First, an apology to all those who followed my Locals thinking it would be artwork and memes; you are about to get some good ol’ analysis. And for those of you who have known me for a LONG time; Huzzah! It’s finally time once again for some good ol’ analysis.
I have just finished Graham Hancock’s outstanding new series “Ancient Apocalypse” which presents very clearly and thoroughly a number of anthropological and historical theories and assertations that have always been at the forefront of the collective consciousness of mankind. These subjects are discussed side-by-side with uncensored and phenomenal site evidence, new archaeological discoveries, and impressive all-source analysis that makes these propositions, in my estimation, self-evident. In simpler terms: Graham said Plato was right about Atlantis and the “academics” are angry about it.
Ancient Apocalypse is the first audio-visual presentation to take concepts such as The Lost Civilization of Atlantis and Catastrophic Destruction of a Human Civilization outside of the realm of myth, and plant them firmly in historical fact. Plenty of people, hinged and otherwise, have made similar assertations in the past, but due to their mocking, censorship, deplatforming, or the exploitation of personal shortcomings by critics, very few public voices have dared to consider these events as something to be taken seriously until now.
I will say now, for those of you reading this who have not yet seen Graham Hancock’s Ancient Apocalypse, please take the time do to so in the manner most convenient to you, which hopefully supports Graham’s financial welfare and future endeavors.
Now that the stage is set, getting to the subject that made me sit down and write my first analytical post in years, I will cop out and simply copy pasta the off-the-cuff ranting I did in a private group chat on this subject as I watched the
You wanna see a master gaslighter? Check Michael Shermer using weasel words and totally irrelevant subjects to sound smart.
This guy is trying to claim because there were no metal tools found at Göbekli Tepe, it can't be an "advanced civilization-made location" when it is self-evident from the dating on the site putting it at 12,000 years ago and the fact that it's BEAUTIFULLY CARVED STONE PILLARS AND ALIGNMENTS TO SIGNIFICANT ASTRONOMICAL MARKERS. He’s acting like that's not from a civilization more advanced than hunter-gatherers that allegedly couldn’t even sustain an agrarian presence, could only build huts and use tents, and couldn't construct large stone buildings. This guy continually moves goalposts and brings up things that have nothing to do with the subject matter to derail or make false equivalences.
Graham: We have, according to the current “accepted” human society timeline, the world's first perfectly north-south aligned building, and astronomical referencing carved in stone.
Graham: Maybe?? I'm citing the measurements of the site from the guy who discovered it!
This guy can't even look Graham in the eyes while he speaks. "Because ONE journal finally published ONE article about a fringe theory that disproves any mass attempt to keep alternative theories down." - This Guy
LORD GIVE ME PATIENCE. I jumped ahead to where Graham and Randall were talking, the midwit chimes in again, and says something so absolutely batshit insane that Joe Rogan
Shermer literally compared someone painting on a wall to creating the largest megalithic astronomically aligned stonework site in the world. He claims the level of skill is comparable, and both are impressive. Granted, yes, painting with three-dimensional perspective is impressive. However, it’s nowhere near the cognitive and societal accomplishment of building something like Göbekli Tepe, and even inferring that is asinine at best and nefarious at worst.
The They’s of the world really don’t want the idea that “civilizations just as advanced as our current one were wiped out in a cataclysmic event” to take root. If we are at the pinnacle now, everything is justifiable. All fears of "going too far" and "shouldn't we be more careful?" go away. They get to say "We're the smartest, we know better, we’ve never had these opportunities before, we’ve never had better technology," and conduct whatever evil they want under the guise of progress. Additionally, ANYTHING that points to the Bible being true scares the shit outta these people. Gotta keep it "Haha silly retards think there's a magic man in the sky".
Shills: Plato was a great Historian, we base a lot of ancient history off of his completely provable claims.
Graham: What about him giving explicit and detailed historical account of what happened to Atlantis and its advanced civilization that he got from the Egyptians?
Shills: No no, Plato was clearly a lunatic about that one thing.
Shermer then weasels "There's Graham, he seems so reasonable-" home boy is literally insulting Graham Hancock to his face. Shermer then goes "Graham, I'm sorry, I didn't mean it to sound like that" after Graham calls his insult out. Shermer then gives a non-apology in an absolutely sociopathic manner.
Every time Randall Carlson gets his turn to talk he just nukes Shermer’s arguments from orbit.
This is GOLD analysis on gaslighting!
Then when Joe refutes him, he tries to change the subject using weasel words like "Would you allow me to just address *change of subject*?" Then when Joe refutes THAT attempt, he shuts down and throws up his arms going "Well what was the question then?"
After doubling down on misrepresenting Graham’s arguments, it gets so bad that Shermer chimes in going “Marc, we actually did misrepresent him,” because even Shermer realizes how terrible this looks for the both of them.
At this point I stopped watching the interview, it was just too tedious to hear the continual “nuh-uh” level rebuttals to Graham and Randall’s rock-solid info. And for anyone wondering why I consistently malign, dismiss, and mock “academia”, this interview is the perfect demonstration.
While many people will defend the parties involved in this discussion because of the “rational and polite” way in which it was conducted, I say that’s BULL. When you have one party insulting and belittling the other consistently, to which one side has to continually defend not only their argument, but themselves, that’s not a rational or polite debate. It’s exhausting, tedious, and serves to give the illusion of “both sides having merit” to the passive listener.
Graham and Randall’s analyses speak for themselves, so the only argument that people like Shermer can heave at them is one that brings attention to other subjects and other people. They must tie one person’s reputation to another and discredit them both, because the analysis is solid.
Academia has rewarded this faux debate technique along with groupthink and consensus for so long that it has destroyed the very concept of critical thought. Consensus is the opposite of discovery and the antithesis of invention.
“The finest candlemakers would have never thought of the lightbulb. The advances can never be peer reviewed; they come from the fringe.” – Allan Savory, Ecologist