"A lot of conspiracy theories are organic or at least emerge from true believers on the margins when it comes to topics like extraterrestrials, but those at the top of conservative America have preached falsehoods that further the interest of elites, and those at the bottom have embraced them devoutly. Though when we talk about cults and conspiracies we usually look to more outlandish beliefs, climate denial and gun obsessions fit this template."

The headline above is a direct quote from a mid-item paragraph from an NYT op-ed from this past January. If that link does not work correctly for you, you can follow the original link Crabgrass encountered at DWT, this item.

Crabgrass readers are strongly urged to read both linked sources, especially the NYT item. Following upon the headlined paragraph, the author wrote:

Both originated as industry agendas that were then embraced by right-wing politicians and the right-leaning public. For decades, the fossil fuel industry pumped out ads and reports and supported lobbyists and front groups misleading the public on the science and import of climate change. The current gun cult is likewise the result of the National Rifle Association and the gun industry pushing battlefield-style weapons and a new white male identity — more paramilitary than rural hunter — along with fear, rage and racist dog whistles. I think of it as a cult, because guns serve first as totems of identity and belonging and because the beliefs seem counterfactual about guns as sources of safety rather than danger, when roughly 60 percent of gun deaths are suicides and self-defense by gun is a surpassingly rare phenomenon.

Right-wing political fictions have a long history, from Joe McCarthy’s bluffs about communists in the government to the United Nations’ black helicopters of 1990s paranoia to an endless stream of stories portraying immigrants, Jews, Muslims, gay men then and trans people now as sinister threats. The digital age and then the Covid pandemic caused many of us to withdraw further from contact with people unlike ourselves, and pundits and social media offered those “others” back as phantasms and gargoyles leering at us through the filters.

Please understand the above excerpt is not offered as the meat of the item. It is given to whet the appetite of readers to follow the link, to see the entire essay. 

Read it. When an entire well written and coherent position is stated, it is better to spend time reading and reflecting, than seeing an excerpt, then saying, "Fine, now moving on . . .". The NYT item deserves more respect than that. Had it been seen back in January, it would have been highlighted then. Highlighting it now says, "Respect it. Read it. Don't be in a counterproductive hurry."