A newly released study by psychologists and social scientists in both the United States and the UK is bound to ‘shock the world’, for it has found that those who believe in ‘conspiracy theories’ are considered ‘more sane’ than those who believe in the ‘official versions’ of the ‘contested events’. For most Beforeitsnews readers, this is simply not shocking in the least bit, in fact, it is quite common knowledge.
For Americans who still
believe the ‘accepted versions’ of stated events, it’s quite possible
that they will continue to stay ‘insane’, and hostile! In fact, those
now believing the ‘conspiracy theory’ version of events now outnumber
those believing the ‘statist propaganda’ TWO TO ONE! Americans are
quickly awakening to hidden truths; is it too late? This fact sure would
explain why TPTB are so eager to crackdown on Americans. If I were to
recommend ONE ‘conspiracy theory’ video for those who haven’t ‘awoken’
to watch, I’d recommend the banned ‘Conspiracy Theory’ with Jesse
Ventura embedded at the bottom of this story about the Police State and
FEMA Camps in America. We’re running out of time and only MASS AWAKENING
may save this country and our very lives and the lives of our children
and loved ones. Much more below.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). Entitled “What 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.
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” 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, beleaguered minority.
Beforeitsnews has SEVERAL very hostile commenters on our website, however, those leaving hostile comments are often banned, such as our ‘anonymous mailinator’ friend who has been banned AT LEAST 8 times for leaving extremely hostile and threatening messages on our website. I’m quite sure that you’ll be reading this, ‘mailinator’ and my guess is you’ll leave another comment, re-registering under ANOTHER free & disposable ‘mailinator’ email address going by something along the lines of aaa111 or bbb222 or ccc333 @mailinator.com as you’ve done at least 8 times going by your most recent email address. So, why are folks like ‘mailinator’ so incredibly hostile? More from the study below…
Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”
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: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”
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.
No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.
