I think that there are differences between plausible and less plausible CTs, and also between a hypothesis that is rejected when the evidence does not support, and one which is held firmly in spite of the evidence.

There are indeed 'dangers of allowing fantastic, baseless ideas to morph into a belief that is perceived as a reality'.

I think that most of these CTs are neither right nor left in themselves. There are 'Truthers'; people who are suspicious of vaccines and other forms of modern medicine; and people who believe that Princess Diana was murdered, both on the right and left wing of politics, for example. There are differences in *how* these are expressed: for example, the left-wing anti-vaccinator is more likely to express suspicion of 'Big Pharma' and the right-wing vaccinator to express suspicion of government-run or mandated public health programmes. The left-wing 'MIHOP'-er is more likely to justify their beliefs in terms of the wickedness and untrustworthiness of the Bush government in particular and the right-wing 'MIHOP'er to do so in terms of the wickedness and untrustworthiness of all governments. It is among right-wing MIHOP-ers that accusations of involvement by Israel or 'Zionists' are likely to become most pervasive; just as it was among right-wingers that the idea that Iraq was somehow involved became most pervasive.

IMO, one of the dangers of certain CTs is that they can tempt left-wingers into an alliance with right-wingers. You don't need CTs for that. Progressives who are against the war, and against government encroachments on civil liberties, may become tempted to seek alliances with right-libertarians (and worse) who hold similar views on these specific issues. But strong beliefs that the government and large parts of the world are automatically 'out to get you', and that no mainstream information source can be trusted, can contribute to some (IMO) dangerous beliefs; e.g.:

(1) Icononoclasm and anti-establishment views are in themselves a good thing. The anti-establishment right is at least better than the pro-establishment right, and an alliance between the anti-establishment left and right might be a good thing. (LB: No, it might not! That's one way that fascist movements gained ground in the 1930s.)

(2) It may really be true that Jews or 'Zionists' are controlling the world, and that other countries are being forced or duped into fighting 'wars for Israel'. After all, such theories have been proposed by people who oppose the war and Bush, so there may be something in them! (LB: Do I really need to explain why that view is dangerous? And no, this has nothing to do with objecting to any criticism of Israel's internal politics or its treatment of the Palestinians. Being critical of the latter doesn't require one to subscribe to some 21st century version of the Protocols!)

(3) There is no real difference between right and left beyond some 'formalism' and 'mere words'. Some global elites are manipulating us, and using the left/right distinction to divide us. (LB: It is true that *party labels* may be formalistic; but there is a real difference between right-wing and left-wing attitudes to life. If someone is blaming racial minorities and foreigners for everything; proposing drastic cuts in public services and safety nets for poorer people; and attacking women's rights, then they are no allies, even if they support some of the same CTs as you do.)

(4) No source of information can be trusted fully, and therefore all can be considered equally valid. Right-wing CT sites, such as those of Alex Jones, WakeUpFromYourSlumber, and WhatReally(Never)Happened can be used as valid sources. On the other hand (as one now-TS'd DU-er once proposed), the Holocaust is only a 'purported' Holocaust as 'I don't trust the History Channel'(!) (LB: While it's indeed sensible to question all media sources, that does *not* justify plunging headlong into right-wing cesspools on the grounds that they are telling you what the government don't want you to hear!)

(5) All collaborations between countries, even for the most peaceful purposes, should be seen as actual or potential 'global conspiracies' and as steps in the creation of an evil 'New World Order'. (LB: Here lie all sorts of opportunities for justifying ultra-nationalism, racism and xenophobia. Indeed one of the surest ways of telling that a site or organization is anti-establishment-Right rather than Left is the serious use of the phrase 'New World Order')


I should emphasize once again that people can hold all kinds of CTs from the reasonable to the bizarre *without* supporting direct or indirect collaboration between progressives and the far-right; and people can attempt to validate the far right *without* having any of the usual CTs. But the two do IMO go together more often than would be expected by chance. That is perhaps the biggest danger of uncritical, single-minded support of certain CTs. And in the week of the Tiller murder and Holocaust Museum shooting in the USA, and the worrying rise of Right-wing parties in Britain and Europe - I think we should heed these wake-up calls, and shun ANY progressive/ right-wing collaborations that may lead us to tolerate xenophobia, hard-right economic 'libertarianism', and even forms of fascism.