Introduction

In contemporary post-truth politics, employing conspiracy theories is among the most potent rhetorical tools available to populist leaders. In this chapter, I will identify and examine a threefold claim that nativist populists put forth in their support of the people via conspiracy theories (Bergmann, 2020). First, they tend to create an external threat to the nation discursively. Second, they accuse the domestic elite of betraying the people, often even of siding with external aggressors. Third, they position themselves as the true defenders of the ‘pure people’ they vow to protect against both the elite and these malignant outsiders, that is, against those they have discursively created. I argue that populistic conspiracy theorists share these traits across both countries and themes.

Over time, numerous conspiracy theories have proliferated through extensive disinformation campaigns, offering alternative narratives of the global order that significantly diverge from conventional wisdom. These theories are championed by conspiratorial populists who assert that secretive and powerful elites control politics. These elites are accused of orchestrating global events to their benefit, to the detriment of the general populace.

The discussion here focuses on three prominent conspiracy theories, each gaining traction in different geographical regions in contemporary times. In Western Europe, the Eurabia conspiracy theory has found favour among many nativist populists. It has been leveraged to incite actions against those labelled as ‘dangerous others’—in the present context, often Muslims. In the United States, the Deep State conspiracy theory was vehemently propagated by Donald Trump. This theory posits the existence of a hidden network comprising bureaucrats, professional politicians, and interest agencies, purportedly manipulating society from the shadows. Trump notably invoked this theory to rally his supporters in his defence following his loss in the 2020 presidential election. Meanwhile, in Russia, Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have long embraced a variety of anti-Western conspiracy theories. These have been strategically deployed to garner support for actions such as the invasion of Ukraine, demonstrating their use as a tool for geopolitical manoeuvring.

The Weaponisation of Conspiracy Theories

Conspiracy theories have always played a role in political discourse. Still, it's only in recent times that we've begun to appreciate their significant impact on political beliefs and the overall political culture of our era. The ascendancy of far-right populist parties in recent years has paralleled a marked increase in the proliferation of conspiracy theories. This development can be partly linked to the transformation of the digital media environment and the modern ways in which information is shared (Bergmann, 2018). This shift has introduced alternative narratives that diverge from the traditional perspectives we once held.

The mainstream acceptance of populism underscores the significance of this shift. The emergence of populist leaders across Europe and the U.S. signifies that this movement is no longer relegated to the margins of political discourse. We are now in the age of the populist—specifically, the conspiratorial populist, where conspiracy theories have become intertwined with the fabric of democratic politics (Bergmann & Butter, 2020).

Research has indicated that exposure to conspiracy theories can erode trust in governmental institutions, posing a threat to democracy and societal trust. Additionally, the proliferation of such theories has been identified as a driving force behind extremism.

To grasp the dynamics of current politics, it's crucial to understand how conspiracy theories shape people's worldviews and how populist politicians exploit these beliefs for political advantage. While numerous scholars, including Karen Douglas and her colleagues (Douglas et al., 2017), have explored the former aspect, my focus lies on the latter. The examination of how populists utilise conspiracy theories for political leverage is both timely and necessary. This analysis pays particular attention to the relationship between conspiratorial thinking and Neo-Nationalism, specifically how nativist populists harness conspiracy theories to promote their agendas and bolster support for their movements. This chapter delves into the strategic use of conspiracy theories as discursive tools of political warfare. The concept of weaponisation is dissected into two facets: one, the use of conspiracy theories by politicians as a strategic tool for political ends, and two, the incitement of violent acts by adherents influenced by such rhetoric. These aspects are evident in all three case studies presented in this analysis.

The Eurabia Conspiracy Theory

The notion of Eurabia has profoundly impacted the socio-political landscape of Europe. This concept, suggesting a deliberate strategy for the Muslim populace to supplant Europe's indigenous Christian communities, has evolved from marginal roots to a significant theme in European political discussions. Tied closely with the broader anxieties about the Great Replacement, the Eurabia theory has been embraced and magnified by various neo-nationalist and populist factions, fundamentally transforming European politics and societal structures (Bracke & Aguilar, 2024).

Originating in the late twentieth century, the Eurabia conspiracy theory garnered substantial momentum following the 9/11 terrorist attacks and amid the 2015 Refugee Crisis. Initially disseminated among extreme right-wing groups through xenophobic and Islamophobic rhetoric, these notions gradually infiltrated broader political and social dialogues. This transition was facilitated by global and regional occurrences that intensified concerns over immigration and cultural identity, marking a pivotal shift in its acceptance among mainstream political figures and media platforms. Such a transformation indicates and has contributed to a rise in nativist populist parties in European political spheres (Eatwell & Goodwin, 2018).

Figures such as Victor Orbán of Hungary, Giorgia Meloni of Italy, Marine Le Pen of France, and Geert Wilders of the Netherlands have lent credence to aspects of the Eurabia narrative (Monaci et al., 2023). Often, their support is veiled in discourse championing national culture and identity, thereby legitimising xenophobic and Islamophobic prejudices and casting Muslim immigrants as existential dangers to European civilisation. The politicisation of the Eurabia theory has proven to be an effective means to mobilise support, particularly from constituents disillusioned by globalisation and shifting demographic landscapes (Bergmann, 2021).

The Eurabia theory is not standalone but continues a legacy of conspiracy theories targeting groups like Jews and Catholics (Dyrendal, 2017). These conspiracies generally involve elaborate schemes to undermine national sovereignty, frequently employed to rationalise socio-political transformations or unrest. The narrative structure and purpose of the Eurabia theory closely resemble these historical conspiracies, showcasing a continual tendency towards scapegoating and instigating fear during periods of societal flux.

The integration of once-extremist rhetoric into mainstream political and public discourse signifies a notable cultural transition in Europe. Propagated by both traditional and new media platforms, this discourse has normalised formerly extremist views, leading to an upsurge in xenophobic and racist attitudes that have fostered societal division and polarisation (van Prooijen et al., 2015). The skewed portrayal of Muslim communities and the overstatement of their demographic and cultural impact have perpetuated these attitudes, creating a distorted view of reality that challenges rectification (‘Pew Research Centre,’ 2017).

The influence of the Eurabia theory is also evident in the stricter immigration policies enacted across Europe. Political entities, including mainstream parties, have shifted towards more stringent immigration and integration policies, mirroring a wider move towards more restrictive and exclusionary approaches (Gońda et al., 2020). This shift, while partly a response to the Eurabia theory, also reinforces its narrative by depicting immigration and multiculturalism as threats. Furthermore, public perceptions of Muslims and immigrants have been significantly shaped by this theory, often leading to exaggerated assumptions about their numbers and impact, thus fostering a climate of fear and mistrust.

The proliferation of the Eurabia theory poses a significant threat to the foundational values of the European Union and the state of liberal democracy in several member states (Davey & Ebner, 2019). By undermining principles of tolerance, diversity, and human rights, the spread of this theory signals a move towards ethno-nationalism and exclusionary politics, directly opposing the principles of liberal democracy. Beyond mere discourse, the implications for policy, governance, and European societal structure are profound.

While primarily a European phenomenon, the Eurabia theory both mirrors and contributes to a worldwide surge in nationalism and xenophobia. Its effects on international relations, migration policies, and the discourse on global cultural and religious diversity demonstrate the capacity of such narratives to cross borders and influence global dynamics, highlighting the significant role these narratives play in shaping international affairs and societal perceptions.

The Deep State Conspiracy Theory

The conspiracy theory of the Deep State suggests the existence of a clandestine ruling class that exerts control over the United States government, effectively diminishing the authority of official governmental figures. This notion finds its roots in nations characterised by a history of military overthrows and a lack of democratic stability, gaining considerable traction in the political landscapes of the Middle East and North Africa from the 1960s onwards. The term ‘Deep State’ refers to the obscured power structures that function out of the public eye, encompassing sectors of the state machinery, criminal organisations, and powerful business entities (Gürpınar, 2019).

In American politics, the influence of conspiracy theories on political narratives and dynamics is longstanding (Hofstadter, 1964). For instance, the American populists of the late nineteenth century were driven by theories like the ‘Seven Financial Conspiracies,’ which accused English and American financiers of manipulating the populace (Sawyer, 2022). Similarly, the formation of the Republican Party in 1854 was spurred by the ‘Slave Power’ conspiracy theory, which articulated fears of domination by Southern slaveholders—a concern echoed by Abraham Lincoln and pivotal to his victory in the 1860 presidential election (Sawyer, 2022). In contemporary times, conspiracy theories continue to flourish within certain subcultures, spanning from allegations of governmental disarmament schemes to apprehensions of a universal communist plot, showcasing their lasting and occasionally violent effect on American societal dynamics.

The Deep State concept achieved renewed attention in the U.S. with the emergence of the Tea Party and Donald Trump's 2016 presidential victory (Horwitz, 2021). Nonetheless, the idea of unseen entities influencing American politics pre-dates these events, highlighted by President Dwight D. Eisenhower's (1961), caution against the ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ (MIC) in his farewell speech. This concern over the tight nexus between the military and defence sectors has fostered theories regarding a ‘shadow government’ or a ‘dual state’ secretly directing national affairs. Such apprehensions have also fueled the notion of a clandestine ‘fifth column’ working internally to assist external foes.

The ‘Red Scare,’ epitomised by Senator Joseph McCarthy, was a period rife with the dread of communist penetration into the U.S. government and society, lasting from 1947 to 1957. McCarthy infamously, and without substantiation, proclaimed to possess a list of communists within the State Department, employing aggressive and public Senate investigations that engendered an atmosphere of fear and distrust (Butter, 2022).

The Watergate scandal in the 1970s propagated further scepticism towards a covert internal state, with suggestions that intelligence and other governmental bodies sought to subvert the Nixon administration. Such conspiratorial motifs have permeated American culture, as evident in literature, films, and television.

The terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 in the United States gave birth to numerous conspiracy theories, ranging from accusations of a deliberate lack of intervention by President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair for political leverage to theories of a Bush administration-led false flag operation, insider trading, and a missile attack on the Pentagon (Barkun, 2013). These theories propelled conspiracy thinking into the mainstream, revealing significant public scepticism towards the official narratives. The rise of the 9/11 Truth Movement mirrored the escalation of politically charged conspiracy theories during Obama's presidency.

The Birther conspiracy theory, which disputed Barack Obama's natural-born U.S. citizenship, found substantial support within right-wing circles during his presidency, with platforms like Fox News amplifying this narrative, which also insinuated Obama's secret adherence to Islam, introducing an element of racism (Butter, 2022). Prominent figures, including Donald Trump and various Tea Party affiliates, propagated this theory, marking a period where previously peripheral conspiracy theories entered mainstream discourse. Surveys indicated widespread acceptance of these theories among Republicans, highlighting the potential of such narratives to polarise and shape political perspectives (Frankovic, 2016).

Donald Trump can firmly be classified as a populist figure. He might be the archetypical post-truth politician, as he didn’t seem to care much about whether he was telling the truth or uttering mere fabrications. Fact-checkers have calculated that during his presidency he made over 30.000 false or misleading claims, leading to a ‘Tsunami of Untruth’ (Van der Linden, 2023). Trump notably incorporated conspiracy theories into his political strategy (Butter, 2022). His 2016 campaign, marked by straightforwardness, anti-elitism, and collectivism, resonated with voters harbouring nativist and conspiratorial views. As president, he often alluded to the Deep State conspiracy, suggesting that a secretive faction within the government was hindering his agenda. This theory, promoted by conservative media, hinted at the involvement of military and intelligence sectors. Trump tactically alluded to conspiracies without outright endorsement, maintaining a level of ambiguity that influenced public opinion, with surveys showing widespread belief in the existence of a Deep State, further polarising U.S. political discourse.

The QAnon movement, emerging in 2018, brought the Deep State conspiracy theory to the forefront, positing that a high-level insider, ‘Q,’ was exposing plots against President Trump, including allegations of a worldwide child sex-trafficking ring implicating prominent Democratic Party figures (Jones, 2023). Despite the effort of mainstream media to debunk these tales, QAnon amassed a significant following, particularly among the far-right. This spread had a significant impact, which, for example, is evident by studies indicating that more than half of Americans now endorse at least one conspiracy theory (Van der Linden, 2023).

Anti-Western Conspiracy Theories

Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe witnessed a profound transformation in its political landscape. Russia's embrace and propagation of anti-Western conspiracy theories significantly influenced this change (Radnitz, 2023). These theories have not only mirrored but also actively influenced Russia's identity and its interactions on the global stage in the post-Cold War era.

Russia has a longstanding history with conspiracy theories, such as anti-Jewish sentiments, dating back to the Soviet era. The era following 1991, however, marked a pivotal shift. Initially perceived as an opportunity to adopt Western-style liberal democracy, the post-Soviet transition's failure to bring about expected prosperity led to a disillusionment with Western principles across the ex-Soviet states (Radnitz, 2021).

The beginning of the twenty-first century saw Vladimir Putin rise to power, marking a critical turning point for Russia. Leaving Boris Yeltsin's Western-friendly approach, Putin's governance veered towards illiberalism, shaping Russia into a near-authoritarian state. This period saw a resurgence in nationalism and conspiracy theories, reframed the West as an antagonist rather than a partner (Yablokov, 2018). These theories became tools for challenging Western hegemony and asserting narratives of Russia's besieged identity and greatness.

A notable shift in Putin's political narrative occurred in the mid-2000s, highlighted by events such as the Moscow terror attacks and the emergence of the ‘colour revolutions’ in nearby countries (Yablokov & Chatterje-Doody, 2023). Russia started to depict its challenges as stemming from a comprehensive Western conspiracy involving the U.S., the EU, NATO, and Western intelligence agencies. This perspective found echoes in Central European nations like Poland and Hungary, where conspiracy theories have underpinned efforts to consolidate political control and suppress civil liberties.

Media outlets have played a crucial role in spreading these conspiracy narratives. State-controlled media, particularly television, broadcasted government-sanctioned depictions of the West as a pervasive, malevolent force. Outlets like Russia Today (RT) and Sputnik News have served as international voices for these views, claiming to expose Western faults while using digital platforms and global networks to widen their reach (Yablokov & Chatterje-Doody, 2023).

The content of these anti-Western conspiracy theories encompasses several recurring themes: NATO's expansion is portrayed as an attempt to encircle and debilitate Russia; domestic protests and opposition are seen as Western meddling; and the West is depicted as a decaying society, contrasted against Russia's moral and cultural ascendancy. These narratives have extended to accusing Russia of meddling in Western democratic events, such as the Brexit vote and the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, and supporting European opposition movements to fracture Western cohesion (Snyder, 2018).

Under Putin, these anti-Western conspiracy theories have been strategically used to bolster the Kremlin's power, affirm Russia's national identity, and counteract Western influence. These narratives serve multiple purposes: domestically, they discredit the opposition, create a siege mentality, and rally support for the government; internationally, they aid Russia in projecting its power and influence, often through disruptive means in Western democracies. The revival of these conspiracy theories has had significant repercussions. Within Russia, they have facilitated the erosion of democratic standards and the fortification of an authoritarian regime (March, 2023). Internationally, they have strained relations with the West, destabilised the international order, and hindered collective responses to global challenges.

Instances involving the domestic protest punk band Pussy Riot and opposition leader Alexei Navalny demonstrate the Kremlin's approach to dissent, portraying them as Western agents and thereby justifying repressive measures against the opposition under the guise of protecting Russian sovereignty. This strategy has strengthened Putin's grip on power, casting him as the guardian of Russia against Western intrusion. In 2024, Navalny was found dead in prison after having been incarcerated for a long period on questionable grounds. Suspicions of the Kremlin being involved in his death were rampant (Roth, 2024).

Moreover, the dissemination of Russian conspiracy theories abroad has unsettled Western democracies, particularly through electoral interference, fostering global polarisation and complicating cooperative efforts against shared issues such as climate change, terrorism, and health crises. Leading up to the invasion of Ukraine, the Kremlin utilised conspiracy-oriented narratives to justify military action, which I will return to discussing later in this chapter.

Conspiratorial Populism

Conspiracy theories vary widely, ranging from the investigation of specific incidents, such as the assassination of President Kennedy, to the broad depiction of human civilisation's history and present as being manipulated by hidden forces. This analysis here focuses on various conspiracy theories intentionally crafted and disseminated by those in power for political advantage. Utilising the narrative that sinister forces are orchestrating events from the shadows is an effective means of political propaganda, effectively mobilizing support for those who promulgate such theories.

There is a notable correlation between the ascent of populist movements and the increasing visibility of conspiracy theories, highlighted by the natural tendency of populist figures to adopt conspiratorial views. Mark Fenster (2008) suggests that there is an intrinsic populist element to all conspiracy theories. It is, however, important to recognise that not every populist adheres to conspiracy theories, nor do all conspiracy theorists align with populist ideologies. Grigoris Markou (2022) posits that populism and conspiracy theories can operate independently of each other. However, the exploration in this chapter specifically examines how nativist populist groups are particularly inclined to fabricate and disseminate conspiracy theories.

Similar to populism, conspiracy theories offer critiques of powerful institutions, diverging from progressive critiques by simplifying the conflict into a binary opposition between the people and the elite, rather than presenting a detailed analysis of complex social structures. Populist conspiracism shifts attention away from the complexities of socio-economic issues towards animosity directed at specific individuals. In the context of our rapidly evolving, globalised, and technologically sophisticated world, the straightforward narratives offered by conspiracy theories hold a certain allure. One of their primary attractions is presenting a binary and oversimplified perspective of the world (Giry, 2017). By framing the world order as the result of evil deeds committed by elites against ordinary people, highly intricate social problems are reduced to a single, often simplistic explanation. This cognitive process can provide a sense of comfort.

Andrea Pirro and Paul Taggart (2023) articulate the concept of populist conspiracism as the dissemination of conspiracy theories by populist figures. They identify three intersecting themes between populism and conspiracy theories: Manichaeanism, victimhood, and a scepticism towards representative politics. Analysing the intersection of populist ideologies and conspiracy theories reveals a shared perspective that views society as bifurcated into malevolent elites and the virtuous masses (Bergmann & Butter, 2020). This approach tends to oversimplify complex issues by pinning them on a single nefarious entity, effectively blaming a minor yet supposedly evil group for the myriad of societal challenges and issues. Additionally, both conspiracy theories and populism tend to resonate with those who feel marginalised in socio-cultural and economic contexts.

This dichotomous view posits that the unsuspecting masses are preyed upon by sinister forces exploiting their innocence and goodness. Thus, both populists and conspiracy theorists adopt a Manichean outlook, crafting an external menace to their perceived in-group through their narratives. They employ a binary lens to interpret events, sharing a polarised perspective that narrates a struggle where a heroic underdog confronts a formidable villain. This polarisation, particularly within populism, manifests in the stark division drawn between ‘the people’ and ‘the elite.‘

Michael Butter (2020) notes that populist leaders are more inclined to invoke conspiracy theories than their mainstream counterparts, with members of populist movements showing greater openness to such theories. Research indicates a link between a predisposition for populism and a belief in conspiracy theories (Castanho Silva et al., 2017; Thórisdóttir et al., 2020). Partick Sawyer (2022) further illustrates how adopting conspiratorial narratives can advantageously position a populist candidate in electoral contests; a sentiment echoed in the studies of Rooduijn et al. (2016) and Zimmermann and Kohring (2020), which highlight how the spread of political dissatisfaction and misinformation can benefit populist agendas.

Populist actors leverage conspiracy theories to mobilise voter support, casting themselves as champions of ‘the people’ in their battle against a supposed ‘existential evil.’ This shared focus on the ‘elite’ by both conspiracy theorists and populists, and their penchant for depicting conflicts in clear-cut, dualistic terms, paves the way for populists to weave these elements into a compelling narrative. Within this narrative framework, the so-called ‘corrupt’ elite are portrayed as directly antagonistic to ‘the people's’ interests, involved in secretive and harmful conspiracies against the populace. Such narratives enable populist leaders to position themselves as steadfast defenders of ‘the people,’ validating their mission to save them from the ‘evil elite.’ This narrative alignment, in turn, fosters a deep and passionate support base among the electorate.

Numerous studies have documented the strategic use of conspiracy theories by politicians and activists to cultivate fear and distrust within societies. Karen Douglas (2017) highlights how Donald Trump strategically leveraged conspiracy theories to tap into the politicians’ and activists’ strategic use of conspiratorial suspicions of the electorate, using them as a tool for political gain. This tactic is not limited to any one political ideology; figures such as Silvio Berlusconi in Italy and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, as well as groups like the Alternative für Deutschland and the Five-Star Movement in Italy, have made conspiracy theories a staple of their political messaging, often casting them in a positive light. Andrea Piro and Paul Taggart's (2023) research into the practices of Viktor Orbán, Donald Trump, and Hugo Chavez illustrates the intentional application of conspiracy theories in their governance strategies.

Populist leaders often present themselves as authentic champions of the populace, taking a stand against perceived external dangers while also casting aspersions on domestic elites for purportedly undermining the public's welfare. This strategy entails pinpointing so-called enemies of the state. In Turkey, for instance, the government under President Recep Erdogan has floated numerous conspiracy theories alleging foreign conspiracies aimed at destabilising the nation. Similarly, Poland's nationalist Law and Justice party accused post-communist elites of conspiring to reinstate authoritarian rule, as noted by Davies (2016).

The National Rally in France, originally established as Front National by Jean-Marie Le Pen in 1973, is a vivid example of how populist movements embed conspiracy theories within their rhetoric. The party seamlessly blends populist ideology with conspiratorial narratives, framing the elite as co-conspirators against the common people. Initially focusing on a supposed communist plot during the Cold War, the National Rally claimed that communists were covertly manipulating global dynamics through entities like the UN, even suggesting their infiltration into the European Union and NATO, occasionally linking these plots to Jewish groups as part of a broader communist New World Order agenda. This stance allowed the party to critique the internationalisation efforts of France, accusing national elites of participating in a worldwide conspiracy against the French populace (Hauwaert, 2012).

Since its foundation, the National Rally has integrated conspiracy theories into its populist narrative, initially concentrating its critique on the French political establishment. By casting themselves as political outsiders, they accused the French elite of engaging in secretive dealings and collusion that betrayed national interests, asserting that mainstream political figures in France were complicit with international conspiracies, thus betraying the trust of the French people (Zúquete, 2018).

The Politics of Disinformation

As highlighted by Michael Butter and myself in 2020, there's a common tendency to conflate conspiracy theories with fake news and political disinformation, underscoring the importance of differentiating between bona fide conspiracy theories and other forms of populist narratives. Nevertheless, a critical aspect of understanding the spread of conspiracy theories is acknowledging the seismic shift in media dynamics brought on by the advent of digital media within just a few decades. This shift has significantly enabled conspiratorial populists to bypass traditional media gatekeepers, allowing them to directly share their divisive and polarising messages with the populace.

The distribution of false narratives to malign political rivals is hardly novel. Human societies have long circulated rumours, urban legends, and oral stories, with even reputable media outlets occasionally disseminating bogus stories throughout the twentieth century (Thalmann, 2019). Thus, the practice of spreading false narratives is not unprecedented. However, the period after World War II until the 1990s represented a zenith of controlled information flow through editorial boards, a situation that began evolving in the 1990s and markedly changed with the onset of the twenty-first century, coinciding with significant shifts in media landscapes (Butter, 2020).

The emergence of 24-hour news cycles has particularly facilitated the broadcast of misleading information by conspiratorial populists, a trend that has amplified the explosive growth of online platforms and social media. In this evolved media environment, conspiracy theories have found fertile ground for rapid dissemination, masquerading as legitimate news and proliferating across the political divide in both Europe and America like a blizzard (Compton et al., 2021).

Alongside these shifts in how information is distributed, alternative narratives that contest established truths have found a foothold, buoyed by the spread of fake news and what has become known as the politics of disinformation. This era of post-truth politics sees an overabundance of information overshadowing factual accuracy, with public discourse leaning heavily on emotional appeals and personal beliefs rather than empirical evidence (Van der Linden, 2023).

While the intrinsic nature of fake news hasn't changed with the advent of online and social media, the scope and speed of its distribution have undergone a complete transformation. These platforms have granted the public unparalleled and unfiltered access to an immense volume of information in a very short period, making the Internet the primary conduit for the propagation of conspiracy theories. The modern media landscape has thus made it easier than ever to weaponise conspiracy theories.

This deluge of information can be overwhelming, impairing the public's capacity to process the vast amounts of data they encounter meaningfully. The sheer volume of information makes it challenging for people to differentiate between truth and falsehood, leading to a scenario where, if everything is deemed true, then, essentially nothing is true. This saturation devalues rational discourse and undermines the principles of the Enlightenment, resulting in public debates that are increasingly detached from verifiable facts and allowing discredited notions to stand on equal footing with established truths (Mounk, 2018).

In the three overall cases explored here, there have been allegations of nefarious actors exploiting social media to manipulate public perception, bombarding users with content that barely reflects reality. This marks the dawn of an era dominated by information warfare, characterised by the malicious use of personal data as a weapon against individuals.

In this environment, conspiratorial populists thrive by fostering suspicions of the mainstream media and portraying facts as manifestations of an elitist conspiracy. With the eroding influence of traditional media's gatekeeping role, distinguishing between genuine news and fabricated reports distributed by dubious sources becomes an ever-greater challenge. Karen Douglas and her colleagues (2017) have shown that once a conspiracy theory gains traction, dispelling it proves exceedingly difficult.

This proliferation of false information extends into traditional media channels, where fake news infects the storytelling and is disseminated as truth. The spread of misinformation becomes cyclical when mainstream outlets, perhaps inadvertently, report these falsehoods as if they were verified facts, amplifying the reach and perceived credibility of fake news far beyond what social media platforms could achieve on their own. It is precisely this endorsement by mainstream media that lends unverified information its ultimate legitimacy (Bergmann, 2018).

In contemporary times, hardly any significant global event—be it military conflicts, aviation accidents, natural disasters, mass protests, or high-profile killings—escapes the clutches of conspiracy theories. Populist-driven conspiratorial thinking has deeply penetrated the fabric of democratic societies, transcending its previous status as a mere tool of powerless dissenters or an indicator of democratic dysfunction. It has become an integral aspect of the democratic discourse.

These developments have facilitated the migration of once-fringe conspiracy theories into the mainstream discourse, occasionally even garnering acceptance among established political figures. This shift illustrates the expansive reach of conspiratorial populism, which under certain conditions can snowball, gaining momentum and scale akin to an avalanche hurtling downhill, demonstrating the pervasive and escalating influence of such narratives within society.

Danger and Extremism

The increasing support for populist movements coupled with the rampant spread of conspiracy theories poses significant risks to societal stability. Populist conspiracy theorists often dismiss well-established scientific findings, placing their subjective beliefs on par with rigorously researched scientific data. As many scholars have warned, including (Barkun, 2013; Byford, 2011; Hofstadter, 1964; Popper, 1945), conspiracy theories carry the potential for harm. Hofstadter, in particular, viewed those who propagated conspiracy theories as a threat to public trust and societal harmony.

Historically, conspiracy theories have played roles in precipitating some of the most catastrophic events, including wars and genocides. Notorious leaders throughout history have embraced conspiracy theories, and various separatist groups have leaned into conspiracy theories as foundational to their ideologies. For instance, Jovan Byford (2011) observed that during the 1990s, Slobodan Milosevic's regime in Serbia heavily relied on conspiracy theories to frame the Yugoslav conflict. Similarly, Hugo Chavez's Venezuela used them to rationalise the country's economic woes and the repression of dissent, framing political opponents as traitors in league with foreign aggressors.

Researchers have frequently identified conspiracy theorists as a faction inclined towards violence and extremism, posing significant risks globally. Byford (2011) describes conspiracism as a constant element in fostering discrimination, anti-democratic sentiments, and violence, leading to authoritarianism and mass atrocities. Imhoff and Bruder (2014) established a direct correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and belief in conspiracy theories. Bartlett and Miller (2010) highlighted how conspiracy theories can serve as a ‘radicalising multiplier’ within extremist groups, indicating a higher likelihood among populist movement supporters to endorse conspiracy theories.

In America, Joe Uscinski and Joe Parent (2014) have shown how conspiratorial thinking can drive antisocial behaviours. At the same time, Daniel Jolley and Karen Douglas (2014) found a connection between conspiracy theorists and racist attitudes, as well as a diminished commitment to human rights and civil liberties.

Bartlett and Miller (2010) outline a three-stage path to extremism facilitated by conspiracy theories: they begin by demonising an ‘other’ or ‘enemy,’ then delegitimise moderate and dissenting voices by labelling them as conspirators, and ultimately, they may incite violence, portraying it as a necessary action to awaken the populace.

Conspiracy theories are adaptable to any political ideology, and while they can emerge across the political spectrum, they are particularly potent within ultra-nationalist movements (Bergmann, 2020). Far-right populists, for instance, who buy into anti-immigrant conspiracy theories, have been known to resort to violence, believing they are defending society against external and internal threats.

These theories are common among extremist groups, not limited to the far-right but also among groups like ISIS. They typically place blame on external entities rather than internal members of society, thus undermining societal trust. Research by Jan-Willem van Prooijen and colleagues (2015) in social psychology demonstrates that conspiracy theories can escalate extremism, prompting people to act violently against perceived conspiratorial authorities. Thus, they represent a clear danger to societal harmony, eroding public trust in government.

The Manichean dichotomy inherent in conspiracy theories promotes the vilification and dehumanisation of perceived adversaries, creating a stark ‘us versus them’ mentality. This framework facilitates the projection of personal grievances onto external groups. J.M. Berger (2018) notes that conspiracy theories often suggest secretive control by out-groups over the fate of the in-group through obscure and sinister means.

In essence, the normalisation and mainstreaming of previously fringe conspiracy theories, such as those targeting immigrants and other marginalised communities, can pose a grave threat to the fabric of democratic societies.

Weaponisation from the Top

Conspiracy theories often flourish in environments saturated with fear and insecurity, emerging from feelings of helplessness. This phenomenon led Joe Uscinski and Joe Parent (2014) to characterise these theories as predominantly a haven for the disenfranchised. Thus, much of the scholarly and media focus has been on those who feel disempowered. However, as detailed in this text, it's crucial to recognise that influential elites too engage in disseminating political conspiracy theories for their own ends. A critical examination of conspiracy theories requires distinguishing between those who accept and believe these theories and the political operatives who craft and propagate them to advance their agendas.

Historical and contemporary analyses often spotlight the marginalised or those challenging the status quo from the periphery. However, it is also important to study the spread of conspiracy theories by the very centres of power in modern democracies, who present them as counter-narratives or even official positions (Bergmann, 2025). This trend is for example evident in modern Russia, Hungary, Italy, and the United States under Trump's administration, where such narratives have sometimes become the state's official stance.

Populist leaders, once in power, encounter the paradox of maintaining their outsider status while governing. One strategy to navigate this paradox involves leveraging conspiracy theories to claim continuous threats against the people and their representatives, including themselves. This approach keeps the populace in a perpetual state of vigilance and support, framing the government as besieged by invisible enemies. Such theories prove particularly useful when populists face governance challenges or failures, allowing them to shift blame away from their inadequacies. By alleging the existence of a secretive elite working against them, they attempt to distract from their own failings and secure continued public loyalty despite now being part of the political establishment they critique (Ibid).

The proliferation of conspiracy theories as a political instrument in modern Western democracies marks a significant shift, moving these theories from the fringes to a more central role in political discourse. This shift effectively mainstreams previously marginalised ideas, granting them legitimacy when endorsed by influential figures. Such a development poses a considerable challenge to the foundational principles of liberal democracies, emanating from the very centres of power. Michael Butter and Peter Knight have documented how conspiracy theories increasingly translate into concrete actions, with a worrying trend towards actual violence among adherents. They note that narratives of crisis are being used to justify aggression against perceived adversaries, suggesting that violence is a necessary response to threats against one's group (Davey & Ebner, 2019). Experts like Schmidt et al. (2023) warn that the use of provocative language by prominent figures not only risks immediate harm but also cultivates a climate in which violence gains acceptance, especially when such rhetoric goes unchallenged.

Historically, the use of fearmongering by political elites is well-documented, with strategies of division and control being a staple in the arsenal of both autocrats and democratically elected leaders. Machiavelli's (1550) ‘The Prince’ is a prime example, advocating for manufacturing fear around external threats as a means of political control. Conspiracy theories have long been a tool for authoritarian leaders to silence opposition, with Jovan Byford (2011) observing that such theories are a common refuge for dictators and authoritarian regimes globally.

This examination here, however, highlights how contemporary populist political figures also utilise conspiracy theories strategically to bolster their political agendas. These theories are wielded as discursive weapons, enabling political actors to advance their own interests through the manipulation of public discourse. They illustrate a deliberate and calculated use of such narratives for political gain.

Non-conspiratorial and Conspiratorial Forms

In analysing the three primary conspiracy theories here in focus—Eurabia in Europe, the Deep State in the U.S., and anti-Western sentiment in Russia—a common thread becomes apparent: they all stem from public concerns that, in some instances, may be viewed as legitimate. These include apprehensions over swift immigration leading to demographic shifts in Europe, unease about an overreaching bureaucracy in the U.S. wielding excessive influence over public policy, and suspicions in Russia regarding Western antagonism. Such worries can be seen as rational to a degree.

When considering the Eurabia theory, it is vital to make a nuanced distinction: voicing concerns over the impact of Muslim migration on Europe’s societal and cultural fabric does not automatically translate into endorsing a conspiracy. History is replete with examples where invading populations have displaced indigenous groups through acts of aggression, such as the European colonisation of the Americas and Australia, which saw the subjugation of native peoples. Therefore, the fear of demographic replacement is not unfounded in historical reality, especially in colonial contexts where white settlers feared reclamation efforts by indigenous peoples.

This historical backdrop enhances the potency of the Great Replacement theory, particularly within populist circles. It balances on the edge between conspiratorial rhetoric and a racially tinged warning narrative, thus attracting a wide array of adherents. Nonetheless, when this theory evolves into claims of a secret plot by Middle Eastern entities to dominate Europe, it unequivocally ventures into conspiracy theory territory.

Similarly, the Deep State concept can be interpreted through both conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial lenses. Acknowledging concerns about state or bureaucratic entities undermining elected officials’ decisions does not necessarily amount to conspiracy theorising. Such a perspective might sometimes provide a legitimate critique of state power dynamics. Like the Eurabia theory, discussions on the Deep State can remain within the bounds of rational discourse until they allege a secret, nefarious group's systematic effort to erode democracy and public welfare, at which point they become conspiratorial.

Conversely, Russian concerns about Western hostility have a basis in reality, given actions by Western nations that could be perceived as adverse to Russian interests, such as NATO expansion, sanctions, and support for entities opposed to Russia. These concerns are rooted in historical actions perceived as threats to Russian national security and geopolitical stance.

However, the Kremlin's narrative goes further, portraying the West as involved in a deliberate plot to destabilise and weaken Russia through various means, including instigating internal unrest, covert operations, and attempts to reduce Russia's geopolitical influence. These conspiracy theories serve to frame the West as a malevolent actor against Russia.

The intriguing aspect of these theories is indeed found in their dual nature, manifesting in rational and conspiracy concerns, enhancing their appeal to diverse audiences. This analysis has shown how populist movements have harnessed these fears, sometimes hinting at conspiracy theories without fully articulating them, and at other times, openly promoting full-fledged conspiracy narratives. These include claims of deliberate ethnic cleansing in Europe, a hidden, malign force subverting democracy in the U.S., or the looming threat of a Western invasion of Russia.

Such populist conspiratorial thinking plays a crucial role in demonising perceived adversaries, often depicted as part of a conspiratorial elite. Thus, it fuels moral polarisation central to populist ideology. The identities of these purported conspirators vary, reflecting the ideological positions of the populist groups involved.

The Three-Step Rhetoric

As was mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, a threefold claim that nativist populists put forth in their support of the people can be identified—discursively creating an extraneous threat to the nation, accusing a domestic elite of betraying the people into the hands of the aggressors, and positioning themselves as the true defenders of the pure people they vow to protect, against both the elite and these malignant outsiders. Next, I will abridge all three cases for each rhetorical step.

First Step

In the context of the Eurabia conspiracy theory, Muslim migrants are portrayed as an external threat. This notion was, for example, notably utilised by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party, which capitalised on the Refugee Crisis by promoting the Great Replacement conspiracy theory in Germany (Davey & Ebner, 2019). The AfD framed migrants as external threats while depicting the Western German political elite as domestic betrayers. Similarly, as detailed in the book, Marine Le Pen echoed this sentiment in France. In the United Kingdom, figures like Nigel Farage used the Brexit vote as a platform to express concerns over the influx of Muslim migrants, particularly during the Syrian refugee crisis. Farage, for instance, claimed that ISIS combatants could infiltrate the UK disguised as Syrian refugees arriving from Turkey (Bennett, 2016). These examples and many others discussed in the book demonstrate how specific political figures and parties have used the theme of external threats—in this case, Muslim migrant—to advance their agendas and narratives.

In the United States, advocates of the Deep State theory perceive a threat against the American populace originating from a covert alliance of bureaucrats, intelligence agencies, and globalists, which includes elements of international finance (Porter, 2017). Within this narrative, even domestic entities are rhetorically externalised, portrayed as part of the Deep State, and thus alienated from the core nation. These groups are discursively transformed into ‘others,’ effectively being considered outsiders to the true essence of the national community.

Utilising the three-step rhetorical model in Russia, we observe that the West is cast as an external threat in the Kremlin's discourse. A recurring theme in state media suggests that the West seeks to destabilise Russia by backing opposition groups and advocating for regime changes (Radnitz, 2023). This narrative has been prominent in covering events like the 2014 Maidan protests in Ukraine and the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings. Additionally, President Putin has characterised separatist movements in the Caucasus as elements of a Western-led conspiracy aimed at weakening Russia.

Second Step

In all three cases, there's a vivid perception of treachery. The Eurabia conspiracy theory, which instils fear of subversion, is only its initial aspect. Its proponents are prone to portray an internal elite as traitors, comprised of globalists and social liberals. This theory fully materialises by alleging that a domestic elite, labelled as cultural Marxists, is deliberately surrendering ordinary citizens to external evil forces. This forms the first two stages of the neo-nationalist rhetorical triad: sounding an alarm about an impending, typically overstated, external menace (Muslim migrants) and accusing internal betrayers (the multiculturalist domestic elite) of treachery.

For instance, the Identitarian movement in France, Italy, and other countries in Western Europe blames mainstream liberal democratic leaders for weakening European culture by allowing unfettered immigration and foreign cultural influences (Zúquete, 2018). During the Brexit discussions, the EU was similarly accused of betraying British interests by permitting unchecked Muslim migration into the UK. Nigel Farage notably described them as ‘hordes’ of foreigners. The migration debate took on a distinctly xenophobic tone, associating migrants with the loss of British cultural identity and its degradation. A parallel scenario unfolded in Sweden, with the Sweden Democrats alleging that the Swedish government was covertly altering the country’s demographic construction (Gefira, 2018). They claim the government was executing a deliberate nation replacement strategy to combat the challenges of a dwindling birth rate.

In the United States, the proponents of the Deep State theory aimed to unravel a hidden government within the legitimately elected government, primarily globalists and members of the Democratic Party elite who were believed to be working against the public's interests. The theory further evolves into its second step, which involves a more direct accusation against the Democratic Party elite. These elites were depicted as influential figures and outright internal traitors (Blazakis et al., 2022). The theory suggests that these internal traitors within the Democratic Party, in collusion with foreign entities or ideologies, were orchestrating policies and actions that harm the nation's core principles and the well-being of its populace.

The internal traitors were accused of being in league with covert external actors—forces deemed antagonistic to American values and interests. This narrative paints a picture of a betrayal at the highest levels of government, where the good American people, often represented as the average, hardworking citizens, are portrayed as the victims of this betrayal. This dichotomy polarises public opinion and often fuels political rhetoric that is deeply divisive and mistrustful of established governmental institutions.

In Russia, dissenting voices were often dismissed as infiltrators serving Western interests. In the second step of the rhetorical model of conspiratorial populists, the government, led by Vladimir Putin, accused various domestic actors of colluding with these external adversaries. Putin claimed that the West funded opposition groups and NGOs in Russia to incite unrest and overthrow the government (Yablokov, 2018).

Protestors within the country were similarly branded as internal traitors. This narrative, framing external threats and internal betrayals, enables the Kremlin to label many opponents as state enemies. High-profile figures like opposition leader Alexei Navalny and the punk rock band Pussy Riot were categorised as agents of external forces.

This portrayal of internal dissent as part of a larger Western scheme to destabilise Russia has become a prevailing theme. Criticism from abroad, particularly regarding the treatment of figures like Pussy Riot, Navalny, or other protestors, was quickly dismissed as part of this alleged external conspiracy. This tactic of discursively externalising internal dissent allowed the Russian government to view critical international reporting as further evidence of a Western conspiracy. This political narrative gave the authorities a powerful tool to attribute nearly any internal challenge or setback to this perceived external enemy and its supposed domestic collaborators.

Third Step

The conspiratorial populist rhetorical model reaches its culmination when nativist leaders, like Le Pen in Europe, Trump in the US, and Putin in Russia, cast themselves as the protectors of the populace against both external threats and the treacherous domestic elite. These populists position themselves as the authentic defenders of their people.

In Europe, numerous neo-nationalist leaders have adopted this approach, particularly in propagating the Eurabia variant of the Great Replacement theory. Notable figures like Jean-Marie and Marine Le Pen in France, Pia Kjærsgaard in Denmark, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, Nigel Farage in the UK, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, and Jimmie Åkesson in Sweden all presented themselves as the legitimate guardians of their nations against perceived Muslim invasions (Smith, 2022).

Donald Trump and the entire MAGA movement have similarly adopted this role in the United States. They positioned themselves as the nation's saviours, completing the final phase of conspiratorial nativist populism by claiming to defend the American people against the Deep State.

Vladimir Putin has strategically positioned himself alongside the people in Russia, creating a unified front against external adversaries and perceived internal traitors. This approach effectively merges the leader and the populace into a single entity in discourse, a tactic similar to what Donald Trump employed in the United States with the Deep State theory and various European nativist populist leaders with the Eurabia theory.

This narrative framework is particularly evident when examining Russia's invasion of Ukraine (Blanco, 2022). The Kremlin employed the same three-step rhetorical model standard among conspiratorial nativist populists. This narrative casts the West as the external aggressor, while the Kyiv authorities are labelled internal traitors. The Kremlin and the Russian military were thus portrayed as the defenders against these threats, claiming to protect not only Russian sovereignty but also the ethnic Russians purportedly endangered in a hostile Ukraine. This rhetoric served to justify the invasion and rally domestic support by framing Russia as a besieged nation defending its people and interests.

In all the cases examined here, populist leaders used the three-step rhetorical framework characteristic of conspiratorial nativist populism. They first construct an external threat and then recast internal actors, often protestors or other political opponents, as traitors. Completing this framework, these leaders position themselves as protectors of the nation against these fabricated external dangers in the third and final step. This strategy capitalises on fears instilled in the populace, allowing leaders to present a binary worldview. Within this narrative, dissenting voices are conveniently branded as enemies in a larger struggle, aligning with neither the people nor the national interest. In this process, the leader symbolically merges with the populace, creating a unified front against external adversaries and internal betrayers. This discourse not only galvanises support but also legitimises the suppression of opposition, framing the leader as the embodiment of the people's will and interest.

Leading to Violence

In this chapter, I have explored the multifaceted weaponisation of conspiracy theories. This concept has a two-dimensional meaning: Populistic leaders use conspiracy theories discursively as rhetorical weapons, and they also inspire followers of conspiratorial leaders to commit violent acts. This tendency towards violence is often fuelled by processes of dehumanisation, akin to the treatment of Jews in Nazi Germany, where derogatory terms like ‘rats’ and ‘fungus’ were used, stripping them of their humanity.

Focusing on the Eurabia conspiracy theory, we see this tactic now aimed at Muslims. This theory has inspired violent acts and terrorism, notably in high-profile attacks by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway, Thomas Mair in the UK, and the perpetrators of the Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand (Bergmann, 2018). These attackers framed their violence as a defensive response to the perceived threat posed by Muslim communities to European or Western civilisation. Such acts underscore the severe real-world consequences of these conspiratorial beliefs. These perpetrators, after casting their victims as out-groups with different values, found it easier to justify their violent actions.

The Eurabia conspiracy theory has markedly influenced European political and social landscapes, reflecting deeper socio-political transformations across the continent. Its progression from fringe to mainstream, exploited by political leaders and linked to extremist violence, underscores critical challenges for liberal democracies today. Europe's encounter with the complexities of an increasingly diverse society is exacerbated by the enduring presence of the Eurabia theory, underscoring the profound impact of narratives on shaping public perception, policy-making, and historical direction.

In the United States, the tangible effects of conspiracy theories on inciting violence are evident. The Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh on April 19, 1995, serves as a stark example. Driven by beliefs in Deep State conspiracies and anti-government sentiments, McVeigh's act, which claimed 168 lives, was a form of retribution for the Waco siege, fuelled by various conspiracy beliefs, including those about UFOs. His association with white supremacists and anti-government groups illustrates the widespread anti-government attitudes within certain U.S. factions.

The assault on a Washington, D.C., pizzeria by Edgar Maddison Welch in 2016, motivated by the baseless ‘PizzaGate’ conspiracy, and crimes perpetrated by QAnon adherents, believing they were fighting child exploitation, highlight the perilous impact of such theories. The emergence of groups like the Proud Boys and the Boogaloo movement amidst racial unrest and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 further underscores the role of conspiracy beliefs in spurring violence. Studies indicate that about 75 per cent of Trump voters believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen from him (Van der Linden, 2023). This helped to incite the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot, fuelled by conspiracy theories, with extremists seeking to reverse the 2020 election outcome. The attack signifies the deep entrenchment of such ideologies within American politics, notably the Republican Party.

In Russia, conspiracy theories have also spurred violent acts, particularly in the Kremlin's tactics against perceived adversaries. Allegations of Kremlin-directed assassinations, such as the cases of Alexander Litvinenko and the Skripals in the UK, as well as Alexi Navalny in 2024, though officially denied by Russia, are countered with claims of Western conspiracy. The narrative extends to Russia's involvement in Ukraine, blaming Western interference for the 2014 upheaval and justifying the Crimea annexation and Donbas intervention by alleging threats to ethnic Russians from supposed neo-Nazi factions in Ukraine. These claims escalated to rationalise the 2022 Ukraine invasion, reviving theories of Ukraine as a Western puppet and asserting the invasion's goals were to dismantle supposed Nazi influences, portray Ukraine as controlled by the West, and protect Russian-speaking minorities in eastern Ukraine from perceived oppression.

Russia's defence for its actions in Ukraine—citing the need to purge Nazi elements, depicting Ukraine as a Western vassal, and alleging the protection of Russian speakers—mixes truth and fabrication to cast Russia as a defender against Western hostility. This strategy of reinterpreting conflicts to garner support and depict Russia as the beleaguered party against dominant external foes illustrates the strategic deployment of conspiracy theories in populist rhetoric, leveraging partial truths to legitimise aggression and rally the people to back the authorities.