|March 29th, 2010||#1|
Join Date: May 2007
Several months ago I posted on David Icke's forum. That must have put me on his mailing list 'cause I just received a "preview" of his newsletter in my inbox.
|March 29th, 2010||#2|
Join Date: May 2007
Kum bay ya, my Lord, kum bay ya...
Imagine there's no heaven
|March 29th, 2010||#3|
Join Date: May 2007
Is "the reptilian-human hybrid bloodline families behind the Control System" a codephrase for jews?
David Icke vs Richard Warman
|March 29th, 2010||#4|
Join Date: May 2007
Jim Keith on David Icke
A review of David Icke's The Biggest Secret: The Book That Will Change the World by the late Jim Keith, who was one of the more amusing and talented of the conspiracy writers/researchers of the 90s:
"David Icke is a well-known name in conspiracy writing these days, with a dedicated following of people to whom he has confided the godawful truth about this planet. This fact gives one pause to think, and says a lot about the mentality of the current crop of TV-bred humans, for Icke's new book is a classic at that odd edge of literature inhabited by people like Bill Cooper, Commander X, Al Bielek, George Andrews, and a flock of others; folks who have a decided talent for making money, but have to ask others to tie their shoes for them. It is a huge, detailed, riotous excursion into bullgoose crackpot conspiracy the likes of which hasn't been seen since Bill Cooper's magnum crapus, Behold a Pale Horse. In other words, it is the biggest crock to be foisted on the public in many moons -- and as such, for those interested in what's going on in this weird conspiracy subculture, it is an absolute must read.http://groups.google.com/group/misc....2?dmode=source
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 29th, 2010 at 02:03 AM.
|March 29th, 2010||#5|
Join Date: May 2007
Icke the watermelon?
[Another usenet find. Long-winded, repetitive, and could've used a proofread, but the author nevertheless manages to skewer Icke. I don't see how anyone could support Icke after reading this. I reformatted it slightly, fixed some obvious typos, and emphasized a few passages. -IA]
The One World Ideology of David Icke... Or 'The Enemy Within'
By Dexter Raymond 3rd
David Icke is one of the star performers in that community of disparate and mostly unaccredited researchers devoted to exposing the who, where, what, how and why behind the New World Order. And, by all reports, he does so more effectively than most. "David Icke is the closest thing to a rock star the conspiracy set has", the Fortean Times (August 2001) observed in its report on Conspiracy Convention 2001 held in Santa Clara, California. "He's a performer, a showman. He pulls it all together, all the theories – just absorbs them and compiles them…it's Icke who makes them sexy", gushed one attendee.
Such adulation is not something that Icke modestly shucks off; on the contrary he has a very, very high opinion of himself and the impact of his ideas, evident in the unpretentious subtitles to his books: "The book that will change the world" (The Biggest Secret), "The most explosive book of the 20th century" (…and the truth shall set you free), and "The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance" (The Robots' Rebellion). While his latest book, Children of the Matrix, is peppered with quotes at the head of each chapter from a range of notables, including Einstein and Socrates, on the nature of truth and how those who reveal it are often ridiculed by lesser minds until the truth is finally accepted. His website opens with Icke described as the "most controversial speaker in the world". And lest there be any doubt that Icke's message is profound, one is offered the same choice that confronted Keanu Reeves character "Neo" in the film The Matrix of taking the "blue pill" and staying with ones present conception of "reality" or taking the "red pill" to find the "truth", in this case by entering Icke's website. Exposed to Icke's own self-promotion one cannot help but come to the conclusion that he regards himself as a brilliant individual whose insights are truly unique and earth changing.
These surprisingly flagrant claims to genius do serve a purpose. It enables Icke, who has attracted more than his fair share of public ridicule and humiliation over the years, to rise above the frenzied, even bigoted, howls of derision that his most recent claims have generated. Ridicule that has even come from within the N.W.O. research community following his claims that the rich and powerful, among them the British Royal Family, are in fact child abusing and sacrificing shape-changing reptilians, part of an ancient cabal which has controlled humanity for thousands of years and is now striving to build a "global fascist state". The "biggest crock to be foisted on the public in many moons", N.W.O. researcher Jim Keith wrote of Icke's The Biggest Secret, before his untimely death. Nexus editor Duncan Roads registered his disappointment with Icke's "dubious allegations" and described The Biggest Secret as "poorly researched" (Nexus, June-July 1999).
In the furious dispute that ensued, Icke was to remain resolute in his belief that he was right all along and damned his critics as part of the conspiracy. He has maintained his stance, evident in one his most recent books Children of the Matrix (he has since launched Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster) In Matrix Icke tells the reader it is because he is "free of any dogmatic belief system" and has learned "not to give a damn what people think and said" about him, that he has been able to see the truth which eludes others. Icke also consoles himself with the claim that "many condemned and ridiculed ideas in the past have later become conventional wisdom" (p.xv). These comments are illuminating about Icke's particular mind-set. Personal survival in the face of public ridicule involves building walls, and Icke has built strong ones. But, we might still note, that not all conventional wisdom was once ridiculed; and not all ridiculed ideas become conventional wisdom…most are either forgotten or take their place in the pantheon of wacky ideas of times past. Icke's walls, it seems, not only protect him from ridicule, but also keep out reason.
But for the purpose of this missive we will be taking a leaf or two out of Icke's books and will transcend Icke's own "conditioned reality" in search of the truth. And from this one might note that when we dare to think about it, and if we choose to sidestep his claims to unrecognised brilliance; that Icke's message is not that far removed from the prescriptions of the One Worlders he fulminates against. This may seem incredible and illogical to his legions of fans, but his books and lectures, far from being an unequivocal rejection of the concept of One World, are an insidious endorsement of the concept. And his model of One World is no less alarming for the implications for personal liberty than the apparently imminent "global fascist state" he rails against. It is difficult to believe and any reasonable person familiar with his works would conclude that such analysis must be mistaken, but having raised the allegation we are compelled to consider if the facts support it.
Some Background: The Limits to GrowthDavid Icke's "One World" ideology is not a new thing, and certainly not the product of any stretch of the imagination on the part of this author. It is a fact. And it is belief system Icke has held for well over a decade and which he remains committed to, despite all that he proclaims.
For the discerning Icke fan one must start with his 1989 book It Doesn't Have To Be Like This, written when he had become national spokesman for the British Green Party. Hidden Mysteries Books claims that It Doesn't Have To Be Like This "lets you see the early ‘grassroot movement' of the Green Party" before it was "corrupted with non-green goals and agendas" and "corrupted with fascists…" This is wishful thinking. Although mostly concerned with domestic policy, Icke's first book is peppered with globalist prescriptions that would not be out of place in many a pro-New World Order tract…
In the introduction, Icke wrote that his book would "outline the Green vision of a human race that lives in harmony with the planet; of a country and a planet that puts the needs of all peoples before the wants of a few." These very words confirm Icke's book as a classic example of what we might describe as "green globalism." Icke endorsed most of the one-world environmental themes that became popular in the 1970s, as well as the internationalist themes of the nuclear disarmament movement and socialist opposition to global capitalism.
Thus back in 1989 we find Icke repeating such Malthusian arguments that both population and economic growth are leading to a global environmental catastrophe. These scenarios of imminent ecological doom and the need for global solutions, as most good N.W.O. researchers would know, were heavily popularised in the 1970s by the Club of Rome studies The Limits to Growth and Mankind at the Turning Point, the Carter Administration's study, The Global 2000 Report to the President, and Lester R. Brown's (currently better known as the Director of the Rockefeller funded Worldwatch Institute) bestselling book World Without Borders (1973), and incidentally by the Rockefeller funded Population Council.
The message of these books and the Council was simple, as were the solutions offered: only through strengthened supranational organisations and profound socio-cultural change could we hope to prevent the inevitable global environmental catastrophe caused by rampant economic and population growth. "The basic behaviour mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital, followed by collapse", warned Limits to Growth. To prevent this Limits endorsed a halt to industrialisation, stabilising population growth and encouraging people to spurn material yearnings in favour of education and recreational pursuits. Lester Brown argued that mankind's values, especially those favouring economic growth were "inconsistent with [mankind's] survival" and were "becoming threats to our future well-being." Brown's solution to this dilemma followed the familiar pattern:
"Man must evolve a new social ethic, one which emphasises economic and demographic stability and the recycling of raw materials. Such an ethic replaces international competition with global cooperation and sees man in harmony with nature rather than having dominion over nature (WWB, p.39)."In 1989 Icke echoed these doom laden assessments without question, informing the reader that "nothing can go on growing forever without destroying itself" (p.7), and "the economic order is the cause of all the trouble" (p.9). It was, wrote Icke, an "illusion...that you can go on having more unquestioned economic growth on top of growth year after year...." (p.13). Indeed, Icke went further asserting that the "first rule of green politics, truly green politics" is:
"You cannot divorce the economic system and human values from the destruction of the planet. You can't because one causes the other. You can't have uncontrolled market forces and indiscriminate economic expansion, you can't have free-for-all consumerism and shockingly wasteful energy policies and protect the planet you simply can't. (p.17)"Icke attacked the "system", the "suicidal conveyor belt" of "unlimited, uncontrolled, uncaring growth" which is "destroying tomorrow" (p.14). Chapter 3, "The Growth Obsession" carried these arguments further; and under a sub-heading "The limits to growth" – surely a coincidence – Icke claimed the "environmental limitations" of economic growth were "now becoming obvious" (p.38). The need for population control was explored in chapter 6, Icke reminding us that it "does not take a genius to work out that a population cannot continue to soar while their home, the Earth, stays the same size" (p.83).
Icke canvassed a number of solutions to overpopulation including ending poverty and emancipating women. Eliminating poverty was not as benevolent as it sounded with Icke declaring his "sympathy" for the view that the destruction of traditional societies by "growth development" was at fault. According to Icke, the "Coca-Cola society" that we had "imposed" on the Third World "for our benefit" had "shattered these societies and generated enormous fear, confusion and instability." Thus resulting in the Third World producing too many children (pp.84-5). Such sentiments confirm Icke as a purveyor of the conceits and deceits all too typical of his kind: from the exhausting luxuries of post-industrial Britain, Icke romanticises pre-industrial societies as simple, spiritual and pure, conveniently ignoring their brutality, grinding poverty and oppressive superstitions, while pouring scorn on development (even if the people affected want it). And like most "concerned" environmentalists from rich countries, as much as he venerates the "noble savages" and Third World peasants, Icke can't abide the fact there's just too many of them…
Nevertheless Icke offered no specific solution to this poverty, except to hint that a return to "traditional societies" might be the way to go. But of more concern to anti-N.W.O. researchers and activists is Icke's statement that the Green Party would seek to solve over-population "both by direct aid and influencing countries through European Community, the United Nations and the World Bank" (p.86). And woe unto us all if we did not act now:
"Once again humankind has a choice to make. We can be sensible and limit our numbers voluntarily or we can go on until nature does it for us with disease and hunger. That will be deeply unpleasant for those around at the time…and the time isn't too far off (p.87)."Like most green globalists Icke also indulged in socialist economics. Consequently we find that Icke rejected free trade claiming it promoted too much competition and lead to increased pollution. Icke's solution was to increase tariffs to deter trade (pp.56-58). And he attacked multi-national corporations (MNCs) because of their "shocking" role (p.68) and "callous disregard for human life and human dignity" (p.70). Icke proposed monitoring the MNC's through the UN and using the European Community to impose "world-wide" rules on corporate behaviour. Ultimately Icke claimed that "Green Government" would seek to "break-up" the MNCS into "smaller, less powerful units on at least a national and ideally a regional basis" (pp.80-81). That all these proposals would involve the massive increase in the power and intrusiveness of government to the detriment of personal freedom, was not something Icke casually avoided, probably because he did not care.
Icke also advocated complete nuclear disarmament. Such sentiments are hardly controversial, having a history dating back to the emergence of the world government movement in the late 1940s. And in 1980s such issues remained quite topical, but in view of his current writings some of Icke's specific proposals are curious to say the least. Claiming that Soviet President Gorbachev's apparent eagerness to disarm could spur nuclear disarmament, Icke not only endorsed taking advantage of the opportunity, but also suggested strengthening the UN's role in disarmament:
"The only safe nuclear weapons are dismantled nuclear weapons…Once they are gone the United Nations should set up an organisation to cut arms spending to ensure that no one possesses nuclear weapons or is in the process of making them. Failure to permit UN inspections should result in immediate and total economic sanctions by all member countries until those inspections have been allowed. The same should apply to all chemical and biological weapons. (p.167)"But Icke did not stop there, going on to make a few last plaintive pleas for unity among humankind and an end to the arms race:
"The arms story shows how clearly how humankind have lost their way, lost their grip on reality. This can't go on or we won't go on. We have to stop squaring up to each other and start co-operating in a new sense of partnership. We must join together to fight the real battle to win back the future. To do that we need total nuclear disarmament and serious conventional disarmament until we only have weapons of defence. (p.172)"We might also note, in concluding this quick review of Icke's book that his messianic tendencies were evident even then, well before Icke completely succumbed to the psychic attack and began to question and then redefine the nature of reality. Thus we find at the start of his book this confident assertion:
"The Green movement is now growing to span the world it is dedicated to protect....We are setting the agenda and will continue to do so because the Earth will demand it. The world will have a green future or no future. (p.11; emphasis added)." [Note: original formatting lost. -IA]And at the end we discover a paragraph with sentiments that are now vastly expanded in all of Icke's books, but also strangely reminiscent of Brown's calls for a "new social ethic" or even Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski's' wistful talk of an "emerging global consciousness" or "universal awareness" that "inevitably clashes with the last hundred and fifty years of national and ideological conflict" (Encounter, November 1968). Indeed, Icke was as certain as Brzezinski when he wrote:
"There is a quiet, peaceful revolution taking place in the hearts and minds of millions of people in this country and hundreds of millions around this world we all share. It is the dawning of a new age of consciousness about our links with the rest of creation and how we are so physically and emotionally dependent upon them. (p206)"So what we have here, by Icke's own hand, is a golden example of the very thing both Icke and countless other N.W.O researchers have warned us [against]: the prospect of nuclear war or environmental catastrophe being presented as compelling reasons for moving towards centralised global controls, including strengthening the UN and complete global disarmament. And remember, Icke wrote it…
The True Believer
The obvious question is: how much of this stuff does Icke believe now? We might note his casual put-down of the British Green Party as the "global headquarters of Navel Contemplators Anonymous" (COM, p.14). Although that bad blood is perhaps inevitable after the Green Party and Icke fell out over his somewhat eccentric turn in the early 1990s. Of more importance, though, is that despite all that he has discovered about the originators of many of the ideas he once advocated, Icke avidly maintains the green globalist faith.
Some examples will suffice to prove this contention. On the limits to growth Icke remains convinced that unchecked population and economic growth will eventually devastate the Earth. "Greens are ridiculed for their policy of a no-growth economy. But what could be more sensible and efficient?", Icke wrote in Robots Rebellion. "No growth is sustainable, because we live on a planet of finite size with a finite ability to take punishment" (p.255). There has been some backtracking with Icke solemnly warning readers about the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth and how its arguments "have been widely quoted by the environmental movement." And also much detail is suddenly given to the genocidal intent [of] Global 2000, the evils of the Worldwatch Institute and the Rockefeller funded Population Council. Icke is of course, heavily reliant on an EIR Special Report on Global 2000 for much of these revelations, which he – or his research team – merely recycles without much self-examination on Icke's part (…ATTSSYF, pp.176-9).
But even then Icke still doesn't repudiate his views on that issue. There are, he writes, "limits to growth if you are talking about the constant expansion of what we take from the planet and throw at her in pollution" (p.179). He goes on to warn us about Elite using the environmental threat as a reason for centralised global controls (pp.180-2). Icke even mentions how as a member of the Green Party he could "see how many of the responses of the environmental movement resulted from the Club of Rome and Global 2000, approach to both problems and solutions" (p.179). Right David, just like in your book It Doesn't Have To Be Like This? No? You're not going to mention your little transgression? Perhaps not.
On the contrary, Icke still endorses It Doesn't Have To Be Like This on his website and refers readers to certain segments in that book in his other works (e.g. COM, p.348; Robots' Rebellion, 258, 262.). Yet his previous green globalist fervour is dutifully ignored, completely erased from Icke's past, but if we look closely the "one-world" themes crop up again and again and again…
The "Law of One"Evidence that Icke remains attracted to this green globalist and collectivist mentality can be found in the section in Matrix on the "Law of One". Drawing heavily from W.T. Samsel's channelled work The Atlantis Connection, Icke introduces us to the philosophy of the "Law of One" – "the understanding that everything is the same energy expressing itself in different forms…that everything is connected to everything else…" – that supposedly guided the early inhabitants of Atlantis and Lemuria between 100,000 and 48,000 years ago (COM, pp.17-18). However, this Atlantean-Lemurian utopia with its "positive intent and…harmony with the natural laws", was not destined to last. Corruption soon came in the form of an extraterrestrial race that interbred with the locals forming a "white royal lineage" who controlled the "Atlantean Temple of the Sun" – "Today…known as the Illuminati" (p.18).
Samsel's account paints the Temple of the Sun as being driven by "greed and lust for power". They prevailed over the One Temple, establishing a global empire that was finally destroyed in a global cataclysm. Icke draws on this account to make the following remarkable observation:
The tussle between the Atlantean advocates of the Law of One and the opposing Temple of the Sun is highly significant. The Temple of the Sun has been the religion of the Illuminati from Atlantis/Lemuria right through to the present time…Put simply, the Law of One sees everything as connected, part of the same unified whole, and the Temple of the Sun represents the desire to present everything as unconnected and isolated from everything else. One seeks to unite, the other to divide and, therefore, rule. (COM, p.19)[I just want to interject here that in the clash between the "Law of One" and the "Temple of the Sun," it's not a question of one ideology being good and the other evil, but rather, of finding a balance between the two. You need to see how everything forms a whole, but also the individual pieces. You need reason, but also intuition; male and female; etc. I'm talking metaphorically, of course -- I'm not saying I literally believe what Icke wrote in that passage (though it would form an interesting basis for a creation myth for the white race, with sub-Saharan blacks having the least amount of extraterrestrial -- i.e., divine -- blood, hence being "the most in tune with nature," and whites having the most, thus having a greater ability to think outside of the natural order, having been endowed with more of the essence of the Creator/s). -IA]
This passage is remarkable because of its implications, which are indeed extraordinary when considered in light of Icke's loud proclamations of opposition to the Illuminati's plans for a "global fascist state"; but because of Icke's effective system of doctrinal control, uncritically absorbed by most readers. So we must consider this: the "Law of One", which Icke lauds for its "positive intent", as it portrays everyone and everything as "connected to everything else" and "seeks to unite"; is defeated by the Temple of the Sun, identified by Icke as the "religion of the Illumanti", "right through to the present time" which presents "everything as unconnected and isolated from everything else" and seeks to "divide and…rule." Thus, in one simple paragraph Icke unashamedly endorses the ideology of global collectivism, characterising it as a more natural philosophy in contrast to the notions of individualism, nationalism and other sub-global forms of political organisation, which he implies as tainted unnatural ideals; the product of a corrupt and literally alien way of thinking.
Of course, Icke's apparent belief in a golden age of global unity under the "Law of One", causes him some significant problems later when he tries to explain the logic behind the alleged plot to form a "global fascist state". Indeed, his attempts to reconcile his theory on the Illumanti's plans for both "divide and rule" and to establish "world government" generate some of one of the biggest contradictions in his canon.
One might note that it is truism to say that Icke's recent books contain some significant contradictions – something Icke happily denies, showing his contempt for his audience, by assuring us that that there are no contradictions in his works as he is in "reality" merely accessing different dimensions (COM, p.423).* Scattered throughout his books are countless contradictions, and, of course, numerous factual errors. But it is the contradictions in his basic theory of N.W.O. plot that are of greater importance. And there is one in particular that stands out. But one that, for some unknown reason; possibly a consequence of Icke's doctrinal control, his insistence that he is breaking ground, or even because of tacit support from the Anunnaki-Illuminati-Reptilians-Brotherhood-"All-Seeing-Eye" Cult axis of evil (for simplicity's sake we will refer to it as the "AIRBASE cabal") he rails against; that has escaped serious comment from both his public critics and supporters.
The implications of this unresolved contradiction becomes clear if we start by examining one of the key theoretical underpinnings of Icke's four books, his notion of "Problem-Reaction-Solution." The following explanation by Icke in Children of the Matrix (pp.7-8) will suffice:
"[This] technique works like this: you know that if you openly propose to remove basic freedoms, start a war, or centralise power, there will be a public reaction against it. So you use problem-reaction-solution. At stage one you create a problem. It could be a country attacking another, a government or economic collapse, or a terrorist bomb. Anything, in fact that the public thinks requires a "solution". At stage two, you report the "problems" you have covertly created in the way you wish the people perceive them. You find someone to blame…and you spin the background to these events in a way that encourages the people to demand that "something must be done". These are the words you wish to hear because it allows you to move on to stage three, the sting. You then openly offer the solutions to the problems you have yourself created…With this technique you can so manipulate the public mind that they will demand that you do what, in normal circumstances they would vehemently oppose."His conception is a slightly confused reinterpretation of the famed "Hegelian Dialectic" of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, referred to by most New World Order researchers, but it carries the same basic message that the most effective means of getting people to embrace your desired outcome, be it world government for example, is by creating a crisis of such a magnitude that it compels people to embrace the preferred policy. Icke defender Richard Finnegan points out an academic article (cf. Baumgarten & Jones, The Journal of Politics, November 1991) which lends credence to this tactic and if we put store in academia then we might do well say that Icke is right, but obviously not original, in pointing out this apparent strategy. After all, the "Hegelian Dialectic" features prominently in Spotlight, the now defunct magazine Icke acknowledges having read while in the US in the early 1990s escaping from ridicule in the UK.
Divide and RuleBut that aside, it is inevitable that Icke runs into deep trouble when trying to explain how the AIRBASE cabal has used P-R-S to achieve their goals. Consider first, Icke's description of the AIRBASE cabal's strategy:
"The Anunnaki covert empire…has manipulated the world once more to the brink of global dictatorship…tribes have been brought together into nations; the nations are being brought together into power blocs like the European Union; and the final stage which we are now seeing unfold, is to bring the power blocs together under a world government, central bank and currency. (COM, p.335)"Icke then goes on to describe how the Problem-Reaction-Solution tactic has been employed in this strategy:
"The plan has always been to create so many "problems" in the world that the only answer to them is perceived to be a global government to "sort out the mess" (problem-reaction-solution). What the public has not been told – until now – is that those pressing for world government are the same people who are creating the problems to justify it. (COM, pp.241-42)"This all seems fair enough until we consider Icke's next comments which expose a fundamental contradiction in that the underlying philosophy he attributes to the AIRBASE cabal is very much at odds with the intended outcome of their alleged plans.
"Another scam is to persuade us that a world government would be the way to bring all the people together as one humanity, caring and sharing, and recognising we are all one family. Very nice sentiment on the face of it, but from the Illumanti point of view, that is their worst nightmare. They want humanity to be divided and ruled, not united and free. They use terms like "Global Village", "Global Commons", "Global Neighbourhood", and "One World" to manipulate people into missing the fundamental difference between "One World" (coming together in mutual support and co-operation) and a global centralised fascist dictatorship. (COM, p.342)"Analysed further we find that Icke's arguments actually posit the impossible union of an irreconcilable set of beliefs:
So Icke's belief (1) carries with it the implication that global unity is not natural and therefore the AIRBASE cabal is intent on undermining the present system of nation-states to cultivate support for that unnatural world unity. But belief (2) suggests that global unity is natural and the AIRBASE cabal is irrevocably opposed to "natural" world government by instigating warfare and other forms of competition. Or to put it another way: according to Icke's own explanations the basic belief-system of the AIRBASE cabal is the exact opposite of that required for true global unity, that is a collectivist mind-set; yet that same divided, individualistic cabal is supposedly behind the plot to establish a "global fascist state." Talk us through that one David.
So Icke has created a logical trap for himself, which naturally makes one wonder if Icke has really thought his ideas through that well, especially when we consider that Icke, after telling us that the AIRBASE cabal are responsible for introducing conflict and competition into the human psyche, as a means of furthering global unity by obviously discrediting nationalism and individualism, he then explicitly advocates global unity as the solution. Has Icke been caught in the AIRBASE cabal's PRS scheme? Or is Icke the author of his own?
If we think about it, in a way all three PRS steps are evident in the essential argumentative structure of Icke's works. In fact Icke's openly stated goal is to get us to embrace his "new consciousness", to become as "One". But his problem is winning us over, so he adopts the PRS stratagem to scare people into adopting his belief-system (sorry, his "truth"). Thus: in step (1) Icke identifies the problem facing us, claiming that certain human activities, especially competitive behaviour is in fact false and unnatural, the product of dastardly Satanic child-abusing and sacrificing "lower fourth dimension" reptilians who seem to control all aspects of our society and now want the world; this naturally leads into step (2), his terrifying tales prompting a horrified reaction from his customers; and finally we go into step (3) where Icke promotes his globalist ideology, insisting that we shed our corrupt values and embrace the globalist "Law of One" as the "natural" solution to overcome this threat.
Icke's Good Globalism: "World Cooperation" not "World Government"Icke tries to resolve that dilemma by fostering the notion of "good' and "bad" globalism, just like the misnamed "anti-globalisation" movement. Consider Noam Chomsky's statement to the World Social Forum held in Brazil in February 2002:
"The freaks at the "anti-forum" here are defined as being "opposed to globalisation", a propaganda weapon we should reject with scorn. "Globalisation" just means international integration. No sane person is "anti-globalisation.""On this assessment, Chomsky was well preceded by others, including Icke. In his first foray into the conspiracy scene, The Robots Rebellion, Icke made the following observations about the centralisation of political power from Westminster, to Europe through to the world:
It is all leading towards the Brotherhood dream of a World Government and I even hear some intelligent, caring people supporting the idea, often from the best intentions. I say again and again…NO, NO, NO. As with most changes that give power to the few, it can be presented as highly desirable. If we had a World Government, they say, we could stop this or stop that, do this, or do that. Others believe that the move towards World Government is a natural part of our evolution and journey towards wholeness. We started in tribes and communities, this way of thinking suggests, and we are evolving through national and continental government into World Government. I challenge this few. World Cooperation and World Government are not the same thing. (p.274)Icke's vision of "World Cooperation", curiously explained in some detail only in The Robots Rebellion, is hardly the stuff that most anti-New World Order activists dream of as the desired alternative. Indeed, it is positively frightening if we look past Icke's constant fear-inducing calls to act now and embrace the "new consciousness", dispensing with all those values that divide us (but also make us different), so we can all collectively prevent the imminent reptilian-inspired "global fascist dictatorship" just around the corner…
In his "One World" fantasy, Icke posits the fairly laudable aim of devolving economic and political control to communities. This sounds fair enough, except that Icke's Arcadia is built on a hitherto unimaginable global conformity of thought. He writes, "With the new consciousness, cooperating will come naturally without the need for laws and regulations of the kind we have today" (p.276). This "new consciousness" says much about Icke's vision, which is of a society clearly devoid of individuality, where social interactions are governed not by rules but "natural" instincts. Social order will be innate, much like ants and bees… But wait there's more. This means that contemporary democratic politics, with all its flaws, will be gone: "Eventually we will see the end of political parties. They are the product of a divided humanity and have no place in the new tomorrow" (p.275). And what will be in its place, one might ask, the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
Icke's answer is hardly reassuring, suggesting a multi-tiered system for global order with "neighbourhood councils" at its core. Encompassing a few streets, these would form "because circumstances and awakening consciousness would demand them." That is one gets no choice in the matter as all will be united in unquestioning conformity with the dominant ideology of "love." While the "neighbourhood councils", one suspects, will be much like those arbiters of conformity in Cuba, the so-called "Revolutionary Councils", perhaps? But still, there is more… Above that level would be the "Community Council", to which the "neighbourhood councils" would contribute representatives. Working alongside the "Community Council" would be a "community forum" to give everyone a say; and to decide economic matters there would be an "community economic co-operative" dominated by the elected representatives to deal with day-to-day management, while an "economic forum" would give everyone a chance to speak. The "task of community economies" in the ominously named "transition period" would be to provide basic aid but in "ways that are environmentally sustainable" (pp.276-78).
At the next tier would be "regional government" tasked with managing relations between the communities. And above that, in place of national governments, deemed unnecessary by Icke, the "next level of representation" would be "continental". Although they would cover similar areas to the European Union they would act as "forums and coordinators, not governments." The continental entities would "arbitrate on disagreements between regions", ensure that regions were not harming others "economically and environmentally", and provide relief for disasters. Finally, above this would be a "World Forum", which, Icke assures us, "is not the same as World Government." How is that so? The "World Forum" would be a place for representatives from the continental forums "to meet and discuss topics that affected the whole world." Although having no army at its disposal – Icke claims that "all armies will be dismantled when the transformation of consciousness is well underway" – the World Forum would have "powers to intervene to prevent environmental degradation that had global implications" (pp.278-8). Which gives those of us appalled by Icke's collectivist vision of the future the faint hope that some glimmers of individualism will remain…until the "new consciousness"-driven "World Forum" stamps them out.
Reading this serious proposal how then can we possibly respond, other than with profuse vomiting, to Icke's confident, yet utterly hypocritical condemnation, in the pages of …And The Truth Shall Set You Free, of a leaflet from Babaji Francesco, founder of the "Associazione S.U.M"? Read Icke's words and then reach for a bucket, and make it a big one:
"On the first page of the leaflet is a message from love Mr Francesco in which he tells us our tears are his tears and those who follow him all pain shall be removed. Excuse me I feel quite ill suddenly. He says that he has come to teach us that everything is One. Thank very much. But wait, what else has he come to teach us? That only through meeting the Earth's problems at a worldwide level can they be overcome. This couldn't mean, could it, that we need a world government, currency and army? Oh yes it could. (pp.423-424)"After heaping similar vitriol on Share International and the World Goodwill arm of the Lucis Trust, Icke solemnly warns us of "designer manipulation of belief systems" in which "the same centralised tyranny can be presented in many ways to suit the mindset of different groups of people." Icke goes on "We can expect a stream of guru-type figures and ‘spiritual' organisations being manipulated to do this or knowingly doing so" (p.427).
A stern warning and yet, one should ask, is this not the same David Icke who once wrote "There are times when I feel love from all, and for all, of Creation" (…ATTWSSYF, pp.501-2); who wrote of the "positive intent" of the "Law of One", which portrays everyone and everything as "connected to everything else" and "seeks to unite" (COM, p.19); and who, as we have just seen, endorsed a multi-tiered system of global control ranging from "neighbourhood councils" right up to a "world forum", with all people in unquestioning conformity due to a "new consciousness"?
The answer to the above must be a resounding, "Yes! Yes, it is the same David Icke!"
Now you can use that bucket…
The Purer Vision: Icke's "Ministry of Love"Despite his nice flowery rhetoric on freedom and love (love and more love), Icke's good globalism, like all globalists of the collectivist bent, is driven by a need to impose conformity. Icke talks of freedom yet he also talks of a "spiritual renaissance", which involves throwing off the shackles of religion and other manifestations of the "vibrational prison" the AIRBASE cabal has built around us and embracing "love". Unlimited love appears to be Icke's motive, but instead of corpulent person and deep baritone of Barry White, we have the benevolent smile and Tony Blair-like saccharine-sweet protestations of love from the "world's most controversial speaker". And it is a love built on contradictions and above all, conformity.
Icke writes "Control from the centre will be impossible because you cannot centralise control of diversity, only uniformity" (TBS, p.493). True words, but how can we reconcile that with Icke's philosophy and his relentless insistence that diversity of religious [sic] from the oldest faiths around through to the New Age are all either controlled, created or corrupted by the AIRBASE cabal? Take Icke's attack on the "prison-religions" emanating from the Middle East – i.e. Judaism, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism – which he condemns as the "most powerful form of mass mind control yet invented." Icke informs us further:
"All the world's major religions, Hinduism, Christianity, Judaism and Islam came out of the very same region of the Middle and Near East from which the Aryan race and the reptile cross breeds emerged after the cataclysm of perhaps 7,000 years ago. These religions were designed to imprison the mind and engulf the emotions with fear and guilt (TBS, p.78)."The Christian Church, Icke breathlessly informs us is "a farce founded on a fantasy" (p.103). His main problem, though, is "not that any one believes it, that is their right" but the way it has been "imposed on people through the use of fear guilt, violence and the suppression of alternative thought" (p.109). Later Icke describes people who ask if he is a Christian as being "in mental servitude to a belief system of Brotherhood creation" (p.489).
These sentiments become more difficult to accept when we consider Icke's three-step program to "transform life on Earth and remove reptilian control of the human psyche." The first requires us to "let go of our fear of what other people think of us and we express our uniqueness of view and lifestyle, even…if it differs from the ‘norm'"; the second is to "allow everyone else to do the same without fear of being ridiculed or condemned for the crime of being different"; and three, "no-one seeks to impose what they believe on anyone else, so always respecting free-will and free choice" (p.493). How can we reconcile any of these recommendations when Icke attacks people's religious choices? Are we really free of ridicule when Icke repeatedly attacks differences – i.e. different to his worldview – as the product of AIRBASE cabal manipulation? "But you can, you can, you CAN", Icke writes with regard to personal choice, advocating the people disregard their negative intellect and follow their "intuition" (p.494). But in Icke's world it's equally the case that "you can't" if you follow any of the diversity of religions in the world he is convinced are here to imprison us.
Icke's attacks on organised religion become important once we consider the globalist implications of his approach. By any reasonable measure Icke's anti-religious dogma is more akin to the Deism of the Freemasons, the same movement he casually and easily denigrates as a subordinate organ of the AIRBASE cabal. According to former government official and N.W.O. researcher Gary Kah, (En Route To Global Occupation, p.136) Freemasonry seeks to "subtly condition its members to accept the false belief that all religions are pathways to the same God..." The "widespread acceptance of this view," writes Kah, "is a precondition for merging humanity into some form of world government." Icke offers an important variation to this by seeking to harness people's higher faith to his own cause, portraying that as truth, while urging them to reject all vestiges of other religions as false.
One might note in this connection a modern expression of Deism in a recent essay by Thomas L. Friedman, the author of that bestselling but nauseatingly gushing account of globalisation, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Writing in the New York Times, (11/27/01), Friedman argued that the real enemy in the war on terrorism was "religious totalitarianism", which is "a view of the world that my faith must reign supreme and can be affirmed and held passionately only if all others are negated." "The future of the world may well be decided by how we fight this war", wrote Friedman. Indeed, the future of the main religions, Christianity, Judaism and Islam, "in this integrated globalised world depends on their ability to reinterpret their past." They would need to embrace "modernity and pluralism and to create space for secularism and alternative faiths." The real meaning of Friedman's words was revealed by WorldNetDaily columnist, Joseph Farah (12/4/01), who reported:
"The ideology Friedman calls "pluralism" is actually a religious view more accurately called "secular humanism." It doesn't, as he suggests, "embrace religious diversity," but instead attempts to impose its own religious ideology on the world in the name of "pluralism." …What he doesn't see so clearly, of course, is that his own phony pluralism is, in effect, as totalitarian and exclusivist and as dangerous as bin Ladenism."[Fake, real... What's so wonderful about pluralism in the first place? -IA]
But for some additional guidance on this matter we should consider Gary North's very pertinent comments in the epilogue to Larry Abraham's Call It Conspiracy. Although adopting some Christian themes, North identifies the drive of the globalists, in their search for political unity, to break down, not only institutional barriers, but those divisions between religions, cultures and ideologies. Complete sameness of mind must be achieved:
"The motivation of conspiracies is simple: to be as God. The conspiracies of the West, being Western, have also adopted the notion of the unity of the godhead. But who is this god? It is man himself. To achieve (evolve to) this position of divinity, men therefore need to be unified – not just unified through voluntary co-operation (such as in free market transactions) but unified ethically. Men must have the same moral, political and economic goals. Diversity of opinion concerning those "humanistic" goals must not be tolerated (pp.252-3)."While we might dismiss as a coincidence Icke's proclamation that he was the "godhead" back in the 1990s, but it is surely no coincidence his vision is of "ethical unification." Like all good globalists seeking to unify the world to make us one – "In the end we're all One, anyway (TBS. P.490) – Icke is intent on eradicating all those beliefs, cultures and thoughts that divide us, no sorry "imprison" us, because we haven't adopted Icke-Thought…
The Dangers of Non-Conformity: Icke's "Ministry of Truth"As we all know, David Icke is not trying to impose a "belief-system" onto anyone, he is only giving us "information," so he fully respects the right of others to disagree with his claims. And above all he is, by his own admission, quite indifferent to scepticism. Indeed, Icke repeatedly assures us of this apparent fact. Responding to Duncan Roads letter, Icke intoned, "It is none of my business what people believe…they should come to their own conclusions. I couldn't care less what those conclusions are because it is none of my business." "I am not standing up there and asserting this is what's going on, that's what's going on," Icke told Spectrum Magazine in August 1999, "I'm saying this is the information...something is going on." An agreeable sentiment Icke repeats in Matrix, "I am not asking anybody to accept anything I say – it's just information, make of it what you will…" (p.31).
In The Robots Rebellion, Icke even goes so far as to highlight that "the belief that anyone has a monopoly on truth and wisdom is probably the most destructive and stupid belief it is possible to have" (p.238). And in …and the truth shall set you free Icke righteously fulminates against the "I-know-it-all arrogance in some areas of conspiracy ‘research'" (p.462). The "difference between dictatorship and freedom", Icke tells us, "is allowing all information into the public arena and respecting another's right to make of it what feels good for them." Icke goes on: "Disagreement and harmony are not contradictions if respect for another view is there" (p.452).
Noble open-minded sentiments, but all repeatedly, blatantly, unashamedly contradicted by his published words. Far from merely "saying this is the information…something is going on", thus implying that there is room for further interpretation and analysis, Icke continually asserts that he is presenting "the truth" (TBS, pp.1, 26, 28, 132, 290, 346; COM, pp.10), "the true, or truer, picture of the world" (TBS, p.347) and the "true story of human history" (COM, p.27). He is not merely providing "information" on the reptilian-Illuminati conspiracy, but a "wealth of evidence" (TBS, p.19), "endless provable evidence"(COM, p. 11) and a "mountain of evidence" (COM, p.100). In fact, Icke reminds us (more than once), the "evidence" is "overwhelming" (COM, pp. 59, 284).
Rather than respecting people's scepticism, the problem, as Icke sees it, is that too many people are unable to appreciate his truths. He therefore challenges his readers to open their minds and "think the unthinkable" (TBS, p.47). Failure to do so he attributes to either being too heavily indoctrinated by the powers that be or to a closed mind. That one may be sceptical because of illogical arguments or faulty evidence on his part does not seem to enter the equation. The Biggest Secret, for instance, begins with a warning "Please do not continue if you are dependent on your present belief system, or if you feel you cannot cope emotionally with what is really happening in this world." He repeats it in Matrix: "If you have a belief system to defend, please don't waste your time and money. This is not for you." The implication being that Icke is presenting the unadulterated truth, one that will inevitably conflict with the comfortable illusions that we surround ourselves with.
In Icke's world, a failure to accept his views is not merely a failure of the imagination but a sign of deep indoctrination. There is no alternative. According to Icke, the possibility that he might be wrong can only be wrong. There is a danger, Icke warns, of being "caught up in rigid perceptions"; we need to "keep our minds and hearts free from dogma" so we can accept that "never-ending flow of knowledge" (…ATTSSYF, p.460). In The Biggest Secret Icke is insistent that only those with the "vision of possibility the size of a pea" (1, 259), or "concerned with defending a belief system or looking for public approval" (p.28), could possibly disagree with his findings. The unjustness of dissent is further attacked in Children of the Matrix. The "supporting evidence is there if only people are prepared to open their minds" (p.3); if we "open our minds to suppressed knowledge" (30), Icke claims then we will agree that he is right. People need to "lift their imagination" to accept Icke's claims, for which there is so much evidence, indeed "to dismiss it would be ludicrous" (p.276). Only the "most imprisoned of minds" (272) or those people who "wish to enclose their minds in concrete" (274), could possibly dispute Icke's "overwhelming" evidence.
And so, it seems that Icke does care if we don't agree with his conclusions. But more importantly in his attacks on independent thought that disagrees with his claims, Icke is expressing his contempt for ordinary people, whom he shamelessly denigrates as "Sheeple" – there is no R-E-S-P-E-C-T. And, as we have seen above, like all Messiahs Icke implores us to join his flock…
Reading these examples of his abject hypocrisy one might seek forgiveness from Icke for thinking that he was indeed passing judgement on what was the truth. But such a blessing from the self-proclaimed "GodHead" of 1990 is unlikely to be forthcoming. But perhaps the epigraph in Chapter Eight of Children of the Matrix, which quotes Albert Einstein will suffice to close comment on this matter: "Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods." Indeed…
Icke's Personality Cult: "And he loved Big Brother"There are some telling lines in Icke's biography at his website, on what an unnamed "psychic lady" told him in 1990 was a message from some "spirits" about him:
"He is a healer who is here to heal the Earth and he will be world famous. He will face enormous opposition...One man cannot change the world, but one man can communicate the message that will change the world."This naturally brings us back to an issue canvassed at the beginning of this essay: Icke's monumental ego. Like other pretenders to the title of Prophet of the New World Order, Icke indulges in rampant self-promotion, self-adulation and other anti-social acts of self-aggrandisement. And just like a number of other leading figures in the anti-N.W.O field, who shall remain nameless, Icke has a constant need to remind readers of his brilliance, his messianic qualities and of how profoundly he will change all of our lives, so long as we buy, buy, buy, and buy his books, magazines, videos and audio tapes. And, above all, that we always remember to clear our mind of all doubts when the Great Man speaketh.
Icke's self-promotion has its more obvious manifestations in his book subtitles: "The book that will change the world" (The Biggest Secret), "The most explosive book of the 20th century" (…and the truth shall set you free), and "The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance" (The Robots' Rebellion). [Wasn't this point already made? -IA] Then there is the adulation that Icke loves to receive, and loves to broadcast, produced by a willing horde of sycophants, more than willing to debase themselves before Him. Such hero worship reaches truly nauseous levels in Rick Martin's introduction to an interview with Icke for Spectrum magazine (September 2001). Martin drools over Icke, starting with his disingenuous claim that Icke "is considered by some to be ‘the most controversial speaker in the world'." Deftly turning a bit of Icke self-promotion into real opinion. Then Martin lays it on, lauding Icke's "truly groundbreaking books", his "non-stop hammering of the global elite controllers", his "uniquely humorous and articulate style", before launching into the most fantastic and unreal piece of flattery: "one can only imagine, many political bosses in backrooms wondering, ‘Just what will he come up with next?'" Yes Rick, one can only imagine…
The other side of Icke's campaign is to present himself as a victim of attempts to suppress him. Fortunately, and in contrast to other theorists, Icke is remarkably restrained on this matter, avoiding tales of being deliberately targeted by EM fields or attempts on his life by CIA, MI6 or Mossad assassins, although he does confess to a "psychic attack." Instead Icke is able to quite effectively enrage us at the arrogance of that left-wing fascist, Richard Warman, who justifies his tireless efforts to ban Icke from speaking with the smug remark, "What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?" (quoted in COM, p.414). We could do without Warman's kind, but it is one of the failings of our society that the ranks of the Thought Police grow every year…but so long as we can still call them "Thought Police" we know they have not won.
It is therefore unfortunate that Icke, despite his warning that "many…conspiracy investigators and organisations…are not talking about freedom at all" (…ATTSSYF, p.460), should have so clearly fallen under the same spell as Warman. We can see this in Children of the Matrix where Icke attacks the so-called "Gatekeepers" at length. In a long harangue, Icke indites parents, partners, priests, journalists, scientists, the military and the police as "Matrix-minded people" who are "enemies of freedom" as they are "daily suppressing the thoughts, desires, people and information that could set us – and them – free" (p.394). Icke modestly reminds us of what "information" he means by stating that if we were "already..free and reconnected to the multi-dimensional paradise", "this book, and all my others, would have no reason to be published" COM, p395). We are indeed fortunate…
The "Gatekeepers" are not and Icke launches into a long tirade against them. In amongst some self-help dogma, parents, partners and priests are attacked by Icke for perpetuating "inter-generational conditioning", by reinforcing those "blueprints and expectations" which "imprison us". Blueprints created by the "Matrix" of course (pp.395-7). He attacks the "fascist club" of scientists who "suppress knowledge", reserving particular loathing for paranormal sceptic Dr Susan Blackmore attacking her "arrogance" and "padlocked mind" (pp.406-7). Steady on David. And like certain agrarian Communists who brought unspeakable terror to Indo-china in the 1970s, Icke takes issue with the "professional classes" – teachers, journalists, doctors, psychiatrists, politicians and, more mysteriously, "bank staff" – accusing them of being parts of a "structure of indoctrination." Especially teachers, whom Icke charges with indoctrinating children into "the belief system of the Matrix." But like all prophets and "Dear Leaders," Icke informs us of how he "instinctively knew" schools were where "the clones of tomorrow" were produced. A "rebel from the start", Icke boasts of being self-taught and of having never taken an exam or gone on to college or university (pp.402-3). And by gosh it shows. [Hate to break it to you, pal, but this essay isn't exactly the most polished piece of writing I've come across. You know what they say about glass houses. -IA]
But in addition to making the tired accusation that each of these groups are responsible for reinforcing the "Matrix", Icke's real gripe is that these agents of evil are responsible for the failure of the masses to uncritically accept his claims. The amount of invective Icke devotes to these "Gatekeepers" for the sin of promoting scepticism of his "truths" only illustrates Icke's obsession with being taken seriously. Icke interprets as "attempts to silence me", the articles by some "naïve and immature" journalists – namely John Murray and Matthew Kalman – accusing him of anti-Semitism. Their accusations, Icke claims led to his events being banned and people were deprived of his message (pp.408-9). Because so many journalists have not portrayed Icke to his liking he can only conclude that they are not "open-minded, thinking intelligent people who care about freedom." No way. In fact they are "some of the most uninformed people on the planet…slaves to Illuminati ‘norms', the mental and emotional sheep-pen" (p.416). For examples of this small-mindedness Icke cites two journalists, Jason Cowley from the Independent on Sunday, and Sam Taylor from The Observer. Icke castigates both for failing to take his "specific detailed information" seriously, and suggests they are therefore complicit in the Satanic sacrifice torture and abuse of children. (pp.417-9).
Reading this childish litany one can only conclude that for Icke "freedom" – once the human race has undergone its collective "spiritual transformation" and moved into the "multi-dimensional paradise" – really means when we are able to "freely" and unanimously recognise his claims as the "truth." And when not one parent, priest, partner, scientist, academic, journalist or policeman will dare to question him again. Taylor was obviously onto something when he wrote that Icke "can be savagely impatient with people who don't share his world view" (Observer, 4/20/97).
Not surprisingly we also find that Icke the personality cultist has serious and ongoing problems accepting dissenting opinions from other N.W.O. researchers. In his interview with Spectrum magazine in 1999, Icke took his complaint further, likening the criticism of other researchers to oppression:
"[S]ome of the most fierce abuse that I've had since the book came out has not been from the public, actually, it's been from some other conspiracy researchers who can't get their head around anything beyond the physical...[O]nce somebody writes anything or says anything that's different, to even the conspiracy norm, because that norm has now started to emerge, another bloody prison, then other conspiracy researchers start laying-into and abusing each other. I mean, some of the stuff that goes around on the Internet with conspiracy people abusing each other, I mean, I reach for the sick-bag."We might note that Icke's response shows his own authoritarian tendencies, again completely counter to his own lofty claims of being open to other views. His instructions to other researchers are simple: admit you are too ignorant and uninformed to criticise my views, so keep quiet, and get in line:
"Now, I might have a certain view, based on the information that I've uncovered, of who is controlling it and all that stuff, but let's say, 'Well, I don't agree with you on that, I can't get my head around that, I haven't done that research anyway, so I don't know.' But let's agree on what we agree on, and let's go together, united, behind the desire for freedom in the world."So it's not acceptable for other N.W.O. researchers to dispute Icke's increasingly bizarre raft of claims, even [if] they do float on a sea of myth, rumour and conjecture rather than solid evidence. But, it's completely OK if Icke wants to attack other researchers. Of that we can be sure. Icke never had any qualms about criticising "Christian Patriots" for promoting the "two dogmas of Christianity and Patriotism", which have in fact "been used continually over the centuries [to] bring about the very New World Order the Christian Patriot now so opposes" (…ATTSSYF, p.460). That their very opposition to the N.W.O. stems from those same values he pompously scorns never occurs to Icke, but then again, for most globalists, Christianity and Patriotism are the enemy. It's also OK if he wants to make spiteful digs at other researchers, such as his crude attempts to smear Laurance Gardner as a "reptilian." Icke is, after all, the "world's most controversial speaker."
Is this hypocrisy? Does the Earth orbit the Sun?
The Last Word: What is Icke?There is undoubtedly more to Icke than meets the eye. He is much more than the "most controversial speaker in the world." A number of opponents and former allies in the conspiracy world have hinted at it, and in chat sites speculated on something dark, something not quite right. Even journalists have found something disconcerting about Icke.
In a recent article by Icke's former employer, the Leicester Mercury (6/30/01), for example, the journalist Lee Marlow sensed something awry in Icke's psyche. During the interview Icke reminisced on his earlier time at the Mercury, making a joke about "more sheep than people" in the area, Marlow's comments are instructive: "‘ha-ha-haaargh', [Icke] laughs in a slightly menacing manner, a bit too loud and a bit too long, which makes me feel a bit scared." Later, with Icke expounding on his theory, the sinister humour turns into an uncompromising rant.
"Mistakenly, I stop the conversation and say 'You know we can't print that.' 'BUT-YOU-CAN-PRINT-IT!' he shouts and I can hear him banging his pen on the table with every loud syllable…. 'There is evidence to support ALL OF THIS,' I can hear his pen slamming agitatedly again, 'and it's in my books.'"
Along similar lines Jim Ronson, in Them, found himself in agreement with Icke's overzealous opponents in Canada that Icke was "self-important" and "humourless" (pp.168-9). But it is Taylor, in the Observer, who has asked the more pertinent question:
"But who is to say Icke is not an elite stooge, too? After all, what better way to discredit conspiracy theorists than to have their views expounded by a volatile ex-goalie with a messiah complex? Of course! It all fit..."This leads us to conclude by reiterating the enduring points to keep in mind whenever reading Icke's works or attending his lectures:
In one of those remarkable paradoxes, one of the most prominent voices in the anti-N.W.O. community is also its strongest opponent of nationalism and its loudest advocate of globalism. How can this be?
But what is perhaps the final questions one must ask, completely ignoring Icke's reptilian fantasies, are what really happened during his time with the Green Party? Given his continuing globalist inclinations I suspect there's far more than Icke owes up to in his biography. Similar questions occur with regard to his "spiritual transformation." Exactly what transpired, I don't claim to know for a minute, but mind control must surely figure. But for now, in the absence of evidence, one can only hope that in time truth will out...
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Last edited by Igor Alexander; March 31st, 2010 at 04:01 AM.
|April 1st, 2010||#6|
Join Date: Apr 2010
I get so bored sometimes I let my mind wander while I read some of the New Age stuff, David Icke is sort of like fiction, it's sort of good science fiction, being marketed as fiction, but there is some truth in it, just like there is some truth in good science fiction.
This looks like a good forum, how long has this been here? I'm not really into David Icke, this board came up on a search for something I'm embarassed to admit to. (David Icke)
|April 13th, 2010||#7|
Join Date: May 2007
Yeah, Icke can be fun to read, though his books tend to get repetitive after you've gotten a couple under your belt. I guess he has to keep pumping them out every two or three years even if he has nothing new to say to keep the money flowing in.
I used to read his website back in 1999 and it would scare the crap out of me. The articles on there were like modern ghost stories.
The jewish tribe is the cancer of human history.
Last edited by Igor Alexander; April 13th, 2010 at 01:16 PM.
|April 13th, 2010||#8|
Pussy Bünd "Commander"
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: land of the Friedman, home of the Braverman
The key to reading DI is when he says "reptilian" let your mind think "jew".
Worse than a million megaHitlers all smushed together.
|conspiracy, david icke, new age, patriotards, reptilians|