Enjoying the show? Support our mission and help keep the content coming by buying us a coffee.
We are diving into the staggering paradox of the modern information age: why, in a world of unprecedented scientific access, are basic facts like the Earth orbiting the sun actively being debated? This program synthesizes data from the POLES 2025 National Survey, psychological analyses, and the DHS 2025 Homeland Threat Assessment to reveal how the growing chasm between verifiable facts and deeply held conspiracy beliefs is translating into real-world threats and political violence.
The public belief landscape is defined not just by denial, but by massive uncertainty—suggesting an epistemic fatigue where people simply don't know who to trust.
The Shocking Baseline: A strong minority (up to 38%) agrees with conspiracy statements. But the most alarming finding is the widespread doubt about simple facts: 60% of Americans either disagreed or were unsure that the South Pole gets 24 hours of sunlight in summer.
Ground Zero: Beliefs about the Earth being flat (24% agree or unsure) run neck-and-neck with the number of people who are unsure if the Earth orbits the sun (25%). This indicates two completely different realities coexisting in the same country.
The Trend: While numerically small, shifts over the last four years consistently moved the needle away from scientific consensus toward greater conspiracism.
The divide is both generational and structural, driven by platforms designed for engagement, not truth:
Generational Fault Line: Younger groups (Gen Z, Millennials) were significantly more likely (3X higher in some cases) to agree with conspiracy statements than older generations. This is attributed to a lack of information literacy and heavy reliance on algorithmic feeds.
The Social Media Engine: People relying on social media (26% overall) or AI programs like ChatGPT (28% overall) for information were ≈3X more likely to believe conspiracies than those using search engines or scientific articles. Social media algorithms, built for outrage and sensation, create a feedback loop that pushes users further down the rabbit hole.
We define False Flag Conspiracy Theories (FFCTs)—the claim that events are staged by powerful, hidden actors—and explain the core human needs they fulfill:
Understanding: FFCTs replace the discomfort of chaos (random events) with the certainty of a hidden plan (e.g., the government controlling hurricanes).
Control: They provide an identifiable enemy (e.g., "crisis actors") that a person feels they can fight back against, reducing the terrifying feeling of powerlessness.
Belonging: Adopting a conspiracy creates an in-group ("the enlightened ones") that validates the individual and strengthens social bonds against a common enemy.
The acceleration of these beliefs is translating directly into devastating physical-world consequences:
The Spread: Mentions of "false flag" on X (formerly Twitter) increased by over 1100% in the last five years. Every crisis is now an immediate opportunity for exploitation.
The Data: There is a strong positive correlation between believing conspiracy theories and supporting political violence. The correlation is strongest (R=0.51) for the most fringe, socially unacceptable beliefs (e.g., Holocaust denial), suggesting the more extreme the belief, the higher the danger signal.
The ultimate challenge for modern society is balancing the protection of free speech against dangerous, intentionally spread lies that lead to real-world violence and infrastructure damage.
Final question: Given that the link between generalized conspiracy thinking and support for violence has tripled in magnitude in one decade, where do we draw the line between protecting free thought and actively countering dangerous disinformation that directly harms civic stability?
