Your criteria exclude much that is useful. For example, scientific studies that confirm theoretical predictions or replicate previous results, which are both essential to good science. Your emphasis seems to be entirely on challenging established understandings and institutions and shaking things up, but if that's the only thing you respect as not "drivel", you just end up pushing contrarianism. Sometimes it's valuable to agree, or to come to consensus. Sometimes it's valuable to delve into the subtleties of an existing way of understanding the world. Sometimes it's valuable to explore how others already understand the world, while keeping quiet and not asserting anything of your own until you are well steeped in it. Not everything needs to be shaken up or disrupted all the time - to look only for this is the unwisdom of hubristic tech bros and conspiracists.

[–] dbtng@eviltoast.org 6 points 15 hours ago

Dude. Here. Scope this out. These are your fellows.

Carnicom. This is the chemtrail guy from way back. His site used to look more wacky like yours, but he jumped domains and redeployed it all. I bet the old web 1.0 stuff is still online somewhere.
Dude created hundreds of documents about ... well ... nothing. https://carnicominstitute.org/

Time Cube. This hasn't been online since 2016, so gotta wayback. The wayback makes the page even uglier than it used to be.
But ya, that's more of the same. You called it drivel? Fair enough. https://web.archive.org/web/20160112193916/http://timecube.com/