What conspiracy theories do you believe in? - Put your tinfoil hats on

[Krokodil Overdose]

My question about "white genocide"

If a white person and (for example) a black person mate, the kid isn't "pure" white, but isn't "pure" black either, so wouldn't it also be black genocide if you're not looking at the races as "white" and "other"?

It's an artifact of the One Drop Rule (and the accompanying benefits of not being white in our affirmative-action-soaked environment, see Sailer's "flight from white" in this regard.) It's also why the Beige Horizon can never be hit: quite simply, there's too little "memory" in human DNA to hit a neutral medium w/r/t racial features, and the way DNA recombines means that you'll always get clustered individuals who look more like one particular group than another.

A better white genocide theory, I think, is that western (read: white) civilization advanced to the point where it accidentally turned itself into Calhoun's rat experiment, but with people, and unscrupulous individuals are taking advantage of that fact in order to loot the wealth it created getting to that point.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

A real case happened in baseball, it might be mentionned in another thread but it worth to mention it again. Some players of the Chicago White Sox in 1919 were accused of match fixing. That scandal was known as "Black Sox scandal". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Sox_Scandal

In politics conspiracies, sometimes I think then Teddy Roosevelt run as a 3rd party candidate in 1912 was a way to let Woodrow Wilson winning the presidency.

Has everyone forgotten Henry Hill/Jimmy Burke and the Boston College basketball point shaving scandal? It's less a conspiracy than old fashioned crime but it's highly likely its still going on, in a much more sophisticated manner.

 

[Dick In a Drawer]

i think the us & saudi arabia created isis to take out assad, not in the sense they wanted isis or anything like that but more similar to other examples of regime change where they funded rebels to take out the leader not caring about the results like with operation cyclone in 1980s afghanistan and in libya. operation timber sycamore was a cia program in around 2013 where them and the saudis trained rebels in jordan and provided them with funds and weapons to fight assad's side in syria. this program was happening at basically the same exact time isis entered syria and through the same routes. isis having american weapons and vehicles is a known fact but most news outlet just say it's because of the black market in syria but i think there's the factor of the isis members getting their weapons directly from military contractors, and probably the saudis, from this program. this extends beyond isis towards the other terrorist groups in syria like al nursa, which qatar supports.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

I'd guess your parents signed you up, you missed the actual submission deadline for your piece, the actual winner was chosen entirely at random (it being a kids art contest and the judge not really wanting to do any judging.), and that random pick just happened to be you and your non-existent artwork.

Nah, the thing is no information was signed up, you just grabbed a drawing, submitted (turned in the drawing) by that friday of that week, and then they were to be judged and the winner would be called based on their phone number which would be on the drawing itself, no information was handed off outside of the drawing itself... The problem still persists, none of my information was in the system as we didn't have an id for that library, and my image which had my phone/name on it was still in my possession and was never turned in. Weird

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

My question about "white genocide"

If a white person and (for example) a black person mate, the kid isn't "pure" white, but isn't "pure" black either, so wouldn't it also be black genocide if you're not looking at the races as "white" and "other"?

The whole problem with that concept is Blacks aren't 6% of the global population and declining. As it stands Black men and women universally stand at around between 10-20% of the population and growing. By itself that's not an issue, then you get education/advertisements pushing "White children bad" "White relationships White supremacy" violence accelerat against Whites/etc.

Well let's just say the UN definition of genocide is one of the few useful things to explain what the White genocide concept entails:

"... any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily harm, or harm to mental health, to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

It starts to become more clear.

How about we don't talk about theories involving the LHC without understanding what it does and how. The alternative makes you look exceptional.

Simulation theory is interesting but really unlikely. Every "glitch in the matrix" or "Mandela effect" story I've heard really isn't that much special and definitely "can't be explained any other way". The top one on reddit, for example, about a guy who supposedly saw the future of him getting hit by a truck before dodging it... has the events backwards. It's more likely that, after nearly missing getting hit, his brain freaked out and replayed the event a couple times with a side of "what could have happened" while still reeling with shock. As with all things, Occam's Razor applies.
And Newton's Flaming Laser Sword.

"White genocide"/the great replacement is an observable phenomenon but I can't say for certain if it's a neutral thing or a bad thing, or if it involves people or nations with ulterior motives, or not.

Although you may be right they may be explainable few things though, Occam's Razor doesn't dictate what is the outcome only what is more likely the outcome. The problem is in reality the "more likely outcome" ignoring complex concepts is normally not realistic at all, why Occam's Razor normally isn't a good tool to use in such a kind of statement. As Occam's unlike Alder's Razor doesn't dictate the outcome. I'd also add just because you could chalk it up to being something less complex doesn't also mean it is. Here's an easy example: A woman goes to take a walk, on her walk she meets a man who says "God told me you would come today" and gives her $100.00. Now instead of him being told by "a god" / "The God"/etc. it's more likely he randomly came across the lady and just decided to hand her the money for whatever reason or motivation.

Since OR doesn't dictate the actual outcome it could very well be the guy was told by "god/God" to such thing it's just without more evidence it's less likely based off of default position. If evidence is provided or more evidence comes forward then default position would be overridden.



I could tell you over this online chat I'm currently eating a pizza, occam's razor would suggest I am and there'd be no reason for a complex concept as "I'm lying" or anything of the sort, and what would I have to gain from doing such a thing, but I'm not eating a pizza... It shows Occam's razor isn't always a clear cut solution (which it's not intended as and is often misused as) and showcases the most likely non-complex answer isn't always correct for a situation. Both razors would suggest you take my word I am just eating a pizza (Least complex solution for said scenario), because adding a layer of complexity by assuming I'm lying wouldn't make much sense given the context of the situation but provides a fine example why there should be more scrutiny of "The razors" in the first place. Just because you can remove complexities from a situation doesn't dismiss the possibility it is more complex nor does it make the more complex route less likely. Not everything is more complex either, but it's a case by case basis. Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Lemmingwise]

My question about "white genocide"

If a white person and (for example) a black person mate, the kid isn't "pure" white, but isn't "pure" black either, so wouldn't it also be black genocide if you're not looking at the races as "white" and "other"?

To some degree, yes, and there are quite a few black people who do dislike it when their members miscagenate.

Of course it's more comparable to the relationship between native americans and europeans centuries ago: a lot of native americans interbred and the result is a large amount of people are now 25% native american and very few purely so. A huge oversimplification of course, and there are different factors for being overwhelmed, whereas then it was disease and superior weaponry and aggression, whereas now it's birth control and propaganda.

But in both cases it involves large migrations of people in one direction only. I think I'd look differently on it if were only one or two countries where it happened, instead of all countries except iceland. And iceland has less people than cleveland.

So to summarize; europeans didn't face any demographic danger when colonizing america, as there was no movement of native americans to europe. Black people don't face the same type of demographic danger, since there is no large scale movement of americans/europeans to africa. Of course many type of african people have faced demographic danger in africa to other african tribes, european colonization, arab conquest and I'm sure at some point in the future, chinese colonization.

American blacks might well face a similar demographic danger since immigration from mexico will likely end up marginalising them further, as I don't believe there is currently any notable size of migration from africa to the US (correct me if I'm wrong).

From the way you ask the question, I suppose you find all of this malarky? Or perhaps you think it's some kind of ad-hoc reasoning. Or perhaps you happily look forward to the "brown horizon" as it was called in this video. Or perhaps you were just curious. Let me know.

 

[ProgKing of the North]

To some degree, yes, and there are quite a few black people who do dislike it when their members miscagenate.

Of course it's more comparable to the relationship between native americans and europeans centuries ago: a lot of native americans interbred and the result is a large amount of people are now 25% native american and very few purely so. A huge oversimplification of course, and there are different factors for being overwhelmed, whereas then it was disease and superior weaponry and aggression, whereas now it's birth control and propaganda.

But in both cases it involves large migrations of people in one direction only. I think I'd look differently on it if were only one or two countries where it happened, instead of all countries except iceland. And iceland has less people than cleveland.

So to summarize; europeans didn't face any demographic danger when colonizing america, as there was no movement of native americans to europe. Black people don't face the same type of demographic danger, since there is no large scale movement of americans/europeans to africa. Of course many type of african people have faced demographic danger in africa to other african tribes, european colonization, arab conquest and I'm sure at some point in the future, chinese colonization.

American blacks might well face a similar demographic danger since immigration from mexico will likely end up marginalising them further, as I don't believe there is currently any notable size of migration from africa to the US (correct me if I'm wrong).

From the way you ask the question, I suppose you find all of this malarky? Or perhaps you think it's some kind of ad-hoc reasoning. Or perhaps you happily look forward to the "brown horizon" as it was called in this video. Or perhaps you were just curious. Let me know.

As long as the culture survives I don’t think it matters what color the people are or how pure the ancestry is.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

As long as the culture survives I don’t think it matters what color the people are or how pure the ancestry is.

And there in lies the problem. A lot of these "other color people" do not share the same values or culture as the western nations they are migrating too, which is another slice o the pie or issue within. The problem is many people realize this and won't honestly acknowledge stats as they come up. The "I don't care about color only ideology" only works if statistically said groups actually do value a good ideology. Ethnicity can also play a factor as per say, Russian Whites may favor Communism more than European Whites but if that were the case (and not saying it is) I wouldn't want them in either.

I don't have the demographic charts on me again, but for instance Freedom of speech and the 2A they don't heavily favor in voting. Which leads the pathway to the culture imploding. (Oh wait I found some of them)

If all people's (racially/ethnically/etc.) voted the same way no one would care, the issue is as shown, they don't, and don't even get me started on their other voting habits which would lead to a cultural demise for the west which is another part of the potential for the west to fall apart with the demographic changes occurring.

 

[Lemmingwise]

As long as the culture survives I don’t think it matters what color the people are or how pure the ancestry is.

Why do you care about any particular culture surviving?

 

[ProgKing of the North]

Why do you care about any particular culture surviving?

I honestly don’t per se, if enough people want it to survive it will, if people decide another culture is better than they’ll move on. Can’t force people to keep a culture they don’t want

 

[Lemmingwise]

I honestly don’t per se, if enough people want it to survive it will, if people decide another culture is better than they’ll move on. Can’t force people to keep a culture they don’t want

I didn't think so, thanks for being honest, now.

Some people do care about legacies. They don't necessarily require force, either.

 

[Or Else What]

Professional tennis is so awash in performance-enhancing drugs its a joke but the sponsorship industry that's tied in with these players is so important to the sport's governing bodies that they do nothing about it (other than an occasional low-level wrist-slap). There are some glaring examples at the very top level but a bit lower down at the tier level 2 and 3 tournies is where its really running things, with the Russiaan-player-dominated match-throw betting adding another layer of shit.

The drug business started becoming obvious in the 1990s, with the big-serve baseline giants, and with the 'new' Andre Agassi keeping up with them, and the womens' game seeing the rise of lumps like the 'new' Jennifer Capriati and the 'new' Monica Seles.

Now its Serena Williams (who for many years has played only selected tournies so as to cycle her intake - and remember her panic room bullshit when the testers turned up?) The right-on media want us to believe she is nothing but a pure natural wonder and an all-round inspiration who is not worshipped enough because sexism and racism, and not because of her many instances of appalling behaviour, her relentless efforts at self-promotion that reads like an season of South Park. or that the evidence she is a cheating cunt is so strong.

And then there's Raphael Nadal. the Lance Armstrong of the Slams.

Tennis, like other sports, is 'self-governing' - a system which, as seen with the Olympics and FIFA, has recently been blown open as not quite operating like the disinterested and unbiased guardians of fairness they pay themselves handsomely to pretend to be. After all, their system works so well - didn't they catch Sharapova taking some terrible awful no-good cheating miracle stuff - and didn't they punish her good for it? And lesson learnt all round.

 

[Zersetzung]

Tom Cruise and Jim Carrey are definitely the same dude.

 

[d12]

Bush didn't do 9/11 but he or his administration knew that a terrorist incident on the scale of 9/11 would eventually happen and deliberately let it get to that point in order to implement such laws and measures like the PATRIOT Act in the aftermath.

 

[Bunny Tracks]

-Atlantis was real and was destroyed by a natural disaster
-Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 either flew into another dimension, time traveled, or was abducted by aliens
-Madeleine Mccan's parents definitely killed her and buried her under Robert Murat's driveway

 

[Lemmingwise]

-Madeleine Mccan's parents definitely killed her and buried her under Robert Murat's driveway

The part that confuses me is that these people from the UK hired a washington DC detective firm, which produced efit images that looked like some of the washington dc higherups, which weren't released in the public until a documentary more than a few years later.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Why do you care about any particular culture surviving?

I'd rather a future in which freedom and self sufficiency are valued over subservience to authority. China exists, it is bad, I'd rather fewer people were living like that in the future, because I wouldn't want to live like that. I don't want human existence to become like a dystopian novel throughout the entire world.

I don't care what tone the people's skin is though.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I think the only reason the west is forcing Islam in is to force more censorship and mass totalitarian surveillance

They hide behind this dream of unity when we all know Islam at its core is a violent destructive ideology. My theory is there hoping for more and more terrorist attacks to slowly eat away at our freedom under the guise of protection.

It's the excuse they'll use to slowly chip away at everything

I think everybody who's read praktischer idealismus or how it's now popularly known "the kalergi plan" comes to that conclusion.

 

[Lemmingwise]

I'd rather a future in which freedom and self sufficiency are valued over subservience to authority. China exists, it is bad, I'd rather fewer people were living like that in the future, because I wouldn't want to live like that. I don't want human existence to become like a dystopian novel throughout the entire world.

I don't care what tone the people's skin is though.

I think it's a superifical analysis to think that people that talk about "white genocide" (or a native american genocide, or any) are primarily concerend with the tone of skin color. That is a convenient portmonteau.

European colonization of africa used pre-existing conflicts so that people could be played out against each other and have their countries controlled by a foreign influence. Right now the same thing is being done to european countries and because they were too homogenous and not so easily deceived in the past, people were brought en-masse to european countries, people that are more readily accept authoritative control, either by selling their country (because it is not their country anyways in their hearts, simply the place they moved to) or by stoking fear against native populations and vice versa.

I think the idea that there are no complex and both subtle and obvious differences between groups is the superficial way of perceiving this. Because the skin tone of an italian man and an arab, or a chinese man and a frenchman isn't that different. They are instead a linguistic placeholder for recognizing differences of genetics. And nothing predicts personality better than genetics. Even if you're adopted, the most likely factor that you'll be a smoker is whether your biological parents were smokers.

Because it has been made politically unacceptable to study this, it is a very understudied subject and I wish not venture deep into guess territory, but it's quite likely that we can discover big differences between genetic groups in the big five, the most accurate personality model we have discovered so far.

These differences result in groups developing a different culture. And no matter the effort we've expended to be color-blind, and certainly I've lived most my life that way (or tried to), people in general among each group do not seem to be able to really surpass that and have a prefference for their own, even if they have to discover this after a while. That prefference doesn't mean you have to hate any other groups either. I don't hate lettuce, I just prefer broccoli.

And I think that dystopian futures are easier to withstand when broccoli is willing to stand together, because a dystopian society for lettuce might be one without any free handouts today, whereas for broccoli it might mean a dystopian society where there may be no surplus tomorrow because more than everything is spent today leading to perpetual debt.

 

[Vendetta™]

I think the idea that there are no complex and both subtle and obvious differences between groups is the superficial way of perceiving this. Because the skin tone of an italian man and an arab, or a chinese man and a frenchman isn't that different. They are instead a linguistic placeholder for recognizing differences of genetics. And nothing predicts personality better than genetics. Even if you're adopted, the most likely factor that you'll be a smoker is whether your biological parents were smokers.

You keep painting with these incredibly broad strokes and I'm having to wonder where the source is on this? I know for an absolute fact, that genetics does not pick one's culture. A Hispanic child raised by two white parents is still far more likely to have a predisposition to, and participate in white culture. If you can back up the "culture/behavior is a result of genetics" I'm all for reading it.

Because it has been made politically unacceptable to study this, it is a very understudied subject and I wish not venture deep into guess territory, but it's quite likely that we can discover big differences between genetic groups in the big five, the most accurate personality model we have discovered so far.

Agreed, no science should be outlawed simply because of social taboos.

These differences result in groups developing a different culture. And no matter the effort we've expended to be color-blind, and certainly I've lived most my life that way (or tried to), people in general among each group do not seem to be able to really surpass that and have a prefference for their own, even if they have to discover this after a while.

There's that again. People will generally prefer others who share their value and culture, and this is more to do with the fact that, yes, racial groups generally share the same values. However, it's disingenuous to imply that people always enjoy being around others like them, even when the share little outside of aesthetic similarities. I myself generally do not enjoy being around others like me outside of family (likely due to growing up in the dominant culture), and tend to gravitate towards others who are a part of the same culture, not racial group.

That prefference doesn't mean you have to hate any other groups either. I don't hate lettuce, I just prefer broccoli.

This is generally the assumption because folks with these beliefs often do use it to spread hate, propagate segregation and even outright displacement/genocide (See: Black Lives Matter and the Neo-Nazi movement), Doesn't mean it's always the case, but there is a strong correlation.