Graham Hancock: Plagiarist and Scavenger
A scathing critique by Michael Tsarion
Preamble
Brendan here.
I felt compelled to re-post piece this in its entirety for various reasons. One of them is that I know how very deeply researched the author Michael Tsarion is and, secondly, I have a great respect for him and his work.
I also value intellectual integrity and someone who provides references and citations where due.
As an author who puts his blood, sweat and tears into his books, one of the things that’s always irked me about some of the others out there is the way they position themselves almost as some divine god-sent anomaly, a singular beacon of preternatural insight and foresight, with no forebears or predecessors…
…an epistemological island which has spontaneously emerged from the mists of human ignorance, to “save” the knuckle-dragging plebs from eons of darkness - where no one else could.
One of the ways this illusion is manufactured is simply by NOT giving due credit to the people whose ideas you are using—and pretending they are your own.
This is how wannabe gurus and cult figures tend to set themselves up, as if to say, “Hey, look at me, I’m the only one who knows anything about this! I’m the first person to ever offer any insight on this subject!”
As someone with over 1,700 endnotes/citations in my first book (2012), I appreciate others who take the time and have the respect to show their source/s!
That said, I think you’ll find this piece by Michael quite interesting, on a few levels.
Make of it what you will.
Note: It’s not really about Hancock, it’s really about the other guys whose names are virtually unheard of.
Nothing personal, Graham.
Graham Hancock: Plagiarist and Scavenger
By Michael Tsarion, Unslaved.com
One evening in 2003 I went to a book-signing event hosted by Barnes and Noble in Seattle's University Village. The author presenting and giving autographs was none other than Graham Hancock.
I was not a fan per se, but was interested in the content of his books, his latest being Underworld. In the early '90s I had written a review of his first ponderous book The Sign and the Seal, for a prominent Bay Area bookstore I worked at. I was unimpressed by his verbose writing style, endless self-referencing and inability to get to the point. The book ends very unsatisfactorily, given that the elusive prize searched for by Hancock - the Ark of the Covenant - remained elusive.
Talk about an anticlimax!
Unsurprisingly, like his previous undertakings, Underworld was a thundering commercial success. Indeed, Hancock - the darling of Macmillan, Random House and other publishing companies - has made millions from his career as an author of weighty fictional and nonfictional works. His excursions into prehistory, catastrophism and conspiracy prove to be his most popular sellers.
In 2010 I discovered that Hancock employs at least three ghostwriters, one of whom contacted me because of his interest in the forgotten genius Comyns Beaumont, a researcher whose ideas are central to my revisionist work. During our lengthy conversations, this man let a few things slip about how little research Hancock himself does, and how much he gets paid for it. It didn't leave me with a positive impression.
Even more to his discredit, Hancock has written a few books with bestselling author Robert Bauval. Their theories on the age of the Great Pyramid, although somewhat controversial, have been widely accepted as true, even when they are nothing of the kind.
Bauval's pet theory concerning celestial alignments has not been substantiated, and his dating of the building of the Great Pyramid, supported in large part by Hancock, is also erroneous. Nevertheless, Bauval and Hancock have netted many millions purveying their grand but spurious theories. The media has assisted them in becoming renowned and honored the world over. The pair have been invited to appear on numerous high profile TV documentaries and talk shows. Men with more cogent theories never get anything like the coverage. We might question why this is. I guess they're not members of "the Club."
This man with several bestsellers, millions of sales and nonstop television appearances, never ceases informing his credulous audiences that he's not "mainstream." He perpetually acts as if he's some kind of intrepid maverick catering to a niche market. It's nothing but lies and self-delusion, not to mention fatuous self-aggrandizement. He really is a legend in his own mind.
Anyway, after Hancock's evening presentation at Seattle's Barnes and Noble, I and an associate stayed behind. Once the crowd departed we approached Hancock and had a fairly lengthy conversation with him.
My own book Atlantis, Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation had just come out and I brought a copy along to give him as a gift. Hancock read the book's description and became animated. He said that the question addressed in my book, about the origins of evil, was of great interest to him. He said he had long pondered the matter and would love to read my take on it. However, he did not suggest staying in touch, and did not offer us one of his own books, plenty of which were on display there.
As we chatted, I noticed that his wife had a look of absolute indifference on her face. She sat to one side, staring into space like some petrified stick insect that just had a tasty greenfly buzz out of reach. Her glum countenance disturbed me no end. But what of it? Hancock's own demeanor didn't ingratiate me either. He was a rather cold, hostile, self-obsessed and ultimately uninteresting man. At the time I was not aware that he was psychologically unstable and heavily dependent on anti-depressants. I did not know that he self-medicated with enormous doses of marijuana. Had I known about his addictions and state of mind, I would never have attended his presentation or given him my book.
In any case, as the three of us talked, Hancock launched into a tirade against the media and internet. He was particularly incensed at the way his name had been dragged through the mud by some online detractors. He grew red in the face and loudly announced to us that he was never going to pen another work on controversial subjects again. It wasn't worth it, he bellowed. Three websites, he said, were against him, and a few other television shows were busy mocking him. It was all too much, and as far as he was concerned he was going to retire. I might write another book, he said, but it will be on some totally different subject.
In fact, in the following years Hancock did write a few fictional works. These have received criticism, given that they are childishly outlandish, gory, perverted and repetitive. Nowadays little is said about his spate of purely fictional writing.
Contrary to what he insisted that evening, Hancock is once again okay writing about prehistory. He and several other writers became fascinated with the ruins of Gobekli Tepe, and have composed voluminous tomes on the place, each jostling for media attention and headlines. Again, Hancock is the media's darling, receiving considerable coverage over his speculations about the mysterious lost city.
In April 2019, Hancock's latest book America Before hit bookstores. The subject matter, once again, being prehistory and terrestrial cataclysm. This time his focus is ancient America. It's a fascinating subject to be sure, and had been researched throughout past decades by a few lesser known men. Not that you'll ever hear about them from Hancock.
On the contrary, as far as America Before is concerned, its author is apparently the sole luminary pontificating on America's prehistory. Rather than citing previous mavericks, he hastens to inform readers that his theories have now been confirmed by at least sixty or so mainstream scientists.
Hancock reiterates this anecdote on several television programs. However, regardless of his jollies, his statements leave a bitter taste in one's ears. So what! Why does this tickle you, mate? Aren't these experts part of the same status quo that suppressed knowledge and professionally assassinated dissenters from time immemorial? Isn't their work and yours of an alternative kind, flying in the face of establishment paradigms? Aren't you therefore more concerned with exonerating the names of past mavericks now forgotten, men who were ridiculed and left broke? I guess not!
Sadly, this is not the only problem with America Before. I wish it were.
Hancock has seen fit to reprise the theories and findings of past mavericks without bothering to cite them. I can't think of anything more perfidious and self-serving. Shame on the author and his publishers for letting him get away with it.
Of course this omission demonstrates that he's not the least bit interested in getting scientific credibility for anyone but himself. To guarantee his own fame he's prepared to grovel and eat out of the establishment's predatory talon.
The hard proof for Hancock's contemptible capitulation becomes obvious and undeniable as one reads America Before. The thievery is appalling and gratuitous. Amazingly, we find no mention of three outstanding pioneers in the subjects of prehistory and catastrophism, namely Ignatius Donnelly, Comyns Beaumont and Immanuel Velikovsky. There is also no mention of the great researchers Augustus Le Plongeon, James Churchward and R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz.
Immanuel Velikovsky was one of the most ridiculed scholars who ever lived, even though every one of his controversial theories about upheavals in the solar system have been proven correct. Don’t hold your breath waiting for Swank Hank to salute or credit him. He's just another donkey kicking the old lion to death.
Apparently this is what passes for “scholarship” today. It's a case of feral alley cats grabbing the fish and scampering up the drainpipe. It’s a case of scavenger research that entails airbrushing the names of great men from the canvas, and sticking one’s own scrawl there instead, hoping so much time has passed no one will notice the consummate plagiarism. Swank Hank is a pass master at it, although in this case it’s extra contemptible.
In the same way as strutting narcissist David Wilcock (“Willy the Weasel”) blatantly stole the theories of Rand Flem-Ath, on the subject of Antarctica, so has Hancock magpied the works of three awesome intellects of past times. In both cases, although their many ideas and findings are reprised, no credit or citation is to be found, which tells you everything about the sickening vanity of the author.
Comyns Beaumont predated the peddler Hancock by decades. Read his Mysterious Comet published in 1932, and ask yourself where this shameless plagiarist comes off telling the world that he and a team of 60 modern-day “experts” now confirm that an age of catastrophe actually existed? As if the subject requires confirmation by any number of establishment toadies. It's Hancock who goes around soliciting their favor like some beggar, no one else. Honorable people believe Velikovsky, Beaumont and the others, and dutifully give them the credit they deserve in spite of what convention dictates and mainstream "experts" think.
Despite their media success and public images, Hancock, Bauval and other bandits in their club rode into town on the last goddam bus, to lick up the crumbs of other men’s sumptuous feasts of wisdom. And we lay out the red carpet for their asses, throwing laurels before their unworthy feet, leaving the graves of true sages and geniuses unattended.
In 1950 the great catastrophist Immanuel Velikovsky wrote one of the most comprehensive and revealing books on earth cataclysm, Worlds in Collision. He also authored Earth in Upheaval and Ages in Chaos, making three titanic works on cometary destruction effecting every aspect of earthly existence. He gets NO mention, not even in the bibliography or index.
Shame on Macmillan and St. Martin's Press. They are as scurrilous as the author.
Before Beaumont and Velikovsky was the American maverick researcher Ignatius Donnelly, who wrote two classics on the subjects of Atlantis, ice flow and catastrophe before the twentieth century began. His two master works are Atlantis: The Ante-Diluvian World and Ragnarok: Age of Fire and Gravel.
Date of publication 1882.
Not mentioned by Graham Hancock.
There is also no mention of the great Barry Fell, although his ideas and findings turn up in America Before.
In Volume One of my Irish Origins of Civilization, several chapters cover Fell's invaluable work. Sadly, the establishment dismissed him as a crank and his findings were lampooned. His great book is entitled America BC. A coincidence of course that Swank Hank's book is titled America Before.
Barry Fell's controversial books America BC and Saga America, changed what we know about the migration of the elements of civilization and America's prehistory. America BC was published in 1976. Amazingly, although his discoveries are reprised, the great man's name is not respectfully mentioned by Hancock.
More recently, in the ’90s came two vitally important works on catastrophism from top Cambridge and Oxford scientists Allen and Delair. Their titanic books are When the Earth Nearly Died and Cataclysm. The authors mention Velikovsky and his theories, and discuss his radical ideas at length in several chapters. Apparently they found the time and space to credit and cite their predecessors. Amazingly, their work is not mentioned by Hancock who pretends to seek scientific credibility.
Well, someone tell him that credibility and proof ooze from the books of these two eminent scientists whose research is second to none. Be sure to ask him why he is silent about their extraordinary contributions?
How much do you want to bet that both their books are to be found in Hancock’s home library, thrown into that special corner of books labeled “…to be plagiarized later, after I’ve run out of ideas?”
I’m sickened to my stomach and can only implore readers to purchase each book mentioned here, and never forget predecessors who made no millions from their works, and after falling foul of the system suffered worldwide ridicule, dying in relative obscurity.
Don’t allow crumbs like Swank Hank to scavenge Donnelly, Beaumont, Velikovsky, Le Plongeon, Fell and others, regurgitating their ideas without credit and citiation. Don’t be party to the crime.
Intellectual dishonesty is one of the worst offenses. It’s not allowed in universities and should not be allowed in open society just because the author gets his books onto best seller lists and the window displays of prominent bookshops, sitting back with a self-satisfied insider-smile, basking in the glow of other men’s light.
Published in 2000, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton, is another exceptional work jam-packed with scientific proofs pertaining to revisionist science and natural history. Curiously, it's not mentioned anywhere by Hancock. If he were really obsessed by scientific endorsement, why not openly and repeatedly cite this splendid ground-breaking book?
Before he took up his Indiana Jones wannabe career, the great and noble Swank Hank was press secretary for an Ethiopian dictator and mass murderer (Mengistu Haile Mariam). Practically every reference to this has been dutifully scrubbed from the internet, and interviews where he was directly confronted about his notorious past (such as on Hard Talk, or something like it) strangely can’t be found. Friends in high places it seems.
After so many years, it appears he hasn’t changed his spots. Once again he, his publishers and many ghostwriters have shrink-wrapped the ideas of mighty intellects, schlepping them out under false pretences before a gormless public.
Bring back the stocks!
-Michael Tsarion, Unslaved.com
About Me/Brendan:
Host of Truthiverse podcast. Author of the epic, “The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science and Spirituality — Book 1.” (Book 2 is nearly finished!) Founder of The Truthiversity, the #1 consciousness-raising university 📽
As stupidly affordable as it is, if your budget’s too tight for the whole enchilada inside The Truthiversity, feel free to donate a lesser Substack subscription ⬇️ to support my work here - thanks in advance! :-)
Want to know when “The Grand Illusion - Book 2” is out?
To get on the wait list and be notified when this groundbreaking and monumental work is available, click below ↴
Speaking as the curator of the Comyns Beaumont Archive and the publisher of all William Comyns Beaumont's books, I must say that I am happy Michael has credited CB here for all the amazing research he carried out and wrote about for over thirty years, concluding with THE GREAT DECEPTION, the long-'lost' manuscript of which, I had many an Indiana Jones-type experience retrieving. Templars and all... I have had, on the odd occasion, to criticise Michael himself in the past for lack of a nod to CB so it is good to have him on my side now! May I just add that Velikovsky was somewhat tardy in admitting his debt to CB, incidentally, not once referencing his work despite the huge similarities in both men's thories - except of course for V's leaving the history of Jews in the middle east where Constantine of York had firmly dumped it.
Curiously I have experience of Graham too, in his more obscure days as a Sunderland teenager - he used to go out with an acquaintance of mine from school. I do dislike writers who make books by lumping together great ill-fitting blobs of ideas that seemingly come out of the blue and don't make sense WITHOUT the reference they have used. They will also leave things dangling, either because they haven't thought their ideas through to a conclusion or, worse, because they still have in their head the unacknowledged source so assume the reader does too. Very annoying! It is no accident that such work is lauded and promoted - it goes together with the general decomposition of civilisation currently underway. To build back worse we must necessarily truly mess up what was there before, and then - now - smash it to pieces, eheu. Since those 1960s schooldays the underlying structures have been removed from education, replaced by mere surface representation comprising incoherent lumps of information seemingly unconnected - like like being taught that a forest is nothing more than a lot of green splodges in the air where you might sometimes grow a mysterious bump on the head, or trip and fall over nothing
I've experienced that man-who-is-the-messenger-of-the-gods syndrome. No references, lots of typos, actual spelling mistakes, the lot - yet they expect to be taken seriously and sadly are, all too often. I worked with one of these - had to part company after he outright refused to put references into his book, which I had already spent nine months editing and getting ready for publication. He's passed over now and is regarded as the legendary genius he wanted to be, despite - or because? - no one can see his book, only twenty copies ever having been printed, which we did for a meeting of his very own secret society. It's sad, because he did have an amount of valid research and some very good theories. He'd even discussed the pyramids with Zahi Hawass! Oh the hubris indeed. So many swollen-footed self-appointed kings of a geographically-incorrect Thebes.
Thanks Brendon for publishing this. I have seen David being interviewed and my first impression was that he was trapped in a paradigm of his own making.