The Schizo Conspiracy Thread - The conspiracies that will get you laughed out of your friend groups and subreddits

[Meriasek]

The more I keep digging into these private interviews with experts (real experts, not TV experts) you start to suspect you've been lied to about pretty much everything
View attachment 7219413

Who is that expert? That sounds all rather odd and obviously against all previously believed in physics and observations. I mean, we can reproduce fusion on Earth in various ways and reproduce the spectra, and one testable prediction of proton-proton fusion happening within the sun is neutrino production. This is a fun one because first experiments detected only a third of the neutrino flux they expected, but that discrepancy was resolved later by realising that neutrinos do have mass and undergo oscillations. Neutrino physics are fucking weird.

Wilhelm Reich is a fun one, the whole Orgone thing.

Who's this guy exactly? IIRC during the first interview after the moon landing the astronauts claimed they didn't see stars in space (well, rather than claimed they just looked at each other and said ...no... when asked about it).

That'd be a big deal since they used the stars to navigate (amongst guidance from Houston they had a special space sextant on board and used star charts to check their course).
They could see the sun from the surface of the moon where there's no atmosphere, and according to this it shouldn't have been visible.

 

[NoBueno]

obviously against all previously believed in physics and observations.

You mean like when the Earth was the center of the Universe? whoa

 

[Meriasek]

You mean like when the Earth was the center of the Universe? whoa

That is also a fun one, since the Earth being the center of the universe does not really hold up to actual observations. It's an intuitive impression, but once you actually start tracking planetary movements, you'll realize that in a geocentric model their orbits would be hilariously complex. A heliocentric model makes those orbits much more reasonable.
What's more, the heliocentric view was commensurate with everything that was observable and, after the discovery of the laws of gravity and analysis, could be predicted.
There wasn't really a lot of observations or theory at that point. But now we have a huge amount of data, experiments, and theories, and a new theory should be commensurate with previous observations.
Unless, of course, we just assume everything is fake, everything is a lie, but then what's even the point of thinking about new theories? That guy with the hollow sun? Who's to say that his four years of studying the sun were done with due diligence? I don't know him, I didn't see his data. If all of physics is fake, why would I trust him to be truthful? It's much easier for one person to lie or simply not work very well than for hundreds of thousands of people over the past hundred years to all collaborate on the same lies. If everything is fake, so is he.

 

[NoBueno]

That is also a fun one, since the Earth being the center of the universe does not really hold up to actual observations. It's an intuitive impression, but once you actually start tracking planetary movements, you'll realize that in a geocentric model their orbits would be hilariously complex. A heliocentric model makes those orbits much more reasonable.
What's more, the heliocentric view was commensurate with everything that was observable and, after the discovery of the laws of gravity and analysis, could be predicted.
There wasn't really a lot of observations or theory at that point. But now we have a huge amount of data, experiments, and theories, and a new theory should be commensurate with previous observations.
Unless, of course, we just assume everything is fake, everything is a lie, but then what's even the point of thinking about new theories? That guy with the hollow sun? Who's to say that his four years of studying the sun were done with due diligence? I don't know him, I didn't see his data. If all of physics is fake, why would I trust him to be truthful? It's much easier for one person to lie or simply not work very well than for hundreds of thousands of people over the past hundred years to all collaborate on the same lies. If everything is fake, so is he.

I remember a comedian saying something like "So these politicians have power over the entire world, you don't think they'd lie to you? Well, I am a father with control over one small child. And man, I lie to that motherfucker all the fucking time."

 

[Meriasek]

I remember a comedian saying something like "So these politicians have power over the entire world, you don't think they'd lie to you? Well, I am a father with control over one small child. And man, I lie to that motherfucker all the fucking time."

Yeah, and we know all politicians lie all the time.
But it's pretty hard to keep all of this up in physics. You're taught the theory, and you have to derive all of that stuff yourself. So you know the math checks out. You do lab courses where you do experiments and see if those theories hold up, with a lot of rigor when it comes to errors and where deviations from the predictions come from. All those experiments are pretty open, and if it's all a lie, it has to be carefully curated.
And while you could say, "Sure, but those are guided lab courses, they can all be faked", but then what's during Bachelor, Master, and PhD thesis? While the Bachelor thesis work is heavily guided still (at least it was for us), from Master and beyond you're doing a lot of stuff yourself. Nobody tells you what to avoid to not accidentally blow open how all physics are fake. You're actively working on testing new things and verifying predictions and there's no secret policy to keep the physics safe from accidentally discovering it's all fake.
Now I've mostly worked in condensed matter physics (which is mainly quantum mechanics in various forms), and so far it all holds up remarkably well.
I worked on nuclear power plants. Did everyone there just work on bullshit lies, were they in on it or did they just somehow end up with working machines that worked entirely different to how they thought they worked, but still exactly as predicted? The people working on nuclear fusion, are they all in on the lie or are they just working on something that isn't even real? Or maybe something happens exactly as predicted, but somehow it's something else entirely?
I'm not buying that. Politicians lie, and events can be kept secret and lies can be reproduced ad nauseam. But I find it just too unbelievable that you could have hundreds of thousands of people just blindly working on entirely false premises for a hundred years, except that those false premises still yield the exactly expected results.

 

[NoBueno]

Einstein already stated everything works up to a certain point and then ultimately it's up to interpretation and that was around 100 years ago.
If the Jew scientist tells you things are a bit shaky it's time to worry

 

[Meriasek]

Einstein already stated everything works up to a certain point and then ultimately it's up to interpretation and that was around 100 years ago.
View attachment 7221593

Yeah, both heliocentric and geocentric are valid views. After all, it's just a matter of where you see the center of your coordinate system. It has been that way even before Einstein, his relativity didn't change anything there.
It's just that the geocentric view is needlessly complicated, and doesn't really reflect the physical process (unless, of course, we also declare gravity to be a lie so that Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold up and the Keplerian orbits are just another happy coincidence where the observations fit perfectly with predictions that are based on completely wrong physics).

/edit: Btw., that's why I don't like these AI blurbs. It sounds smart, it sounds right, but it is, to quote Pauli, not even wrong.
Like, General Relativity doesn't really say much of that sort. This goes back to Galileo Galilei who formulated that all laws of motion are independent on the frame of reference. Einstein added that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference, thus needing not Galilean coordinate transformations, but Lorentz transformations to go from one coordinate system to the other. But even Galileo Galilei knew that mathematically both heliocentric and geocentric are valid formulations. Physically, however, the Earth does rotate around the Sun (or rather, a common center of gravity that is inside the Sun and practically equal to the Sun's own center of gravity for all intents and purposes).

/edit2: There's another thing: With gravity, you have a reason why the heliocentric view is preferable. It explains the observed orbits. What explanation is there for the epicyclical paths the planets and the sun take in a geocentric model? Gravity is observable. You can drop a pen and observe it falling down. Measure its speed and you find it accelerating. Drop any object in vacuum and you will find they fall the same because while a heavier object requires more force to move, it also experiences more force from gravity. Without air resistance, any object is accelerated at 9.81 m/s² by gravity. This explains Keplerian orbits. What explains the geocentric paths?

 

[NoBueno]

Yeah, both heliocentric and geocentric are valid views. After all, it's just a matter of where you see the center of your coordinate system. It has been that way even before Einstein, his relativity didn't change anything there.
It's just that the geocentric view is needlessly complicated, and doesn't really reflect the physical process (unless, of course, we also declare gravity to be a lie so that Newton's law of gravity doesn't hold up and the Keplerian orbits are just another happy coincidence where the observations fit perfectly with predictions that are based on completely wrong physics).

/edit: Btw., that's why I don't like these AI blurbs. It sounds smart, it sounds right, but it is, to quote Pauli, not even wrong.
Like, General Relativity doesn't really say much of that sort. This goes back to Galileo Galilei who formulated that all laws of motion are independent on the frame of reference. Einstein added that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference, thus needing not Galilean coordinate transformations, but Lorentz transformations to go from one coordinate system to the other. But even Galileo Galilei knew that mathematically both heliocentric and geocentric are valid formulations. Physically, however, the Earth does rotate around the Sun (or rather, a common center of gravity that is inside the Sun and practically equal to the Sun's own center of gravity for all intents and purposes).

/edit2: There's another thing: With gravity, you have a reason why the heliocentric view is preferable. It explains the observed orbits. What explanation is there for the epicyclical paths the planets and the sun take in a geocentric model?

Well theres no universal theory is there? We aren't even sure what gravity is. We are just making up shit. It's why I hate the "science is settled" people. Imagine being so arrogant you think you know how the entire universe works like you are God. I would never listen to such a person.

 

[Meriasek]

Well, we don't really know what gravity is, and surely the science isn't settled on it since physics is well known to be incomplete, but we can for sure say that two bodies with mass attract each other and that the force between them is reasonably close to F = GMm/r². This does not hold up for extremely large masses anymore, but for something like our planets and our sun it holds up very well. We don't know why that is, but we have that observation and we can do predictions with that. It's not something made up out of nothing, and it works very well.
I mean, science is never really settled on anything, but something like gravity existing is pretty commonly acknowledged. Gravity acting in an inverse square law is pretty commonly acknowledged.
So tell me, we can observe something we call gravity, and we can observe planetary motions and derive simple equations to describe those planetary motions from this gravity observation, why should one continue with the notion that everything rotates around the Earth? There's a simple explanation based on simple observations for one, and what is there for the other? Why would one keep a geocentric view? We might not have a deep explanation for gravity, but we have a description for it, and explains Keplerian orbits. What would explain geocentric epicycles? Why doesn't everything rotate in a more simple, circular manner around Earth? With gravity, there's an explanation, so I'd say it's the preferable view.

 

[Althalus]

Well, we don't really know what gravity is, and surely the science isn't settled on it since physics is well known to be incomplete, but we can for sure say that two bodies with mass attract each other and that the force between them is reasonably close to F = GMm/r². This does not hold up for extremely large masses anymore, but for something like our planets and our sun it holds up very well. We don't know why that is, but we have that observation and we can do predictions with that. It's not something made up out of nothing, and it works very well.

This isn't an attack on you personally, but mathematics in science is used as a *description* of how something is observed to work, it isn't necessarily proof of a theory in and of itself. It annoys me when science worshippers say "the math proves x theory", no the math proves how a particular phenomenon works, the math related to gravity would still work even if you assumed the world was supported on the back of a giant turtle standing on elephants.

The old Ptolmaic geocentric world model had plenty of math (admittedly not as advanced) explaining how it worked, and one could use that model to make accurate predictions of planetary movements and solar/lunar eclipses, but just because math was involved doesn't mean the geocentric worldview is accurate.

I mean, science is never really settled on anything, but something like gravity existing is pretty commonly acknowledged. Gravity acting in an inverse square law is pretty commonly acknowledged.
So tell me, we can observe something we call gravity, and we can observe planetary motions and derive simple equations to describe those planetary motions from this gravity observation, why should one continue with the notion that everything rotates around the Earth? There's a simple explanation based on simple observations for one, and what is there for the other? Why would one keep a geocentric view? We might not have a deep explanation for gravity, but we have a description for it, and explains Keplerian orbits. What would explain geocentric epicycles? Why doesn't everything rotate in a more simple, circular manner around Earth? With gravity, there's an explanation, so I'd say it's the preferable view.

The current mainstream view of gravity is a decent working model that explains some things very well, I'll give you that.

My favorite schizo theories about gravity are either 1) The electric universe theory is true and gravity is somehow related to concentrations of electric charges on a planetary scale. Or 2) gravity is simply another word for buoyancy since anything "heavier" than air sinks and "lighter" than air floats, and both the speed of falling objects and force required to lift objects is limited by atmospheric density or lack thereof.

The buoyancy explanation works on a planet, but doesn't explain gravitational attraction between space objects, hence why if an alternate explanation for gravity does exist I lean towards the electric model.

 

[Meriasek]

@Althalus

This isn't an attack on you personally, but mathematics in science is used as a *description* of how something is observed to work, it isn't necessarily proof of a theory in and of itself. It annoys me when science worshippers say "the math proves x theory", no the math proves how a particular phenomenon works, the math related to gravity would still work even if you assumed the world was supported on the back of a giant turtle standing on elephants.

The old Ptolmaic geocentric world model had plenty of math (admittedly not as advanced) explaining how it worked, and one could use that model to make accurate predictions of planetary movements and solar/lunar eclipses, but just because math was involved doesn't mean the geocentric worldview is accurate.

I didn't mean that it was proof or anything. Newtonian gravity isn't much of a theory per se, it's just postulating that there's a certain kind of force. The point wasn't that math proves anything, just that the mathematical theory (borne from observation) predicts other observations and that that works out very well.
You can make up whatever theory you want about gravity, but it will have to predict that two masses attract each other and that the force acts in an inverse square law.
Einstein's General Relativity predicts exactly that for a flat spacetime. In reality, spacetime is never flat around any mass, so there's always going to be a very slight discrepancy between the predictions of General Relativity and classical mechanics, and those differences can actually be measured. But for most applications, the vastly easier classical mechanics are more than sufficient to use.
And it's my whole point, you can make the geocentric worldview work with coordinate transformations, it just gets very complicated and you'd be doing that for basically no reason. You know that there is gravity, and from that you can derive orbits and heliocentric movements make sense. Nothing really suggests geocentric views other than that's what it looks like if you just go outside and watch the Sun move. Once you look closer, it stops making sense.

The current mainstream view of gravity is a decent working model that explains some things very well, I'll give you that.

My favorite schizo theories about gravity are either 1) The electric universe theory is true and gravity is somehow related to concentrations of electric charges on a planetary scale. Or 2) gravity is simply another word for buoyancy since anything "heavier" than air sinks and "lighter" than air floats, and both the speed of falling objects and force required to lift objects is limited by atmospheric density or lack thereof.

The buoyancy explanation works on a planet, but doesn't explain gravitational attraction between space objects, hence why if an alternate explanation for gravity does exist I lean towards the electric model.

The electric universe is interesting, but I feel like it kinda lacks rigor. I have yet to see an explanation how the very measureable force of gravity arises, and I don't see how it would explain the various observable effects of General Relativity, either. I.e., the Mercury orbit precession, gravitational lensing, and time dilation effects of gravity. We adjust for gravitational and velocity effects on GPS timing, for example.
The main website I saw for it is Holoscience by Wal Thornhill, and it still refuses to actually show any math or really anything beyond assurances that everyone else is wrong. I mean, that theory should have some very tangible predictions, probably well within the reach of common particle physics experiments if it's all about the substructure of protons and also neutrinos and such. Now neutrinos are hard to grasp, but they're being studied, and the very explicit prediction here is that neutrinos have mass (which is likely true), and still an electric dipole substructure. That should be testable, especially since neutrinos are commonly thought as neutral elementary particles. Maybe this theory would be an explanation for neutrino oscillations and how they differ in matter? Who knows. Could have made some actual predictions there, but Wal was apparently too busy adding trademark signs to every instance of "ELECTRIC UNIVERSE" on his website so he didn't get shit done and now he's dead.

/edit: Oh wait, he predicted a lot of stuff about comets. All wrong, though.

 

[NoBueno]

Michelle Tratchenberg

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Astrology is real, not for the horroscope shite, but because planetary alignment effects how earthquakes, storms and volcanoes happen, where and when.
Jim Birkland can predict Earthquake events to the week, the location and the severity with astounding accuracy. From the World Baseball Earthquakes of the 90s, to the Japanese Tsunami and even the Turkey Earthquake in 2023.
He has been labelled a quack, a nutter, a liar and a psuedoscientist and, even though he worked for the US geological society, he was removed from his job for being too accurate.

If you want proof of the pedo cult, look at two UK pop bands from the 90s:

Charlotte Church, who the anti-pedo tabloid rag 'The Sun' did a countdown until she was 18, after following her from the age of 15 and printing risque photos when she was underage.
And 7 club juniors. A group of young kids/early teens who were an off-shoot of a pop band called 'S club 7'. As soon as they turned 18? The papers were jizzing over how they had grown up and how attractive they were, in particular a lass called Frankie Bridge (Sanford).

 

[NoBueno]

Follow the White Rabbit

 

[El President Camacho]

>You best start believing in Hopi prophecies, You're in one

 

[BradeRunna]

Conspiracy theories were fed to the Boomers so they wouldn't notice the Jew problem the US. It's not Freemasons Illuminati or Jesuits. It's just Jews. Jews and their goy lapdog frontmen.

 

[Bonesjones]

Wilhelm Reich is a fun one, the whole Orgone thing.

You mean the Jewish guy with an incest fetish?

That'd be a big deal since they used the stars to navigate (amongst guidance from Houston they had a special space sextant on board and used star charts to check their course).

Yet they refused to take pictures of the stars. Oops you showed yourself to be a retard again.

once you actually start tracking planetary movements, you'll realize that in a geocentric model their orbits would be hilariously complex. A heliocentric model makes those orbits much more reasonable.

So reality cares about the simpliest math not what actually happens?

There wasn't really a lot of observations or theory at that point. But now we have a huge amount of data, experiments, and theories, and a new theory should be commensurate with previous observations.

So paradigm shifts never happen? When all previously thought information is proven wrong?

Unless, of course, we just assume everything is fake, everything is a lie, but then what's even the point of thinking about new theories?

To make theories that accurately reflect reality, not what you want them to be.

Who's to say that his four years of studying the sun were done with due diligence?

Who's to say they weren't, if only things could be verified independently of single people?

I don't know him, I didn't see his data. If all of physics is fake, why would I trust him to be truthful?

Why should you trust anyone, science is literally about not trusting anything? Here you go LARPing again.

It's much easier for one person to lie or simply not work very well than for hundreds of thousands of people over the past hundred years to all collaborate on the same lies. If everything is fake, so is he.

There you go trying to use deductive reasoning when you have none. If you build your foundation on lies, then you get results that are lies. Just look at Alzheimer research that's totally useless because no one checked a study 20 years ago.

 

[Male Idiot]

It’s an interesting POV. I think it’s a tiny bit wrong, I think that consciousness is a part of the world and can interact with it in ways we don’t understand.
The problem of consciousness is completely unsolved - it’s a huge dilemma, and there are multiple theories but not a single one of them is any more backed by evidence that that bong rip or the idea of souls. No theory of consciousness has any testable predictions. It’s all, every single theory, speculative. Which is fascinating because that’s the ONLY biological phenomenon that’s like that. We can literally look at the molecular (and up as needed) level for everything else but consciousness? Not a clue
Have you read Roger Penrose’s stuff about microtubules?

The quantum consciousness is seriously intriguing, about how microtubules in cells, especially the brain if I recall correctly, can make quantum interactions. So would a quantum computer generate a soul? What if paranormal and religious effects are just quantum expressions of belief? Waaaagh, but weaker?

That is one theory. Again it has no way of proving it other than maybe creating our own artificial simulacrum and seeing if it’s conscious (and how would you determine it is?) this is what I mean - there are no theories that are testable

It’s not, yet. Or at least what’s public domain isn’t, and also growing a child like that puts them in a non optimal environment. What they will do is breed psychopaths.

I was about to...

Yeah, it's a principally unknowable thing. Maybe AI or rather, the general approach of tensor networks could give us some way of getting into it since it's a more controlled system where we have, in theory, access to each "neuron" and their states. How would we recognize actual consciousness and distinguish it from something fake? No idea. I don't think a certain complexity of responses to stimuli can be achieved without a form of consciousness forming as an abstract emergent property. Although I think that a key factor would be dynamics. Current AI/LLMs are still very static and one-dimensional, as far as I know. At least compared to a biological brain.

You say that as if that's not a desired property for a designated lifelong leader of a state...

But he said it. It is a desired trait in a politician, and all politicians already are that so not a downside.

I firmly believe social media intentionally makes people not open to alternative ideas of living or challenging the status quo.
Weak minded people follow trends like their live depends on them and never stray from them because they give them comfort.
Its almost like they try to intentionally make them soulless, making them all like the same things, having the same ideas, limiting them from really discovering themselves or doing something moderately difficult.

Now for the real conspiracy part: I believe this war on wokeness is artificial, because people started seeing that social media was actively pushing leftist ideas and threw the rightwing people a bone, making them believe that there are still people like them on the platform, making them not leave all together.
This also reached Elon, making him do a bold move to buy twitter, which was not taken into account.
This amplified with Trumps presidency, it slowly turned the tide into left-wing propoganda, to right-wing propoganda.

Social media is a push and pull between both sides because who rules social media rules a large majority of the worlds population.


There are more things wrong, but this is the major one.

Maybe, but it is also late stage capitalism/extreme technocratic corporatism.

Profits are to be maximalised, thus corporations will always favour instant profit, widest appeal modern audience, formula generated slop.

Shareholders want quarterly lines go up, not investment that will guarantee the company's future in 10 years.

Social media just amplifies it.

Conspiracy theories were fed to the Boomers so they wouldn't notice the Jew problem the US. It's not Freemasons Illuminati or Jesuits. It's just Jews. Jews and their goy lapdog frontmen.

Trvthnvke.

Since the enlightenment started, a few jew families got insane wealth, and in WW1 solidified their rule, overtaking the USA Golem. After getting kicked out of the cursed land of Israel, they evolved to be parasitic on a societal scale.

Europe and the lost saviour of the White Race saw that, but got beaten in WW2.

Since then, they had two horses in the race, having also made communism, but with the fall of the Soviets and China being too yellow to parasitise, they only got 1 horse left.

Israel is their getaway resort, the rest of the jews their blood bound servants, and goyim their slaves. Like a caste of rulers, enforcers and workers.

That's why Slomo Shekelberg is making the Hollywood goyslop. He isn't the elite, he is their tool. A kosher jannie, if you will.

The true order is Bankers, Bibi, Zion Don. Bibi is just their housekeeper, and if he does a shit job, protests start up. Trump is twice removed from True Shekel power.

All the rest is just infiltrated organisations or mouthpiece fronts for these elites. Freemasons, Israel, Hollywood, Wall Street, Brussels, religions. The many heads of the Heed Hydra.

Even conspiracy theories. The jew banker will make the jewtuber and jewriter talk about aliens, lizard people, demons, vampires, all that nonsense.

Those are all red herrings. The only unjuded things in Europe, the ancient cultures and faiths, are long dead. Asia is free, as of now, but Zog is hard at work to undo that.

But Japan is getting pozzed, Zion Don is on the warpath to ruin Chyna and RuZZia, which already had been seeded with jews because they could pass as Igor better than Chang.
Japan had been US occupied since WW2, same with Europe, so they lost already. Japan was just simply an irrelevant shekel making factory, until they sealed their fate.
Japan created anime, and anime will end Japan, just not in the way Trump's useful idiots think. It hit the right neurons and suddenly, Japan was important, drawing the Eye of Zog to it. Goyim must not recieve non-kosher programming. Anime is non-kosher programming. It is too good for its own good, suddenly Visa, Mastercard and Uncle Sam are all knocking on the door, telling the nip how to change it so it fits (((The West))).

That's the final trvthnvke, that 99% of the (((Happy Merchants))) are just servants as well. They truly are believing that they aren't oppressing you. They fight for Israel and to strike back at heckin' Hitlemort. They are useful idiots who just outrank you as you are a mere goyim. But they are just synapse creatures, carrying out a will they do not comprehend. Same is true for the glowies. They glow and they act as golem, it is all golems all the way down. Social engineering put to its ultimate test.

 

[Al Qaedurr]

Every conspiracy theory is a psyop.

Politics is actual theater, red vs blue isn't real, politicians don't really dislike or like each other, political "issues" are partisan in order to easily compartmentalize frustrations & exercise control, WEF is a psyop, most of history is a psyop, Epstein was a psyop, the JQ is a psyop, etc.

The way I look at it is this: I am kind of smart, but there are tons of people smarter than me that have taken ultimate power. The #1 thing people in power want to do is maintain that power, not just for them, but for their descendants. If I had a lot of control and knew other people that had a lot of control, it would only make sense to create a complex, layered system of proxies consisting of false information in order to distract everyone from the truth, whatever that means.

I don't trust any conspiracy theory to be true, not because I believe them to be telling the truth, but rather because I believe them to lie so much. People whose main concern is hiding their true intentions using unlimited resources in order to obfuscate said intentions are not being confounded by insane hobbyists who "dig for the truth" in their spare time.

 

[Male Idiot]

The more unnatural stuff it has in it, the more likely it is to be a psyop. My Theory of Unified Jewing as outlined above, relies on no supernatural gimmick or magical mcguffin.

It simply is psychology, money and manipulation.

So anything that contains magic rites, Bible Sperging (tm), fairies, etc is automatically discounted. Aliens are a red flag, but not as categorically invalidating as the aforementioned factors.

Aliens could have visited or be visiting Earth, though I would doubt any sufficiently advanced alien species would need to be in cahoots with human governments. Do you need to ally with a spider to spray Raid on a fly?

Retaining power for their descendants was the main goal for centuries, but now I think there is something to the rumors that they want to gain immortality, seeing that as an upgrade to Slomo Rockvetcher the Junior.
Maybe they did try sacrificing a few not to be missed orphans to every deity they could find in all the dusty old books. Maybe they tried adenochrome, but if they did, that was just a method for immortality, not the end goal in itself, and most certainly not the source of their power, which is in truth their wealth.