We all know about anti-semitic/royalist conspiracy theories from French restorationists, fascist theories depicting both capitalism and communism as a jewish conspiracy, and the myriad contemporary theories of governmental or supragovernmental tyrannical intrigue, and how even the most revolutionary-seeming conspiracy theories end up merely scapegoating minorities.
The common factors here are:
a) They all serve a non-democratic and irrational agenda and usually advocate violence against the scapegoated group(s) - i.e. They are right- wing and mostly fascistic
b) They usually falsify information in order to prove their point. Alternatively or concurrently, there is a logical disconnect between those theoretically held responsible for the conspiracy and those the conspiracists choose as their scapegoat - targets (E.g. militia can make a case that the government is dictatorial, and go from there to attacking blacks).
That was boring, but I needed to demonstrate that this type of conspiracism is totally irrelevant to the discussions on this list. Accusations that anyone on LBO is a right-wing conspiracist are very hard to take seriously.
There are also a "left" conspiracy theories. Sectarian, hermetic leftist groups tend to distort the facts in order to vindicate a mechanistic theory. They will invent capitalist or revisionist plots where none exist to fill gaps in their theory.
A last group of conspiracy theories is apolitical. They are mainly for entertainment purposes and do not entail any sort of political action.
I don't see any ultraleftists of the type mentioned here, and we can safely say that everyone on LBO is thoroughly politicized. So looking for theories that can be clearly identified as conspiracist on LBO is a non-starter. The conspiracist-baiters are merely victims of a non-thinking reflex acquired over years of flaming. With "Chip" Berlet, it's more than a reflex, it's a work-related disorder.
I propose that the sneering and sniping be confined to instances that can be clearly identified as fascistic-racist, ultraleftist-delusionary, or flip. All others should be discussed rationally, or ignored.
OK, so what happens when a larouchean theory, or a Debka story looks solid? Obviously, looks can be deceptive. Unfortunately, you won't find the spooks with the inside dope posting on LBO. They'll hang out with the militias, laroucheites, "intel" sites, etc. So if your only choice is to wait 25 years until classified docs are disclosed, you may have to work with potentially tainted sources. You may end up looking silly, but that doesn't make you a conspiracist.
You become a conspiracist when you buy a cranky theory lock, stock, and barrel, without any attempt at corroboration - as in cross-posting a Jared Israel Milosevic promo or a Casolaro "Octopus" novella. But if someone feels like discussing these in the light of new evidence, I don't think "yah, boo, conspiracy" is the appropriate response. I think we should be open, especially now, to new information from sources that are-hopefully-not being spin-doctored and sanitized, at the risk of ending up with garbage from time to time. I don't see that we have any other choice.
Hakki