Consequently, they are in the position of making final, definitive judgments about character, integrity, patriotism and motives from long-distance. But because they start from a “loser’s” perspective, they are usually pre-disposed to believing the worst possible motives and explanations!
Furthermore, conspiracy "scholarship" suffers from several major anomalies that normally are considered markers for irrational, illogical, or non-factual conclusions.
In the history of modern political conspiracy arguments, there rarely has been peer review (for example: no journals created to facilitate debate by differing schools of thought), no acknowledgement of substantive error by any author, and no attempt to refute alternative conspiracy theories.
Conspiracy theorists ask us to believe that they are uniquely insightful even while, simultaneously, they seem unable or unwilling to apply to their own writings, the normal, customary scholarly methods and practices which routinely apply to other fields of inquiry. One wonders why this is the case?
There is something remarkably peculiar about many (perhaps most) books which right-wing conspiracy advocates produce.
1. First, there is almost always no independent research.
In almost no case, does the conspiracy author indicate any direct contact with the persons and organizations he writes about. No interviews. No correspondence. No emails. No phone conversations. No questions posed. No archival research. Nothing.
For example: W. Cleon Skousen and Gary Allen (in their respective books, The Naked Capitalist and None Dare Call It Conspiracy) relied heavily upon Dr. Carroll Quigley's research as reported in his 1966 book entitled, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time.
Both Allen and Skousen quote extensively from or rely upon Quigley’s book. Conspiracy adherents have used Allen and Skousen for decades as “proof” of whatever theory they wish to circulate.
However, neither Skousen or Allen reviewed the primary source documents upon which Quigley based his conclusions and which he cited in his book. Consequently, neither Skousen or Allen are in a position to
(a) confirm that references cited by Quigley are accurate and truthful
OR
(b) ascertain whether or not Quigley overlooked relevant material which could lend itself to a different interpretation from what Quigley presented
OR
(c) decide whether or not Quigley placed too much emphasis on, or gave too much credence to, data in documents which he saw
Furthermore, neither Skousen or Allen ever contacted Quigley to ask questions about his research or to inquire into other aspects of the subject matter they considered to be of critical importance.
