Conspiracy theory acts as a psychological tonic and establishes one's own "superior" understanding of events and "the way things really are".
So, under what circumstances would someone voluntarily relinquish such a potent elixir and revert to an ordinary mortal's weak, ambiguous, or unsatisfying understanding of history and contemporary events?
My experience has been that most conspiracy theories are not based upon empirical evidence--but, rather, speak to an internal need for neat, orderly, and unambiguous identification of enemies that one should vanquish and render impotent within society.
Consequently, most political conspiracy theory premises and conclusions are not falsifiable to the satisfaction of the adherents.
And there is no genuine test which the conspiracy theory adherent will permit if it holds open the possibility of falsifying their theory.
From the perspective of the conspiracy adherent, nothing could be worse than for objective conditions to improve----i.e. if the improvement requires relinquishing some portion of their mistaken dogma.
Over many decades, when one's personal political preferences are not accepted or implemented, it probably is too difficult for political conspiracy adherents to candidly acknowledge that their ideas and proposals have little or no merit in the eyes of their fellow countrymen---so, naturally, the adherents search around for an alternative explanation for the lack of popular support...and conspiracy theories fill the bill perfectly.
