ITT: Kekworthy pseudo-history and historical conspiracy theories

>implying Holy Blood, Holy Grail wasn't true

>harbinger of the apocalypse
>was said by every loser in every conquest since the dawn of time
>and its not incorrect because the winner IS the harbinger of doom
>for that societys future

Nobodys the "chosen one", is what I'm saying. There's only the winner, and the loser. One group writes history, the other disagrees with their interpretation of it, and on and on and on.

Whats more concerning is that our actions haven't changed in all the years we've been fighting and conquering each other. We still do and say the same things that we did thousands of years ago. Only now we shame the victor and make them apologize for being better at something than we are.

yea I don;t know why people get all spooked about self fulfilling prophecies, what happens happens, take it as you will/

Um no retard, because they stopped Attila twice, and then he died like a bitch on his wedding night

>clean wehrmacht
litterally saying the german army was the only one in history that didnt commit any warcrimes

yea but they freaked the fuck our, even if there was nothing to worry about.

He said that the chosen race is the one that conquers all, but the guns didn't

imo you may as well just call humans the chosen species.

That's the chosen species, but which one is the chosen race?

there's no clear genetic delineation between populations, it's gray, not black and white.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

Pretty much this or anything related to this.

As in, they think they're an entirely separate species or something, or do they just push the accepted fact of migrations and waves instead of "Humans came out of Africa exactly as they are now" as promoted by OOA?

There isn't one. There's just the human perspective, in all its forms. Physical differences aren't the problem, it's our interpretation of their meaning.

Um no, not that I agree with this, but if someone conqurs the world they're objectively better, no human perspective here

Nah they think that they decend from homo erectus in china, while other people come from the exodus from africa ~90,000 years ago, also the toba catastrophe theory is interesting and actually real.

>According to the genetic bottleneck theory, between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago, human populations sharply decreased to 3,000–10,000 surviving individuals.[36][37] It is supported by genetic evidence suggesting that today's humans are descended from a very small population of between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs that existed about 70,000 years ago.

Not if conquering the world kills everyone in the process.

only if you think it's better to be a conquer than to live a life like the Buddha.

But the white man didn't destroy the world, now did he?
Look at it this way, the conqueror can make the Buddhist's life hell but the Buddhist can only preach at the conqueror

If you say so

The 'white man' didn't conquer the world, a few western European countries did. The rest of the white people just sat around in Europe for the most part.

>objectively better

The opinion of you, a human being.

>can only preach
>Ghandi did nothing but preach
>He liberated an entire country using a platform of "non-violence"

The opinion of most of the world, I think

Wow, when I read the numbers were predicted to be even smaller, like down to 300, they must've done some revisions in genetics or archeology

>implying filthy Novgorodians aren't to blame for the genocide of Native Amerindians

Typical racist

It's still amazing how close we came to extinction, all because of one volcano.

>we dont share this opinion
>rendering your entire argument invalid

well the homo sapien did originate in Asia.

t. Eugène Dubois

>volcano
>not human created cataclysm