Conspiracy Theorists OK: Government Dupes Clueless, Humorless

15
1020

Psychology Professor Demonstrates: “Conspiracy theorists” OK; government dupes clueless, humorless

Coast to Coast Radio just canceled its plans to broadcast a show tonight on my widely-read Press TV article on research suggesting that “conspiracy theorists” are saner than government dupes.

Here is the listing they just took down:

Note that they did not even link my article!!!

Apparently they had planned to give Michael Wood, the author of one of the studies I cited, a platform to attack my article – while refusing to even link the article, much less invite me on the air to defend it. When I protested, and asked that they allow me to defend my article, Coast to Coast decided to pull the show. They replaced it with a show on cetaceans:

 

You don’t have to be a “paranoid conspiracy theorist” to wonder why Coast to Coast is so averse to giving me a fair hearing.

Below is my new article rebutting Wood’s attack on my Press TV piece.

-KB

 Psychology professor demonstrates: “Conspiracy theorists” OK; government dupes clueless, humorless

 

Are the people labeled “conspiracy theorists” saner than those who use such insulting terms to avoid real debate?

 

Psychologist Michael Wood offers evidence that the answer is “yes” – both in his research, and by way of personal example. Wood’s clueless, humorless response to my recent Press TV article about his research raises questions about his own psychology. Wood’s just-canceled stint on Coast to Coast radio tonight* – a show that reaches millions of listeners – suggests that my article touched a raw nerve, forcing the Operation Mockingbird operatives who control big media to “push back” against Press TV…then pull back their pushback plan when they realized I could make mincemeat of Wood.

Wood co-authored a recent study showing that people who reject “conspiracy theories” are more hostile, and more ardently convinced that they know the truth about disputed events, than the more open-minded people who question official wisdom.

These findings overturn received mainstream opinion. The mainstream media and academy have promoted a CIA-engineered negative stereotype of “conspiracy theorists” (a term coined by CIA psychological warfare experts).** According to the CIA-fabricated pejorative stereotype, the “conspiracy theorist” is a hostile crank adamantly wedded to his own interpretation of a disputed event, such as the JFK assassination or 9/11. In reality, it turns out that the opposite is the case: Opponents of “conspiracy theories” are the hostile fanatics who think that they are in full possession of the truth; while those who dispute official opinion, and question events like 9/11, are less hostile and more open-minded.

Wood and Douglas’s findings will come as no surprise to anyone who has participated in comment-section debates. But they are significant because nobody in the mainstream media or academy has ever officially admitted such a thing before.

My Press TV article publicizing Wood’s research was read by millions of people, in part due to my sly use of humor and irony. One would think Wood would be grateful, and that he would at least have a good laugh at the way his findings torpedo officially-sanctioned stereotypes. Instead, he launched a flimsy, deceptive, utterly humorless counter-attack against my article.***

Whence such ingratitude? Presumably Wood is afraid that my interpretation of his research will get him labeled “pro-conspiracy-theory” – the kiss of death in the Western academy.

I understand Wood’s concern. I lost two University of Wisconsin teaching jobs, including one as a tenure-track Arabic-Humanities professor, due to my research, publication, and activism questioning the official story of 9/11.**** My net financial losses totaled more than two million dollars in projected lifetime earnings. And I have been subjected to an orchestrated campaign of media vilification, covert harassment, and innumerable death threats.

No wonder Wood is scrambling to backtrack on his own findings.

In his lame attempt to discredit me, and save himself from career damage and harassment, Wood admits that I am right about his two key findings: “Conspiracy theorists” are less hostile and more open-minded than their opponents. But move along folks, nothing to see here! In a deceptive maneuver, Wood tries to shift attention away from those core findings and toward two peripheral issues: Are there really more “conspiracist” comments than “conventionalist” comments? And do “conspiracists” really discuss historical context more than “conventionalists”?

The answers:

Yes, there are more “conspiracist” comments than “conventionalist” comments, if we are counting comments that explicitly argue a “conspiracist” or “conventionalist” position. Wood thinks that maybe if we counted comments that simply take a position for granted, there would be more “conventionalist” comments. Maybe so. Who cares? The point is that Wood only tallied the comments that explicitly argue a position, and found that “conspiracist” comments outnumbered “conventionalist” comments by more than two to one! Obviously, the on-line DEBATE is being dominated by the people Wood and the CIA pejoratively term “conspiracists.”


Wood’s final quibble with my article is correct but trivial. He says I was wrong in claiming that his study showed that “conspiracists” cite historical context more than “conventionalists.”

Wood is right; I was confused by a misleading Medical Xpress summary of Wood’s findings: “Comments promoting 9/11 conspiracy theories were more likely to promote unrelated conspiracy theories, such as those about the deaths of John F. Kennedy and Princess Diana.” I took this to mean that “conspiracists” argue correctly that there is an obvious relationship between many of these unprosecuted high crimes – which, though it may be true, is not precisely what Wood’s data showed.

But once again, who cares? The bottom line of Wood’s study, as Wood himself admits, is that “conspiracy theorists” tend to be non-hostile and open-minded, while “conventionalists” tend to be hostile and narrowly wedded to a single perceived “truth.”

Wood’s deceptive attempt to obfuscate his own findings reveals that he is a propagandist, not a scientist. His uncritical use of the pejorative term “conspiracist” – the product and tool of a massive and ongoing CIA mind-control operation – shows that his real job is “manufacturing consent” rather than seeking the truth.

Please contact the Coast to Coast radio show http://www.coasttocoastam.com/pages/contact and ask host George Noory to let me debate Michael Wood on this issue.


* http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2013/07/28 (the conspiracy show has now been replaced by “whales and dolphins in captivity”)

** In his book Conspiracy Theory in America (U. of Texas Press, 2013) Professor Lance deHaven-Smith cites indisputable evidence that the CIA invented the term “conspiracy theorist” and forced it into widespread circulation in the 1960s in order to cover up its murder of President John F. Kennedy.

*** Wood’s counter-attack against my Press TV article is posted at: http://conspiracypsych.com/2013/07/13/setting-the-record-straight-on-wood-douglas-2013/

**** Former University of Wisconsin-Whitewater Dean of Humanities Howard Ross has testified that I was turned down for a 2006 Arabic-Humanities job for purely political reasons due to my 9/11 research, after political pressure was exerted on the hiring committee. The position went unfilled, and a six-figure federal grant was returned.

15 COMMENTS

  1. We came a long way since the Kennedy years when using the word “they” made you a mentally confused conspiracy victim. Made writing difficult at the University where you were attacked not so gently with “they WHO?, what do you mean by “they?”

  2. email sent to C2C. I don’t expect a reply from them and if there is one it’s sure to be lame.

    Undeniable Ignorance on C2C’s Part

    Instead of ‘pulling’ the CONSPIRACISTS show for the evening of July 28, 2013 and then quickly replacing it with another topic, you SHOULD have had both WOOD AND BARRETT on to debate. A cancel? Who’s back pocket are you in? And to think I was completely unaware this may of been the way things are run at Coast. Sad that you took this route. I won’t be listening to the show anymore and do hope considerably more people follow in the same disgust I now feel towards your Media Controlled programming. My opinion of C2C has gone completely downhill and you may as well bring back JC (which I sense was another ruse for ratings) and give him Punnetts newly freeded-up space. Your credibly just toppled for the worst.

    At least Art would have had the knackers to broadcast this instead of bailing away from the subject.

  3. Of course..the crazy ones DEFEND th Zelikow-O’Reilly non-sensical version of 9-11..

  4. Every time the dummies do this they just put another nail in their coffins. They seem to forget how fast news like this can travel on the Net. Word of the penetration of alternate media by the main targets it began attacking to create chaos and confusion is getting widely known.

    All of your major Intel agencies have huge internet disinformation campaigns. The Israelis have wikileaks, a huge Intel coup to be at the crossroads to control what people can know, and not know. And they were slick enough to make it self funding also, an Israeli trademark…make the victim pay.

  5. Every time the dummies do this they just put another nail in their coffins. They seem to forget how fast news like this can travel on the Net. Word of the penetration of alternate media by the main targets it began attacking to create chaos and confusion is getting widely known.

    All of your major Intel agencies have huge internet disinformation campaigns. The Israelis have wikileaks, a huge Intel coup to be at their crossroads to control what people can know, and not know. And they were slick enough to make it self funding also, and Israeli trademark…make the victim pay.

    • The “Truthers are Winning” College campuses are now having actual classes now to keep the Governments supported version (sic) of 9/11 lie going. You know your Winning when this takes place.

      Which should be treated as no different then the Seal’s deaths, Usama Bin Laden’s faked raid, Pat Tillman killed by his own or Benghazi survivors who were forced to sign “Shut Up” Orders.

      The United States can’t survive on its lies of killing millions over the years nor can Israel as long as we have the Internet. The PressTV YouTube ban being removed from feeds is a clear example that “Truth is Winning.”

      Good article also Kevin.

  6. Seeing what the people of this nation has done to my home country (I do have a valid birth certificate,) and hearing their words yet seeing their deeds, they have a lot of audacity to think I am going to believe anything they say, and accept anything they do.
    They are nothing but traitors to this nation and its traditions.
    Born when Truman was president, hearing Eisenhower warn us, Kennedy defend us ,discovering Johnson permitted the assassination to avoid prison, becoming president then lying to get us more deeply into Vietnam, saw Nixon resign in disgrace, laughed when Warren Commission member Ford become president and pardoned Nixon, Carter being betrayed by ex-CIA director Bush, Reagan getting shot by how own VP’s good friend’s son, illegal wars, Clinton getting serviced in my White House showing such disrespect for what we provided for him and his wife, lil boy Bush and his stolen elections and giving the news reporters the finger, and claiming my Constitution that he swore to preserve, protect and defend is just a piece of paper, and then this man Obama who’s own wife told us all his native country is Kenya, yet he produces a forged birth certificate among other lies and misdeeds, I am supposed to believe whatever they say or do and look up to them and teach my children to respect what they are doing, and hold them in high esteem for their dedicated work for the preservation of freedom, independence, stability and growth of my country?
    I hope they do consider me hostile, and a malcontent. We all should be malcontents. We all should march down Pennsylvania Avenue right into our own White House and demand some accountability and respect for the lifestyle we provide these clowns.
    Not to worry Dr. Barrett. We the People… have 20/20. We’ve been watching them over the past 50 years. They’ve made us hostile and malcontents. They can call me what they want. They lost credibility a ling time ago!!

  7. Superb article (as usual). Nails down zio interference in any honest discussion of how academia and the major mass media are used as propaganda dispensors for the zio power structure that hijacked the American political system (aka the zio Isreali-American dual citizen infil-Traitors or NeoCons).

    There is absolutely no academic freedom in the American higher education/University system. It is all controlled by zio infil-Traitors. No courses teaching how neocons and USAF did 911 or Murrah or any other USG organized RICO crime such as massive CIA illegal trafficking in narcotics all around the world as well as into America for massive black operations funding. No courses in pernicious usury which is stock and trade for the zio private central bank or how it is comlletely unConstitutional and debases money. All such subjects are a strict taboo including how the CIA’s Op40 and JCS assassinated JFK, RFK, MLK, etc. American higher education is a joke and takes students far from any real political or economic truth.

    What was done to Dr. Barrett as far as preventing him from attaining high success (which he would have) in his teaching career was wrong as well as criminal. The day is coming when these infil-Traitors will be fully exposed, comletely trashed in the public’s opinion and driven out of all positions of power with many to jail for their crimes which include espionage against America, bribery, human compromise, abuse of process and obstruction of justice. Dr. Barrett is a kind man, a good man, a great teacher and deserved to be treated decently by the University, which he wasn’t.

    I for one appreciate Dr. Barrett’s fine articles and great humor. Please keep em coming. Thanks for all that you have given us.

Comments are closed.