Watch My New YouTube Video About Erich von Daniken's Most Racist Lines

8/17/2014

Since I’ve written so much this week, today I’ve decided to go in a different direction. Please enjoy my latest YouTube video, which puts to music some of Erich von Däniken’s most racist statements, taken verbatim from his book Signs of the Gods. Most of this will be familiar to regular readers, but I hope you enjoy the clip anyway. It’s a dry run for what I hope will be a much more important video later this year—of which, details to come at another time!

72 Comments

Ronald W. Satz link

8/17/2014 02:41:52 am

Ancient Alien theorists reject the theory of biological evolution--one of the most proven theories in science. This puts them completely outside the "pale." Their theory is really a bizarre mythology.

8/17/2014 04:53:26 am

Tell us more about rejecting generally accepted theories in favor of more bizarre ones.

Ronald W. Satz link

8/17/2014 07:13:32 am

EP, I suggest you read my paper "The Case Against Modern Physics" where I trash what you believe. I also have a screencast of it on YouTube.

8/17/2014 07:19:39 am

Is that the paper that proves that toasters are impossible? Because why would anyone want to read something dumb like that?

Mark

8/17/2014 10:43:10 am

Okay, I've read "Case Against Modern Physics".

Arguing with you is probably pointless; but what the heck, I've got a few hours to burn. I found your paper intensely disappointing. Now, anyone who claims that modern physics is Ultimate Complete Truth is wrong. Modern physics is founded on two main theorems, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics; they famously disagree with each other, and despite 60+ years of work we haven't been able to reconcile them. You can find other examples of problems by surfing over to the "Unsolved Problems in Physics" wiki page. So there's no real dispute that modern physics is, at best, incomplete, and any physicist will tell you so. Modern physics is an *approximation* of the Real Truth, whatever that proves to be, an approximation that physicists are trying to slowly improve.

But your paper is not an effective critique. Your concepts are not well-defined, and your logic does not follow. For example, in section 2, you say that space-time must be the "fundamental component of the universe." What is the definition of "fundamental component"? You don't say. From your later statements, it appears you believe there must be only one kind of fundamental component of the universe. Why? If we accept that space-time is the fundamental component, why does this mean that it must be absolute, not relative? In section 3, why does this mean that space-time must be discrete rather then continuous?

Elsewhere, you criticize modern physics not on the basis of any stated arguments, but by argument from incredulity. You say it's ridiculous to believe that a single atom could be made up of 92+92+146 separate particles, or that electrons could be responsible for doing so much. Well, *why* is it ridiculous? You don't say.

I could go on. This is just a small sample of my problems with this paper. The result isn't even *wrong* - many of your statements cannot actually be evaluated for truth or falsity because they are not well-defined.

Being extremely generous, possibly these terms are well-defined in your own brain, and your statements follow logically by reasoning that is not written down. But if it's not written down, it cannot be evaluated by the reader; you cannot assume the reader can read your mind and know what you're thinking. Even if you're right - and I do not believe you are - this does not constitute an effective critique of modern physics.

And, let me just say, even if you fix these problems, I have other concerns to raise, such as the fact you ignore the enormous technological success of modern physics. Or the fact you ignore that there *is* experimental evidence of such things as gravity waves. Or, in many places, a misunderstanding of what modern theories actually *say*, such as about black holes. Or the self-contradiction of asserting that "space-time" is the most fundamental unit, then introducing a "metaphysical reality" that is presumably even more fundamental. This is just the biggest issue.

8/17/2014 10:55:28 am

@ Mark (not RWS, because it really is pointless)

"anyone who claims that modern physics is Ultimate Complete Truth is wrong... Modern physics is an *approximation* of the Real Truth, whatever that proves to be, an approximation that physicists are trying to slowly improve."

Not to mention that mathematical sciences (as well as, arguably, sciences like linguistics and economics) are not reducible to physics.

"it appears you believe there must be only one kind of fundamental component of the universe. Why? If we accept that space-time is the fundamental component, why does this mean that it must be absolute, not relative? In section 3, why does this mean that space-time must be discrete rather then continuous?"

Holy shit, really?! It must be even worse than I thought!

"Being extremely generous, possibly these terms are well-defined in your own brain, and your statements follow logically by reasoning that is not written down."

Let's not mince words: RWS's work is pretty terrible even by the standards of pseudoscience. I hope you also get called a "lap-dog of mainstream physics" so you and I can be bros :)

Ronald W. Satz link

8/17/2014 11:19:04 am

This is intended as a response to Mark below. My paper "The Case Against Modern Physics" is the first paper in a course on the Reciprocal System I have at www.reciprocalsystem.guru. The Reciprocal System is a unified, general theory of the universe--there is nothing else like it. My other papers go into great detail on the theory; and, of course, you should study the books of my theoretical physics mentor, Dewey B. Larson. I have constructed the world's only comprehensive theoretical database for the properties of matter; Quantum Mechanics is useless for engineers. Both Jason and I apply critical thinking to the problems in our fields of endeavor. I suggest you dig deeper into the Reciprocal System. Space-time is the fundamental component of the universe; the proof is that every physical quantity can be reduced to space-time terms; see my paper "Space-Time Dimensions and Natural Unit Values of Physical Quantities." QED.

8/17/2014 11:25:44 am

"the world's only comprehensive theoretical database for the properties of matter"

LOL

"Quantum Mechanics is useless for engineers."

Double LOL

"Both Jason and I apply critical thinking to the problems in our fields of endeavor"

Nonstop Infinite LOL

Mark

8/17/2014 11:48:08 am

@Ronald W. Satz: Why should I give you more of my time? I've given you 20 pages to make a case, and I have so far seen nothing that makes me think there is any point to continuing. You're asking me to invest a considerable amount of time and energy into what appears to be a pointless project. Why should I give that to you? Theories-of-Everything-rejected-by-the-scientific-establishment are a dime a dozen on the internet; what makes yours special?

Tell you what, I've got some time today. I'll give you another 10 pages to convince me to read the rest. Tell me what to read.

By the way: quantum mechanics is not useless for engineers. Integrated circuits, solar panels, nuclear reactors, these are all based on QM. Technology is, after all, the ultimate standard of scientific success: if a theory lets us do something we couldn't do before, then clearly it's got *something* the old theory didn't have, and in this respect QM is *fantastically* successful. I note that - and please correct me if I'm wrong - your own theory has not led to any similar *technological* breakthroughs.

Paul Cargile

8/18/2014 03:01:36 am

"In section 3, why does this mean that space-time must be discrete rather then continuous?"

The discrete or granular idea of spacetime arrises in the alternate to string theory, loop quantum gravity, and suggested by the Planck scale. There may not be a physical smallest measurement of length and duration, but there is a smallest length and duration we can measure.

Ronald W. Satz link

8/18/2014 04:22:31 am

The Reciprocal System is a fully quantized theory, right from the beginning--which means space-time itself. Electrical engineers do NOT use quantum mechanics, neither do atomic engineers. Take a look at Electrical Engineering: A Pocket Reference by Schmidt-Walter and Kories; there's not even an index entry for Quantum Mechanics! The Reciprocal System has been in print since 1959; it has numerous supporters around the world. I've written 65 papers about it; it's never let me down.

Only Me

8/18/2014 04:53:24 am

"it's never let me down"

Well, except for that one time, in January 2012. As explained on Cosmoquest (formerly, the Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forums) by member Geo Kaplan:

[While we're waiting for the end times, it's probably worth summarizing the plot so far, for future readers happening upon this thread. Transpower/Ronald Satz gave us a specific, easily tested prediction of RST. In short, RST (hereafter called "Wrong Theory") says that the time constant of a resistor-capacitor circuit depends on charging voltage. Conventional theory (hereafter referred to as "Correct Theory") says that the time constant is voltage-independent. RST's prediction was based on the erroneous solving of a non-existent energy conservation paradox stemming from Satz's ignorance of Correct Theory.

Cutting through the haze of word salad, cjameshuff ran a simple, dispositive experiment that falsified RST. He did in a few minutes what Transpower never bothered to do, what RST adherents never did in 30 years of working on Wrong Theory. The effort to carry out the experiment was certainly much, much less than Ronald Satz hiimself expended in writing the paper on capacitors that Papageno somewhat unkindly, but accurately, dismissed.

Simply put, RST is a failed theory. Satz introduced fundamental errors based on a misunderstanding of Correct Theory. Now scientists make mistakes all the time, but Satz absurdly never bothered to test the predictions of his Wrong Theory, despite having worked on RST for approximately three decades. He did not recognize that essentially the entirety of electronic devices would simply not function if he were correct. The able functioning of multiple billions of computers, cellphones, radios, televisions, clocks and the like show us that Satz and RST are not only wrong, but overwhelmingly so. Cjameshuff's experiment puts the exclamation point on that conclusion. Anyone with an open, critically thinking mind must come to the same conclusion.]

You never did reply back to cjameshuff before the thread's 30 day discussion time limit kicked in.

Clint Knapp

8/18/2014 05:38:13 am

Guys, a 686 page reference manual for practical engineering that self-describes itself as "a well-organized resource for accessing the basic electrical engineering knowledge professionals and students need for their work" doesn't mention Quantum Mechanics. Therefore QM must be untrue.

One could spend the next thousand words or so defining the difference between engineers and physicists, between devices and the interactions that make them function, but what's the point? His stance is literally that Electrical Engineers and their work are the only thing that matter in the universe- because he said so.

8/18/2014 06:32:00 am

Yet if his own theory is true, electrical engineering is impossible.

Only Me

8/18/2014 06:46:28 am

I think he argues in his paper "Theory of the Capacitor" that Reciprocal System Theory is important because:

[if the conventional explanation of the two capacitor problem is found to be wrong, this undercuts electrical theory, which then undercuts the nuclear atom theory, which then destroys Quantum Mechanics, and which then makes laughable the concepts of neutron stars and black holes and the Big Bang].

So, somehow we are communicating through technology that shouldn't function as we accept it now.

8/18/2014 06:56:56 am

He also quotes Leonard Peikoff in support of his rejection of quantum mechanics.

Ronald W. Satz link

8/18/2014 08:43:12 am

Mark, I've suggested that you read the second paper in my course on the Reciprocal System: "Space-Time Dimensions and Natural Unit Values of Physical Quantities." The only dimensional change in the theory since 1959 has been that for capacitance--originally we accepted the cgs unit, cm or space, as the dimension, but I had to modify this to s^3 / t. The conventional theorists use charge conservation for the two-capacitor problem, but this leads to a violation of energy conservation. The Reciprocal System uses energy conservation, not charge conservation, and solves the problem. In ordinary electric circuits, the current is comprised of chargeless, massless electrons. This will shock a lot of electrical engineers, but that's not my problem. The present theory is full of "holes."

8/18/2014 08:47:25 am

RWS, do you still rock the 'stache?

Mark

8/18/2014 07:07:05 pm

Sorry for how long that took, got distracted.

I'm *not* reading 107 pages for you. I've read the first 20 pages, not counting the big table at the front with all the symbol definitions (which is actually a nice touch; I wish more people did that). That's the limit of how much time and energy I'm going to invest.

What exactly is this stuff supposed to be calculating? At first I thought your "natural units" were supposed to be quanta, quanta of space or time etc. But that can't be right because you specifically discuss units of space smaller then your "natural unit" of space, e.g. an atomic nucleus's radius.

Why did you want me to read this? What exactly is it supposed to show?

Byron DeLear

8/19/2014 07:10:38 am

Guys (and gals), there is that glowing Amazon review for Satz's, The Unmysterious Universe, which I'm sure is not biased, I mean, it doesn't sound too one-sided, does it? And we shouldn't pay any attention to the fact that the singular reviewer of the book has only crafted one review?

"Ron Satz has written the best popular scientific book I have ever read. Every page is packed with jewels glistening with an incredible new and beautiful understanding of the universe. His book presents a brilliant summary of the Larson Reciprocal Theory in layman's terms which are clear, concise and cogent. He has done a great service to humanity and the book should be required reading in every high school and university."

8/19/2014 08:08:39 am

@ Byron

It's either sarcastic or written by Satz himself, since he is the only person in the universe who could possibly believe that.

Byron DeLear

8/19/2014 12:37:23 pm

EP... was I too subtle? ;)

8/19/2014 01:10:33 pm

Nah, I just wanted to stress your point ;)

Mark

8/18/2014 06:52:42 am

@Paul Cargile: Given that he explicitly rejects quantum mechanics in any form, I think we can safely assume that's not the basis for his reasoning.

@Ronald W. Satz: You have, so far, not answered any of my questions nor addressed any of my concerns, and you've reached the limits of the time and energy I want to invest. Have a nice life.

Aratus the AntiFederalist

8/19/2014 09:07:14 am

Motion = Aristotle's Definition
Brain = what we use to think... see Rene Descartes
Motion = As Understood by Newton in his 3 laws of Thermodynamics
Motion = energy inside Einstein's spacetime grid where C tends to be constant
Brane = big thingie Ed Witten thinks is very real
String = very very small unit, smaller than an atom or qark
Vortex = something Victorian scientists liked to talk about
Mechanized Universe = cool idea by Rene Descartes
Standard Model = Niels Bohr's contribution to this
Quantum Leaping at Atomic level = Something Scott Bakula's molecules must adjust for if he is also time traveling like Dr. Who
in his tv series where he starred with Dean Stockwell...
the Quantum 'cosmic clocks' at a cellular level our brains deal with = http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qt-consciousness/

Game Theory 101

8/19/2014 09:17:54 am

VON NEUMANN IS ZERO SUM --- NASH HAS
A MORE COMPLEX STRUCTURE. (hence his Nobel Prize)

Physics HAS to explain how our cells function internally
and when situated in our bodiesin the inter-connected manner
that they are. Biology has several answers. Any theory that
is pragmatic almost explains sociology and economics.

"A second category includes approaches that use the status quo of present-day quantum theory to describe neurophysiological and/or neuropsychological processes. Among these approaches, the one with the longest history was initiated by von Neumann in the 1930s, later taken up by Wigner, and currently championed by Stapp. It can be roughly characterized as the proposal to consider intentional conscious acts as intrinsically correlated with physical state reductions. Another fairly early idea dating back to Ricciardi and Umezawa in the 1960s is to treat mental states, particularly memory states, in terms of vacuum states of quantum fields. A prominent proponent of this approach at present is Vitiello. Finally, there is the idea suggested by Beck and Eccles in the 1990s, according to which quantum mechanical processes, relevant for the description of exocytosis at the synaptic cleft, can be influenced by mental intentions."

Plato Stanford Von Neumann ---- goto link

8/19/2014 09:28:11 am

What happened to the promise of not using multiple identities, .? How can you possibly convince anyone that you don't go around insulting and threatening people when you keep lying?

8/19/2014 11:25:54 am

you are correct. i should keep to one clean and clear moniker.

here is a lecture i patiently sat thru that does tell us all why LBJ

signed the Voting Rights Act in 1965 and the Civil Rights Act in

1964. charles sumner by 1875 had gotten his version

thru congress. Prof Blight took each lecture roughly two years

into the future as covered the years from 1845 to about 1875.

Lecture 21 - Andrew Johnson and the Radicals: A Contest over the ×Meaning of Reconstruction

http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-119/lecture-21 Open Yale Courses

666

8/17/2014 02:47:43 am

EvD is not a Racist
EvD does not want to start the Fourth Reich
The so-called Racist elements in the works of EvD are mentioned in a detached fashion from the author making them

There is not a single activist against Racism taking the views of Fring Authors like EvD seriously,

Calling EvD a racist is another slap in the face of scepticism

Only Me

8/17/2014 03:16:34 am

Please refrain from being ignorant in the comments.

Jason Colavito link

8/17/2014 03:40:53 am

The Southern Poverty Law Center, who are anti-racism activists, specifically cited white separatist John de Nugent's use of the ancient astronaut theory to justify white separatist views. Good enough for you?

Only Me

8/17/2014 04:42:28 am

Probably not, Jason. When you wrote your article on Nick Pope calling AAT "borderline racist", 666 responded with:

[Call the anti-racist associations - get them on the back of UFO and ET believers. When anti-racists take these people seriously, then I will do so as well].

Your article addressing this topic specifically (01/23/2014) had several posts from a "Ken R. Stone" (obvious KRS pun), who repeatedly argued that EvD was expressing his "quack ancient astronaut theories" and not engaging in mainstream political racism.

It's a strange mindset that finds inflammatory remarks towards religion acceptable, but exposing racism in fringe ideas is a bridge too far!

8/17/2014 04:55:26 am

Also, German Ministry of the Interior did the same thing. It's not exactly rocket science when one extremist cult after another integrates UFOs into its mythology.

Walt

8/17/2014 05:01:35 am

But there's some truth to what he's saying. I don't think activists don't care, I think if not-for-profit organizations spend any energy addressing racism in the AAT then they'll become the punchline of a joke, just like the show and theory already are.

I know I'd no longer donate to an organization that chose to expend resources on ancient alien racism when there are real problems in the real world they could be addressing.

8/17/2014 05:03:48 am

@ Only Me

"exposing racism in fringe ideas is a bridge too far!"

Are you being sarcastic? Because hasn't this been a prominent theme around these parts for a while now?

8/17/2014 08:50:06 am

I'm a New Englander... the name Kenneth Stone
without any middle name is most likely on at least
one gravestone within 500 miles of where i live. Had
there been a full first name and no middle initial,
we might have assumed someone was so dumb as to
do something like their given name when online here?
at least pick a nice cartoon character, like Betty Boop
or Donald Duck, to do second or third rate jokes. lets
have our regular identities make first rate or forth or fifth
rate jokes! it does look like a clever net moniker, i agree!

Only Me

8/17/2014 02:42:23 pm

@EP

I was being sarcastic and serious at once.

I don't buy into the idea that certain beliefs are fair game for snotty remarks intended to offend...BUT... when Jason addresses racism inherent in many fringe ideas, provides a source and pulls material directly from that source, in the context in which it was written, the outcries are fast and furious. The reactions try to make it appear Jason has broken some taboo or he has some nefarious agenda in mind.

8/17/2014 03:01:53 pm

@ Only Me

This is particularly ironic when it comes to von Daniken, given that he has no problem arguing ad Hitlerum when it benefits him (as in his critique of Hans Horbinger).

Seeker

8/18/2014 03:58:33 pm

I find most of 666's comments incoherent, but how anyone can read EvD's racist statements and apologize for them is beyond the pale (pun intended).

8/19/2014 03:20:03 am

Jason's format for his short video is very YouTube and obeys
the rules for inexpensive internet "attack ads" done by various
PACs and political candidates. In Marshall McLuhan mass
media terms, it would play differently if seen on a very good
verses a huge $5000.oo or cheaper $3000.oo HD*TV set
and a halfway decent APPLE laptop has a it having a slightly
different look if pulled up from a hard-drive. If H2's AA with
its 'bells and whistles' tends to have view~able ten minute
clipsthat are very YouTube, Jason's video can be countered
by EvD in a short interview where he explains himself. To say
that Andrew Johnson once had racist ideas is easy, he once
backed Abe Lincoln's opponent for the Presidency, Stephen
Douglas. He even was at the convention in S.C in 1860 that
put him on the ballot in a big way. It took the outbreak of war for
him to soften his pro-slavery stance, as Tennessee's military
governor he even freed his own slaves as an example to
others. Woodrow Wilson never questioned the institution of
Segregation in his home state of Virginia but is well known
for his Progressive reforms. If EvD is less bigoted or racist
than these two men, he should point this out. I am not saying
that by backing the Union cause that Andrew Johnson ceased
all bigoted remarks, I'm saying he ceased being a racist who wanted to preserve a caste system that stems from the law
codes of the U.K in the colonial era and the class structure of
Merrie Auld England. The practice of paying for the trip of a
bond-servant across the Atlantic is prior to the arrival of the
'cargo" of the great 'slaver' ships. John Q. Adams was brilliant
in plucking apart 1800s contract law in the Amisted case. I
am proud to be a distant relative of his. I may even have a
few ancestors who were slaves in the early 1700s if i take my
blood-lines back, even though i am basically WASP in ethnic
terms. on certain days i feel very Irish. i think like an 1800s
Yankee. If i go back 500 years i see thriving communties here
of some of my indigenous ancestors and their near kin!!!!!!

8/19/2014 03:30:30 am

a good cellphone has the big slow text being readable
for many people. small text crammed into a video does
not play well inside the screen the better cellphones have.
it paces like a short political ad, it tries to avoid clutter.
accuracy begs 4 a Ph.D thesis on racism in American
society. in lieu of this, here are these brilliant lectures....

http://oyc.yale.edu/history/hist-119

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 03:26:33 am

1) Who said Erik von Daniken wanted to start the Fourth Reich? There is a difference between Neo-Nazism and racism, after all.

2) Can you provide evidence that there is "not a single activist against Racism" taking his views seriously? Or is this more of your unqualified opinion?

3) In any context, using the word "negroes" to refer to a group of people is a racial slur, and suggesting the "black race" is a failure is a racist remark- whether one pretends it is not by way of including a question mark or not.

4) What's "scepticism"? A belief system which features sceptic tanks as prominent evangelical tools? "Yea! Let us be washed in the unclean waters of your glory, oh Scepticus. Mighty is your truth, the one truth, and the only truth..."

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 03:28:39 am

Missed a Reply button again. The preceding comment belongs attached to our favorite troll's denialist clap-trap.

Only Me

8/17/2014 03:36:01 am

Clint, I hate to be the bad guy here, but "scepticism" is an alternate UK spelling for skepticism...according to Wiktionary. Me sorry :(

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 03:38:02 am

Jinx!

Only Me

8/17/2014 03:40:35 am

Yep...I buttfucked the joke, didn't I?

Oh well.

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 03:46:41 am

Quite alright. It wasn't a particularly good joke, I admit.

8/17/2014 05:34:51 am

I'm the driver of the sceptic tank! :D

Karl Rove

8/20/2014 08:54:01 pm

Drop the "C" and feel quite honored. You can be
a very well paid "turd blossom" as 2016 arrives.

Jul 15, 2014 - Karl "Turdblossom" Rove is a Republican political operative and served as the sociopathic adviser to the Bush administration. ( rationalwiki.org/wiki/Karl_Rove)

Anthony Adverse

8/20/2014 08:59:48 pm

"Yep...I b#ttf#cked the joke, didn't I? Oh well.'

I do think you have bollixed it up in a bloody awful manner!

8/20/2014 09:18:36 pm

A "." by any other name...

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 03:36:14 am

And in case it wasn't apparent; point 4 was a joke at the expense of 666's apparent belief in skepticism as a monolithic entity. You know, like a religion. The c-variant spelling is British.

Walt

8/17/2014 03:42:05 am

"In any context, using the word "negroes" to refer to a group of people is a racial slur"

Have you ever heard the "I Have A Dream" speech?

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 03:53:15 am

I'm sorry, is it still 1963? The term has been regarded as offensive and out of date since then. Do I really need to append "in the year 2014" to the statement?

Walt

8/17/2014 04:00:43 am

If you append "in the year 2014" then it's rather pointless to say it at all since the quotes are from 1979.

And it hasn't been considered offensive and out-of-date since 1963. It was still listed in our Government's census forms until this year. For decades, It was considered the polite politcally-correct term to use. It certainly isn't now, but it's a safe assumption that it was to him in 1979.

Harry

8/17/2014 04:14:44 am

I hope we can all agree that rhetorically asking whether the "black race" is a failure, without following up with a "no," is blatantly racist.

Walt

8/17/2014 04:32:05 am

Even the rest of the sentence in which he used the word "negroes" is racist.

8/17/2014 05:34:05 am

"Black people have music in their blood" would have been just as racist. (In fact, somehow even more so, at least to my ear.)

Clint Knapp

8/17/2014 05:44:21 am

Fair enough, Walt, though I'm not entirely comfortable with using the argument that it's any more acceptable just because the U.S. Census Bureau continued to use it. It's not as though they did so without criticism, after all.

I will point out, however, that the edition of Signs of the Gods? currently for sale at Legendary Times Books (Giorgio Tsoukalos's official website) is a 2010 reprint. Presumably unchanged, though I cannot verify that as I do not own the book myself. Perhaps someone else can.

Walt

8/17/2014 06:02:31 am

You probably noticed, the Census Bureau did some testing in the late 1990s to help determine which words to use, and decided to use "Negro" in 2000 because 56,000 people actually skipped over "Black, African-American" and wrote in "Negro" in their survey.

It's interesting how times change.

8/17/2014 05:56:58 am

"Can you provide evidence that there is "not a single activist against Racism" taking his views seriously?"

I can think of at least one who's recently been discussed in the comments of this blog - Vine Deloria. He was a prominent Native American activist.

Also, I'm sure at least some Black Supremacists have been influenced by von Daniken, either directly or indirectly.

"suggesting the "black race" is a failure is a racist remark"

At the very least, an incredibly racially insensitive remark. (Technically, killer bees are a failure, but they are pretty awesome at being bees!)

Marius

8/17/2014 03:32:09 am

I think it would be better with Benny hill music instead of the creepy music.

spookyparadigm

8/17/2014 03:55:57 am

1. Music is too much. Marius' suggestion is probably a little too far in the other direction, but not by much.

2. Video works better with audio. Like it or not, you'll get more response with spoken text and video, rather than things to read on screen (though put those there too). From TED talks to Glenn Beck's chalkboard, there is a reason people still follow the lecture model. Even successful animation-only short videos using "infographics" and such typically have narration. Now, that might be a problem with this particular video because you'd be quoting racist rhetoric. But you'd be better off I think lecturing a bit to the camera. This is also useful since some people multitask their videos and have them going while looking at something else. Television may be bad for you, but it has refined its methods for decades for a reason. Copy them.

8/17/2014 05:02:09 am

People who give *talks* use the lecture model :)

This is more of a slide show. Ain't nothing wrong with that for a clip of a couple minutes.

My only complaint is that the pace is a bit on the slower side.

Jason Colavito link

8/17/2014 05:08:51 am

My other videos have voice over, but this is really just a short slideshow. Buzzfeed does a lot of these slideshows with no v/o, and, honestly, the additional production work required to add the v/o and match the video to it makes for a much more complex project.

In terms of the pace, it's always hard to judge how fast people can read. My first draft was about 30% faster, but I found it was hard to read the quotations because they weren't on screen long enough.

As for the music--well, you take what you can get for free. Something jauntier seemed a bit inappropriate for the subject matter.

8/17/2014 05:32:15 am

Needs more Van Helsing quotes superimposed on stills from "In Search of Aliens" promoting his book! :)

Walt

8/17/2014 05:34:20 am

If you're going after viewers of the show, then 30% slower seems about right.

8/17/2014 05:35:53 am

@ Walt

We may have our differences, but that is a good post :)

Josef Karpinovic

8/17/2014 07:18:21 am

Hilarious.

BillUSA

8/17/2014 04:36:17 pm

Why am I always late for these blog posts?

Uh, I never consider racists to be among the sharpest pencils in the factory.

I have a relative who - no matter how heinous a crime committed by a Caucasian - will circle every name of a Negro (I'm told that is an acceptable term - correct me please if I'm wrong) who has committed a crime, but not those of the Caucasian's in every daily newspaper. Yet he insists that it's only "certain" blacks he doesn't like.

I once worked with a self-proclaimed White Supremacist who would hide his boasts and putdowns when black co-workers were assigned to the same work area. But when he was around us Caucasians, he was all piss and vinegar about blacks. I told him about my multi-ethnic background (Italian, Cherokee, possibly Hebrew) with the intent of keeping him quiet around me - and it worked.

I like smart, level-headed people. Knuckleheads make me feel like my head is in a vise.

Only Me

8/17/2014 07:13:11 pm

BTW, I like the new pic, Jason. It surprised me when I refreshed the page! The last two had a lost footage, close-up feel. This one has more of a "Ladies, contain your orgasms" vibe. LOL!

May I suggest the next photo have your book collection in the background? You are an author, after all.

Tom

8/19/2014 06:06:07 am

The music made it feel like I was wandering through a Lynchian/Kubrickian masked party at a decadent mansion and witnessing Tsoukalos licking Daniken's silk socked toes whilst being whipped by a half naked man in an alien costume. Wanted to wash my ears out - kudos Jason!

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Watch My New YouTube Video About Erich von Daniken's Most Racist Lines

Leave a Reply.

Author

Newsletters

Categories

Terms & Conditions

Archives