A number of people are raising their eyebrows and wondering what it means when I use the term, "conspiracy fetishist". Well, let's look at the facts...

What I see as the definition of "conspiracy theorist" is someone who genuinely wants to know the truth behind the 9/11 attack, and after looking at the facts, they believe that the idea of a "conspiracy" may offer a better explanation of the events. I would use this to refer to people like the Jersey Girls, whose only modus operandi is to find out more about the hidden story of the attack so that it can't happen again. Technically, I suppose *I* am a "theorist" since I feel in my bones that there was a hell of a LOT more gross incompetence leading up to, and during the response to, the 9/11 attack, than the gov't is admitting to. One merely needs to see the gov'ts inability to even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels to see the only common demominator to most gov't action is, "ineptitude".

Then there are CONSPIRACY FETISHISTS: people who have such a strong emotional attachment (though not necessarily sexual) to the idea that a conspiracy exists that it becomes overpowering, and they attempt to override the facts with the conspiracy scenario they themselves subscribe to to the point where they promote them at the expense of facts,critical analysis, or logic.

Case study 1) I have with my own eyes seen people arguing tooth and nail here FOR supporting eywitness accounts where "bystanders heard explosions at the WTC", and in the very next thread, argue tooth and nail AGAINST eyewitness accounts where "bystanders witnessed a passenger plane hit the Pentagon". There is no rhyme or reason for this double standard, save one- conspiracy fetishists WANT there to have been explosions so they WANT the eyewitness accounts to be true, and they WANT a cruise missile to have hit the Pentagon so they WANT the eyewitness accounts to be false.

Case study 2) True conspiracies are goal oriented I.E. there is an objective the conspiracy is working to achieve. The goal of Northwoods is obvious- to instigate a war with Cuba. The goal of Watergate is obvious- to try and obtain dirt on political enemies. The goal of Tonkin gulf is likewise obvious- to involve the US in the war in Indochina. Yet, the majority of these 9/11 conspiracies are the most NON-goal oriented event;s I've ever heard. What point is there to manufacture a fake crash site out in the middle of nowhere, and then launch a cover up to conceal the fake crash site that was just manufactured? What point is there to send a cruise missile into the Pentagon and trick people into believing it was a passenger jet, when the conspirators had two or more REAL passenger jets under their control and were genuinely flinging them into buildings elsewhere? Why would someone try to cover up the cruise missle hitting the Pentagon by releasing blurry photos of, well, something, rather than crystal clear and sharp (although faked) photos of passenger jets? The reason is obvious- the desire for conspiracy fetishists to see conspiracies in these events have become so overpowering that adding extra levels of unecessary, useless, and overly complex details to justify them becomes acceptable.

Case study 3) More and more I am seeing where conspiracy proponents are providing, as evidence of their conspiracies, yet even more conspiracies. There was a conspiracy to hit the Pentagon with a cruise missile, covered up by a conspiracy to plant manufactured aircraft wreckage at the site, along with a conspiracy to plant a faked flight recorder to falsely show it came from flight 77, along with a conspiracy to have fake eyewitnesses all say it was a passenger jet they saw, which is all part of a conspiracy orchestrated by Bush, which in turn is a conspiracy being propagated by Obama, all as a conspiracy to stage a false flag attack which is all the end result of a conspiracy to go to war. Of course, noone ever comes forward to spill the beans becuase there's ANOTHER conspiracy to kill everyone involved to keep people quiet. You get the point. Simply making up a never ending chain of conspiracies to justify a bunch of prior conspiracies isn't proving anything. All the conspriacy fetisists are doing is restating and expanding the original conspiracy in different terms. This is literally the definition of "circular logic" and circular logic quickly becomes a runaway train of conspiracies inside of plots inside of coverups to the poitn where NO evidence to the contrary to what the conspiracy fetishist wishes to believe will be acceptable. It will simply be perceived as "yet another conspiracy".

Case study 4) I have seen a curious trend where certain conspiracy supporters are attempting todescribe people who do not subscribe to their conspriacy claims as "trusters" as in, people who trust everythign the gov't says and/or what the myriad reports claim. Now, I have made my position as clear as I can that I do NOT trust everything the gov't says becuase I do believe the gov't isn't admitting to how badly they [censored] up. Describing me as someonewho trusts everythign the gov't says despite the obvious case to the contrary makes no sense whatsoever, until you realize that these people have a conspriacy fetish, so accusing me of believing the gov't is horribly incompetent does nothing to help them promote the conspiracy claims they want to believe..but accusing me of trusting everythign the gov't says does.

Keep in mind that I do not refer to all proponents of conspriacies here as conspiracy fetishists, nor do I use this term as an insult. I use this as a legitimate description, as many people who subscribe to these conspiracy theories have to grudgingly admit themselves that conspiracy fetishists do exist. The "Lasers from outer space" supporters, the "no plane" supporters, the "nukes in the basement" supporters, etc, are obvious cases in point. Few people (other that the supporters of these ideas themselves) would agree that an objective review of the facts would ever show that the planes that hit the WTC were holograms. That's becuase the claim doesn't come from an objective review of the facts. It comes from an overpowering emotional attachment to these conspiracy accusations where the accuser attempts to override the facts with the scenario they themselves subscribe to. Thus, it is no longer a conspiracy THEORY for them. It is now a conspiracy FETISH.

Here's a pop quiz, to illustrate the point. Imagine that you read a post here where someone believes the 9/11 attack was staged by "a secret world wide conspiracy of shape shifting alien lizards, who destroyed the WTC as a science experiment to see how the human race would react." When you read such a post, is your instinct immediately tell you that:

a) this guy has his head filled with some real hard core rubbish and/or he's an outright crackpot?

-OR-

b) this guy is secretly a government disinformation agent deliberately posting rubbish as part of a plot to discredit the rest of you?

This is the wrong forum for this post..

It has nothing to do with 9/11. Seeing is you dont like to read I can understand why it is hard for you to realize that...

But no maybe some people just want to know the truth about things and not take 1 persons word for it especially if they have doubts about what happened.

Whether it be 9/11, Michael Jackson death, princess Diane's death, or the moon landing.. people strive to seek truth.. is there an issue with that?

---

---

I believe that when anyone takes the pre-assumed position that anything is based on a conspiracy that they are "conspiracy fetishists" even when the most logical explanation for the incident/event is quite clear but is disregarded for the preferred conspiracy theory. Although one can argue that just because someone does not believe what the majority believes that they are wrong as many people can easily be manipulated as we all can see clearly regarding mainstream news and other media sources where politically motivated "causes" have their lobbyists working hard to get their side out to the public for no other reason(s) than to gain control & manipulate public belief. This is a fact when it comes to agencys working together to spin a story or notion in order to either hide aspects that they do not wish to be divulged or, simply prevent the other side from gaining a foothold in the public eye.

Your question is (I think) really simple to answer:

This is a conspiracy website so it isn't any surprise that some here will tout their conspiratorial "bone" for many reasons, not all of which are popular. There are also those on here who think this world we live in is nothing more than a galaxy inside a gem worn on the hand of an alien who manipulates every aspect of our lives and to those folks, I say to each his/her own. I'm not going to jump in and knock their beliefs just because I do not believe it. Then there are those on here who present rationally logical explanations (rationally is to one what it isn't to another though) for any incident or event.

Its a matter of being either smart enough to figure out what is or isn't or, simply clicking to another thread or website if you get offended or upset about the content or who posted it.

Yes, "fetishists" rolls off the tongue much more easily than "theorists". I think you may win the reward for shifting the MSM lexicon to something more degrading regarding "9/11 truthers" with that one.

She sells seashells by the seashore.

Peace

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Here's a pop quiz, to illustrate the point. Imagine that you read a post here where someone believes the 9/11 attack was staged by "a secret world wide conspiracy of shape shifting alien lizards, who destroyed the WTC as a science experiment to see how the human race would react." When you read such a post, is your instinct immediately tell you that:

a) this guy has his head filled with some real hard core rubbish and/or he's an outright crackpot?

-OR-

b) this guy is secretly a government disinformation agent deliberately posting rubbish as part of a plot to discredit the rest of you?

...whats the point of coming to either conclusion?... to fuel one's own fettish of being able to determine someone's motivations based upon interpretation of their posts?... or to try to make them see the error of their ways by beating them over the head (metaphorically) with your own theory?... or to feel better about one's self because you dont believe in the existence of shape shifting alien lizards or that the federalies employ disinfo agents and, therefore, your obsession isnt a fettish but a for real live valid theory?...

Conspiracy theorists: I've explained before why these people are inconsequential. Think about it: if you actually believe there is a secret power controlling all of us, the question becomes how we should deal with it. Answer: you cannot, because all of these conspiracy powers are way too powerful for the typically stupid, ignorant and blind public, who cannot see the Ultimate Truth. So what do we do? We lie down and become victims. Conspiracy theorists preach from an underdog perspective and suggest there's nothing we can do but to whine. And as we all know, such people are the easiest to manipulate... On the other hand.

This is not to say that conspiracies are harmless. History shows that small groups can earn a lot of influential power. Therefore a healthy society strives to create a strong consensus on values, suppressing those who try to create divisions among the people. In this light we understand that conspiracy thinking is neither harmless nor really effective. Intelligent people analyze events intelligently. They look at the structure of things, examine the design of political, social and religious systems, and find the weak holes.

Conspiracy thinkers are correct in that certain groups are able to take advantage of those holes, but are wrong in how to proceed. If we fix the hole, or in some cases reform the whole system, the "outsiders" haven't much to beg for. That is what Freemasons, wealthy capitalists and Zionists fear and that is where the ultimate solution to the problem lies.

Looking from your posts

ALL OF THEM are concerning 9/11

And trying to ridicule the search for truth, and dissemination of information on eyewitness accounts.

Well as they say it takes one to know one.....

ARE you an 9/11 Fetishist then?

Yes you are.

However the difference between maybe your fetish and others, who are on the other side of the coin, is that one group are also TRUTH fetishist.

More evolved and advanced Fetishist's who are able to hold more than one subject in their mind at one time.

Lol nice try.

But the perversion of TRUTH fetishists and OCD er's is way beyond any attempts to dress in a gimp suit by a new member to the keys in the pot party.

It simply does not fit, but I am sure we can all help still zip it up for you.

Ouch

Lol

Elf.
Elfedit removed sentence that would have got me a warn :-)

[edit on 10-3-2010 by MischeviousElf]

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Whether it be 9/11

Planes hit 3 buildings, one of those buildings when it fell down severely damaged another that also fell down - there was no pod carrying aircraft, silent explosives, thermite etc.

princess Diane's death,

She died because she was not wearing a seatbelt, and was driven at speed by a drunk driver - no conspiracy theory there... she was not pregnant, was not going to marry Dodi etc.

or the moon landing..

Man landed on the Moon during Apollo 11

people strive to seek truth.

No they do not, they make up all sorts of silly conspiracy theories about events that just happened!

[edit on 10/3/10 by dereks]