Graham Hancock and racism
It’s a nice try from Graham Hancock, but it’s a non sequitur. You can think races exist and are different (what the left means by “racism”) and also have sex with women from different races—nay, you can even have children by them. There is no contradiction between “racist views” and these activities.
When the left says “racism” it means the assertion that races exist and are different beyond cultural categories; if races exist and are different beyond cultural categories, it follows that there will be inequalities between them (difference = inequality) and it follows these inequalities are innate—not caused by culture—and that, further, there is a racial hierarchy within which one race will be superior. If so, no leftist project is viable—inequality is innate.
This is what the left means when it says “racism”; incidentally, families are also “racist”—and a consistent or honest leftist will admit that this is so as well. The family is akin to race; it is race in microcosm—indeed, a nation (race) is just an extended family; and a monarchy is the nation’s families in macrocosm. If the family exists as an objective unit, then races do too—hence the family is also just a “cultural construction”, especially the nuclear family (it’s European and allows greater capital accumulation); it’s not innate.
The left’s vision is for families, races, and nations to be pulled apart so that everyone is a notionally “equal” atom only united through allegiance to the left’s perverted secular religions—and that has been a consistent theme from Marx and before, and the liberals facilitate the first step (individualism).
I think Hancock is not aware this is so or has never given it much thought. For him, “racism” means, as it does for most people, something like “negative views of other races” or “unjustified meanness”—and Hancock is the mildest amiable stoner you are likely to meet; he’s not on a football terrace throwing bananas at a black player—that’s unimaginable for him. But that’s not really what “racism” is at all—it is as above, up to and including abolition of the family.
If pushed, Hancock would probably say that races exist but “it just doesn’t matter” and that he “deals with the individual”—both unacceptable for the left, for the default to “liberal individualism” does not deal with the implicit hierarchy contained in the assumption race itself exists (and the left is right about this situation—liberal individualists are hypocrites and so are justly eaten by the left).
So Hancock is just nice or, possibly, given his age, subscribes to an older iteration of progressive liberalism along the lines “I want to buy the world a Coke” or “one race the human race”. Yet both positions were long ago outflanked by the left and have been deemed irrelevant. Hence Hancock is “racist” per what the term means today.
Hancock is a leftist himself—you notice he is conscious enough as regards contemporary leftist jargon to designate his wife a “Person of Color”, actually quite a patronising term to tag your spouse with. Hancock is a dissident leftist; he has his own idiosyncratic cult that talks about periodic comet impacts with the earth, not climate change—and he ties this into a “Mother Ayhuasca” earth-goddess nature cult whereby indigenous peoples will save us from our wicked techno-industrial civilisation.
It’s the same deal as climate change, except it’s pure Hancock and ties into vague suggestions as regards Atlantis and previous civilisations wiped out by comet impacts—their survivors merged with indigenous peoples, just as we may do one day when “the big one” hits; hence indigenous tribes have ancient knowledge from Atlantis. Hancock’s grandfather was a vicar and he was a journalist—he has narcissistic preacher blood, and he has made his own mild-mannered doomsday cult.
The reason why this oddball variation on a typical leftist theme (“We face problem ‘X’—unless we completely restructure society as I say we will all die”) raises the left’s ire is that it suggests that indigenous peoples didn’t build, for example, the Mayan pyramids—that was done by “the gods” from a superior civilisation, such as Atlantis. Hancock never outright says this is what he thinks—he just strongly hints, much to chagrin from skeptics like Michael Shermer.
What’s wrong with the hint “the gods” built ancient monuments? The gods are the ancient Aryans—the Nephilim in the Bible—as depicted, as aliens, in Ridley Scott’s Prometheus series. Hancock doesn’t think “the gods” were aliens—let alone Aryans (that would horrify him). He just thinks we have latent powers—vaguely spiritual—actuated by ayahuasca; of course, he insults the natives again—says their religions really come from superior Atlantis.
It doesn’t matter for the left: Hancock is too close to the truth and too religious in a non-specific way. Yet the “white gods” built the ancient landmarks—and Atlantis, Thule, and Hyperborea were real; the truth cannot be told. Hancock would never actually go there; he’s a leftist—and he’s married to a POC, an Indonesian (whom he worships in a sappy way—he worships the feminine). He’s Graham Hancock who cut his teeth on the New Internationalist—a Third Worldist organic yogurt-weaving magazine.
Yet he derived his material about ancient civilisations from works by RA Schwaller de Lubicz and his studies into ancient Egyptian religion—and de Lubicz inspired the fascist movement in their affection for polished black knee-high riding boots. One moment you’re talking about pyramids and crystal powers, the next you’re in Wewelsburg Castle.
This is all unstated but the left knows—and that’s why they go for Hancock so viciously, even though he states no contentious points in public and, I think, would sincerely disavow any “Aryan white god” talk. He hasn’t admittedly this truth even to himself—he is vaguely spiritual but not as spiritual as all that, he still worships the indigenous mud-woman cults; and these are degenerate remains from higher civilisations, genuinely demonic.