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 ?

  • czech@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    When the economy is in shambles they buy-up assets at a steep discount. Wars are big money-makers too. It looks like things are going great for them.

    • Susaga
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • czech@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.