Graham Hancock has some interesting and unconventional views of human history. He believes there was an advanced human civilization existed 13,000 year ago and was destroyed in a huge flood caused by the end of the ice age.
By "advanced" he is not claiming they had airplanes any flying saucers, but advanced, like the Egyptians were.
The hatred towards this man and his theories seem to be imbalanced for what he suggests. The MSM and establishment calls his theories "white supremacist" and "nazi" as they take credits away from cultures of "people of color". I'm pretty sure he never suggested any pigmentation or color of earlier civilizations.
The MSM and and archeology routinely claim that he says aliens brought technology to earth, etc, although I'm pretty sure he has not mentioned this.
So why so much animosity towards this? If it is true? So what? If it is false, so what? Is it archeologists who are threatened because they spent 50 years of their life teaching the world was one way, and now learning they may have been wrong?
Or is there some larger threat to the establishment here?
Edit: I'm only a little educated on this individual, so I apologize in advance if any of this is incorrect. Just that my experience is that when a person or idea receives many attacks by the establishment, it usually means they are over target.
I just watched the 8-episode "season one" of Hancock's Ancient Apocalypse on Netflix.
It's a five-star presentation of a paradigm-busting theory. Hancock himself comes across as intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded, and as someone with integrity. During the series, we see his new paradigm coming together over decades as he researches sites around the globe and puts what he learns together in convincing fashion.
ANY entrenched paradigm generates resistance to being overthrown -- people were arrested and even tortured and burned at the stake for espousing theories that threatened prevailing scientific and religious paradigms during the Inquisition -- Nicholas Copernicus, Galileo Galilei, and Giordano Bruno come to mind -- but ridicule and censorship have been enough to do the job in more recent times.
The series is a red-pill because it shows solid evidence and perfectly reasonable theory being pointedly ignored and belittled by "experts" who should be engaging with that evidence and examining and attempting to falsify that theory.
Beyond that factor, Hancock's theory includes something I haven't seen mentioned yet: he believes the core REASON for the huge ancient monuments around the world -- all positioned to call attention to the heavens in one way or another and with other shared features -- is that a near-extinction event for humanity occurred near the end of the last ice age, about 12,600 years ago. The thin dark band of sediment in the geological record from that time, similar to the one marking the asteroid or comet impact 66 million years ago that ended the non-avian dinosaurs, is the piece of evidence that sealed the deal for me, but the vast man-made underground tunnels and living spaces at various places around the world also fit the framework.
The apparently much larger number of vast tunnels and underground living spaces constructed by militaries and others recently come to mind, including perhaps in Antartica. Is one purpose for those to prepare for and shield (the few) against an incoming bombardment of cometary fragments like the one that may have ended an advanced civilization (or civilizations) millennia ago? Not a high-tech, semiconductor-enabled civilization but rather an ancient Egypt-level civilization in a time where much of humanity remained at the Stone Age level? If so, that might be a major reason for keeping a lid on Hancock's theories all by itself.