• Welcome to BellGab.com Archive.
 

Graham Hancock

Started by Hernerwerzog, November 05, 2013, 08:35:25 AM

henge0stone

Is Graham banned from C2C now that he did Art's show?

Barfly

This is a interesting question, it makes you wonder the hesitation other guests will have to do Arts show.
The plot thickens

henge0stone

That was an amazing show with graham, great start. I love how Graham finally states his thoughts on ancient aliens. Glad he didn't join that bandwagon.

Jackstar

I really like Graham Hancock. I've always been an admirer of his work.


Hancock lines in the West Country, he'd lose all credibility there if he DIDN'T ever smoke dope 16 hours a day!

Bristol / Bath lifestyle!


Barfly

Isn't Al Gore involved with TED?
I seem to remember reading he had some interest in it, if so i guess the conclusion is self explanatory.

centaurie

Quote from: Barfly on July 31, 2015, 05:57:45 AM
Isn't Al Gore involved with TED?
I seem to remember reading he had some interest in it, if so i guess the conclusion is self explanatory.

As far as I know he has only done a talk or two. Most of what I've been watching for the past year or two are TEDx or banned form TED shows.

Juan Cena


From what this review says of Hancock's new book, I'm pretty well justified in saying his views are racist.

QuotePart of the problem, of course, is that Hancock is wedded to his Donnelly-inspired lost civilization, and the long shadow of its Victorian origins casts a pall over the new work. Thus, we find Hancock repeating Donnelly’s arguments even when they are uncomfortably Victorian and, frankly, more than a little racist, imperialist, and colonialist. We learn in Magicians, for example, that the lost race were white men with red beards, who came from the Caucasus region and spread civilization to all the little brown peoples of the earth. We learn that all of the non-white peoples of the earth mistook them for angels or gods, and that even the Jews thought of them as the Watchers and the Nephilim. By sheer coincidence, these masters of the universe, in addition to being white, also espoused values identical to those of modern Christians, with anything that seems too regressive or uncouth merely a remnant of indigenous superstition.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/magicians-of-the-gods-review.html#.VgDt77Rvb0d

henge0stone

The Jews(Hebrews) are Caucasians too so not sure how that makes sense. If white people are the angels and gods of myths and legends it is strange that after creating civilization they went back to northern Europe abandoned all their advanced technology and did nothing for another thousand years or so. If this is accurate than Hancock really has lost it.

Juan Cena

Quote from: henge0stone on September 23, 2015, 02:57:26 PM
The Jews(Hebrews) are Caucasians too so not sure how that makes sense. If white people are the angels and gods of myths and legends it is strange that after creating civilization they went back to northern Europe abandoned all their advanced technology and did nothing for another thousand years or so. If this is accurate than Hancock really has lost it.

Some Caucasians have always been considered more Caucasian than others. Jews have faced persecution in Europe for centuries. 

As for Europeans abandoning the alleged ancient technology, that's where the idea of a global cataclysm comes in.

Juan Cena

Quote from: Barfly on July 31, 2015, 05:57:45 AM
Isn't Al Gore involved with TED?
I seem to remember reading he had some interest in it, if so i guess the conclusion is self explanatory.

I think Al and Ted were "just friends."

Al and Barney Frank, however...

henge0stone

Quote from: Juan Cena on September 23, 2015, 10:43:02 PM
Some Caucasians have always been considered more Caucasian than others. Jews have faced persecution in Europe for centuries. 

As for Europeans abandoning the alleged ancient technology, that's where the idea of a global cataclysm comes in.

Not sure if more Caucasian is the right term, since the caucus mountains are closer to the middle east than Europe, middle eastern people would therefore be considered more Caucasian than northern Europeans.

If Hancock suggests in the book that whiter Caucasians would be looked at as gods, angels and were the nephilim simply because their skin is a lighter shade than the Hebrews in the middle east than like I said he's way off.

Even primitive tribes who make contact relatively late in history rarely think that Europeans are gods for very long, no matter how advanced their technology.

Again, its possible that the reviewer is putting words in his mouth.

albrecht

Quote from: henge0stone on September 24, 2015, 04:19:29 PM
Not sure if more Caucasian is the right term, since the caucus mountains are closer to the middle east than Europe, middle eastern people would therefore be considered more Caucasian than northern Europeans.

If Hancock suggests in the book that whiter Caucasians would be looked at as gods, angels and were the nephilim simply because their skin is a lighter shade than the Hebrews in the middle east than like I said he's way off.

Even primitive tribes who make contact relatively late in history rarely think that Europeans are gods for very long, no matter how advanced their technology.

Again, its possible that the reviewer is putting words in his mouth.
Jews, we will leave out the "black" ones now because they are discriminated against even in Israel, are two "main" types. I think the literature and studies have disproven the "Khazar hypothesis" (but still controversial kept by some) and than both genetically are, mainly, Semitic in origin. There are LOTS of studies on this and it remains controversial but the community, even in diaspora, remained, relatively whole and, because,  technically, "jewishness" travels over the maternal line (and there are Rabbincal families for long periods) it makes Y-chromosome studies more easier.
This is wiki but links from that for more reading the actual studies. But, basically, "Jews" weren't considered white/Caucasoid through out most history (usually for bad reasons, not scientific) but Semitic (which also includes many non-Jews.) Which modern testings seems to confirm, at least to a point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_studies_of_Jewish_origins#Maternal_line:_Mitochondrial_DNA

Juan Cena

Quote from: henge0stone on September 24, 2015, 04:19:29 PM
Not sure if more Caucasian is the right term, since the caucus mountains are closer to the middle east than Europe, middle eastern people would therefore be considered more Caucasian than northern Europeans.

If Hancock suggests in the book that whiter Caucasians would be looked at as gods, angels and were the nephilim simply because their skin is a lighter shade than the Hebrews in the middle east than like I said he's way off.

Even primitive tribes who make contact relatively late in history rarely think that Europeans are gods for very long, no matter how advanced their technology.

Again, its possible that the reviewer is putting words in his mouth.

"Caucasian" is pretty much a BS term in the first place. I'm shocked the scientific community hasn't tossed it out with the rest of the 19th century concepts of the presumed ideas of the racial superiority of persons of European descent.

At best, I think the term was used to justify Eupopean manifest destiny over Western Asia and Northern Africa.

henge0stone

Quote from: Juan Cena on September 25, 2015, 10:57:32 PM
"Caucasian" is pretty much a BS term in the first place. I'm shocked the scientific community hasn't tossed it out with the rest of the 19th century concepts of the presumed ideas of the racial superiority of persons of European descent.

At best, I think the term was used to justify Eupopean manifest destiny over Western Asia and Northern Africa.

I'm not crazy about the term but you do realize it includes people of middle eastern descent and Indian descent? These are both people who Europeans defiantly felt they were superior to. The idea of race has changed through history, it used to be much more based on language and culture.

henge0stone

Also manifest destiny had nothing to do with Asia or Africa, it was a purely American term made to justify the spread of American settlers from coast to coast of the North American continent.

GravitySucks

Quote from: Juan Cena on September 25, 2015, 10:57:32 PM
"Caucasian" is pretty much a BS term in the first place. I'm shocked the scientific community hasn't tossed it out with the rest of the 19th century concepts of the presumed ideas of the racial superiority of persons of European descent.

At best, I think the term was used to justify Eupopean manifest destiny over Western Asia and Northern Africa.
Almost as much out of context as the word Semite. Most people consider that to be the Jews. Actually it is the term used for descendants of Noah's son Shem. Look at the map at this link to learn how Arabs are as much a semite as the historical Jewish peoples.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_people

albrecht

Quote from: henge0stone on September 26, 2015, 01:22:17 AM
I'm not crazy about the term but you do realize it includes people of middle eastern descent and Indian descent? These are both people who Europeans defiantly felt they were superior to. The idea of race has changed through history, it used to be much more based on language and culture.
And Aryan and Persian changing the name and India, etc. Funny how things go. Semitic applies to Jews (most) and Arabs (and Christians, Druze, Zoroastrian, etc etc) but, now "anti-Semitic" only is applicable to one. I think one of the first political correct, etc newspeak thing. Racial stuff is, frankly, a bit ridiculous because of history, travels, wars, etc. But the Jews do have an interesting history and smart strategy about 1) Matrilineality line as source (eliminates/protects) 2) cohesiveness (despite oppression or worse.) Though I wonder now if it is as strong (oddly, here, the "Christrian right" is more pro-Israel/Jew than many Jews (though there are some Orthodox who think the Jewish State should not have been done also.) A weird deal.

Barfly

Quote from: albrecht on September 26, 2015, 11:08:31 PM
And Aryan and Persian changing the name and India, etc. Funny how things go. Semitic applies to Jews (most) and Arabs (and Christians, Druze, Zoroastrian, etc etc) but, now "anti-Semitic" only is applicable to one. I think one of the first political correct, etc newspeak thing. Racial stuff is, frankly, a bit ridiculous because of history, travels, wars, etc. But the Jews do have an interesting history and smart strategy about 1) Matrilineality line as source (eliminates/protects) 2) cohesiveness (despite oppression or worse.) Though I wonder now if it is as strong (oddly, here, the "Christrian right" is more pro-Israel/Jew than many Jews (though there are some Orthodox who think the Jewish State should not have been done also.) A weird deal.
Argghhh I dont want to get involved in this one, i studied this in college extensively, half of you are correct and half of you are semi correct.
Lets leave at that.

Mastodonkey

Graham is married to a black woman. Everybody wants to turn a racist spin on everyfuckingthing. Just stop.

ONeill

Quote from: Juan Cena on September 22, 2015, 12:07:02 AM
From what this review says of Hancock's new book, I'm pretty well justified in saying his views are racist.

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/magicians-of-the-gods-review.html#.VgDt77Rvb0d

Racism or not, this is an excellent review. Looks like Graham delivered exactly what I expected him to deliver.

Juan Cena

Quote from: henge0stone on September 26, 2015, 01:22:17 AM
I'm not crazy about the term but you do realize it includes people of middle eastern descent and Indian descent? These are both people who Europeans defiantly felt they were superior to. The idea of race has changed through history, it used to be much more based on language and culture.

The term was also based totally on skin color.

"Caucasuian" was coined by a German philosopher named Chrisoper Meiners, who divided mankind into either being "Caucasian" or "Mongolian," based solely on skin color. Lighter-skinned peoples were "Caucasian," while darker-skinned peoples were "Mongolian," with the idea that Caucasians were superior.

Yes, the concept of race has changed over the years, and has as much to do with people's perception of other cultures/ethnic groups than it does with actual science. 

Juan Cena

Quote from: Mastodonkey on September 28, 2015, 08:13:09 AM
Graham is married to a black woman. Everybody wants to turn a racist spin on everyfuckingthing. Just stop.

Strom Thurmond fathered a black daughter. It didn't seem to keep him from being one of the most racist politicians in US history.

b_dubb

Quote from: Juan Cena on October 07, 2015, 02:18:44 AM
Strom Thurmond fathered a black daughter. It didn't seem to keep him from being one of the most racist politicians in US history.
I'm betting he fathered a lot more than one

Barfly

I would take a small block Chevy motor instead, wait, am i on the wrong forum?
Dammit!

Just Me

Quote from: Mastodonkey on September 28, 2015, 08:13:09 AM
Graham is married to a black woman. Everybody wants to turn a racist spin on everyfuckingthing. Just stop.

Yes Graham is, in fact she is an Ethiopian woman with the name Santha Faiia

I am absolutely sickened by these closet racist accusing others as racist for saying something that bumps their ass the wrong way.

henge0stone

Quote from: Juan Cena on October 07, 2015, 02:05:34 AM
The term was also based totally on skin color.

"Caucasuian" was coined by a German philosopher named Chrisoper Meiners, who divided mankind into either being "Caucasian" or "Mongolian," based solely on skin color. Lighter-skinned peoples were "Caucasian," while darker-skinned peoples were "Mongolian," with the idea that Caucasians were superior.

Yes, the concept of race has changed over the years, and has as much to do with people's perception of other cultures/ethnic groups than it does with actual science.

Well being in the Caucasuian group certainly didn't prevent the Indians (in India) or the middle easterners from being conquered.

we're all black on the inside anyway

Juan Cena

Quote from: henge0stone on October 07, 2015, 02:06:55 PM
Well being in the Caucasuian group certainly didn't prevent the Indians (in India) or the middle easterners from being conquered.

we're all black on the inside anyway

They were conquered because they weren't "pure" enough, as the supposed theory went.

albrecht

Quote from: Juan Cena on October 08, 2015, 10:42:20 PM
They were conquered because they weren't "pure" enough, as the supposed theory went.
I thought, in this theory, that the Indians (dot, not feathers) and Persian (Iran?) Aryan/Ariyan/ārya were the "start" of the Caucasoid/"white" race (and why the various NAZIs and cultists went there; adopted some of the symbology, popular novels, etc?)

Powered by SMFPacks Menu Editor Mod