UFO: Inside the BlackVault, FOIA POSSE, MKULTRA, ARTICHOKE, BLUEBIRD
grarpamp
grarpamp at gmail.com
Wed Dec 14 00:51:49 PST 2022
Ancient Apocalypse & Graham Hancock's "Dangerous Ideas"
https://off-guardian.org/2022/12/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancocks-dangerous-ideas/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkIfNcBmeJ0
Why has the popular Netflix documentary ignited the ire of the media?
It never ceases to amaze me what seemingly innocuous ideas the
establishment media find âdangerousâ or âcontroversialâ.
Netflix recently released an eight-part documentary series titled
Ancient Apocalypse, where Graham Hancock (who has a been a household
name for âalternative archeologyâ since the release of his book
âFingerprints of the Godsâ in 1995), introduces us to his central
theory that human civilisation is considerably older than current
archeological orthodoxy believes, but that most evidence for this was
wiped out by a colossal natural disaster around 12,000 years ago.
He supports this theory with physical evidence for such a natural
disaster, curious geological anomalies and seemingly ancient
megalithic structures.
He points out that the mainstream view of pre-history insists
civilisation did not and had never existed before the year 4000BC, but
that recent discoveries such as the Temple at Gobekli Tepe, which
dates back to 9600BC call that mainstream view into question.
He also collates mythic stories and old legends from over around the
world that all reference some massive, global catastrophe. (Floods,
earthquakes, giant snakes in the sky, strange visitors from across the
sea etc.) And then emphasises their many eerie similarities.
Through the collation of this research, Hancock then asks some
questions of the mainstream view of our ancient history and posits a
theory of his own â that âwe are a species with amnesiaâ, who have
forgotten our own past.
These are not new ideas, solely from Hancockâs imagination. Immanuel
Velikovsy said something very similar half a century ago, in fact his
last book, published posthumously, was titled âMankind in Amnesiaâ,
and explored the psychological impact of us, as a species, repressing
the memories and forgetting the stories that echo from a distant,
traumatised past.
These questions might sound intriguing to you, or you may be
indifferent to them, or you may even vehemently disagree with them,
but I bet you didnât know they were racist, did you?
Thatâs right. Racist. Donât believe me, you conspiracy theorist? Just
ask the Guardian.
Yes, the Graun has spoiled us with not just one hit-piece, but two!
All in the space of one week.
Robin McKie writes his from an archaeological standpoint, while Stuart
Heritage speaks as an entertainment critic. However, one is very much
like the other. They both agree the Netflix series is wholly
unacceptable. All of it. These are âdangerous ideasâ that shouldnât be
âallowedâ.
McKie alleges Hancockâs claims reinforce âwhite supremacist ideasâ,
because questioning the age of human civilisation
â¦strip[s] indigenous people of their rich heritage and instead
gives credit to aliens or white peopleâ
McKie further explains:
Then there were the Nazis. Many swore by the idea that a white
Nordic superior race â people of âthe purest bloodâ â had come from
Atlantis. As a result, Himmler set up an SS unit, the Ahnenerbe â or
Bureau of Ancestral Heritage â in 1935 to find out where people from
Atlantis had ended up after the deluge had destroyed their homeland.â
There we have it, you see! Donât even bother linking to any sources,
Robin (which he doesnât). I hear you, loud and clear. The idea of
Atlantis is inherently racist, because the Nazis believed in it.
The fact Hancock never mentions race, or white people (or aliens) in
the series, nor (to the best of my knowledge) in any of his books,
makes no difference to this.
So, what are you going to do now? Keep researching the Atlantis myth?
Like a Nazi would?
Of course, going by this logic, we should really do away with
Christianity as well. God in general, in fact. Perhaps we should
cancel Volkswagen and Wagner too. Nazis also brushed their teeth and
wore shoes, I believe, neither of which shall I be taking part in from
this day onwards, just to be sure.
So, there we have it â Ancient Apocalypse is racist, even though it
never mentions race.
The remainder of their twin critiques are no better argued or
supported by reality. Here is a typical example of the intellectual
level they work on:
For a story that was first told 2,300 years ago, the myth of
Atlantis has demonstrated a remarkable persistence over the millennia.
Originally outlined by Plato, the tale of the rise of a great, ancient
civilisation followed by its cataclysmic destruction has since
generated myriad interpretations.â
It was this opening paragraph alone that prompted my response. As it
is so uniquely meaningless.
What does he mean by âFor a story 2,300 years old it has demonstrated
remarkable persistenceâ? As opposed to what? All those other stories
that we donât know about? How is that measurable, exactly?
Besides, we have a plethora of stories and mythologies dating back two
and half thousand years, and even much further into the past than
that. Including all the Greco-Roman myths, plays by Sophocles and
Aesopâs Fables. We have detailed legends and lore passed down from
Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Old Testament fits the bill as
well.
And of course, Homerâs Iliad, which describes the fabled Trojan War.
Let us remember that the City of Troy was also believed to have been
just a myth until we discovered that it wasnât. And Iâm sure before
1870, when it was first discovered, that there was no shortage of
academics decrying the search for Troy as a heretical waste of time.
What is the essential attraction of the tale? For answers we only
have to look at the works of Tolkien, CS Lewis, HP Lovecraft, Conan
Doyle, Brecht and a host of science fiction writers who have all found
the myth an irresistible inspiration.â
Simplicity itself! The reason the Atlantis myth is so popular is
because itâs so popular!
Robin then asserts as fact that Plato intended the tale of Atlantis to
be little more than an allegory. There is no way of knowing that, of
course, he merely asserts it and then goes into a Gish Gallop.
âAs to the likely site of the original Atlantis, the serious money
goes on the destruction of the Greek island of Santorini and its
impact on Crete and puts the blame on volcanic eruptions â not errant
comets, as Hancock arguesâ
Whoa there, Robin. Firstly, Graham Hancock never âarguesâ that the
Greek island of Santorini was struck by an errant comet. That is
misleading. He argues that a comet struck somewhere in North America
and rising sea levels may have obliterated an island civilisation
(that Plato calls Atlantis) in the Atlantic Ocean. Itâs only you,
Robin, who is conflating this Atlantis myth with Santorini.
[NB â Robin also fails to mention the physical evidence for just such
an impact at the beginning of the Younger Dryas.]
Secondly, should we not give credit where credit is due, and assume
that Plato (and Solon, from whom Plato got the story, and the Dynastic
Egyptians, from whom Solon got the story), most likely knew the
difference between âinside the Mediterraneanâ and âoutside the
Mediterraneanâ?
If they place Atlantis beyond the Pillars of Hercules, should we not
at least consider it possible that this is indeed where âthe original
Atlantisâ was? (I invite readers to listen to Platoâs accounting
yourselves and see what you make of it, here is an unabridged and
well-produced reading.)
The history of Santoriniâs volcanic eruption was probably, by
contrast, relatively well known. Santorini didnât actually sink, after
all, as Atlantis is said to have done. Itâs still there. The Ancient
Greeks called it âTheraâ and they were perfectly well aware of its
existence. It shares no cultural, historical or technological
similarities to Platoâs description of Atlantis at all, short of
âbeing an islandâ.
But none of that bothers McKie who at this point, and without
ceremony, just sort of stops writing. Job Done. Atlantis debunked.
Whatâs for lunch?
Moving on to Stuart Heritageâs piece, which is thankfully briefer but
in no way less smug. In his subheading he boldly asks:
âWhy has this been allowed?â
Allowed?
Iâm not sure which authority heâs calling on here. Netflix execs?
Local, national or perhaps global government? Or maybe itâs
rhetorical, and heâs beseeching the Lord God himself how such evil
could come into the world.
Beyond this, Stuart seems even less interested in debunking or
debating these âdangerous ideasâ than McKie was, and far more focused
on analysing and ridiculing its (presumed) target audience.
Fortunately, Stuart, with his view unbiased and his mind wide open,
has discerned exactly who that is in the first five minutes â because
he saw (or thinks he saw) Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson flash up in
the pre-show reel.
Joe Rogan appears in one quick interview, which is used in the first
episode and the last.
Jordan Peterson does not appear in this documentary at all.
And Iâm really not sure why Stuart thought he did. Perhaps he just
didnât watch closely enough to realise this before rushing his
five-hundred words off to be published in one of the largest news
outlets in the world.
More notably when Heritage later amended the change, he just removed
the âJordan Petersonâ reference and neither he nor the editors or
sub-eds even bothered to correct the syntax:
âFortunately, you donât have to watch for long to find out. In
quick succession, during the pre-show sizzle reel, we are treated to a
clip of the showâs host Graham Hancock being interviewed by Joe
Rogan.â
The laziness is staggering.
Just âa different personâ. Itâs not important who anymore. Heâs not on
the Guardianâs ânaughty list.â
Equally strangely, both McKie and Heritage seem to think âAncient
Apocalypseâ makes claims of âsuper intelligent beingsâ and âaliensâ,
when it simply does not.
Hancockâs argument â whether you accept it or not â is that human
beings were more advanced than academia admits. Not robots with flying
cars, but more advanced than we currently give them credit for, and he
cites evidence for this which both Stuart & Robin ignore in favour of
critiquing Hancock for things he does not say.
They cite no sources and debate no actual claims. They use buzzwords
and identity politics in place of analysis and between the two of them
couldnât fill one page of A4. Itâs as if even they (and their editors)
had no faith or interest in what they were doing.
Although Stuart does rather give the game away in his closing statement.
âThatâs the danger of a show like this. It whispers to the
conspiracy theorist in all of us. And Hancock is such a compelling
host that heâs bound to create a few more in his wake. Believing that
ultra-intelligent creatures helped to build the pyramids is one thing,
but where does it end? Believing that election fraud is real?
Believing 9/11 was an inside job? Worse?â
Heâs got me stumped there. Because, for the life of me, I literally
canât think of anything worse than âbelieving in election fraudâ,
which is obviously as fanciful as believing in the Loch Ness Monster.
What next? Believing in tax evasion!?
Presumably heâs referring to the 2020 US election. Because the
Guardian has claimed fraud is very real in some elections. Russia,
Syria, Bolivia, Brazil, Libya, Afghanistan, Iran and Venezuela to name
a few.
And they were pretty darn adamant that it was Russian collusion that
got Trump into office in 2016.
Stuart presumably believes election fraud is only a âconspiracy
theoryâ when it happens here, in the UK. Either that or he believes it
has literally never happened. Ever. In the whole history of the world.
Or perhaps heâs simply typing up any old nonsense just to get that
word count a little higher. Sense and consistency be damned.
Whoâs to say?
However, the fragile honesty underlying this is quite telling. He is
essentially saying:
âIf people become sceptical of one thing, they may become sceptical of another.â
Which is to be expected, but what I canât understand is how anybody
could think this is a bad thing.
People should be sceptical. Scepticism in all things but cynicism in
none. People should ask questions, and they should expect answers,
especially from those who profess to know them. One should be
open-minded and always pursue the truth. And to better decipher what
that may be, we need people sharing new ideas, questioning the
mainstream view and challenging the established narrative as new
evidence presents itself. We need that. Science, progress and
discovery all depend on it. Even if the ideas turn out to be false.
Prove them false.
In short: No one should be the gatekeepers of our history. Least of
all those who laud their certitude in the face of the unknowable.
The mystery is exciting. The evidence is compelling. The series is
engaging. Even if none of it turns out to be true, the questions are
still worth asking.
These ideas are only âdangerousâ if you fear what they question.
And those who fear questions fear the truth.
More information about the cypherpunks
mailing list