reject anything with which they don’t agree, he said.

“You can reason anything away you don’t like,” Uscinski said.

https://dailyevergreen.com/5828/news/conspiracy-theories-often-come-from-losing-parties/

>>7452489

>>7452501

>>7452484

What does it mean?

What does it really mean?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78qjQOMfu9c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM_kQjpAK6g

>>7452500

>>7452275

>>7452341

I give Uscinski some credit for going on Watters.

He tried the 'most effective' method that I conclude with here, when he led with the chin about satanic pedos. Based on some research, it appears that Uscinski knows that once a conspiracy reaches an individual, shaking them from it is not likely by external means, it must be an internal realization. This is readily apparent when asking any progressive voter if all conservatives are racist. Obviously, there is one answer, divide and conquer (isolate and silence). Thus, social media silence and gaslighting against conspiracy theories BEFORE a person encounters them is the most effective means. No coincidence Memes are so effective and Q constantly points out that they want us divided. The last piece of this article is enlightening towards that:

"I would like to offer simple solutions to fighting back against conspiracy theories, but I do not think there are any. It is difficult to correct individuals’ conspiracy beliefs (Nyhan and Reifler 2010), and until political elites disavow them, conspiracy theories will continue to benefit from having a big megaphone. Just studying the topic is itself challenging because devoted conspiracy theorists resist being studied and resent the notion that their beliefs might be based upon anything other than an honest weighing of the evidence. In particular, I am often told by conspiracy theorists that I am a government agent or Satanic elite (for the record, I am neither). I am also told that the term conspiracy theory was invented by the CIA to shut down debate over the Kennedy assassination. But they didn’t invent it (McKenzie-McHarg 2018), and if they had, the scheme didn’t work anyway because Kennedy Assassination theories seem to be the most popular conspiracy theories in the United States (Swift 2013).

We all fall victim to conspiracy theories from time to time. They can be entertaining and enthralling because they follow a successful trope: evil unscrupulous villains taking advantage of innocent hapless victims. This might sound like a tautology, but when we believe a conspiracy theory, it’s because we believe it’s true—and not because we think it’s dubious. In this sense, no one believes that they believe in conspiracy theories (instead they believe that they believe in conspiracy facts). We need first and foremost to know our own biases, subject our own beliefs to scrutiny, and be aware that some of our most sacred beliefs may be nothing more than conspiracy theories."

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2019/07/conspiring-for-the-common-good/

https://twitter.com/JoeUscinski/status/1185252476758290432

https://www.joeuscinski.com/uploads/7/1/9/5/71957435/st_paper.pdf

Forgot the picture for this beauty, "STATUS THREAT AND TRUMP SUPPORT".

https://twitter.com/JoeUscinski/status/1185252476758290432

https://www.joeuscinski.com/uploads/7/1/9/5/71957435/st_paper.pdf

>>7452737

I still haven't conceptualized the dichotomy between individual and collective identity within their group or the underpinnings to the Balfour Declaration, but mountains of information, including Revolutions, continues to point to the Jews.

>>7452843

**Revelations in the Bible, not Revolutions

>>7452872

Appreciate it.