Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

David Icke is a One Worlder and proud....

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Samuel K.

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 6:25:29 PM2/23/03
to
Intriguing article below by the mysterious "Dexter Raymond" about
David Icke. Any thoughts on this? Or is clearly too controversial for
consideration?

Sam. K.

__________________________________________________________________________

"The One World Ideology of David Icke... Or 'The Enemy Within' "
By Dexter Raymond 3rd
October 2002

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 Growth

David 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 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)."

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: 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 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, emphasis added)

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.

*"Problem-Reaction-Solution"

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 Rule"

But 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:

(1) The AIRBASE cabal behind the New World Order, employing the
"problem-reaction-solution" formula, is creating conflict and other
crises to encourage global unity under the aegis of a world state.

(2) The essential philosophy of that same AIRBASE cabal is the
antithesis of unity, the natural human state; instead they promote
individualism, nationalism and hence division, because those values
reflect their own corrupt alien mentality.

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; emphasis
added). 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 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 inform 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."

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). 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 be 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.

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 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 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:

1. Most anti-N.W.O researchers and activists seek to protect their
indigenous political, national, religious, cultural and other values
from being diluted, disbanded, dismembered and ultimately absorbed
into a single global mindset in support of a secret plot to establish
a totalitarian world government – in fact it was out of their
commitment to those values that they discovered the plot;

2. Icke, although using the rhetoric and research of these same
anti-N.W.O. activists, repeatedly attacks their values as part of the
conspiracy against freedom, and claims that only by rejecting all
those supposed "AIRBASE cabal" created and imposed values and
embracing the new global consciousness can we be "united and free" in
a world-encompassing community.

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...

anon

unread,
Feb 23, 2003, 6:51:39 PM2/23/03
to
Careful.......

David Icke is a known con artist. ( any google search with "David Icke" AND
"Skeptic" will show tonnes of links)

Not to put down the issue however.......

Although I personally want to see the world loose it's borders, I do not
want a "one-world-goverement" even if every single elected person in such a
goverment would be one I'd vote for....

It's just to much power in one place, it can and will eventually go bad.

We don't need a "higher" level of goverment to get rid of borders or improve
human rights world wide.. we need less.

Wolfe
www.wolfepack.8m.com

"Samuel K." <kan...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c023d791.03022...@posting.google.com...


> Intriguing article below by the mysterious "Dexter Raymond" about
> David Icke. Any thoughts on this? Or is clearly too controversial for
> consideration?
>
> Sam. K.
>
> __________________________________________________________________________
>
> "The One World Ideology of David Icke... Or 'The Enemy Within' "
> By Dexter Raymond 3rd
> October 2002
>
> 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

> ridiculed ideas become conventional wisdom.most are either forgotten

> 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.

> 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 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

> 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 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, emphasis added)
>
> 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.
>
> *"Problem-Reaction-Solution"
>
> 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 Rule"
>
> But 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

> 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; emphasis
> added). 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 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 inform 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

> 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."
>
> 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

> (.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). 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 be 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.
>
> 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

> now so opposes" (.ATTSSYF, p.460). That their very opposition to the

> 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:
>
> 1. Most anti-N.W.O researchers and activists seek to protect their
> indigenous political, national, religious, cultural and other values
> from being diluted, disbanded, dismembered and ultimately absorbed
> into a single global mindset in support of a secret plot to establish

> a totalitarian world government - in fact it was out of their

0 new messages