You say: "the love for far right wing sources that are highly dubious in terms of both political *and* empirical content tells us quite a bit about the 'left wing' orientation of ostensibly left wing conspiracy theorists." I don't understand why you use the term 'love' for right-wing sources. No such pathology exists among some progressives any more than other progressives might be said to have a 'love' for mainstream, corporate controlled news electronic and print media sources. The rest of your sentence there is simply innuendo.
--really? they don't have a love for far right sources? i'd say there's a considerable difference between relying on, say, Joseph Wilson or Scott Ritter and Thomas Moorer, John Singlaub for information. Sorry if you don't see the difference.
--------------
I think we really need to get away from prejudicial characterizations and let the information speak - or not for itself.
--information like what? that planes didn't fly into the WTC? or that russians were in Laos who could speak fluent english trained by american defectors in Russia...Sarin gas used in Talewind operation? CIA supplying drugs to soliders in Vietnam? sorry...i think i'll pass.