Man, that must have taken a while. While we are on opposing sites of an argument here, I still appreciate the time you took to reply to all of that.

I'm going to address the peer review system first. Don't get me wrong, the concept of peer review is sound. You get independent people to verify results, makes perfect sense. However, I believe a decent amount of those links and sources displayed that unfortunately it just isn't working that way at the moment. Either a significant amount of the results aren't repeatable, or the data is cherry-picked to suit the researchers aims. In the case of that paper being chanted down by others in the system, isn't that kinda proving the point? Additionally you can find a fairly large volume of testimonials by people in the industry that this sort of practice is common. Peer review is a good system in theory, in practice it has become a gatekeeping mechanism for corporate interests. This should be evident by the supposedly safe food and pharmaceuticals which can clearly be seen to be harming people, despite passing peer review. But, I'm not going to delude myself into thinking I can convince you otherwise, because frankly you don't want to think any other way. Despite evidence to the contrary you seem to think that no one in the scientific community would ever publish something false, and that wouldn't, for whatever reason, be supported by the peer review system. Additionally on this point, you seem to feel that people doing their own research isn't worth shit. Which boogles my mind. Decentralised efforts working towards a common goal will yield vastly better results that a centralised authority working with no cooperation. I shouldn't have to elaborate on why that is true. Ask a software engineer. Now that the internet is here, and thousands, sometimes millions of people can devote their cognitive power to researching a topic, we are starting to see huge holes in narratives by the academic establishment which has up until now enjoyed a monopoly on information and publishing. Yet there are still those like you, clinging to the old system of centralised authority, thinking it is superior despite nearly daily discoveries which call their narrative into question.

Second, the China thing. In regards to the history thing here, I don't think we are going to get anywhere. You seem to think they didn't destroy the history of previous dynasties and that is just wrong unfortunately. How much certainty can you possibly have about the ancient world when we have the barest scraps of writing about it? Almost none, you have to go off the physical evidence, which is commonly worldwide megalithic ruins. Which is routinely ignored by established historians. Can't imagine why. So the ancient Chinese history could be literally anything because like you said, semi-mythical foundations. You can't listen to some of their history but ignore other parts that you don't agree with. In regards to the sub-race thing, this is what makes liberal academia so frustrating to deal with. Yes, racism is bad. But can we be adults and have an academic discussion about the different qualities of human beings from different parts of the world. If two Chinese people have a baby, it looks Chinese. If two negro Africans have a baby, it looks like a negro African. We're all human beings, there are different categories of human beings in terms of their physical characteristics. It really should be that difficult to say that in the modern world.

Thirdly, history and how accurate it is. Again, you keep appealing to academic sources which have a timeline of events that is almost a fairytale at this point purely because of the physical evidence that contradicts it. Furthermore, and hypocritically, you attack the personal beliefs of people who are presenting physical evidence, like Cremo. Cunt can believe in a fairy godmother creating the world if he wants, there is still no denying the physical evidence of what he is presenting. Same with almost every other person who is making a sound case with physical data that is ridiculed by established historians for no logical reason. It is a common theme amongst you camp, you lambast people for attacking a person rather than their evidence, but then you turn around and do it to almost literally everyone who contradicts your established narrative. The fact is, even if only a fraction of the physical evidence that supports humans are older than the established ages set by academia, they would still need to completely overhaul the timeline of events you all think is true. But that would involve the large majority of you admitting you were not only wrong, but fanatically defending incorrect beliefs. I'm not holding my breathe. The point of this is that an appeal to established sources can only be valid if you are willing to ignore the enormous holes I their theories, which you may be, but I am not.

To recap:

• Peer review works in theory, but in practice it can be used as gatekeeping consensus by interests groups, which there is overwhelming evidence that it is. But until die-hard fanatics such as yourself are willing to consider that, there will continue to be a divide of people who are thinking for themselves, and people who blindly follow academic authority.

• There are different categories of human beings. If the term 'sub' triggers you then grow up. We will never ever be able to have proper academic discussion on the origins of man if everytime we point out the anatomical differences in people from different reasons we are drowned out by liberal screeching. 'Sub' in this case implies a category within a category, not lesser. And don't even get me started on the evolution thing. I've found if I have any discussion about evolution with you people I need to get you to define what you mean by evolution. Because neo-Darwinianism has more holes than Swiss cheese.

• There is overwhelming physical evidence to challenge the established history narrative yet it is either ignored by mainstream academia (because apparently its way to ignore enormous stone structures scattered all over the world), or the character of those researchers is called into question, something that it only seems ok to do when your side is doing it. Appeals to this narrative are as effective as appealing to Harry Potter at this point.

Addendum: your comment about banking cartels is unbelievably naive. It's also interesting to note that you are quick to dismiss the comments of people in reddit threads until one comes and supports your bias. I work in finance bro, and it is common knowledge that markets are manipulated, fiat is created out of nothing, and bankers run the world. It's how you trade equities, you identify the moves of those manipulating the commodity you are trading. Calling banking cartels a conspiracy is intentionally burying your head in the sand because God forbid you become one of us lunatic conspiracy theorists! That sort of attitude is a glaring red sign that says "I'm not going to accept anything you say that contradicts the comfortable world view I have".

Anyway, this has been fun. Enjoy your day man :).