Theories of the conspiratorial kind

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

In relation to this, I found the below series to be a good watch, the delivery is excellent.

Clocks in at 5 or 6 hours so far I think, as it's not yet finished. But what has been put out so far, I found enjoyable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOM2fT6tBFE

Sound, I'll have a look at that too. Flicking through quickly there, it looks to be coming from the same angle as another six-hourer I watched a few years back about the post-hoc WWII narrative written by the USSR, the USA, Great Britain, and France. When you string their names together like that, as authors, you'd be mad to think anything they all agreed on could be 100% kosher (pun intended).

The main problem I found with that doc was that a lot of the alternative narrative it presented was ultra conservative (in a Vargian "traditional wife" kinda sense) and also based on things etymologists, philologists and anthropologists/ethnologists had already been "debunking" in the 19th century. I watched all of that, but if the genetic purity myths over-ride too much, I don't think I'll last the full six hours on this one.

[mugz]

...

[Bigmac]

When you string their names together like that, as authors, you'd be mad to think anything they all agreed on could be 100% kosher (pun intended).

I enjoyed that pun.

What was the documentary you watched? Seems like it could be up my street.

Yeah the stage setting seems to go into the reasoning behind it a bit more,  but the later ones focus more on the history itself. I just find the delivery very listenable, if that makes sense. Sometimes you encounter something with good information, but the presentation can make it difficult to take in.

What parts have been debunked already? It's something I found really intriguing upon first watch, but a clearer picture of what parts should be scrutinised would be sound.

[Bigmac]

I'm a couple notches further along from swastikas, pyramids, and thor heyerdahl.

So what's the sequence of notches to where you are now?

[mugz]

...

[John Kimble]

I'm in no way saying any of this is true, or meaningful, or that I know anything about anything. I'm just saying that things are complicated, and it can be useful to process stuff that seems silly, since even if it is silly, your brain appreciates the workout.

The native american thing is one version, but it's a routine that applies to other cultures too, like the amish/mennonites, and so on and so forth.

It just bums me out how much of my life I wasted reading history books or learning about different cultures around the world, and it turns out not to be the way it seems.

As to why that stuff is the way it is, there are many reasons, but I don't know if any of them are true, but then again maybe it's just me being a bit thick, being led down the garden path.

The more interesting culture hoaxes are  Roman, and Norse.

China is interesting too, but that one gets very dark very quickly.

Ah here...that is an incredibly vague explanation of a fairly specific statement "there are no Amish". Unless of course you are just being deliberately flippant. Like what exactly do you mean by a culture hoax? And please...give us an actual example.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

The WWII one was deleted off YouTube a few years back, I can't remember the name of it.

This one you've posted is, I'm afraid, extremely weak. The guy tells us he does his best to go only to original sources wherever he can (this is good), then two minutes later uses a screenshot of a tweet from some randomer as the only proof of what, if you try to research it, seems to be a completely fabricated accusation against the Swedish minister for culture. A screenshot of a tweet is, however, apparently enough to get dozens of convinced and outraged comments, which collect thousands of likes from the key demographic. A screenshot of a tweet... and the guy has the balls just beforehand to talk about "useful idiots" as if it's something he could never be. That alone should be enough to have your own alarm bells screeching; a piece of info which fits his world-view narrative can be assimilated and spread on the basis of a screenshot of a tweet (the mind boggles), yet the schtick he's selling - so I'm presuming it's what he'll do - is him bending over backwards to explain away any info which doesn't fit his world-view narrative. That said, his videos may still be entertaining and contain references to some things that are genuinely worth following up, but whatever analysis is his own can't be worth much at all I'm afraid, except here and there by accident. The whole intro is built on false premises

The debunking stuff was referring to that other WWII doc, but since yer man mentions it here too, the very idea that there was a total learned consensus on race science prior to WWII is simply false. There was a narrative that was louder than the others (Galton, Spencer, etc.), but there were already plenty of dissenting voices, and we have no lack of primary sources for this. Seems funny he accepts that the loudest voice today serves the interests of a ruling narrative but doesn't get that this has always been the case, hence prior to WWII also.

[Bigmac]

Yeah you're right, I just let that part go by without much question but it does seem unfounded. Unless it has been buried... badum tish.

I was actually laughing at the useful idiots mention when skimming through it again. Our friend Yuri seems to really crop up everywhere.

What would the alternatives or dissenting voices be to what he's presenting here?

[mugz]

...

[mugz]

...

[Bigmac]

traps are relevant on a few levels

I've never liked anime.

[astfgyl]

for the love of the gods, throw astfgyl the name of a book or blog or two; I think even poor Fyodor is starting to salivate for the number of unrewarded cues.

You do know I don't actually expect an answer, but I can't help my curiosity when someone tells me that planes are sort of submarines and submarines aren't really a thing at all. I'm not going to get into anything like ridicule on that, I genuinely get curious as to what sources could lead to those conclusions.

and in fairness Mugz, you did give a general list a few posts back there on the type of stuff, just again no specifics. I do also think most of history, by its' very nature is misreported and false narratives are spun throughout history. I mean there is access to everything now and we can all see how things are spun wildly in one direction or another so imagine how bad things were historically when the sources were so limited? The nature of reality itself is up for constant debate anyway, so all things are possible but I fail to be able to stretch to things like the flat earth theory, although I would still watch a video that makes the argument.

[mugz]

...

[Bigmac]

and also I dont want to waste anyones time.

It would seem the cryptic answers are achieving this, though.

I would genuinely be intrigued by what you seem to know, and I'd watch or read some sources you think are valuable in pursuing such knowledge, but the lack of any kind of direction beyond further riddles kind of grows weary after a while.

[Bigmac]

You do know I don't actually expect an answer, but I can't help my curiosity when someone tells me that planes are sort of submarines and submarines aren't really a thing at all. I'm not going to get into anything like ridicule on that, I genuinely get curious as to what sources could lead to those conclusions.

Yeah, I'm in a similar way of thinking myself.

Just typed a search for "planes are submarines". What has life become.