by Dr. Kevin Barrett
from PressTV Website
Recent studies by psychologists
and social scientists in the US and UK
suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes,
those labeled "conspiracy theorists"
appear to be saner than those
who accept the official versions of contested events.
The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK).
About Building 7? A Social Psychological Study of Online Discussion
of 9/11 Conspiracy Theories," the study compared
"conspiracist" (pro-conspiracy theory) and "conventionalist"
(anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.
In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one.
That means it is the pro-conspiracy
commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom,
while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small,
Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well.
According to them, their own theory of 9/11 - a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan - was indisputably true.
The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11:
In short, the new study by Wood and
Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy
theorist - a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe
theory - accurately describes the people who defend the official
account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.
It also found that the so-called
conspiracists to not like to be called "conspiracists" or
Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called "conspiracy theorists": The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination!
In other words, people who use the terms "conspiracy theory" and "conspiracy theorist" as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination.
That campaign, by the way, was
completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals;
the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks
the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to
An obvious example is the link between
the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for
presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith,
we should always discuss the "Kennedy assassinations" in the plural,
because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same
She points out, in an article published
in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people
are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against
democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that
conflicts with pre-existing belief.
In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled "Dangerous Machinery - 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion," they wrote:
But now, thanks to the Internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the "conspiracy theory" smear is nearly worn-out.
In academic studies, as in comments on
news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous - and
more rational - than anti-conspiracy ones.