Russell chats to Graham Hancock, presenter of the hit Netflix series, ‘Ancient Apocalypse’, in front of a live audience at Stay Free HQ. Together they talk about censorship & the propaganda war, new emerging archeological finds in the Amazon, the amazement of Atlantis and a Q&A.Graham is the author of the New York Times Best-seller ‘America Before: The Key To Earth’s Lost Civilization’ and ‘Visionary: The Mysterious Origins of Human Consciousness’.You can see Graham live in April 2023, by going to https://grahamhancock.com/Get My New Stand Up Special 'Brandemic' NOW https://rumble.com/v2d09w8-brandemic.htmlFor a bit more from us join our Stay Free Community here:https://russellbrand.locals.com/Come to my festival COMMUNITY - https://www.russellbrand.com/community-2023/NEW MERCH! https://stuff.russellbrand.com/
Thanks for joining us for a very special show with a live audience.
Wherever you're watching this right now, the first 10-15 minutes will be available on YouTube.
Then we're going to click over to being exclusively on Rumble because the free speech must reign supreme.
We're going to say stuff that the mainstream don't want you having access to, particularly because our guest today is a fantastic, radical enemy of orthodoxy, But powerful ally of truth.
I've been friends with this man for a very, very long time.
If you're not a member of our locals community yet, sign up to our locals community right now.
Not only do you get my stand-up special Brandemic included in that package, though you can buy as a one-off deal, you could also come and attend live events like these people are right now.
Give us a round of applause and a cheer!
That's right.
That is the sweet sound of freedom.
And before that sound dims, please welcome to the stage my special guest, Graham Hancock!
Please take a seat, Graham.
Take a moment to set up your mic.
I reckon you need it about here, standard style, probably like that, about a hand away from your face, I would say so, Graham.
And while you're setting up the mic and making yourself comfortable, I will give you an introduction.
Graham is a journalist and presenter of the hit Netflix docuseries, Ancient Apocalypse, where he travels the You can see Graham talking live at Logan Hall on Saturday the 22nd of April.
Tickets are available at grahamhancock.com.
He's the author of the New York Times bestseller, America Before, The Key to Earth's Lost Civilization,
and Visionary, The Mysterious Origins of Human Consciousness.
You can see Graham talking live at Logan Hall on Saturday, the 22nd of April.
Tickets are available at GrahamHancock.com.
Some of you people live in the room might come.
Some of you watching locals might come.
Some of you watching us on Rumble and YouTube may come and see Graham at that fantastic
event.
I never neglect the opportunity to talk to Graham Hancock, so let's begin our conversation
Graham, before we get into some of the more controversial stuff that we'll keep exclusive for our Rumble audience, in particular I want to talk about the way that you've been smeared and condemned for a subject that I wouldn't consider to be as contentious as evidently the mainstream consider it to be.
Before we get into that and talking about what the objectives of the mainstream media are, we'll just lightly introduce ourselves for 10 minutes.
By asking you, what is it, Graham, that first ignited your interest in arcane civilizations?
What is it in particular that you think is being revealed or being neglected by the potential for a cataclysmic event that obscures the origin of our species?
I think the problem is the institution of archaeology.
I want to be clear, I have nothing against individual archaeologists.
On the contrary, I've met many wonderful individual archaeologists and I couldn't do the work that I do without the work that archaeology has done.
But there's a difference between individual archaeologists and archaeology speaking as an institution.
For example, the Society for American Archaeology with its 5,000 members.
They seem to take a view that the only people who are entitled to interpret the past of humanity are archaeologists, particularly the remote past.
There's a role for historians, of course, where we have documents, but once you get back into the remote past where you don't have documents and you're dealing with artifacts dug out of the ground, they seem to feel that only archaeologists are authorized to speak about this and that anybody else who puts a different point of view into the conversation is a danger and a threat and must be silenced.
I was disappointed by, not so much by the archaeologists because I kind of expected this, but I was disappointed by the idleness and lack of rigour of journalists who covered this story.
who simply took their cues from archaeology, never talked to me, and published stories about it, which were often very unpleasant.
At the same time, I've had a major Netflix show, my voice is out there, and it's right and proper that it should be opposed and counter-minded.
I'm pleased that it started a conversation and a debate around all this, but what I object to is when people create straw men around my work.
A lot of it is Graham Hancock says this, Graham Hancock says that.
There's loads of headlines.
There's a YouTube There's a video right now which says Graham Hancock says all archaeologists are lying.
No, I never say that.
I do not say that.
I absolutely don't say that.
I found again and again in the critiques that have been floated about my work that individuals are saying that Hancock says this when in fact I never do say that.
Then they attack that straw man and hope that nobody will look deeper and investigate.
The whole project seems to have been to to prevent people or discourage people from exploring my work.
That's when I came to realise that I'm involved in some kind of propaganda war here.
The tools of propaganda are being used by mainstream archaeology as an institution in order to beat down alternative narratives.
I don't think that's healthy at all.
It's interesting that in such a short period of time the ability to communicate openly around a range of subjects that I find surprising in so much as I find it surprising that it's become extensively censored and so rapidly.
It suggests that there's been some kind of seismic shift in the way that information is handled, that authoritarianism is on the rise, and accompanying that, of course, we're aware that surveillance and censorship are increasing, that looking for opportunities to regulate appears to be a kind of guiding principle in the approach to crisis across as broad a range of subjects as war and even Health.
They become sort of approached in this aggressively regulatory manner.
The thing that interests me, and we'll touch more deeply upon the more controversial aspects of the reporting on your work exclusively on Rumble in just a few more minutes.
So if you're watching this on YouTube now, click on the link in the description so that you can join us over there.
But first of all, I'd like to just have a basic understanding, if I may, of the fundamental argument, at least the one that I hear you advancing more recently, that there was a seismic, cataclysmic event at some point.
I feel like you say often it was around 12,000 years ago.
Yeah, it wasn't a single moment, it was an episode.
It lasted for about 1,200 years.
That's ages!
Yeah, it's a long episode.
Take 1,200 years off now and you're back in the medieval times, early medieval.
So it's a long time, but the fact of the matter is that it wasn't just one event, it was a series of events.
It unfolded between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago.
Give or take a few years.
It saw the extinction of almost all of the large animal species of the Ice Age.
The woolly rhinos, the mammoths, the mastodons, the saber-toothed tigers, the giant sloths.
They all went down at that time.
It was worldwide.
There was a massive, massive extinction.
There was a huge change of climate.
We'd been coming out of the Ice Age, the world had been warming up and then suddenly it just got freezing cold again, as cold as it had been at the peak of the Ice Age.
And weirdly, at that moment around 12,800 years ago, and this shouldn't happen when the Earth goes into a freezing period, there was a rise in sea level.
Which meant that water that should have stayed frozen had come off the ice caps and was entering the world ocean.
And that rise in sea level of freezing water coming off the ice caps cut the Gulf Stream and stopped what's called the Global Meridional Circulation, which is a central heating system of our planet.
It kept the Earth cold for a very long time.
Geologists have been aware of this.
The episode is called the Younger Dryas, for a very long time.
Why did it happen?
That's the issue.
And a number of theories just focus on that changing of ocean currents and saying that's what made the Earth cold without saying why did the ocean currents change.
And the best explanation for that is put forward by a group called the Comet Research Group.
They started off as about 60 all mainstream scientists.
They're now more than 100 of them.
They've published dozens of papers in peer-reviewed journals.
And they're saying that what happened 12,800 years ago was that the Earth ran into the debris stream of a disintegrating comet.
All comets disintegrate.
It's a normal part of comet behaviour.
Whenever we look at a shooting star in the sky, a little meteor shooting through the sky, that is a bit of an old comet.
All of them are.
They break up into multiple fragments.
We saw it massively with comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, which hit Jupiter in 1994.
It broke up into 21 fragments.
It was witnessed by telescopes.
Bombarded Jupiter, just huge explosions, some of them the size of the Earth itself.
But, you know, Jupiter can take it.
What happened to the Earth was that a comet, which was estimated originally to have been 100 miles in diameter, entered the inner solar system, was tugged on by gravitational forces, began to break up into multiple fragments, and 12,800 years ago the first bunch of those fragments, like a shotgun blast, peppered the Earth.
And because the Earth is turning, that peppering covered a very wide expanse of the Earth's surface, right from North America right across to Syria.
There's evidence of these impacts, airbursts, explosions in the sky, sometimes on the ground.
And then further evidence which takes it down into South America and as far south as Antarctica.
It's called the Younger Dryas boundary layer and the only possible explanation for it in my view, and I've been through all possible explanations, the best one is the fragmenting comet explanation.
And then, because the fragmenting comet creates a meteor stream, that meteor stream by the way still exists, it's called the Taurid meteor stream.
We pass through it twice a year and that's why we have the so-called Halloween fireworks.
We see a lot of shooting stars around October.
We pass through it in June and then October, November.
What happens is that this meteor stream has spread out.
It's very, very wide now and it includes many filaments of debris.
Some of them are small and some of them are very, very large.
And what appears to have happened between 12,800 and 11,600 years ago was that the Earth passed repeatedly through large bits of this meteor stream and was repeatedly impacted.
So the big event is 12,800 years ago, but there's another huge event 11,600 years ago.
And sea level rise at that point, it's called Meltwater Pulse 1B.
is enormous.
There's a huge sea level rise.
Now archaeologists say it wasn't so huge, it was spread out over a number of years, but you can't take an average as to what happens in a particular year.
You can have a year where there's a massive sea level rise and another year where there's none.
If you take the average of that, you're not getting the true picture of what's happening.
But I think it's true to say that if our civilisation was confronted by an overnight 30 foot rise in sea level, it would have devastating effects on our civilisation and it had devastating effects on the world Well...
What you've said is so broad, diverse, and includes a lot of data, cosmological, geological, and it's quite wide ranging.
And I can see how it would be difficult to make those claims irrefutably.
It doesn't appear to me that anything you're saying is so contentious as to warrant censorship.
Do you think that the attacks that you have foregone, have received, have been the recipient of, are motivated by the kind of reflexive protection of orthodoxy that could be applicable in any field?
Or do you feel that as this pertains to Our particular history as a species, our hermeneutics, our worldview, progressivism, and I mean technological, medicinal and scientific progressivism in particular, are challenged by the idea that we are not currently experiencing the apex of human civilization and the hubris that would be punctured by that is threatened by the idea that
We are not now the greatest that we have ever been, that there is much to learn.
Is that part of it?
And we could be the next lost civilization too.
It's all of the above actually, Russell.
First of all, there is that reflexive, defensive posture of a professional body, of an institution which wants to protect its boundaries.
And that is very much clear.
Secondly, it came as quite a surprise to me, but I realise it's part of the culture now.
One of the reasons I was attacked was because my series, Ancient Apocalypse, seemed to be calling into question the expertise of archaeologists.
And what the journalists did with that is say, what's going to happen next?
Are we going to call into question all expertise?
It seemed to be about a defense of experts in our society.
Now, I've got nothing against experts.
alive today because of experts after a catastrophic epileptic seizure in 2017.
I'm walking today because of experts.
I've got two replaced hips.
There's a huge role for experts and I welcome much expertise, but they should never be allowed to have a dominant voice.
They should not be controlling.
They should not say, we know everything and you must simply do what we tell you.
And that seemed to be the primary reaction to the series, that it was undermining confidence in experts and that somehow this is threatening to our society.
And then secondly, Russell, yes, you're right, the idea that I'm putting forward that we may have lost a whole episode in the human story.
Which, we haven't lost it completely because it's been passed down to us in myths and traditions all around the world, but that we've lost to our, if you like, our institutional memory.
The notion that there existed a civilization during the Ice Age does raise important questions over our civilization today.
And first of all, is it actually the apex and pinnacle of human achievement as we imagine it to be, as we're taught it is?
You know, we're taught that we're the end of a long line of intellectual evolution that has finally brought us to this high point of complete Control and understanding of the universe and suddenly we're tipped from that pinnacle and we have to wrestle with the possibility that there may have been other kinds of civilizations which may have done things in different ways from the way we do them.
We may not be the best at all.
We may even be the worst.
If I may create an extraordinary and odd phrase, it's like there's a kind of temporal occidentalism.
The idea that indigenous and native ideas are somehow inferior and secondary.
The presumption that we are at the apex.
The presumption that other people are there to be colonized.
The idea that there is just one linear trajectory.
I notice frequently In the kind of dialogue between experts and the grateful recipients of their manor, M-A-N-N-A, yeah?
Yeah.
That there's a kind of hubris and haughtiness, whether it's witnessing Fauci admonishing African Americans on the doorstep for vaccine hesitancy, and we're covering that in a later show, Or elsewhere, where there's a denial of spiritual principles based on that which is measurable.
Of course, if something is ineffable and beyond our sensory dimensions, then it's going to
be difficult to empirically demonstrate it.
We're going to leave YouTube now, and for the rest of the show, we'll be exclusively
available on Rumble, talking about a whole range of ideas.
You can click the link in the description and join us there.
And remember, go to Graham Hancock's website if you want to see him live.
Graham, I love having the opportunity to talk to you because I guess we get to investigate
ideas that can be defining.
When you were talking about this idea of a lost civilization or a golden age, it's significant and interesting to see how frequently that appears in scripture and mythology.
Of course, a Jungian or Campbellian, shall we say, analysis of that would be that it's harking back to a kind of prenatal state.
We're suspended in fluid, we all lived in perpetual bliss, our every need met, not aware of separation, till we were cast out of the garden, forced to fend for ourselves.
I only left the breast at 25 myself!
And I've still been trying to find a way back, let me tell you!
Do you think then that the sort of seeming collective memory of Atlantis or a kind of a golden age or an imperature of a utopia that proceeds rather than a utopia to which we aspire is psychological in its origin Or sociological?
I know that you're saying it's sociological because of the events you've just described, but do you think that, because it seems that one of the most contentious things you say, or one of the things for which you are most attacked, appears to be, you know, like when you talk about Plato, talking about Atlantis, and also I know another thing, because I did some research and I try not to, Graham.
Because I do like to shoot from the hip.
A good place to shoot from.
Yeah, nice.
Why bother holding a gun up high?
It makes you look stupid.
Shoot from down there.
It's cooler.
One of the things I saw is that when you talk about them kind of sonar radar type scans, you'll tell us the right word in a second, that are possible to do with like the Amazon, and you say, oh, it could be that there's stuff down there.
One of the leery attacks from the mainstream that I saw is, well, the one where I fall, Oh my God, I know Graham Hancock.
As far as I know, he's not a Nazi.
Do you know what I mean?
It was like, this is so dangerous!
I said, well what is it that Graham Hancock said?
He said, it's perfectly okay to leave your dog in the car in summer with all the windows up.
Give children sweets and drugs!
Like, what is it?
What has Graham Hancock said?
Well, one of the things seemed to be like, oh, like, that you've said, using these sonar detection things, it looks like there could be structures in the Amazon.
There definitely are.
Right, well, one of the things I read was them going, that could be a whole host of things!
So I'd like to know about the stuff about Plato, and I'd like to know about the stuff of what them sonar things are detecting in the Amazon, please.
Alright, well first of all, the story of Atlantis.
If you mention the word Atlantis to any archaeologist, they will tend to roll their eyes on the assumption that they're dealing with somebody from the lunatic fringe.
So almost by definition, if you take the concept of Atlantis seriously, you're regarded by archaeologists and their friends in the media as a kind of lunatic.
I've always found this odd, because the earliest surviving source for the tradition of Atlantis is the highly respected figure of Plato.
He passes it down to us in dialogues called the Timaeus and the Critias.
He speaks of an advanced civilization, which was headquartered on an island, and that that island was submerged by an enormous flood, and in a single day and night was completely destroyed.
Now, the view of archaeology is that this is all a fantastic tale that Plato made up, that he simply wanted to make some kind of political or philosophical point, so he invented Atlantis.
Immediately contradicting that is the fact that there are hundreds of traditions from all around the world.
Plato is the one that calls it Atlantis, but there are hundreds of traditions from all around the world that speak of a great flood and the destruction of a former civilization.
And then the second issue is that Plato includes precise scientific information in the story, and this is what archaeology is ignoring.
When it says that it's all a fantastical made-up tale.
And it's to do with that Meltwater Pulse 1B that I mentioned, that brought the Younger Dryas to an end 11,600 years ago and raised sea levels massively.
Plato said that the story came to him through his family line.
His family line included the Greek lawmaker Solon some two or three hundred years before.
Plato was writing in the 300 Solons around 600 BC.
And Solon made a famous and historically recorded visit to Egypt.
There's no dispute about that.
And that visit to Egypt ...was around 600 B.C.
So that tells us that that visit to Egypt was around 2,600 years before our time today.
So there's Solon in Egypt in 600 B.C.
He's visiting a temple that no longer exists, the Temple of Neith at Sise in the Delta, and he's shown writings on the walls by the priests.
And he says, what do these writings say?
And the priests then unravel the whole story of Atlantis and they tell how there was this great advanced civilization, which at one time was extremely beneficial and positive to the world, but which fell out of harmony with the universe, became domineering, began to impose its power on other peoples around the world, became arrogant, became overconfident in itself, suffered from hubris, and a ringing phrase ceased to wear its moderation with prosperity.
And the universe intervened and struck Atlantis down.
So Solon said to the priests, OK, when did this happen?
And they said, quite matter-of-factly, oh, 9,000 years ago.
That's in 600 BC.
Do the math.
That's a date in our calendar.
That's 9,600 BC.
That's 11,600 years ago.
That's Meltwater Pulse 1B.
The moment I realised that those two things connected, I could no longer accept the derision that is poured on Plato's story.
He is giving us a date when we know that there was a huge rise in sea level.
I don't understand why archaeologists are so determined to defend this derision that they pour upon the idea of Atlantis.
And often they say, oh, you know, Plato claimed that the story was sourced in ancient Egypt, but there's no such story in ancient Egypt.
Again, that's complete rubbish.
Visit the Temple of Horus at Edfu in Upper Egypt, which is still standing, and you will find the Edfu building texts which relate the entire Atlantis story.
They don't call it Atlantis.
They call it the homeland of the primeval ones, but it's an island.
It's struck down and drowned in a flood.
There are survivors, and some of those survivors come to Egypt and create primeval mounds, which are to be the site of all future temples and pyramids in Egypt.
So the connection to ancient Egypt that Solon draws and Plato passes on is actually very real.
It's very solid.
And I'm pleased to say that there has now been a full translation of the Edfu text, which is a translation into German.
The German Archaeological Institute and an individual called Dieter Kurth.
It's an incredibly important translation and it is going to completely unravel the archaeological position on the Egyptian origins of the story of Atlantis.
Completely unravel it.
And this is going to be very disturbing for archaeology.
I am beginning to understand why there's opposition to challenging convention, because it feels like elsewhere in our culture there is a strong appetite to impose centralised control on many established institutions.
I have read and often reflected on the writing of this CIA analyst Martin Goury.
He says that since we've had the technology to communicate en masse and immediately create counter-narratives, the establishment has had the option of either accepting there are now numerous publics accumulating and aggregating around different issues and to democratize
information and democratize power as much as possible and recognize that the era of
centralization is sort of coming to a type of conclusion or to double down on authoritarianism,
smear dissent in all of its forms, try to control the narrative by creating
opportunity for regulation.
And what you're saying, I suppose, because when we use like rhetorically phrases like
follow the science, it's a kind of claim for superiority that doesn't acknowledge that
science is a subset of all sorts of other interests, most obviously, evidently, observably
and measurably financial interests.
Plainly, only clinical trials are being undertaken that at some point may become profitable.
Perhaps There are less easy to observe biases indeed, that's much of your argument, that take place in every field and notably in this case archaeology.
Because if we start to present a different human history, a different possibility for human future starts to naturally emerge.
In my own contemplation of how we might live, I think How did we evolve to live?
What is natural for us?
Not culturally in a modern sense, but how do we engage with our environment?
How do we engage with one another?
How do we engage with nature?
How do we engage with God or the unknowable?
If there are different cultural examples of that, that may be obfuscated by the events you describe, but nevertheless, Point to the fact that they may not be savages grunting around and dragging things off into caves, whether to eat them or fornicate with them, but a highly advanced species that could move mountains with their minds, that communicate with unknowable beings from other dimensions, that unlock mathematical mysteries, that appear in hieroglyphs etched upon ancient walls.
Then the supremacy of the modern era and the The attitudes that represent it suddenly seem a little more fallible.
That's what I saw most strongly of all in the reaction to Ancient Apocalypse, which is that that reaction says that there are forces at work in our society that do not want people thinking for themselves, that do not want people doing their own research and investigating subjects directly, that want people simply to accept what the so-called experts tell them.
to buy that in the whole cloth and not argue with it and dispute it in any way.
And I think that that is a sinister trend in our society.
Yes, there's a role for experts, I've said that already, play an important role, but there's also a role for the individual researcher and for people who get their sleeves rolled up and get down into detail investigating the past for themselves.
And while It may be true that a pilot of an airplane does really need to be trained in order to fly that airplane.
I wouldn't like to get into an airplane if the pilot wasn't trained to fly an airplane.
Why not?
Where's your sense of fun?
It's a different matter with archaeology and with the past.
The past is the heritage of all humanity.
We all have a right to a point of view on it.
We all have a right to look into it.
And I think it was that attempt to democratise the past on my part, which led to this ferocious and furious reaction.
But I'm really glad there was that reaction, because it's created a conversation that otherwise would not have occurred.
And it's required archaeologists to look in on themselves and see how they are viewed by the public.
Yeah.
Archaeologist, dig a little deeper.
Dig a little deeper, yeah.
Yeah, that's a joke.
No one can deny that.
No one on earth.
Were you not, um, or within it, excuse me, were you not upset, like, your wife's Amphae, she's a woman of colour, what about when they say you're racist?
Didn't that make you think... I was...
To hear this on Censored, watch on Rumble.
Only on Rumble, Censored.
Only on Rumble, Censored.
This is where I speak of a propaganda war, because it's as though they selected certain keywords.
If we can apply these keywords, if enough people repeat these keywords, then people won't read any of Hancock's work or look at his series.
And those keywords included saying that my work supports white supremacy, that it encourages racism, That it's misogynistic and that it's anti-semitic.
All of those phrases were applied to my series.
I don't understand why.
Except to say... I'm against all those things!
If we stick these labels enough and if enough people repeat these labels then people say we won't bother reading Hancock because he's a racist and a white supremacist.
And that seemed to be the idea.
That's propaganda.
That's not real scientific debate that was going on there.
You're right, because archaeology in particular could afford a spirit of amateurism.
My understanding from people like Sheldrake and stuff is that even much botany and biology emerged out of priest class.
It was almost an amateur pursuit of religious folk.
And of course there's a place for experts, as you say, with your pilot analogy.
Of course you need expertise, but what you don't need is technocracy and aristocracy.
A institutionalised elite class that's saying we're the only people that are allowed to discuss this.
You see it in the media all the time.
We're spoken to like we are stupid.
We are cast in the role of subjugates of children.
That's how the discourse takes place.
Have a look at that Fauci clip.
Have a look at the orthodox, what do I want to say, Pharisee-like contempt that is dispatched by people in positions of scientific authority.
Of course if you're in a position of scientific authority, you have scientific authority.
That's where it ends. It's not authority to start telling people what to do, shut shit down.
Like it starts to... what they appear to do is demark a territory where the expertise is difficult to dispute
and then use that as a point of departure for applicable authority, despotism and tyranny.
And once you start saying, hey, maybe the past isn't what we think it is, should we look at some new ideas?
It's always been the case that advancing and emergent ideas come from the periphery
because the establishment has a vested interest in containing it.
It's a personal set of human hermeneutics, its own personal epistemology.
It guards it for that is the source of its power.
Once you break open the tabernacle and start saying, hey, why don't we all have a look around?
How about we all have our own relationship with God?
How about we all, like, that doesn't mean you're going to let some nitwit be in charge of an airplane or a pandemic response.
But you do also want to know, are the people in charge of this response financially invested in particular outcomes?
Are we getting all of the available information?
Is the media unbiased?
Are they allowing all potential voices to participate in this conversation?
Oddly, for all of their talk of diversity, they seem pretty interested in exclusivity, and in particular, exclusion.
And so I suppose, like, your particular case, uh demonstrates what these forces will do when a new emergent voice is heard and becomes popular even if it seems odd to use phrases like anti-semitism misogyny and it don't make sense even the racism thing really really really hurt me
At a personal level, because as you rightly say, Santhe is a woman of colour.
She's of South Indian origin, born in Malaysia.
We have mixed-race children.
And to be publicly labelled as a racist, I have to confess, that really hurt me.
It wounded me deeply.
And I couldn't get why that was being flung at me, except that it would be a useful way to turn people off my work.
And that's the propaganda aspect of this, that I realise that I am involved in a propaganda war.
And that needs to be taken seriously, if I'm going to get my point of view across.
And the other thing is, and I'd like to come on to this Amazon issue.
So archaeologists claim, or archaeology as an institution claims, that they know enough about the past to rule out completely any possibility of any kind of thing that we would call a civilisation during the Ice Age.
But there's a real problem with that, because archaeology has only investigated tiny areas of the world.
A great deal of archaeology that's done is done because a road or a dam is being built, and archaeologists are called in to make sure that there's nothing of historical interest in there.
So it's random in that sense, the areas that they're looking at.
Then Most important to me is that issue of sea level rise at the end of the Ice Age.
That 400 foot rise in sea level that occurred when the Ice Age came to an end.
The 27 million square kilometres of continental shelves that were swallowed up by the sea at that time, which have hardly been investigated by archaeology.
There is some marine archaeology, They're even beginning now, just in the last few years, to look at the continental shelves and that's when the whole notion of Doggerland was discovered, that Britain was joined to the continent and that there were people there.
Steady!
We did that Brexit once and we'll do it again if we have to!
Even if it takes a nice age!
Yeah, so the main focus of marine archaeology is on shipwrecks from relatively recent history.
There needs to be a much more comprehensive survey of the continental shelves before we can write off the possibility of a civilisation destroyed in that cataclysm.
And it's not only the continental shelves.
Then you've got the nine million square kilometres of the Sahara Desert.
We know for sure that there were periods during the Ice Age when the Sahara was rich and fertile.
Huge river systems ran through it.
There were lakes in the Sahara.
And yet, because it's remote, because it's very expensive to operate there, very little archaeology has been done in the Sahara.
So that's another nine million square kilometres of the Earth's surface that archaeology really doesn't know a lot about.
And then there's the Amazon rainforest.
Now, it used to be about 7 million square kilometres, but these horrific clearances that have been taking place in the Amazon have brought it down to closer to 5, 5 to 6 million square kilometres that are still untouched under canopy rainforest.
And this is another area where Only very minimal archaeology has been done.
And for archaeology to claim that it knows everything about our past, while it's not investigated the continental shelves, it's not investigated the Sahara Desert, and it's not investigated the Amazon rainforest, is a terrible oversight in my view, particularly since...
I repeat, I'm not against individual archaeologists.
I'm against the institution.
And there are archaeologists now working with a technology called LiDAR, Light Imaging and Detecting and Ranging, which you fly a plane over the area that you want to look at, and it can look down through the canopy of the Amazon rainforest, and it can see what's underneath it.
And what they're finding is evidence of enormous cities that existed in the Amazon.
Oddly enough, those cities were actually spoken about by a Spanish traveler in the late 1500s.
Why did they vanish?
Because the Spanish brought with them smallpox.
And the smallpox completely destroyed the populations of the Amazon.
But at one time, it was a flourishing, highly populated area.
Secondly, they were creating enormous sacred constructions, things that we would call henges today, like Avebury Henge, that deep circular trench that surrounds Avebury.
In the Amazon, the LiDAR technology is finding dozens and dozens of examples of these.
Enormous hinges.
Some of them are circular.
Some of them are square.
Some of them enclose a circle within a square.
It's all very geometrical.
It's most unexpected in the Amazon.
And it's very, very, very old.
Been detected by LIDAR.
They've been physically examined in places that have been already cleared of rainforest.
They definitely exist, they're definitely old, and what's needed now is a much more thorough investigation of the Amazon rainforest itself by archaeology, if archaeology wishes to continue to claim that it knows everything about the human past.
It's analogous in many ways to fields that I pay more attention to myself, where there is an assumption that where there has been no exploration or observation, nothing exists.
Yeah.
There's nothing there.
Have you looked yet?
No.
Once, there's Brian Cox, who's someone I actually really like, he's an atheist and stuff.
Like he said, if you can't measure it, it isn't there.
And I felt like, but Surely that means that we are limiting all potential realities to the realities that can be contained by sensory instruments, that by their nature must be limited.
Yeah, literally to weighing, measuring and counting.
Yes.
Reality is confined to what we can weigh, measure and count.
That is largely the position of mainstream science in this area.
That's where Rupert Sheldrake gets himself into so much trouble.
Because you can't weigh, measure and count telepathy, for example.
You can do scientific experiments concerning it, and Rupert has done so.
His work is scientifically rigorous.
But it's dismissed automatically, because most scientists say, of course there's no such thing as telepathy.
The brain is the generator of all consciousness, and it's limited to our bodies, and it cannot communicate with other brains without words or language in between.
It's necessarily speculative to include Carl Sagan's beautiful idea that everything ever said is still reverberating limitlessly in space, that TV broadcasts in the 1940s emanate still there amidst the limitless.
And if you can accept that vibration operates in that way and there is a vibrational quality to consciousness, the idea that consciousness could be intercommunicative Speculatively, at least, that seems plausible.
But within this idea that only that which can be measured can be real is the ridiculous assumption that by some extraordinary coincidence we have been endowed with all potential instruments for discerning all potential realities.
Yes.
When even most basic mainstream cosmology includes the idea of infinity and eternity.
Wouldn't it be an extraordinary coincidence that on one hand you accept the infinite and on the other hand you say, but we have got all of the necessary instruments to evaluate the infinite.
That is ludicrous.
It's ludicrous.
It's true arrogance and hubris.
I've noticed it in the cherry picking of my work that critics do.
I have, from time to time, I think it might take up two pages in America Before, a book I published in 2019, and maybe a page or two in other earlier books, where I've speculated, is this lost civilisation that I'm looking for, did they have other ways of manipulating matter that we don't have?
Should I perhaps take seriously the ancient Egyptian traditions of priests chanting and raising blocks into the air?
Should I take that seriously?
And I actually think I should take that seriously because I've climbed the Great Pyramid five times and it's an incredibly difficult, impossible monument to explain.
Everything about it is just mind-blowing.
And the notion that huge long ramps, sloping at 10 degrees, that teams of people pulled 20, 30, 70 ton blocks up and deposited them inside the Great Pyramid above the King's Chamber at about 300 feet above the ground.
I think that the conventional method of explaining that is very limited and I think we should be open to the possibility that we are not the masters of everything that human beings can do and that it is possible that people did things in a different way in the past, that telekinesis may have been a real power.
Now the point I want to make is that in my work That is a tiny fraction of 1% of what I write, and I label it from the beginning as speculation.
But when archaeologists critique my work, that's what they focus on.
Hancock believes in telepathy and telekinesis.
He's obviously a lunatic.
Once again, we're dealing with propaganda, and once again we're dealing with a fixed paradigm about what reality is.
Racist Hancock believes that Mind Lego made Egypt.
It's like, what they'll do, even with a conversation like this one, they'll find the bits that are like, you know, what that does is it inhibits the spirit of mental adventure.
The commodity of imagination is our great gift.
That all of the wonders of the world come via the human imagination.
That it's a gift that is equally endowed upon us all.
That we might all embark on these ideas.
What they want to do is foreclose.
No, you're not an expert.
Where are you from?
Who do you think you are?
Shut your mouth.
Where'd you get that accent?
They'll find a reason to shut you down.
They'll find a reason to stop you investigating.
Why?
Because establishment interests have to be observed.
People that say that no change is necessary are people that benefit from things saying the same.
And it's in particular in your work, because it seems odd to me that, sort of, it's not whimsical, because it couldn't be more important where human beings come from.
I'm not trying to, I'm obviously not being dismissive of your work.
But it's not like your field is directly about how power structures should be organised.
It's not like your work is to make Pfizer accountable for their profits in the last couple of years, or did the CIA kill JFK?
It's not like you're going into territory where it's like, whoa, what's this dude saying?
Some fascinating musings about the great mystery of humankind.
That's the other thing.
They label my work as a conspiracy theorist.
I don't know what conspiracy theory I'm part of.
I don't have any conspiracy theory.
I don't even think archaeologists are in a conspiracy.
I don't think it's a conspiracy.
I think once you commit to a particular profession, you commit to the ruling paradigm of that profession.
And that's what's happening.
It's not like we're hiding the truth.
I don't think archaeology is hiding the truth about our past.
I just think they're not looking in the right places and they haven't looked enough to make dominant statements about the past.
That's the view that I have on that.
So this is another one of those key phrases in our society that can be applied without Any effort or energy on the part of the person applying them, with complete idleness, just call him a conspiracy theorist, just call him a racist, just call him a white supremacist, call him an anti-Semite and we'll turn people off his work right away.
This is the problem that we're dealing with and it's a sinister trend in our society that is not limited to the field that I work in.
It's right across our society now.
And while it is often claimed that we live in the era of great freedom, I'm not sure that we do.
I think we live in an era of very sophisticated mind control.
I'm not sure how much planning there is behind that.
I'm not certain how much coordination there is behind that, but the tools and the techniques are available and propaganda is one of those tools and techniques to shut down alternative narratives, that there must be one controlling
narrative that runs our society and that anything that questions that must be
shut down and any dirty trick that can be deployed to question that will be
deployed.
It's obviously throughout all worlds writing that where sensorialism can flourish best
is when they control even your imagination.
The private spaces of your mind become eerie and forbidden to you, that you daren't dream, that you daren't believe that you can create a better life, a better world.
When they foreclose on even contemplation and imagination, they prevent change.
So you start to see how... And as I'm fond of recounting, George Carlin said, there is no requirement for conspiracy where interests converge.
And without becoming conspiratorial, if you look, for example, at the pandemic, if pharmaceutical interests to profit and government interests to regulate and control converge, you can see that there's a kind of momentum that takes place.
When you have systems where the individuals within them are not significantly empowered, As Yanis Varoufakis told us when they were trying to get Tsaritsa's win in the Greek elections ratified, verified, and the mandate they'd received from the Greek public to not pay back the bank loans around the 2008 crash, he said he realized when dealing with the EU that the person he was talking to, even this is some high-up bod within the EU, had no power.
That person, if you're the kind of person that's gonna go, Actually, we will honour that democratic right.
You ain't getting that job.
Like Chomsky said, like when talking to Andrew Marr years ago, like Andrew Marr goes, but I've not been conditioned.
I've not been conditioned by the mainstream.
Chomsky said, if you hadn't been conditioned, you wouldn't be sitting in that chair.
You don't know.
The kids that are getting kicked out of the school, the kids that aren't getting into the university, the kids that are getting lifed off on a bloody medication, the Ritalin and stuff, from day one, you're being shut down.
What do you think is the function of education primarily?
Free thought or conformity?
Just remember your own education.
Maybe you went to a private school and they made you a conformist that can flourish in the labour market for that class of people.
Or maybe you went to a state school and you can compete in the labour market for those type of jobs.
But what you will remember, using your own mind, and this is not a critique of teachers, who I revere and respect and love, is that the function of education is to generate conformity, not free thought.
Absolutely.
Good.
That's fundamentally...
What it's all about.
Since you brought up the pandemic... I do, I bring it up!
Let me just address that for a moment, because that's another one of those subjects that now people can't talk about in a way.
If you question any of the mainstream narrative about the pandemic, you're immediately regarded as a Disruptive influence, a conspiracist, somebody who's undermining society in some way.
Let me tell you my personal view.
I had COVID.
It's a fucking horrible thing.
I was really ill with it.
I am fully convinced that it is a real thing.
There is COVID.
I don't know whether it was deliberately released into the world as a result of genetic engineering or whether it was some sort of accidental.
I don't know that.
But what I do know is that the moment it became Yes.
Uh-oh, it's back!
It's back!
The moment it became a thing, the moment it became recognised as a pandemic, that's when our government saw a huge opportunity.
I don't just mean the British government, I mean governments all around the world.
A huge opportunity to inculcate the habit of obedience in the population.
This is what it was used for.
Whether there was a conspiracy behind making it, that's not my subject.
But I can say, looking at this, that it's been exploited and used by government to persuade people to be obedient.
And to not only do that but to tell people that by being obedient it's in your interests and it's in everybody else's interests as well.
This is very sinister and very dangerous and as it spreads into other areas of society it shuts down all conversation and all possibilities of dispute.
Absolutely.
My interest, and I sense the interest of the people watching this now live on Locals, which you can do if you're a member of our community, or watching us on Rumble because we're getting into some shady territory now, baby, is that it provided an opportunity to observe how power functions.
Of course, I'm not claiming to be an expert in epidemiology or the pharmaceutical response to a disease.
You know, in a way, who cares?
I'm absolutely willing to take the advice of experts.
But as you say, we can observe in real time, in a relatively short period of time, what type of information was shared at the beginning of the pandemic, what kind of information was repressed, what information has subsequently come out, what voices were silenced, what narratives were promoted, what measures were taken, and always the biggest clue of all, Benefited.
Was there a wealth transfer of five trillion dollars?
Who got that money?
Was it ordinary people around the world?
Oh no!
It was people in big tech, people in big pharma.
How extraordinary!
Do you think that that's irrelevant or relevant?
You can do your own scientific experiments now.
If you think that's irrelevant, then I sort of admire the optimism that suggests. But if you think that the function of these
systems is to retain their own power and to create opportunity for ongoing
benefit, then there's some questions to be had. When we spoke to Glenn
Greenwald the other day on our channel, that's still up, you can watch that right
now, he said that like in the days of Rockefeller and the oligarchs of the old
days, who seem sort of like adorable old cuddly folks now, they were, like he
said, like he's recounted that they were tossed dollar bills from limousines,
that the good favour of the public was something that an oligarchy was
dependent upon.
But it seems some decision has been made, and I would suggest that it's a result of them understanding that the means of control now exist.
Whether that's through a militarized police force, whether that's through AI, whether that's through the ability to control narratives, smear dissenters, shut down inquiring voices.
A different choice has been made now.
Not appeasement of the populace, but come and get us.
Come and get us is the shift that's being made now, that they are willing to take it to the next level.
This is a great conversation with Glenn Greenwald.
He put it better than I could, but it suggests to me that there's been a sort of a shift because there's a point where a docile population slumbering on a sofa, consuming dumb TV and downing sugar, that's okay.
Most of us aren't going to go to the streets if we're relatively comfortable.
It's a pain in the arse.
To become righteous, to become active, to confront power.
It's not easy, but there's a point where it becomes necessary.
And I feel that that's the point that we're approaching, Graham.
Very much so.
Very, very much so.
And there needs to be an awakening around this because there are sinister forces at work.
I'm not going to pin them down and say this group or that group or this pharmaceutical company or another, but a general mind control operation is at work in our society.
Whether, as I said, whether it's highly organized or not, I'm not sure.
But the tools are there to shut down debate and dissent.
And it doesn't involve having a dictator sitting at the top.
It all unfolds within the context of democracy, as long as people can be persuaded that it's in their interests to bow down to that particular set of ideas.
And this is an advancing trend in our society.
A new technology is being deployed to use it.
And although Social media are very helpful in getting alternative voices out.
They're also used in the opposite way as well.
It was very interesting, the social media response to my shows has been The audience reaction, pretty positive.
And then an organised team come in and start planting comets.
And then I begin to realise that they're an organised team when they have different names but they use all the same words.
It's not even that clever, you know.
But it's there.
It's happening.
And this is part of an overall process in our society to actually make us less free while convincing us that we're completely free.
I think that's beautifully put, Graham.
Now, one of the advantages that we offer to our locals community was the ability to attend this live event.
Join our locals community right now and you too could be in this audience listening to us going on and on and on about how there's got to be a revolution.
I'm looking at some of the comments online there.
Someone just quoted Malcolm X. They send the drugs down to Harlem to keep us docile and easy to control.
We don't have free choice exactly.
Some wonderful stuff in the comments, but we said at the beginning here that we would take some questions from people in the room.
I'm assuming that those questions have been set up, and let's hear some questions from the audience now.
Who wants to ask a question?
Ah, there's you there.
You've not been pre-organized.
We'll do you afterwards, because just to show that unlike the mainstream, we're willing to...
We don't have to do this stuff live.
We don't need everything to be prescriptive.
But there is a man at the back holding a mic now.
Have you got a shot of him?
Hi, it's Ross.
Graeme, before my question, I'd just like to say thank you for dedicating your life to raising awareness about our past.
Thank you for saying that.
saying that. That's really kind of you to say that.
Yeah, it's been a 30-plus year journey for me of constant engagement in this issue, and it touches my heart when I hear what you've just said.
Thank you for that.
Cheers.
So, you've mentioned at the beginning, June, October, the Torrid Shower, and that each time that happens, our odds of being hit are much increased.
Yeah.
In your latest episode on Mr Rogan's podcast, you mentioned that we're going into a period of heightened activity for the meteor shower.
That's correct.
When I tried to learn more about that, the year that keeps coming up is 2032.
Yeah.
So do you think we're going to have a bad day then?
Well, the thing about the Tauride meteor stream, it's 30 million kilometres wide.
This is a big stream of debris.
A lot of the debris is quite small and not particularly dangerous.
Most of it will burn up in the Earth's atmosphere.
But there are filaments of debris which contain lumpy large objects.
There's objects in the Taurid meteor stream that are five kilometres in diameter.
One of them is called Comet Enki.
Actually, it's a fragment of that original comet that broke up.
When it entered the inner solar system, there's Rudniki, there's Ojato, there's a whole number of large objects in the Taurid meteor stream.
and the calculations of the astronomers is that within the next 25 years we are going
to be going, certainly 30 years, we are going to be going through the lumpy bits of the
Taurid meteor stream rather than the less lumpy bits and that we are therefore entering
a time of greater risk regarding the Taurid meteor stream.
I think it's important to be clear that there's no need for gloom and doom around this. It's
a matter of choice for our civilisation, what we do with the hazards and risks that our
home environment faces.
We can choose to go on spending billions or trillions of dollars on the mechanisms of warfare.
We can constantly reinforce our military powers and spend vast amounts of money on that.
A tiny fraction of what's been spent on the wars over the last 20 years would be all that's needed to sweep the Taurid meteor stream clear and to allow the Earth safety there.
But it's a question of the priorities.
When are the decisions made to do that?
And right now those decisions don't seem to be being made, unfortunately.
Fantastic answer, Graham.
Thank you very much.
There's a comment here from someone watching on the local stream, which you can do if you join up.
Dave Land 3D.
Globalism is a plague upon humanity.
Localism is the only sustainable solution.
That's a fantastic comment.
And new political systems are certainly going to be a part of averting the tragedies that could befall us.
What's the next question?
Have we got someone lined up or are we doing it for real?
Alright mate, this guy.
Tell us your name and your question mate, after Subi kindly gives you the microphone.
Thank you.
Hi Dan, I'm Connor.
Hi Connor.
My question is, obviously you spoke about the LiDAR technologies and the marine archaeology.
What do you think it's going to take for Whoever the powers that be, whoever they are, to start really working on that.
Who will start that?
First and foremost, it'll take money.
There's a team right now in the Amazon on very limited resources who are doing LiDAR surveys in a small corner of southwestern Brazil.
But what's fundamentally needed is money.
Weirdly, from time to time, I get approached by billionaires.
Who've read my books.
And they say to me, they say to me, would I come for lunch?
And I say, all right.
And then they say, and then they say, is there any particular project, you know, that we could put money into which would be really useful?
And what I always say is put money into the LiDAR service in the Amazon.
And what they always say is no.
They want to explore something else, something other.
To me, that's the top priority.
That's what needs to be done first.
And secondly, or a close parallel, is the investigation of the continental shelves.
All it takes is money.
The money needs to be applied.
The technology needs to be made available.
And hopefully one day, Some billionaire will call me up who's actually willing to put his money where his mouth is and invest in these projects.
Don't start talking about where they're going to put their mouths, Graham.
It's already a suspicious story about you and some billionaires.
Graham, why in particular?
What is it?
That's exciting about those two particular projects.
When I listen to you, one of the things that most excites me is the idea that we as a human species could be embarking on these great cosmic, psychedelic, archaeological journeys, learning new things about ourselves and one another, that we could expand the vision of humanity instead of contracting it all the time.
I know that you Your current enthusiasm, as you've explained it thus far in this conversation, is because they are simply unexplored territories that may yield stuff.
But recognising that this is speculation, what is it in particular that excites you about those regions?
Well, it's precisely because they're unexplored and because the initial exploration that's being done is revealing intriguing evidence.
I mentioned the Sahara Desert.
One subject that I've explored quite a bit over the years is ancient maps.
Which were often copied in the Middle Ages and put onto revised versions of those maps.
And so maps from say the 1400s include information from much older source maps that are now lost.
And many of those maps show a green and fertile Sahara.
They show a river channel running through the Sahara where recent surveys have absolutely identified a river channel did used to run during the Ice Age.
Suggests to me strongly that somebody was mapping the world during the last Ice Age.
What excites me isn't So much the history of artefacts.
It's the history of ideas.
It's the way that ideas pass down from culture to culture, transfer, transmit.
And the possibility of a very different kind of civilisation.
The way that we have steered our civilisation over the past couple of thousand years.
Yes, there's some positive aspects to it, but there's also some very negative aspects to it.
But we don't have anywhere else to look for an alternative model.
And I think the fact that I do regard us as a species with amnesia, that we have forgotten something incredibly important in our own past, and that's part of our disconnection today.
I think the possibility is encountering a whole system of ideas which is very different from our own, and who knows, maybe even evidence of telepathy and telekinesis, which would completely destructure the existing laws of physics.
Thank you all of you for your questions.
Graeme, do you remember when we met that time in the Utah desert at some sort of tented event where I feel like everyone else except me was allowed to take psychedelics?
And was taking them, and you were?
Yeah, I was.
Yeah, yeah.
I thought so!
And I still do.
You seemed very relaxed, like you were staring into another dimension.
I've not taken a psychedelic for a while.
I've had a lot of experience with ayahuasca, maybe 75 journeys with ayahuasca since 2003.
I'm not rushing to have another one.
Ayahuasca is a physical ordeal and it can be an emotional and mental ordeal as well.
But I found it very helpful in recognising my own baggage.
By the way, there's no question of anybody becoming addicted to Ayahuasca.
It's such a horrible thing to drink.
The vomiting, the diarrhea.
You've got to brace yourself for an ayahuasca journey.
So I feel I benefit from it.
I drink Listerine if I have to.
I drink anything.
Petrol.
Perfume.
Like, I mean, if you've got a junkie mentality, you will drink.
And all drugs, done properly, will make you shit and piss yourself and vomit.
You just have to push through that.
Well, I actually do have quite an addictive personality and thus I've never... Yeah, that's why you've done it 75 times.
Hang on, hang on, hang on.
That was last week.
I was at lunch with a billionaire.
I had to stop and do a bit of ayahuasca.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Yeah, I've actually forgotten what I was going to say next.
Because I got you with the silliness!
You knew I was going to bust it out at some point.
Look at the cardigan.
Yeah, no, the point I wanted to make is...
To hear this on Censored, watch on Rumble.
Only on Rumble, Censored.
Only on Rumble, Censored.
Some of the psychedelics now are proving so effective in getting people out of long-term depression.
What is long, psilocybin in particular, what is long-term depression except a fixed mindset where you circle around again and again and again on the same miseries that are afflicting you?
And what the psilocybin seems to do, and there's good science on this now, is it just frees the mind up a little bit.
It allows those tight connections to be loosened up, and you can step out of depression.
Fantastic results in people with depression, which big pharma drugs are not achieving.
Seroxat and Prozac are horrible, horrible drugs.
The SSRIs, they're awful drugs, and I know that because I had an episode of depression, and in that episode I was on Prozac and Seroxat, and they nearly killed me.
They are horrible, horrible things.
So I'm very intrigued by the way that these demonised substances called psychedelics are proving themselves as effective antidotes to depression, are helping people with post-traumatic stress disorder.
This is very important work that's being done.
And it tells us we're not dealing with an addictive class of substances here.
We're dealing with a class of substances that challenge us.
Because having our mindset suddenly challenged is a very demanding thing.
And that's why I say For me the most important issue with psychedelics has been coming face to face with my own baggage.
That those words that I said to that other person two weeks ago, which I felt were totally justified and he absolutely deserved, actually I was behaving like a piece of shit.
And I made him feel miserable and I should never have done that.
And it's made me address issues like my... I have a problem with anger.
I get angry very quickly.
I've seen you!
And it's made me address issues like that and try not to do that.
I may feel it inside but I don't want to manifest it in my behaviour.
I actually obviously have no option but to concur because I don't want you getting all riled up.
But also, like, I want to say that even when you say that the class of psychedelics demonstrates no addictive component, in fact I would obviously not dispute that nor be in a position to refute it.
It's just that I think the addiction takes place within the addict.
Not within the substance.
So if you have that proclivity, like for me, I get addicted to anything.
I just want more.
Like for me, it's like life.
It's just, I love it.
It's wonderful, but it's just not enough.
I need more of it.
I need more of it.
Put it in my ears.
Stick it up my bum.
More life, more experience, you know?
So like that, that's what it is.
But believe me, there's no one in this room, I bet, that wants to take psychedelics more fervidly than I.
I really do.
Almost every interview I do, I try and invite like you, Joe Rogan, I'm always sort of subtly trying to gabble matte, trying to essentially get an inventory of people that say, I can take academics now so that I can show people in my 12-step recovery, look, these people have said I can take drugs and the people in 12-step recovery go, no, because you ruin your life like you've ruined ours.
So I think it's an ongoing conversation.
My advice to anybody To hear this on Censored, watch on Rumble.
Only on Rumble, Censored.
Only on Rumble, Censored.
We have forgotten how to have elders.
We have forgotten how to integrate, how to run a democratic tribal society, much as we evolved for for hundreds of thousands of years.
Who knows?
Who dare to query or question?
And, you know, psychedelics and ceremony and an ongoing acknowledgement of the sacred is sort of part, is part of that, a significant and crucial part of that.
Very much so, yeah.
I'm so glad that we got to have this conversation and I'm very glad too Graham that we got to have it in front of a live audience so that you could feel some of the appreciation and love and respect that people have for you for your work and that when you're enduring the attacks and the criticism feeling all riled up and angry being a racist in a mixed-race family it must be confusing That you know that people really respect and revere your work and people love you.
For the room, round of applause for Graham Hancock, please, everyone.
Thank you.
Thank you for watching us.
You can.
If you go to GrahamHancock.com you can get tickets to see Graham next week and obviously you can learn more about his work.
It's on the events page on my website.
It's on the events page on Graham's website.
And it'll give you a link where you can get tickets.
I'm not selling the tickets.
What do you want us to do?
Just sort of talk our way through?
Do you want to do it on the internet?
Right, sit down now.
It's not for my nan.
These are young kids doing it.
It's a big website.
Right, Nan, pick up your remote control.
No, that's Ceefax!
What's wrong with you, woman?
Joy, so you can get tickets to Graham's event starting at Graham Hancock's website, but going on a long, shamanic journey.
A long journey.
Where you'll meet Quetzalcoatl, who will show you that in the forbidden realm of the hieroglyphs, there's a ticket available to you.
As well as all of Graham's fantastic writing.
Join us on the show next week when I'll be speaking to Matt Taibbi, Callie Means, and Crystal Ball, among others.
If you want to see my stand-up special, Brandemic, where I talk about the kind of subjects we've been talking about today in a humorous setting, you get it free if you're a member of Locals, which you can join one click away.
The link is in the description.
See you next week, not for more of the same, but for more of the different.
