So according to historical revisionists:

So according to historical revisionists:
>the holocaust never happened
>the moon landings never happened
>rockets cannot move in space because "theres nothing to push against"
>nuclear weapons are a hoax
>the earth is flat
>the earth is hollow
>jewish new world order conspiracy
>every terrorist attack is a false flag or faked by kikes
>modern medicine shouldn't be trusted because of kikes - the ancients apparently knew better
>an authoritarian fascist society is more free than a liberal one

Is there anything about history that /pol/ tier revisionists actually agrees on that happened?

Other urls found in this thread:

brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/fscottfit100572.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

No, litterally nothing has ever happened ever, every single major event is faked.

You forgot about Humans living with dinosaurs and the dinosaurs vain attempt in destroying Noah's ark when the world flooded.

Remove the Jew part and they become somewhat believable. The NWO and modern medicine that is.

I honestly wish the Earth was flat, with our world being one of may habitable "puddles" scattered on a huge ice plane.
I'd imagine the reason the elites would hide this would be the fact that the outer worlds are inhabited by powerful hostile lifeforms that could end human life, so it's better to keep people from going there.
"The Thing" was a hidden warning about the dangers from beyond the ice wall.

It just makes things more interesting.

very few people believe all or even more than one of these things and you're being willfully disingenuous

But why don't you believe in all of these things, user? If you truly believe that kikes are responsible for the holohoax, moon landing hoax, NWO, false flags, then its not really a stretch to question the very nature of reality itself.

So we're not even going to pretend to not just be a board of people who want to whine about /pol/? Nice.

Why is it that most conspiracy theories never have any actual evidence?

It's always the same methodology, le shadowy figures in the background

>"Is that right? Can you tell me their names and do you have any documents/recordings proving such?"
>"I can't give you anything like that but I can tell you this guy x met up with this guy y at a hotel on this day."
>"Right ok, but that isn't evidence of anything, that's just a statement of fact and even then, the fact is two guys met at a hotel, do you have any actual evidence?"
>"Fuck off shill"


Hm, really makes me think

>needing evidence for a conspiracy where the evidence has either been tampered with or destroyed

So you just admitted that you don't need evidence, thanks for proving my point, brainlet.

You always need evidence m8, you don't get a jail out of free card by just saying "they got rid of it".

Most people don't believe all of these simultaneously

>CIA has a mind control program
>Nazi officials went to Latin America to help Burgers catch Che Guevara
>Gulf of Tonkin never happened
>War on drugs was literally started by one butthurt burger
>Japanese infected Chinese captives with diseases and kept them alive
>Soviets worked on a truth elixir based on LSD
>CIA helped the cocaine trade and planned the crack epidemic to destroy the black family

oh wait, all of these are real

honestly, moon landing and 9/11 bullshit is fucking babbi tier shit compared to things that actually went down

No, he's saying that 1) even if he could provide evidence you wouldn't believe it because you don't believe half the shit said even though it's outright admitted or the documents are public knowledge and 2) that in some cases the evidence has been tampered with or destroyed as a means of covering up the incident, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

If someone gets murdered and the killer covers it up well that doesn't actually mean a murder did not occur.

>If someone gets murdered and the killer covers it up well that doesn't actually mean a murder did not occur.

It's not that the murder didn't occur, retard. It's that there is insufficient evidence that the accused committed the crime.

Epic false equivalence, brainlet.

Adding onto this, specifically with his first point about the CIA having a mind control program:

1) You don't believe they did as it hurts your feelings and sensibilities rather than anything having to do with evidence or proof.

2) There's proof they did.

3) Just because we have evidence that supports x conclusion does not mean that y did not actually occur. An alternative theory is that the CIA's inquiries into mind control were done not for the fantastic and extravagant purpose of mind control but for the much more mundane yet more insidious purpose of perfecting torture (namely, by means that leave no physical evidence). The pretense of mind-control was concocted as a means of discrediting the test subjects after they inevitably got loose and squealed (akin to how pedophile groups have admitted to using satanic imagery and cult practices to make the stories of their victims seem "too fantastical to be real").

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Roman Empire was actually in Africa.

It's not a false equivalence. You're saying that because there is not evidence of x that we should not look for evidence of x. But just because there is not evidence of x does not mean there is not evidence of x. A murder, a conspiracy to do some nefarious thing, a theft, these are all the exact same thing.

Maybe you should reread my post, you don't seem to get the point.

>You're saying that because there is not evidence of x that we should not look for evidence of x.

I never stated this once.

Epic post, brainlet.

Then why do you get so infuriated when people suggest the idea of, say, the CIA engaging in nefarious actions?

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at here, you didn't get my argument the first time and now you're getting angry about it.

I don't get angry.

Just don't speak of it in a nature that assumes it to be true without having an ounce of evidence.

If you have evidence, then by all means go ahead and believe it.

Then don't get angry at the notion of "shadowy figures" doing things in the background. Instead, ask to provide his evidence instead of just outright dismissing anything that would disagree with your sensibilities. I'm sure some of the weapons grade autists at /pol/ would love to sperg about how pizza is a pedophile conspiracy or whatever if you let them, for example.

Why is it that everytime someone mentions /pol/ in a negative way, they just complain about how everyone is always whining about /pol/?

Hard to say really, when most people who post these theories are anonymous, frequent the same boards and use the same lingo.

Guren lagann?

>He took the /pol/ bait treads seriously
Weow

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. F. Scott Fitzgerald
Read more at: brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/f/fscottfit100572.html