Archie wrote: ↑Wed Jul 09, 2025 1:16 amAs a general rule, the most academic and informed researchers tend to be rather specialized and don't like to spread themselves too thin. Kevin MacDonald for example does not venture into Holocaust revisionism, WWII revisionism, the Third Reich, etc. He surely has some ideas about these things, but these types usually won't take bold public stances unless they have looked into something exhaustively. They tend to be very cautious that way.
Dalton is an example of one who specializes less, instead covering a wide range of topics, similar to E. Michael Jones. Both are valuable. Specialists are more incisive and critical in advancing their specific field but they seldom make their work very accessible to the mainstream (e.g. Mattogno's work, which many have considered 'unreadable'), which is why both are essential.
In contrast, the guys who immediately latch onto to every single conspiracy or contrarian position within 5 minutes of hearing about it usually don't care about getting things wrong or being embarrassed.
True, and they quietly sidestep out of the discussion once their bogus views are proven wrong. I strongly suspect many of the most bogus views are peddled by the same networks who committed the crimes or conspiracy in the first place, where applicable. Nonsense views on topics like 9/11 ("no planes", "DEW space beams", "mini nukes") and JFK assassination (probably too many to list), or conspiracies in general (moon landing fakery, etc.) have been very effective at creating "noise" that takes away from productive investigations on the path toward pressuring more formal inquiry, especially on key narratives.
I regret not saving it but I once saw a quote from Hitler (or someone high up in the NSDAP) expressing that those who believe everything/anything are much worse than those that are [overly-]skeptical and hard to win over.