What are some conspiracy theories you absolutely believe to be true?
Was reminded how Epstien not killing himself was/is so accepted yet it’s still a conspiracy theory. Is there any similar ones you guys believe to be completely true ?
I believe that Russia has dirt on a number of prominent Republicans. Trump is a given, what with his shady Russian financing, his connection to Epstein, the tape mentioned in the Steele dossier. But I think that there were a number of anti-Trumpers who turned on a dime. Lindsey Graham, for example, was very anti Trump for months and then became his biggest cheerleader literally overnight.
I think Russia had planned to damage Hillary in 2016, but never imagined that their man Trump would actually beat her. I think when they realized they had their man in the white house, they went all in, and used every bit of leverage they had to help him gain control of the party.
For Trump it’s not so much dirt but he got a lot funding after he was a disgraced business man in the 90s that hasn’t been sourced. I always thought he got it from Russia leading towards his allegiance to them.
This really isn’t a conspiracy, it’s pretty much just fact. The Mueller report was damning in showing the trump Russia connection. If we had sane bribery laws and a doj willing to prosecute it’d be a slam dunk. (Our bribery laws practically require an elected official while exercising their elected power to say “I’m doing this because of a sweet bribe”. Nothing less qualifies). Literally half of it was dedicated to Trump Russian connections.
The Senate intelligence report on Russian election interference confirmed the Mueller report, that the Russians were working to get trump into office.
Russia hacked RNC and DNC servers and released only the interesting stuff from the Democrats’ servers. Never heard a peep of what they found on the RNC side but you can be certain it was way more shady than the little bit that came out about Democrats.
I think it’s that information plus probably longstanding financial ties to Russian donors that keeps many Republicans under Russian influence.
A cabal runs the world. Every market becomes a monopoly or a cartel in the absence of regulatory forces. There’s no world police, therefore the Rothschilds, Carnegies, Mellons, etc. would have coordinated to divvy up territory and install puppet rulers. They’re not going to waste resources competing when they can cooperate. They stay out of the public eye so they don’t get targeted and don’t have to suffer the burdens of being famous.
The issue with this type of conspiracy is that it seems a little too optimistic. If there was a secret organisation with the power and cunning to control the entire world in secret, then you’d expect they’d do a better job of running the place. Right now, the economy is in shambles, there’s wars just about everywhere, and the planet is on fire. I doubt anyone who can put the world in a condition this bad could keep a secret from literally everyone.
I’m not denying there are rich assholes who profit from disasters, but there’s no master plan. There’s no group with total control over the world. The vultures are pecking at the same carcass, but they definitely didn’t kill the beast. If they were strong enough to kill it, then why are they fighting each other over the scraps?
The conspiracy is a pipe-dream that there’s someone in control of a world constantly thrown into chaos. It’s a belief that the pilot is in control of the plane and this turbulence is just them having a bit of fun, even as the engines catch on fire. I’d love to be idealistic enough to believe this could be true, but I can feel the heat coming off of the engines and I can hear the pilot yelling at his co-pilot about who gets to fly.
That may be, I'm just dismissing that "assets are cheap" is evidence that there is no cabal. I'm not sure who is fighting over the scraps- Rothschilds and Carnegies? I haven't heard of that.
I don't know about "pipe-dream". There are organizations we're aware of that literally control economic conditions of the world such as the Federal Reserve. Do you remember voting for anyone on the Fed board? They are appointed by presidents. We vote for a president in America- but we can decide between the rep-party backed candidate or the dem-party backed candidate. If you can't convince one party to support you there is literally 0 chance to win in a "first-past-the-post" electoral system. I see a system of "checks and balances" but not one that benefits us.
I think that your scenario is more likely (which to me, is that what we're seeing is just the outcome of deregulated capitalism) but I wouldn't fall out of my chair to find that strings are being intentionally pulled by the people who control the world to benefit themselves.
They’re living high on the hog and don’t care how the sheep are doing. In fact it’s better for them if the sheep are in disarray so they don’t have the energy to revolt. And as another commenter said, constant war and economic turmoil is good for them because they can buy up assets and war profiteer to stay in control of the lions share of the wealth. They could totally run the world so it’s a better place for everyone but then they wouldn’t get to stay in power and live on mega yachts. Or in their private bunkers if it comes to that.
Rothschilds are actually a fascinating family, almost none of the accusations thrown at them are born out in real history and a huge part of the stories are opposites - Alex Jones was yelling about them doing all the intentional slave trade, actually they lent the money to the British government to end it when all the other bankers refuse because they were outspoken campaigners against slavery.
Of course he’s an idiot even for right wing conspiracy theorists but the more reasonable anti Rothschild taking points all stem from the same pedigree, it’s like a snowball that’s kept rolling. I’m sure they’ve got plenty of corruption in their past and present but the idea of them as this super powerful evil elite just doesn’t really hold water.
Oh and I agree with your concept but rich people are too greedy to cooperate, they work together to fuck us over but they’d fuck each other over in a heartbeat
That’s interesting and good to know. Is there a good biography or show you’d recommend to read up on them?
I get your point about selfishness, but we still got the 5 Families mafia, and the cartels in Mexico. And the robber barons had to be taken down by the Sherman anti-trust act. Are the super rich above them somehow at a different level of selfishness? It may be true, that you have to be a sociopath at a higher level to be at the true top of the totem pole, that’s an interesting question. Unfortunately not something that’s easy to research for obvious reasons.
Yeah it’s a sorting problem, in capitalism every decision where it’s morality Vs profits the worst person gains more power. Take Microsoft as an example, they used immoral business practices because they were obsessed with creating monopolies while many of the company’s they famously destroyed were run by people who were tech obsessives and cared about making a better world.
I absolutely agree the super rich are conspiring to fuck over regular people, I also think being super rich is horrible for your mental health. Elon as a great example, so many of them end up lonely and isolated but also in the spotlight so they feel they have something to prove and the only thing they have is money so they use the to try and get the respect they’re desperate for - I think that’s why a lot of them turn heavily towards people that do worship their money.
Even with our current level of technology which has gone from first flight to landing on the moon in just 66 years we could colonize the entire galaxy in 200 million years which is a blink of an eye.
I think life is common but humans are special or we’re fucked.
I like the theory that we’re a precocious intelligent species. Like, although the universe is 13 whatever billion years old it takes a few cycles of suns going supernova to disperse the heavier elements to the point where a planet can form that will sustain complex life. Maybe the Earth is one of the first set of planets suitable for intelligent life to develop on, and although the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and there has been life on it for 3.7 billion years there has maybe only been multicellular life for about 500-600 million years. It took hundreds of millions of years for an intelligent species to arise once there was complex life and maybe even that was lucky, who’s to say it doesn’t “usually” take a couple billion years.
On top of all that, the universe is expected to continue forming new stars for another trillion years, so yeah, maybe we are one of the first civilizations at the dawn of the universe.
Imagine a dinosaur species was sapient, what do they use to fuel their industrial revolution? There might have a few scatterings of oil reserves but most of the fossil fuels we have were created at the end of their era. They’d have to jump from water power to nuclear.
We are in an incredible accident of timing and opportunity, and we’re wasting the convergence of eons on a few centuries.
Good point! I’m just gonna riff on some of this for a bit cause it’s fascinating. A sapient lifeform arising is not enough to guarantee a technologically advanced civilization. It blows my mind that there were stone tool making hominins over 3 millions years ago, well before the first human species. And the type of stone tools made by early humans didn’t change for a million years. We take it for granted that technology inexorably progresses but does it even? A million years of basically the same technology. And then like you said, how many of our advances were dependent on external factors like the formation of oil, or domesticatable food animals, farmable plants, WOOD ffs, and on and on really.
And our species went through a population bottleneck at some point, homo sapiens have a strikingly low genetic diversity compared to many other animal species, some theories suggest there were only 2000 of us as recently as 75,000 years ago. We almost went extinct, and all the other homo species did go extinct, before even making it out of the stone age.
Also, jumping back to the formation of the Earth, a lot of assumptions about alien life developing rests on how many other “Earths” there must be but there is something possibly unusual about our planet. Our moon. Not just that we have a moon but that it was likely formed by a collision with a Mars sized proto-planet called Theia. We ended up with a moon larger than a planet our size should have. The collision also caused the Earth to tilt on its axis. So at a minimum without that collision we wouldn’t have tides or seasons which seem like pretty important factors in spurring adaptations in life on Earth. Just having the extra mass helps Earth hold onto its atmosphere. Other effects of the Theia collision may include more water on Earth, more iron and other heavy elements, and more active plate tectonics/volcanism.
It’s late and I’m not sure that last part makes sense after a couple rewrites but yeah, incredible accident and convergence of eons and whatnot for sure. Cheers.
It blows my mind that there were stone tool making hominins over 3 millions years ago, well before the first human species.
Just thinking about this point for a second is really mind-blowing especially when you think about it with the added context that up until about 200-300 years ago, human technology levels were probably closer to the stone-tool wielders than it is to modern humans in an EV listening to music through a smartphone and navigating by a global satellite system.
Ooh that’d be a close call. Maybe though. I could see an argument at least. But at the same time… the 3 mya stone tool users were arguably closer to chimpanzees than modern humans, closest common ancestor being 6-8 mya. They probably couldn’t make fire, didn’t have language or clothes or make structures to live in. Even late stone age peoples were so much more advanced than that.
The agricultural revolution starting about 10,000 years ago would maybe be where I’d put the dividing point. Or bronze age 3,000 years ago?
But that might be underselling how much progress we’ve made since the start of the industrial revolution. I don’t know, interesting to consider though.
About the rare huge-moon part - there’s been a recent discovery of a pair of young, still-forming exoplanets sharing the same orbit in a young star system - “PDS 70”; one protoplanet is in the L4 or L5 “Trojan” LaGrange point of the bigger one. Physicists reckon Theia may well have formed in one of Earth’s Trojan points, before being perturbed out onto a collision course by a third planet (thanks Jupiter)
So. While the planetary-collision-forming-a-huge-moon idea sure sounds wild, it might not be incredibly rare. Maybe.
We’re still at the very early stage of knowing what is normal for solar systems.
Neat! Plug that into the Drake equation. Problem is everything in there is pretty much guesswork and estimates of the number of intelligent lifeforms capable of interstellar communication in our galaxy vary between 1 and like, 100 million.
I think that if it happened once it’s bound to have happened many times but then where’s the party at? Hopefully we are just early, maybe we can still be the host at least.
we could colonize the entire galaxy in 200 million years
This is just extrapolating based on math, while ignoring the reality of the actual situation.
Even if we have an amazing breakthrough tomorrow, the reality of interstellar colonization is that you would necessarily be creating two different species by doing so. They would have very little reason to cooperate after a relatively short time. Space is huge, y’all. Communication would be cumbersome at first, and rapidly get worse as the two different species diverged, first culturally, then physically.
And that’s even assuming that we would do it. You’re basically asking a large group of people to sacrifice enormously for, at best, a marginal benefit. We can’t even convince people to stop burning coal, and that’s for our own enormous benifit.
I get your point but it’s only marginal benefit for our limited immediate perspective. Even if we stop actively destroying our planet, we are still at risk of catching a stray asteroid and that would be it for our whole civilization and most of life. We really need to learn better self-preservation at an interstellar scale.
I don’t think we even understand the impact quantum computing will have on science over the next 100 years, much less what new discoveries we may make in the next 1,000 or 10,000 years. Also, I don’t think interstellar travel will necessarily look like what you think it will look like. We might not be flying huge man-made ships through space, but asteroids, or planets, or solar systems instead.
Yea, we’re talking about sending people out on trips that could last for hundreds/thousands of years, with no way to provide support or backup if anything goes wrong along the way, to go to other planets that may not even be habitable when they get there. We don’t know if there’s any other sort of faster-than-light travel even possible, so there very well may not be any space travel shortcuts. Chances are “the great filter” is just the astronomical distances between everything and so all life eventually figures out it’s better to just stay home. If anything, maybe the best we can hope for is to convert all the mass in our solar system into a Dyson sphere and just wait out our Sun for a few billion years, that may be more realistic than travel to another star system (maybe slightly less impossible).
I reckon 99% of biomass in the Universe has to be microbial and viral. Its the most successful life on Earth and lives everywhere pretty much. Looking for that 1% is going to be hard. SETI say the galaxy is like our ocean, but we’ve only sampled a small glass.
UAPs could be anything, we have no idea what. No evidence was presented that they are aliens, and the ex-intelligence guy who claimed that they are aliens also believes the Vatican is involved in the cover up, not exactly credible.
How is that a conspiracy theory? Surely that’s philosophy/science extrapolation.
Whenever this comes up I remember the story of someone going to the Amazon and asking a tribe how to communicate long distances. Like future sci fi technology. They used drums to communicate so all they could come up with was really big drums that can go further than their current ones.
If they were looking for intelligent life they couldn’t even imagine radio waves nevermind understand it or search for it.
I think it’s more a case that every other thing they’ve accused the Democrats of, at some point in history ends up being true for Republicans of one sort or another. This is the only accusation that so far hasn’t appeared to be a projection, I think the poster suspects that it is, we just haven’t found it yet.
and it happened again, and again, and again. russians get broke/angry -> manufacture crisis -> blame the outsider -> invade them -> putin remains a master strategist
If I remember correctly, I read somewhere that the building 7 was connected to the towers underground. That might have dealt damage to the structure with the fires and impacts. I have no idea if that is why building 7 fell, but it was a theory.
Much of the debate around the twin towers falling was the effects of how hot jet fuel can burn and its effect on the steel structure, with engineers concluding while it wouldnt melt, it would weaken the already damaged structure enough for it to collapse.
But again, no planes hit Tower 7, there was no jet fuel, and no damaged structure, making it a skyscraper collapsing purely by fire, which has never happened in the history of skyscraper fires.
That’s because normally they’re seen to by firefighters, but this one was left to burn for about 7 hours (as its was empty and their efforts were obviously elsewhere)
Man I wish we still tarred and featherd people. If anyone ever deserved it it’s those two. Bush was just a useful idiot chosen because he was “a guy you could drink a beer with at a bar.”
Iraq having WMD was an intentional lie and you’ll pretty much never convince me otherwise (unless there’s irrefutable evidence of course lol)
So the hypothesis, not a theory as such, is that something happens that is devastating. Sometime in the future a new civilisation rises from the ashes, sets up super computers to figure out where itwent wrong, due to the passage of time, and to hope to avoid similar. The other history simulation idea is similar, but they’re trying to work out how Universes develop and we’re just a side effect, a blink of an eye to them. Both are tragic, one because if we announce ourselves as sentient byproducts they could switch us off; the other because we were always destined to die and fail.
GWB knew he could not undercut China on labor costs but if he could keep energy prices down the USA could compete with China on some parts of manufacturing.
I agree with the first point. Using our human bodies as an example when we get infected. It gets really warm. It’s usually a technique used to kill bacteria among other defenses.
I don’t personally believe it’s some kind of “I got my peace for a brief moment and want more” thing. I just believe that we ramped up production after the COVID “recovery” period and we went back to business as usual at a rapid rate.
Absolutely true, although imo not necessarily as a conscious choice. It’s simply earth’s feedback systems. We cram all kinds of animals together and accidentally breed highly contagious viruses, which come back to bite us in the ass. We destroy biodiversity and now people in certain parts of the world have to manually pollinate crops, because the insects all died. Etc.
If all goes well, earth will find a balance again that still favours life (possibly not human life). If not, earth might end up like Venus. Not a big deal for earth, but a bit of shame of all this life we currently see here.
I get where you’re coming from, but rather than the “earth trying to kill us”, we are causing the earth to kill us through our own selfishness, willful ignorance and greed.
I believe the NRA is involved in money laundering for the Russian mob and Trump ran for office to do the same thing, launder money through donations and by paying for advertising for donations with dirty money and getting clean clean donations back.
That our entire existence and the world we live in -our so called reality- is being manipulated in every corner. Whether its historical, economical, entertainment wise, food, you name it.
If you mean this is being done by people I don’t think human people are nearly smart enough to do this without fucking up constantly and blowing their cover.
Just the boring one: That all the exciting conspiracies (and other stuff like "culture wars") are there to distract from the banal reality of most people and the world being exploited by a few selfish assholes.
Seems pertinent that US politicians suddenly mentioned a totally reliable account about possible aliens just as people’s unrest over their cost of living and the excesses of the wealthy has been rising.
You don’t need a shadowy conspiracy when you make it legal to bribe politicians and write the laws for them. It’s all done out in the open. Regulators and board rooms have revolving doors for the same few people, and they all make insanely disgusting amounts of money while the rest of us suffer.
I'm not saying a few people fucking over the rest is a conspiracy theory.
I'm saying that all those conspiracy theories people love to discuss are pushed to capture the attention of those people and have them think they're involved in something important and spend all their energy on that, so the assholes can keep on fucking them over without much resistance.
It’s interesting that the big “revelations” of conspiracy are things we jokingly referenced and always kind of knew:
Movie executives forcing women to sleep with them or be sexually assaulted to be able to work in the industry.
The catholic church sexually abusing children and covering it up.
Buying votes and Supreme Court judgements.
So what are we joking about now but not doing anything about? Russia owning an entire political party through blackmail? The Left is indoctrinating and grooming kids into thinking that their assigned-at-birth gender might not be their real gender and that non-heterosexual and nonmonogamous relationships are as legitimate as those Ordained By God and that pregnancy planning, prevention, and terminating is a women’s health care issue between them and their doctor and nobody else (I mean… yeah. I guess that conspiracy is openly true and not really a conspiracy but an openly stated goal, and not that we should be trying to prevent or stop it).
I don’t see the US government perpetrating the attack. I could see the US government getting good evidence it was going to happen, and just… letting it happen.
The former requires a whole bunch of people involved that would need to keep their mouth shut about the things they did. The latter can be completed by simply not doing anything (someone in charge saying someone else will look into it, treat it like a hoax, or just file it somewhere and otherwise do nothing). If they wanted some major attack to go through, a couple loyal (to the agency) sociopaths people already used to working in highly confidential operations could drop some suggestions and assistance into a terrorist cell and then sit back. It’s possible and knowing what we know about the government is not outside the realm of reason. Still, with no evidence of it, it is purely speculation, and believing it is an enormous leap from it being treated as a thought exercise.
The conspiracy theories that involve a bunch of workers installing explosives through the towers, etc, are unnecessarily complicated and implausible.
9/11 wasn’t an inside job, but the American government did cover up their failures to prevent it.
I’ve heard some speculate that Al Qaeda had placed explosives or fuels inside the buildings in advance, suggesting that they had access to them days or weeks in advance. If true, I can absolutely see a campaign to cover up their failure to prevent it.
Half the conspiracies about 9/11 are from people not having the basic understanding that they collapsed the building after the fact as a desperately needed safety precaution.
Like no shit they used demolitions tools capable of taking down steel. You can't leave it to fall on its own whenever that happens to be.
Especially not on lower Manhattan. I could maybe see a reason to let them fall down on their own, if they had been in the middle of a gigantic empty field, but never inside a city, fall the wrong way there and they can bring a couple of blocks down with them.
All the "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" nonsense like the fact that demolitions grade high-powered explosives being used is some conspiracy instead of the obviously necessary act to take when a skyscraper is damaged and no longer structurally sound.
I know this is kinda vain, but wouldn’t it be unconstitutional for the government to orchestrate things that killed its own people? It wouldn’t be the only time because I know the pentagon(?) was considering staging domestic terror attacks on US cities to justify invading Cuba (I can link the Johnny Harris video)
Just because it’s unconstitutional doesn’t stop the government from doing whatever it wants to its citizens if someone thinks they can justify/get away with it. Government entities have a long history of doing what they want regardless of what the Constitution says. Sherman’s March to the Sea, the interment of Japanese Americans, nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific Ocean, the Tuskegee Experiment, the MOVE bombing in Philadelphia, etc… The Constitution is just pieces of paper. Its power comes from those willing - and able - to enforce it.
Add comment