I think this "psyopsy" debunking phenomenon is probably just an emergent property of mainstream science. An epiphenomenon, if you will. Pardon the joke, but it might fit the bill. You have probably a majority of "elder scientists", who just know that parapsychological experiments can never have outcomes which seem to confirm an anomalous claim, and that everyone who says different can't be a "real" scientist. And you have eager, younger scientists who see a chance to make a mark in science as a debunker, to shine before this silently indignant crowd of exalted ones. Maybe they want to see these "frauds" and "charlatans" punished, who dare to deviate from what they see as the only way to look at these claims, but I think the main motivation might just be a desire to be recognized. So there probably is a silent grup in the background (albeit just in the imagination of the debunker) but it doesn't have to issue any orders or paychecks. Maybe they don't even have conspiratorial meetings.
And, to be fair, I guess, we shouldn't forget to mention that there are charlatans, frauds and terribly silly claims out there who give the debunkers every right to exist.
I had to laugh when Dr. Britt said that he probably was more of a sceptic than he thought. I guess that the expression he should have used was "than I would like to admit", though. Well, at least he did admit to not having read anything about the more than 90 repilications of Bem's experiment. But as a pessimist, I doubt that they will change a thing.
Anyways, thanks for another insightful interview and for calling out the zealousness and dishonest behavior in this field. I don't think it's a concerted effort, but it's undoubtedly not just misunderstood good will.