posted on Mar, 10 2010 @ 04:31 PM
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?