Netflix is courting controversy again, except this time it has nothing to do with a comedy special or exploiting children. I know many people have ditched the streamer for those reasons, not that I blame them, but Netflix remains a powerful cultural force that can’t do anything without getting some sort of reaction. So in case you missed it, what have they done now? And why does it matter?
Two words: Ancient Apocalypse.
The Guardian calls it “the most dangerous show on Netflix.” Excuse me if I can’t just take that at face value, given what I know about all the other content on the platform. A few weeks before Ancient Apocalypse landed everyone was going crazy over the Dahmer miniseries, which to be fair, the same reviewer at The Guardian also hated. But even after noting that “Dahmer is undoubtedly fetishised here,” a history mystery show is somehow more dangerous?
I’ve seen Ancient Apocalypse and it may vey well be dangerous. To whom and what is the issue.
The eight part series is hosted by Graham Hancock, who introduces himself not as an archeologist or geologist, but as a journalist. As an outsider. He questions the established narrative and offers alternative theories about earth’s history and human development. Basically, Hancock takes two positions. First, he suggests that the Younger Dryas was caused by a cataclysmic event, like a comet that broke up in earth’s atmosphere and peppered the planet, hurling us into an ice age. Second, he believes that there was a civilization more advanced than the rest of humanity before and after that event, which is the reason for the similarities in things like pyramids and folklore.
For these positions Hancock is called a racist who consorts with other racists, and (worst of all) compared to Donald Trump.
Apparently in one of his early books Hancock said that the advanced civilization was probably white people. I haven’t read it, so I don’t know why he thought that was relevant or a good thing to say at the time. But I think it’s obvious why he’s not saying it now. Maybe he has some issues, but I doubt it. However, the attacks against him look very familiar to anyone who knows the patterns of online arguments, which always run thus: 1) He has no degree, so he’s not credible. 2) He’s racist. 3) He’s literally Hitler and/or Trump.
Don’t engage in the argument and thereby give it credibility. Just smear the character of the person making it. Distract, distract, distract.
Why do they hate Hancock’s theories so much? Because of where they lead. On a recent episode of the Blurry Creatures podcast Timothy Alberino notes that mainstream scientists hate the idea of global cataclysms. I suspect that if we start accepting that idea, we might start believing in Noah’s flood, and we wouldn’t want that. It would throw off the entire theory of evolution, or even add credibility to the Old Testament. If there was major climate change before the Industrial Revolution, we might doubt humanity’s role in it. And we certainly wouldn’t want that.
There’s too much money to be made.
Advanced civilizations in antiquity also upsets evolution. Sure, a show like Ancient Aliens can say crazy (and arguably far more racist - those primitive brown people couldn’t have done anything without outside help, obviously) stuff without coming under attack, because, well, it’s crazy. We aren’t supposed to believe it. But Hancock, right or wrong, is sincere. And that’s a problem.
Alberino continues with the next logical step.
While not suggesting visitors from other planets were involved, he believes that extraterrestrials, that is, the Nephilim or their descendants, were Hancock’s advanced civilization. Anyone who believes the Bible shouldn’t have any problems with cataclysm or Nephilim, and as Derek Olson says on today’s episode of The Confessionals, more people are longing for truth and belief in the supernatural than they have in a long time. "The Science" is up for debate.
Don’t challenge the narrative!
Is Ancient Apocalypse the most dangerous show on Netflix? Perhaps. But not because it feeds the conspiracy theorists or any of the other reasons the critics suggest. It doesn’t have me questioning the last election any more than I did, or thinking 9/11 was an inside job, or inspiring me to storm the Capitol or become a racist. I doubt it will do that to a sane person, any more than a sane person will watch Dahmer and start eating people.
Emphasis on “sane.”
No, Ancient Apocalypse is dangerous because it dares to ask questions and offer different ideas. The Guardian wants to protect what best serves their interests. Heaven forbid will start thinking for ourselves. Hancock might be a kook for all I know. But perhaps the most dangerous question of all is, why should I trust the mainstream any more than him?
Trust is eroding.
All that aside, the show is very well produced. The cinematography is stunning, and the animated depictions of ancient myths are entertaining. Hancock is an engaging storyteller, weaving history, science, and legend into an engaging package. I’ve watched some of the episodes more than once (which I never do) and will likely watch the series again. Hopefully Netflix brings it back for another season, because as entertaining as it is, I like watching the mainstream squirm even more.
