“Well I, I’ve been a journalist for about twenty-five years and I was educated to lie to betray and the not to tell the truth to the public. But seeing right now within the last months how, how far, how the German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia, this is a point of no return and, I stand, I am going to stand up and say, um, it is not right what I have done in the past. To manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia and, it is not right what my colleagues do and, have done in the past because they are bribed to betray the people, not only in Germany all over Europe“.
“The reason writing this book was that I, I am very fearful of a new war in Europe and, I don’t like to have this situation again because war is not never coming from itself, there is always people behind it to push for war and, this is not only politicians this is Journalists to“.
“And I just have written in the book how we have betrayed in the past our, our readers just to push for war and, because I don’t want this anymore, I’m fed up with this propaganda. We live in a banana republic and not in a democratic country, where we have press freedom, where we have human rights, when we. If you see the German media especially my colleagues who day by day write against the Russians who are in transatlantic organizations and, who are supported by the United States to do so. People like me I got, I became honorary citizen of the state of Oklahoma in the United States, just why? Just because I wrote pro-American, I wrote pro-American. I was supported by the Central Intelligence Agency, by the CIA, why? Because I should be pro-American, I, I’m fed up with it, I don’t want to do it anymore and so I, I’ve just written a book not to earn money, now it will cause a lot of trouble for me just to, to give the people in this country, Germany, in Europe and, all over the world, just to give them a glimpse of a view what goes up behind the closed doors“.
“Yes, there is many examples for that, we, if we go by just back to history, if you go into the year in 1988, if you go to your archives you will find in March 1988 that there was a, a, in Iraq, in a sub, in Iraq the Kurdish people have been gassed with poisoned gas, that is known all over the world. But in July 1988 they sent me to a town called Zubaydat, that is on the Iraqi/Iranian border. There was, it was war between the Iranians and the Iraqis and, I was sent there to photograph how the Iranians have been gassed with poisoned gas, with German poisoned gas, you call it LOST and Sarin, mustard gas made by Germany, they have been gassed and, I was there to make photographs how these people have been killed by poison gas made from Germany. When I came back to Germany there was just one small photo in a newspaper, in the Frankfurter Allgemeine and, there was one small article, not writing how impressive brutally, how inhuman, how terrible it was to kill half, to kill decades after the end of the second world war people with German poisoned gas“.
“So this was a situation, I feel misused, for, for, for having been there and just to give a documentary what has been done, but not been allowed to cry out to the world what we have done behind closed doors. Up to today it’s not well known in the public that it was German public gas, there have been hundreds of thousands of people gassed in this city of Zubaydat“.
“Now you ask, what have I done for intelligence agencies? So please see, most of the journalists you’ll see in foreign countries they claim to be journalists and, they might be journalists, European or American journalists, but, many of them like me in the past are so-called non official cover, that’s what the Americans call that. I have been a non-official cover, non-official cover means what? It means you to work for an intelligence agency, you help them if they want you to help them. But, they will never, never, when ah, when you, when you are, when you are locked, or when they find, when they find out that you are not only a journalist but a spy to, they will never say ‘oh this was one of our guys’, they will not know you, that means non-official cover. So I have helped them in several situations and, the, I feel ashamed for that too now. Like I feel ashamed that I have worked for very recommended newspaper like the Frankfurter Allgemeine because I was bribed by billionaires, I was bribed by the Americans not to report exactly the truth. But I just imagined in my car while I was driving to this interview I just tried to work out in my brain what would have happened if I would have written a pro Russian article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine. Well I don’t know what would have happened but we were all educated to write pro-European, pro-American, but please not pro-Russian. So I am very sorry for that, but this is not what I understand for democracy and, for press freedom, I’m very sorry of for that“.
“Well Germany, yes I understand your question very well, Germany is still a kind of a colony of the United States, you’ll see that in many points. Like the majority of the Germans don’t want to have nukes in our country, but we still have American nukes, so we are still it kind of a colony of the Americans. And being a colony it is very easy to approach young journalists through what is very important here is transatlantic organizations, all journalists from really respected and recommended big German newspapers, magazines, radio stations, TV stations, they are all members or guests of those big transatlantic organizations. And in these transatlantic organizations you are approached to be pro-American and, there is nobody coming to you and, say ‘well we are the central intelligence agency, would you like to work for us’. No, this is not the case how it happens, what they do these transatlantic organizations is ah, they invite you, they invite you for seeing the United States, they pay for that, they pay all your expenses and everything. So you are bribed, you get more and more corrupt because they make a good contacts. You won’t know that those good contacts are lets say non-official, non-official covers or officially people working for Central Intelligence Agency or other American agencies. So you make friends, you think they are friends and, you cooperate with them, they try, they ask you ‘well could you do me this favor, could you do me that favor’ and, so your brain is more and more brainwashed through these guys. And your question was is this only the case with German journalists, no I think it is especially the case with British journalists because they have a much closer relationship, it is especially the case I with israelis, ofcourse with French journalists, for a part, not that big as with German or with British journalist. It is the case for Australian journalists, for journalists from New Zealand, from Taiwan, from well, there is, there is many countries. Countries in the Arab world like Jordan for example, like Oman, the Sultanate of Oman, there is many countries where this happens, where you, where you find people to the, to claim they are respected journalists, but if you look behind them you’ll find the, they are puppets on a string of the Central Intelligence Agency“.
“I’m sorry for interrupting you, I’ll give you one example, sometimes the intelligence agencies they come to your office and, want you to write an article. I’ll give you an example, not from strange other journalists, from me myself, I’ve just forgotten the year, I just remember that the German foreign intelligence, Bundesnachrichtendienst, it is just the on a sister organization of the Central Intelligence Agency, it was founded by the American intelligence agency. So one day the BND, this German foreign intelligence agency came to my office at the Frankfurter Allgemeine at Frankfurt and, they wanted me to write an article about Libya and about Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. I had absolutely no secret informations regarding Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and Libya, but they gave me all the, these secret informations and the, they just wanted me to write, to, to sign the article was my name. I did that but, it was an article that was published in the Frankfurter Allgemeine that originally came from the Bundesnachrichtendienst, from the German foreign intelligence agency. So do you really think that this is journalism, intelligence agencies writing articles“.
“Oh yes, that article I, I have reprinted it partly in my book, that article was how Libya and, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, how he secretly tried to build a poison gas factory, I think in Rabta was the name, yes. And I got all those information, it was a story that was printed worldwide two days later, but it I had no information on that, it was the intelligence agencies that wanted me to write this article. But this is not the way journalism should work that intelligence agencies, that they decide what is printed and what not“.
“If I say no I give you an example from, a very good example if you say no. Well we have a, a rescue unit in Germany with helicopters for traffic accidents, it’s called, they call themselves the Yellow Angels. There was one guy who, who didn’t want to cooperate, he was a pilot of the helicopter service of the Yellow Angels in Germany, this guy said no to the foreign intelligence service Bundesnachrichtendienst when they approached him and wanted him as a non-official cover to work for are the German Foreign Intelligence Agency and, just to pretend to be somebody from the, the Yellow Angels. So what, what, what happened was that he lost his job and, the cop in Germany they, the judge decided that they were right because the, such a guy could not be trusted. He was kicked off his job because he didn’t cooperate with the foreign intelligence service, so I knew what would happen if I would not cooperate with intelligence services“.
“Well, well I have had, let me see, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 times my house was house searched because I was accused by the public prosecutor, the German public prosecutor, I was accused of leaking state secrets, leaking secrets of states. Six times house searched, well they, they hoped that I wouldn’t do that ever again, but I think it’s worth that the truth will come out one day, the truth won’t die. And I don’t mind what will happen, I’ve had three heart attacks, I have no children, so if they wanna bring me to court or to prison, so it’s worth for the truth“.
New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile
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. 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.” 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. Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.” Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. 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! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.” 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 assassinations. DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” 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 larger crime. Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. 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 the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information. The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled “Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:
“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.” 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. KB/HSN
“The CIA currently maintains a network of several hundred foreign individuals around the world who provide intelligence for the CIA and at times attempt to influence opinion through the use of covert propaganda. These individuals provide the CIA with direct access to a large number of newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets“.
(Church Committee, Book I, p.455)
Are people who think 9/11 was an inside job suffering from pathological delusions?
That is what the mainstream media tell us. But a recent study published in Frontiers of Psychology suggests the contrary. It found that 29 of 30 research subjects – 97% of the sample – turned out to be “9/11 conspiracy theorists.” And it concluded that questioning the official version of 9/11, and constructing an alternative explanation, is a sign of psychological health.
The article’s title “Thirty shades of truth: conspiracy theories as stories of individuation, not of pathological delusion” summarizes its key finding: People who doubt the mainstream media’s version of 9/11 are not deluded. Quite the opposite: They are notable for “individuation,” a term coined by Carl Jung which he defined as: “The better and more complete fulfillment of the collective qualities of the human being.”
Are 9/11 truthers and other independent-minded skeptics really better and more fulfilled human beings? That is the exact opposite of what mainstream propaganda has been telling us.
The term “conspiracy theorist” was launched into wide circulation in the 1960s by the CIA ‘s Document 1035-960. That memo, entitled “Countering Criticism of the Warren Commission Report,” ordered the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird media assets to smear people asking questions about the JFK assassination by labeling them “conspiracy theorists.” Since then, “conspiracy theorist” has served as a weaponized term. Whenever defenders of an official myth cannot argue convincingly on the basis of facts and logic, they resort to the ad hominem “conspiracy theorist” insult as a weapon of last resort.
So the good news is that the explosion of “conspiracy theories” in the wake of 9/11 is not a symptom of collective insanity or mass delusion. On the contrary, it is a sign that people are growing psychologically healthier.
And if the study’s sample is any indication, more and more people are becoming psychologically healthy. Psychologist Marius H. Raab and his four co-authors discovered that 29 of the 30 participants in their “constructing 9/11 narratives” experiment refused to swallow the official version of 9/11; only one participant fully endorsed the official story (and that person admitted to having no interest whatsoever in 9/11). Perhaps the public is becoming saner, better-adjusted, and better-informed than even the most wild-eyed conspiracy optimist would have believed.
Why are alternative 9/11 conspiracy theories psychologically healthier than the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT)? The obvious answer is that the OCT is transparently false. Believing something that is self-evidently highly improbable, and contradicted by all available evidence, is virtually a textbook definition of “pathological delusion.” The “two planes took down three skyscrapers” claim is ridiculous on its face; and the notion that “radical Muslims” who relished pork chops and debauchery, and could not even fly Cessnas, could achieve stunt-flying feats beyond the abilities of the world’s best pilots, is bizarre beyond belief.
Another obvious answer is that the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) is paranoid, racist, and murderous. Believers in the OCT have murdered more than one million Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan based on the paranoid delusion that “radical Muslims” carried out 9/11. If killing one person on the basis of their religion or skin color is a hate crime, what shall we call the murder of more than a million?
Unsurprisingly, Raab and his co-authors avoid these all-too-obvious, all-too-controversial points. Instead, they suggest that the process of developing an Alternative Conspiracy Theory (ACT) is a sign of individuation, meaning psychological health and fulfillment.
Why is it psychologically beneficial to construct one’s own narrative about what really happened on 9/11 by assembling facts, including those that do not fit the Official Conspiracy Theory?
The study’s authors cite French philosopher Jean-François Lyotard’s claim that people no longer swallow the grand, mythic narratives of the past. Today, people create their own individual “little stories” to help them understand what is going on, and to give meaning and purpose to their lives. Jung saw this kind of individualized creativity as a healthy sign of what he called individuation: The self-fulfillment of the individual.
According to the study’s authors, constructing one’s own 9/11 narrative in opposition to the OCT is “an attempt to emphasize a personal set of values and thus to organize and regulate one’s life experience in a meaningful way.” Each 9/11 skeptic’s explanation of what really happened on 9/11 is “a dynamic narration reflecting an individual’s values” such as concern for individual liberty and morality. Unlike former Obama information Czar Cass Sunstein, who wants the government to infiltrate, disrupt, and “disable the purveyors of conspiracy theories,” Professor Raab and coauthors seem to welcome the spread of 9/11 skepticism and the self-fulfillment it brings.
While the article’s authors avoid passing judgment on the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory, they do admit that so-called conspiracy theories can awaken people to the reality of actual conspiracies: “Narratives about dystopian developments make us aware of such developments in the first place.” Decrying government officials’ unethical behavior can “make us (and others) cautious about the violation of ethical standards.” In short, discussing conspiracies such as 9/11 can help raise awareness of the dystopian elements of today’s world, and discourage power elites from staging more false-flag attacks.
But wait a minute – aren’t “conspiracy theorists” a bunch of pathetic losers who invent preposterous, paranoid tales to justify their own feelings of powerlessness? The answer, according to the study’s authors, is a definitive “no.”
Some scholars, echoing the CIA’s ad hominem campaign against “conspiracy theorists,” have posited that those who believe in Alternative Conspiracy Theories should score low on the scale of self-efficacy – a psychological measurement of a person’s sense of healthy confidence in their own abilities. But it turns out that this is not the case.
Professor Raab and the four co-authors were surprised by this finding: “In accordance with the premise that supporters of conspiracy theories share some kind of cognitive or emotional disposition, we expected people with a low level of self-efficacy to be more susceptible for any kind of conspiracy theory than people who reported a high level of self-efficacy….(but)…The relation between self-efficacy and belief in conspiracy theories turned out to be non-significant…The data did not justify—or even suggest—the assumption that self-efficacy is related to endorsement in common conspiracy theories.”
In short, the study found nothing negative – and much that is positive – about “conspiracy theories” and “conspiracy theorists.”
The article also “New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile” reported on scholarship challenging mainstream assumptions that “conspiracy theories” are a bad thing and “conspiracy theorists” are defective. As we learn more about such events as 9/11 and the competing stories they generate, it becomes increasingly clear that the so-called “conspiracy theorists” are not just right about the facts; they are also psychologically better-adjusted than the dwindling legion of brainwashed dupes and shills who oppose them.