The mainstream are 100% correct. Mankind clearly rose from simple Hunter gatherers to suddenly possessing the astrological, mathematical and mechanical skills to be able to erect gigantic megaliths and cities in just a few hundred years, and then we all somehow mysteriously forgot how to do it right up until the 20th century rolled around. Yeah right.
Hancock may not be spot on about everything, and I do wish to God him and Joe Rogan would cool it on all the “taking drugs is cool” talk, but the dude is 100% correct when he says there a HUGE pieces of our history that have been deliberately kept from us.
Every government that has ever existed on this earth has lied to its people at some point. Mainstream media can keep fucking off as far as I’m concerned
Even if we assume it's just lost and academics aren't keeping it secret on purpose, simply suppressing it because their egos can't handle being wrong, what's wrong with exploring alternative theories?
It's because they don't do anything in good faith, ever.
I do wish to God him and Joe Rogan would cool it on all the “taking drugs is cool” talk
Why? They specifically discuss psychedelics. Taking psychedelics with a prepared mind is a philosophical exercise that can be great fun, ecstatic even, but also horrifying.
Don't let the idiotic hare-brained "dope culture" or the moronic "new-age" nonsense fool you into dismissing their value.
For starters Hancock has a shitload of “credentialed” assholes just looking for an opportunity to assassinate his character, and he’s basically handing them the ammunition on a silver platter.
“Are you guys seriously listening to Hancock? He’s an admitted drug user, ya know...”
I’m surprised the guardian didn’t mention it THIS time around, but I’m sure they will if the show gets any more popular.
Secondly, I personally think Hancock places too much faith in the psychedelics. I get that he met with remote tribes and took what they took in order to try to understand their cultures better etc, but the dude sounds downright whacky when he starts going off on tangents about the “latent psychic power of the human mind”.
Sorry, it all becomes a bit much for me. I just don’t see the value in it. You aren’t really going on a spirit walk or talking to the ancestors or astral projecting to the “other side” or whatever other stupid shit the jungle people believe. You’re smarter than they are. Sorry if that’s racist or unwoke to say, but it’s the truth. You’ve taken a powerful hallucinogen and now you’re tripping balls, that’s all that’s REALLY happening and you know it. It might just be because I grew up in Africa where two thirds of the population still make decisions by sprinkling blood and chicken bones whenever they need “wisdom from the ancestors”. I watched African guys show up to work vomiting and sick as a dog, because the local witch doctor told them to drink four bottles of dishwashing liquid to clean their “dirty” blood. And it doesn’t matter how much you try to warn them not to go back to that witch doctor because he’s a fuckin lunatic, they’re back a week later smoking weed mixed with tea leaves so they can “hear the elders” wisdom that supposedly floats around in the air.
There’s a reason our protoEuropean ancestors moved away from this shamanistic/tribal nonsense. At some point they realised that it was better and far more practical to be alert and have your wits about you as you and the fellas speared mammoth on the plains or stalked elk through the forests with your improvised bow and arrow, than it was to be on the floor of your hut, with your eyes rolled back in their sockets while you shit yourself.
Hancock is at his best when he’s talking about hard facts and pointing out the absurd inconsistencies in the historical record, not waxing lyrical with Rogan about dropping acid and doing Peyote for fuckin 60% of the discussion.
Where does this hostility to psychedelics come from? Too much hype? Too many yuppie new-agers babbling about "ayahuasca" in their journals recounting their posh "jungle" retreats to barf with strangers in a hut?
I infer your materialist world-view is rather rigid.
Where does this hostility to psychedelics come from?
Again, just the result of 39 years watching Africans unsuccessfully try to drug themselves out of poverty, crime and HIV.
I infer your materialist world-view is rather rigid.
You may be right, I am unfortunately a bit of a cynical asshole, lol. You try being a conservative millennial surrounded by Covidiots sometime 😆
Just always preferred the practical and tangible answers over the wishy washy. Just my opinion though. I still appreciate Hancock’s work and his theories.
I respect your hard-headed attitude. It's necessary as a conservative millennial. Stick to your guns.
It's a given that most proponents of psychedelics belong to the touchy-feely tribe of leftist utopians. That ain't me, though, and there's a strain of fully formed skeptical adults who are open to what these drugs can do philosophically and physically. I blame the new-age nonsense of the 1970s that was disseminated by the CIA and its allies in the media to push daft shit like paganism and crystal gazing for discrediting the movement that advocated free and independent exploration of the psyche that does without establishment cant and without the paternalistic nonsense that passes as psychedelianism these days.
A-as a concept?? Do you think the idea of election fraud is a dumb conspiracy theory? The possibility of its existence is magically negated by believing hard enough in what Daddy Democrat tells you?
The existence of people this stupid truly frightens me.
The most insane part of their vehement denial of even the possibility of a fraudulent election is that, if they truly believed it impossible, they'd be all for investigating it and proving the "republitards" wrong.
I think deep down, they know it's happening and are glad it is.
Yes and no. A lot of them know it's happening on some level and tacitly support it, but a scary amount of people who don't want elections stolen have simply internalized the idea that 'Questioning elections = wrongthink'. Normies hate to do wrongthink, it makes them feel very, very scared, so they will force themselves to live in ignorance.
This is the second hit piece against that show I've seen this week. Someone powerful feels threatened by something in it. Either that or Hancock pissed in someone's Cheerios.
He's outside the academic snake-pit because he's found an audience and doesn't need them.
As i have said here before in another context, the little fiefdoms in university History and Anthropology departments always react this way to anyone who threatens their stranglehold on the "truth."
Tweedy drudges who have spent their entire careers bolstering the academic orthodoxy on human origins and the civilization timeline react with hostility to challenges. The more credible and unorthodox the challenge, the more vehement the attacks on the heretic.
Non-academics in media jump on the orthodox band wagon because they naturally gravitate toward the bogus "authority" of academics.
The series show megaliths and ancient star-worshipping civilizations in Asia, Europe, the Americas, Oceania area, and basically everywhere except Africa.
This is what they want to suppress, the idea that Africa wasn't the genesis of the modern world, but rather only the people that long left it or perhaps never were there at all were the ones who created civilization.
The ancients he posits traveled the seas and went everywhere teaching people civilization, yet either avoided or failed at civilizing Africa.
My family went to Africa in the 1680’s and stayed there longer than America has been a country. I left in 2017 when the muti killings spiked (its where they kidnap people in order to chop off body parts for use in a sort of voodoo/black magic). The most powerful muti supposedly comes from children BTW.
Take it from me, there’s no civilising that place.
They can choose not to watch. I have read and listened to Hancock. Very interesting theories. I am not understanding why he is getting so much hate. Because he has been on Rogan?
I am not understanding why he is getting so much hate.
The writer is pretty transparent here. If you start to question one universally accepted "truth", your mind opens up to the possibility that other accepted truths - like that US elections are safe and secure - might not be totally true, despite what all the experts have told you. I'm not exaggerating when I say he's literally asking you - the super smart well-read subscriber of The Guardian - to not think for yourself too much and please just let us honest journalists and academics guide you. Research is too much work for you, and you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by misinformation. I honestly would not be surprised if this guy has intelligence agency connections.
Historians and anthropologists (to some extent geologists) in academia have always been self-important pricks who fiercely guarded their positions as the oracles of accepted history against apocryphal views, using all the political and smear tactics we notice the medical science establishment employing today since they unmasked themselves over COVID19. It's even easier in those fields than in medical research because the evidence is often more ambiguous and analytically derived. Rather than hard data telling you exactly what happens, you need well established "experts" to interpret the data and tell you what happened, like the Catholic church telling you what scripture says because you can't read.
I always love how these arrogant pricks never have a comment section. Utter cowards.
Also, no one ever sits down to debate Hancock on any of this stuff. They just say “it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny so we won’t even bother”. If he’s SO wrong and SUCH an idiot you’d think they would relish the opportunity to put him in an embarrassing checkmate live on air.
it's like that twitter thread. the guy had like dozens of posts and not one shred of evidence, just buzzwords and "it sounds like something a bad man said once to justify his bad man thoughts!"
It’s crazy they bend the knee to something that is legitimately a lie. Everyone knows is a lie. But something that might be true is what they lock arms and unite against.
there are some well-documented hoaxes in archeology and anthropology (anthro is trash IMO - not a real field). so much is also unsubstantiated conjecture presented as if it had far more evidence than actually exists
What gets me is that Discovery can run an entire series about how mermaids exist, based solely on four bone fragments some weirdo turned into a skull along with clearly CGI footage, with a straight face and nobody gives a shit.
This guy has way more evidence than Discovery ever did for their nonsense.
to not think for yourself too much and please just let us honest journalists and academics guide you. Research is too much work for you, and you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by misinformation
"Reading the Wikileaks emails is illegal for you, it's different for us because we're in the media" — Chris Cuomo
Another example: when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, Hubble and the other Steady State adherents (who thought that the galaxy had existed without change and that there was no "creation") mocked it, because the Catholic and Orthodox churches embraced it. But Hubble was an accepted scientist, so we name shit after him.
Academia didn't only become a corrupt bunch of tumours when covid hit. Many parts of it have been a cesspool of pseudoscientific corruption for over a century.
"There's something on television I don't care for. WHY WASN'T I CONSULTED BEFORE IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE MADE!!!!" - Every crackpot for the last 80 fucking years.
I watched the first episode. I don’t understand the hate. They found a site that is clearly man made and using the accepted dating method archeologists use shows it was starting to be built long before they thought. Not sure how that’s dangerous
I bet Netflix aid for this article so they could get publicity. Ragebait for the left.
That said, I watched a recent episode of QI and they gave the failed Bering Strait theory on natives in America. I seriously wondered why. The DNA evidence traces back 15,000 years while there strait existed 8,000 BC.
Yip, we’re all idiots for asking questions.
The mainstream are 100% correct. Mankind clearly rose from simple Hunter gatherers to suddenly possessing the astrological, mathematical and mechanical skills to be able to erect gigantic megaliths and cities in just a few hundred years, and then we all somehow mysteriously forgot how to do it right up until the 20th century rolled around. Yeah right.
Hancock may not be spot on about everything, and I do wish to God him and Joe Rogan would cool it on all the “taking drugs is cool” talk, but the dude is 100% correct when he says there a HUGE pieces of our history that have been deliberately kept from us.
Every government that has ever existed on this earth has lied to its people at some point. Mainstream media can keep fucking off as far as I’m concerned
Even if we assume it's just lost and academics aren't keeping it secret on purpose, simply suppressing it because their egos can't handle being wrong, what's wrong with exploring alternative theories?
It's because they don't do anything in good faith, ever.
Why? They specifically discuss psychedelics. Taking psychedelics with a prepared mind is a philosophical exercise that can be great fun, ecstatic even, but also horrifying.
Don't let the idiotic hare-brained "dope culture" or the moronic "new-age" nonsense fool you into dismissing their value.
For starters Hancock has a shitload of “credentialed” assholes just looking for an opportunity to assassinate his character, and he’s basically handing them the ammunition on a silver platter.
“Are you guys seriously listening to Hancock? He’s an admitted drug user, ya know...”
I’m surprised the guardian didn’t mention it THIS time around, but I’m sure they will if the show gets any more popular.
Secondly, I personally think Hancock places too much faith in the psychedelics. I get that he met with remote tribes and took what they took in order to try to understand their cultures better etc, but the dude sounds downright whacky when he starts going off on tangents about the “latent psychic power of the human mind”.
Sorry, it all becomes a bit much for me. I just don’t see the value in it. You aren’t really going on a spirit walk or talking to the ancestors or astral projecting to the “other side” or whatever other stupid shit the jungle people believe. You’re smarter than they are. Sorry if that’s racist or unwoke to say, but it’s the truth. You’ve taken a powerful hallucinogen and now you’re tripping balls, that’s all that’s REALLY happening and you know it. It might just be because I grew up in Africa where two thirds of the population still make decisions by sprinkling blood and chicken bones whenever they need “wisdom from the ancestors”. I watched African guys show up to work vomiting and sick as a dog, because the local witch doctor told them to drink four bottles of dishwashing liquid to clean their “dirty” blood. And it doesn’t matter how much you try to warn them not to go back to that witch doctor because he’s a fuckin lunatic, they’re back a week later smoking weed mixed with tea leaves so they can “hear the elders” wisdom that supposedly floats around in the air.
There’s a reason our protoEuropean ancestors moved away from this shamanistic/tribal nonsense. At some point they realised that it was better and far more practical to be alert and have your wits about you as you and the fellas speared mammoth on the plains or stalked elk through the forests with your improvised bow and arrow, than it was to be on the floor of your hut, with your eyes rolled back in their sockets while you shit yourself.
Hancock is at his best when he’s talking about hard facts and pointing out the absurd inconsistencies in the historical record, not waxing lyrical with Rogan about dropping acid and doing Peyote for fuckin 60% of the discussion.
Where does this hostility to psychedelics come from? Too much hype? Too many yuppie new-agers babbling about "ayahuasca" in their journals recounting their posh "jungle" retreats to barf with strangers in a hut?
I infer your materialist world-view is rather rigid.
Fair enough.
Again, just the result of 39 years watching Africans unsuccessfully try to drug themselves out of poverty, crime and HIV.
You may be right, I am unfortunately a bit of a cynical asshole, lol. You try being a conservative millennial surrounded by Covidiots sometime 😆
Just always preferred the practical and tangible answers over the wishy washy. Just my opinion though. I still appreciate Hancock’s work and his theories.
I respect your hard-headed attitude. It's necessary as a conservative millennial. Stick to your guns.
It's a given that most proponents of psychedelics belong to the touchy-feely tribe of leftist utopians. That ain't me, though, and there's a strain of fully formed skeptical adults who are open to what these drugs can do philosophically and physically. I blame the new-age nonsense of the 1970s that was disseminated by the CIA and its allies in the media to push daft shit like paganism and crystal gazing for discrediting the movement that advocated free and independent exploration of the psyche that does without establishment cant and without the paternalistic nonsense that passes as psychedelianism these days.
A-as a concept?? Do you think the idea of election fraud is a dumb conspiracy theory? The possibility of its existence is magically negated by believing hard enough in what Daddy Democrat tells you?
The existence of people this stupid truly frightens me.
The most insane part of their vehement denial of even the possibility of a fraudulent election is that, if they truly believed it impossible, they'd be all for investigating it and proving the "republitards" wrong.
I think deep down, they know it's happening and are glad it is.
Yes and no. A lot of them know it's happening on some level and tacitly support it, but a scary amount of people who don't want elections stolen have simply internalized the idea that 'Questioning elections = wrongthink'. Normies hate to do wrongthink, it makes them feel very, very scared, so they will force themselves to live in ignorance.
they could have taken the easiest way out and audited things. they would have been able to shut the maga crowd down with hard fact.
maybe if you people would stop lying to us about basic things we'd listen to you more.
Nothing says his work is not suppressed like 100s of articles decrying his work as evil immediately after everything he does is released.
9/11 was definitely an inside job though, and the 2020 election was stolen... I might need to check this Atlantis series out
This is the second hit piece against that show I've seen this week. Someone powerful feels threatened by something in it. Either that or Hancock pissed in someone's Cheerios.
He's outside the academic snake-pit because he's found an audience and doesn't need them.
As i have said here before in another context, the little fiefdoms in university History and Anthropology departments always react this way to anyone who threatens their stranglehold on the "truth."
Tweedy drudges who have spent their entire careers bolstering the academic orthodoxy on human origins and the civilization timeline react with hostility to challenges. The more credible and unorthodox the challenge, the more vehement the attacks on the heretic.
Non-academics in media jump on the orthodox band wagon because they naturally gravitate toward the bogus "authority" of academics.
The series show megaliths and ancient star-worshipping civilizations in Asia, Europe, the Americas, Oceania area, and basically everywhere except Africa.
This is what they want to suppress, the idea that Africa wasn't the genesis of the modern world, but rather only the people that long left it or perhaps never were there at all were the ones who created civilization.
The ancients he posits traveled the seas and went everywhere teaching people civilization, yet either avoided or failed at civilizing Africa.
My family went to Africa in the 1680’s and stayed there longer than America has been a country. I left in 2017 when the muti killings spiked (its where they kidnap people in order to chop off body parts for use in a sort of voodoo/black magic). The most powerful muti supposedly comes from children BTW.
Take it from me, there’s no civilising that place.
They can choose not to watch. I have read and listened to Hancock. Very interesting theories. I am not understanding why he is getting so much hate. Because he has been on Rogan?
The writer is pretty transparent here. If you start to question one universally accepted "truth", your mind opens up to the possibility that other accepted truths - like that US elections are safe and secure - might not be totally true, despite what all the experts have told you. I'm not exaggerating when I say he's literally asking you - the super smart well-read subscriber of The Guardian - to not think for yourself too much and please just let us honest journalists and academics guide you. Research is too much work for you, and you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by misinformation. I honestly would not be surprised if this guy has intelligence agency connections.
Historians and anthropologists (to some extent geologists) in academia have always been self-important pricks who fiercely guarded their positions as the oracles of accepted history against apocryphal views, using all the political and smear tactics we notice the medical science establishment employing today since they unmasked themselves over COVID19. It's even easier in those fields than in medical research because the evidence is often more ambiguous and analytically derived. Rather than hard data telling you exactly what happens, you need well established "experts" to interpret the data and tell you what happened, like the Catholic church telling you what scripture says because you can't read.
I always love how these arrogant pricks never have a comment section. Utter cowards.
Also, no one ever sits down to debate Hancock on any of this stuff. They just say “it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny so we won’t even bother”. If he’s SO wrong and SUCH an idiot you’d think they would relish the opportunity to put him in an embarrassing checkmate live on air.
it's like that twitter thread. the guy had like dozens of posts and not one shred of evidence, just buzzwords and "it sounds like something a bad man said once to justify his bad man thoughts!"
True. Look at how the hard sciences have bent the knee to trans nonsense
It’s crazy they bend the knee to something that is legitimately a lie. Everyone knows is a lie. But something that might be true is what they lock arms and unite against.
there are some well-documented hoaxes in archeology and anthropology (anthro is trash IMO - not a real field). so much is also unsubstantiated conjecture presented as if it had far more evidence than actually exists
What gets me is that Discovery can run an entire series about how mermaids exist, based solely on four bone fragments some weirdo turned into a skull along with clearly CGI footage, with a straight face and nobody gives a shit.
This guy has way more evidence than Discovery ever did for their nonsense.
Piltdown man!
"Reading the Wikileaks emails is illegal for you, it's different for us because we're in the media" — Chris Cuomo
Another example: when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, Hubble and the other Steady State adherents (who thought that the galaxy had existed without change and that there was no "creation") mocked it, because the Catholic and Orthodox churches embraced it. But Hubble was an accepted scientist, so we name shit after him.
And now ironically the Webb telescope is calling the BBT itself into question.
Academia didn't only become a corrupt bunch of tumours when covid hit. Many parts of it have been a cesspool of pseudoscientific corruption for over a century.
"There's something on television I don't care for. WHY WASN'T I CONSULTED BEFORE IT WAS ALLOWED TO BE MADE!!!!" - Every crackpot for the last 80 fucking years.
ctrl+f guardian "cuties"
I watched the first episode. I don’t understand the hate. They found a site that is clearly man made and using the accepted dating method archeologists use shows it was starting to be built long before they thought. Not sure how that’s dangerous
I watched it all. Every episode is like what you described, just in a different location, and probably serving as a root to some myth.
Like Plato making up the story of Atlantis, based on what happened to Helike.
Its very obvious in today's world, how such a thing could be, and is much more believable than the nonsense of "Atlantis".
Also learnt about Sargon of Akkad, so that was interesting.
I know what I'm watching now.
chad_yes.png
I bet Netflix aid for this article so they could get publicity. Ragebait for the left.
That said, I watched a recent episode of QI and they gave the failed Bering Strait theory on natives in America. I seriously wondered why. The DNA evidence traces back 15,000 years while there strait existed 8,000 BC.