EPTIn essence, the assay begins with clear mention that as the words proceed, other things will be talked about. This is unavoidable, and so the reader is warned if the words appear to stray from the course.
In essence.. I seek to abolish any influence David Icke has had on the public mind, and replace the intrigue of alien speculation with the likes and theme of say, H.P. Lovecraft (such stories featuring zerg & protoss suggestion like The Nameless City, and the Call of Cthulu)
The reason for releasing this here in its unedited form is that I purpose, in the foreseeable future to create stories surrounding the character Doran Routhe, the man responsible for founding the Terran Koprulu Sector.
This writing will be adopted into some critical conjecture produced by some character, on the planet Earth, anent the speculation towards the existence of the Protoss.
THE DAVID ICKE FALLACY
Some preliminary words need be said gathering out of the storm key ideas, and introduce key words that set the atmosphere suitable for what I seek to put forth. Concerning this current writing - a lesser part of a compilation I purpose to develop incrementally as time does proceed - many words and phrases are unavoidably repeated. But hopefully not too much, as to avoid exhaustion. In a random manner the first essay will be titled "The Fallacy of David Icke". It is rewarding to begin here incidentally remarking the disjunctive rift between his purported ideas, and what I seek to convey. The envisioned intention of the scenario I present might appear striking enough to match the inflammatory title. A profound title, demanding attention, where the writer temporarily appears to hold authority over the subject.
Yet as the words proceed it takes better shape and other key themes present themselves incipiently. Between rigid pen strokes dealt with stiff hand, overlapping themes are summoned and called to mind, duly mentioned affording not to omit anything.
Memetic Cosmopolitan Syndrome
Meme (Definition): A self-replicating cultural element or pattern of behaviour, analogous to a gene, but passed from one individual to another through imitation, rather than genetic transference. Memes are subject to a form of natural selection, according to their likelihood of, relatives to the alternatives available in the meme-pool, of being reproduced or of multiplying.
Oxford Dictionary of Psychology
The first deliberation is to speak of The Disposition of the individual as they react to our common society. That disposition, felt and sensed by people today, cynically particular to the individual, is a reactive discomfort against the perceived 'cosmopolitan syndrome' infectious. I speak of infection hereto denotative of behavioural patterns. Whatever this syndrome or disease is, it can be passed between subjects by associative contact or memetic transference, and so the individual feels inclined to resist being absorbed into the collective biomass. This memetic disease may be only applicable to our current generation anent environmental factors present. These factors typically describe the character of our age, things like the availability of information, strife between class irresolute, and the sentimental impersonality within the media. All these words are denotative of conjecture reactionary to some perceived crisis. For now it be inadvisable to sound dithyrambic, so lazily we postpone urgency and create beforehand a tenuous platform to improvise upon, lest we become lost within the vitriolic disposition itself.
Society & Civilization
Consider to revise our definition of civilization and society as it exists in its usual form. We define "current society", as it exists within our "current civilization". It is rightly said that both terms, civilization and society are terms that describe an interchangeable function. Society, being the subjective result, objectively established upon the structure of civilization. ‘Society’ is the light running through the inner workings of the lightbulb ‘civilization’. If one discovered upon the planet the ruins of a civilization, it remains a testament to a certain type of people existing previously. The ruins can evidence the particular nature of that people, being functionally devoid of emotional bias or impute a distinctive trend that that society had, at that time. As we for the purpose of this exercise divide the two words, the new-found definition steadily avails itself. A brooding session is encouraged where within we consider the slight distinction of these two entities. Whatever personal interpretation is formed as a reaction to this here will be supportive anent grasping the overall theme. As it is, for now consider civilization to be a great place that contains a complex society of many characters of different types. Civilization, in its known form of optimum utility & facility, serves to protect mankind from the elements of harsh nature. Typical features like concrete structures, air conditioning, medical science, communication and transport are signs of our time. But the unique flavour and dynamic resonance of society is not entirely defined by the inner-workings of civilization. Improved changes to civilization do not necessarily cure disease or ill propensity. These bold words will make sense after we define the apposition "Science" & "Technology".
The archetypal source -called science - where all ideas originate is immutable and fixed. The form technology takes is reliant on our comprehension of science. When someone claims to make a scientific discovery they really mean, they have discovered something within the limitations of current technology, which is bound to our existing interpretation of science. And it is precisely here we find the occasional distrust experienced by some people, unable to wholly commit to society.[1]
1. The disposition of the individual
When we observe the empirical pathology within the population, suddenly the design of civilization becomes suspect. Many feel that technology today is slowly becoming an unavoidable entrenchment impossible to escape. Blameless the individual appears, unable to remove himself from his cellular interface, and daily we hear complaints of the abundance of information. Where is this discontent coming from? Is it not enough to hold the individual accountable for bad habits and incorrigibility? Midst the clamour and din, resistant factions arise pointing accusing finger at alleged beings whom conspire to enslave us, which brings us to David Icke.
David Icke
Now.. Let's turn swiftly to the works of David Icke and behold all the material presented by his research. If one undertook chronological recital of his work, one can steadily observe the description of the alleged power develop incrementally. It is clear that after making contact with certain key people, this increment is precedented. But in a manner of increased exaggeration, not persuasive coherency.
We speak of a condition, for now dubbed the ‘cosmopolitan syndrome’ or ‘memetic trend’. A behavioural pattern that infects the mass. Though we have no evidence of such a condition save for a nagging feeling of uneasiness. For now this be our working diagnosis. The individual has a problem , and so seeks a solution in accord with reaction.[2]
2. This is a play on words of an alleged subversive tactic used by goverments, coined by Icke. In this case the 'problem', being the disposition of the individual and the 'solution', being to merge with Icke's ideology.
The solution Icke has to offer, in response to this is to believe a select group of elite, through long centuries of manipulation have turned the creative forces of man against ourselves. The people of this planet have unwittingly contained themselves in a self-inflicted prison. This prison imperceptively felt but not immediately known could be called Civilization.
So our disposition is the source of discomfort and nagging sense of imprisonment.
Within this solution is the promised cure of 'dissolution' brought about from the enlightenment of realization. That being the eventual recognition of enslavement where an individual or entire people break free realizing their latent potential. It is important to note that this state of being is described as ineffable and unattainable, insofar as our perception is limited by the enslavement sustained by the supposed powers. It must be remembered that this tautology is factored into every imaginable aspect of what Icke does profess and even though he sets out to describe it, it appears to rightly defy description being indescribable in itself.
The fact that David Icke declares our known world as ‘the 5 sense prison’ implies that our known world is unreal. We are depicted, an entire people interminably bound, due to repeated exposure to a cruel environment riddled with distractive illusions. It is implied that we are surrounded with triggers that serve to sustain these self-hypnotic defects.
For the most he applies dozens of self-styled terms he’s invented which sounds alike to computer terminology. His typical word denotative of this vice is 'mind-control'.
A bold claim of sensational intrigue, impossible to prove and paralysing to negate.
Observe, that during interview and discussion he repeatedly falls back upon the inconvenient reminder that a long palpable back-story found within his books does eventuate to the topic conclusively. This disingenuous tactic vaguely deliberate on his part, serves to de-centralize him from direct assail as the audience run the risk of being ill informed.
Taking a cursory look at the compiled writings, midst archaeological, geographical, mystical and quasihistorical accounts he assembles the scenario holistically. Yet you could remove entire sub-sections of his work and the scenario would not substantially topple. His investigation wavers between orphic interpretation and glaring flaws exemplary in the fiscal & financial system.
I interject here that it is important not to bestow credit upon someone who shares a unanimous view of something glaring. The wit to identify a common problem does not distinguish someone as remarkable, nor expose the instincts of their underlying character. Embittered David Icke, is unequivocally opposed to all structure of current society, and any sub-system thereof, and by declaring the world a 5 sense prison he inadvertently declares all people incapable of reflecting.
The core idea put forth in his work remains, and he speaks of an agenda that the elite are pushing upon the mass. These higher non-human beings must keep people in a continuous traumatic state, producing emotions that they feed off in turn. Not only are we kept in a state of disenchantment, frustration, painful struggle and non-freedom, we are mind-controlled to do so and it has been said by him that we possess latent powers inherent, indescribably boundless. This Demigodlike power resides in all people, but not in the lizard elite.
Now what say you to such a fatal description of our world? Would the reader throw their arms up in despairing fear or become resentful? It is important to note that objectively his scenario is not open for interpretation. Within the situation described, literally no one stands a chance. No character or historical icon is distinguished unduly resilient to the effects of the prison.
Here I remark during a certain interview (of which I will later again mention) Icke was asked what can WE do in hope to withstand this imperceptive force. He did not give any advice, not even something trite or lighthearted. And his personality proved unavailing to be relied upon to say anything uplifting. He proceeded to talk in his own digressive terms with his own invented vernacular, using terms privy only to him. This proved effortless and unhelpful, as we will see now.
When people talk about his scenario described, seldom does a sense of helplessness descend upon them. Instead they are beside themselves with excitement as daily life laborious is now seen through the lense of imaginative fantasy.
We speak of imaginative fantasy, taking a moment aside to pause, remarking it inadvisable to scorn him dismissively for the scope of his work. Whimsically snide and abrasive we are perceived to pronounce sentence upon Icke merely for using his imagination, something vital for speculation & guess work. The only way to examine situational evidence without limits is by applying imagination without pedantic regulation enforced by repressive academics. The berating of someone for being imaginative while speculating is the deed of the "idealistic material crusader".
It could be rightly said that academia has established a monopoly on the imagination just as much as secular church. They respectively, scorn outlandish visualization which departs from 'scientific' measure and demand any unearthly encounter must fit the criteria of either.. the utopian kingdom of the high heavens, or the chaotic pits of the burning hell.
Yet concerning Icke, something unrefined, hidden to the eye begs us here to apply common sense, and politely refuse to share the morbid hostility he yearns to invoke. When the imagination is left unchecked, we quickly forget the currency of verity, needed for sound comparison.
Disdain
I will declare aloud there is something that renders David Icke inherently detestable. And it isn’t simply his content being explosive and sensational. His work and mannerism is utterly devoid of suspense. Whenever he performs systematic interpretation, he does so on his own terms, using his own vernacular in a drawling unconcise voice. His books are mainly based on the accounts of other people. Some of them he has no proof of meeting, and others remain purely questionable. As they radiate desperation bludgeoning the audience with tragedy. The package he sells is little more than projected sadness and trauma undiluted which serves to kill initiative in any case. It is explosive and assumingly smacks the reader with the implication which aims to infuse them with a mutual sense of trauma. These pertain to his stories of moral indignation. On the other hand the more sinister accounts of reptilian sightings do purport more menace.
Of the latter alleged stories, they feature the usual account of a politician or celebrity changing into a reptile. To be fair towards these reports, if indeed their vision did falter and for a fleeting instant, they saw that person morph into something, it could well have been an isolated incident unique to the individual. While the artistic impression of a reptile spectre bound to another human could relatively send shivers down me, it once again is David Icke reporting what others have told him, and in most cases you can be sure, he is only reporting what they want him to tell others.
The Mental Breakdown of Icke
For his reputation, everyone harbours endearing feelings for David Icke, quickly forgetting almost all his work is based on third-hand accounts from sources and key figures who wield an unusual amount of persuasive influence. Quite literally a single encounter or interview with one of these key people is enough to bestow Icke with enough inspiration to draft an entire repertoire on the subject.
The result, as Icke draws conclusions from their own experience, is a soi-disant ornate embellishment of science-fiction heavily disguised as academic speculation. ‘Academic’ here being denotative of rich text exchanged in its purest form. Never forget he abides by his theories daily, embroiled in media struggle. The ‘conspiracy industry' is his well-being and so he cannot afford to falter or desist from clinging to his ideology. And it is an ideology, fused with a spiritual hint of a destined humanity bound under subversive reign. He is lauded as the most fluent conspiracy theorist of the century, notwithstanding his mental break-down. Observe closely the situation surrounding him at that time. The breakdown was probably incurred by the very act of clinging to his newfound belief.
Before we continue to dismantle the assemblage of thought surrounding the intentions of Icke, which have endured in motive shape since he began, consider that bold statement that Icke provides an ideology for his fan base. Substitute another similar word Mythos there and behold the definition..
Mythos : An orientation that characterizes the thinking of a group or nation; Myths collectively; the body of stories associated with a culture, institution or person; A traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people.
Is the nature of his work something incrementally contributive or is it an inflammatory piece of palpable influence stirring a resistance movement? A resistance movement that is fulfilled by nothing more than submitting to the paralysing criteria which dictates an ideal impossible of striving towards. By the close-ended nature of the conclusions he draws forth it seems that once the reader comes over to his way of thinking, any further research carried out pro forma is the deed of a naïve optimistic idiot. The mistrust and the vitriolic disdain invoked seems the daily poison his follower must consume in effort to resist the status quo.
If there is doubt Icke does not instill someone with an ideology, take care to observe the affects an ideology has once someone has embraced it, or better yet, become subverted by one. An ideology serves to regulate the mental, emotional and physical response of someone in every aspect of social encounter, insofar the ideology is practical enough to account for everything. Indeed a preliminary foreshadowing of what I seek to relay is precisely this anent the memetic trend pervasive. Icke has repeatedly said all religion is nonsense but on what grounds save for a wish to cast aside a nagging sense of Victorian duty? He has avoided addressing that divided union which has proceeded these last several hundred years, those two disjunctive realms of technology and religion. Is it not a marvel that the fanatical priest and the pedantic scientist remain so intractably antithetical? A religion is the very thing which explains the cause of experience and phenomena but not only that, it determines in what phenomenal measure the mind reacts to experience . If a religion is designed well it will piggyback morality into the psychological current and will either dampen or intensify experience in accord. But the crux is to account for misfortune and affectively tame an environment that to all appearances seems untameable.
The Old Religion was rumoured to have rulers and elder lords who gained the allegiance of the elements necessary for producing a rich harvest. A king could be thrown off a mountain if the crops failed. In this age, religion serves as a soporific or an inhibitor for instinctual propensity. In terms of the psychological grip necessary for sustaining daily vice, a religion will apportion blame to an entity duly accessible whom unto the person is able to relinquish their responsibility. An entity is appointed as a pivotal icon sustaining the religion itself by right of their status devoid of fallibility. In fact if a religion is really cleverly designed it will cause the conformist to voluntarily suffer blame for any ailment and misfortune encountered, distinguished by the emphasis laid upon their worthless fallibility.
By the audacious scheme of its ideological dynamic the participants resolve all self-inflicted grudge upon themselves, and this is achieved by the deity personified and depicted as an icon of suffering. If the iconic visage is introduced during youth and the blood, pierced flesh, flayed skin and broken legs is rightly justified to be instrumental to their salvation and good behaviour, if the act of dying in such fashion was duly synchronised and necessary for the good of the planet then the youth become accustomed to the brutality and so whenever they see the symbol representing the torture they relate it to violence and affirm it. What they don’t see though is that they have been programed with a conditional stimulus, a stimulus that has a two-fold layer of design. First, take note of the geometrical simplicity of the crucifix suggesting a graph ascending to a vertically higher degree, balanced in every regard and perfectly symmetrical. Such a mathematical concept could suggest nothing more than ascending within universal duality. And now, replace the field of vision upon the cross with a human figure, you get a clever symbolic concept where all the glory and veneration goes to that person. The mind immediately by an association that cannot be gainsaid tends to the dying person, at a speed impossible to intercept.
What you have is a psychological symbol of powerful mechanic which can be invoked at any time. Whenever the cross is shown, the mind turns either in a state of self-inflicted despair distraught with gratefulness for life eternal, or conversely indifferent to the curious display of this gentleman bound to the cross, whom notwithstanding the ressurection hasn’t budged from that place for the last 2000 years. In any case, one can be sure that that cross-eyed visage of morbid innocence is the associative result of the crucifix symbol. And it cannot be dismissed with Icke’s wayward flippant phrase “All religion is bollocks”.[3]
3. It is critical to affirm aloud that the writer (me) harbours no intention to demolish religion, but is pointing out the recurring habit of people, to elevate a person to levels of apotheosis. It is important to understand that this dynamic involves unabated worship, which results - at times - a disregard for reality, which comes at the cost of self. Hence a very suitable phrase "Salvation comes at the cost of self".
Note that Icke in 1991 David Icke told Terry Wogan on national TV that he rightly believes himself to be the Son of God.
The wayward solution of flaying out and renouncing the almighty in a crude youthful fashion like David Icke has done, does nothing to dissolve its influence on the mind, for you are handed alternative straws fashioned by similar folk tenacious enough to declare aloud their rebellious aversion. In their reckless quest they make the error of personification. They still give the now-usurped almighty the power and privilege of remaining a person to be reckoned with. Frivolous and fluffy dialogues of dramatic poetry only spawn another sub-section of consumable entertainment. It is difficult to explain how useless Icke is in terms of negating the inimical poison of secular religion, or at least if he says it to be a poison he gives no empirical evidence of it being so. But in terms of describing an ideology and how it is powerful in regulating our behaviour & habits, an example of the central precept of Buddhism could serve here: That being his phrase all suffering comes from desire . If one could relate a supposed scenario of a character trying to procure the interest of an opposite party at the local tavern while under the influence of booze. What would happen if the instinct you were operating under occurred to you, and you decided not to entirely halt in your course but rather to persist in a less relentless manner? Would not the very notion of trying to lessen the intensity of your manner cause you to allay desire and spare you from certain suffering, or a regretful headache from drinking frantically?
Let’s pretend David Icke is not a stage-managed puppet of demoralization, a honeypot contrived by the very same beings (and organization) he seeks to expose! And so, he is indeed capable of normal human error and feelings. His insanity was inflicted upon himself by his own belief system which rejected the known world.
I speak of belief alongside the counter-act of disbelief, both being the first step a subject takes in order to deny the real world and embrace a new one. Fanciful though this may sound such words be suitable entailing a change of belief. This dramatic shift in character is hardly noticed in the generation of today, for the enthusiastic hippy is just as new-age as the next. This is due to the increased availability of information and the liberal standard of entertainment. Already trendy kids in high-school are fairly accustomed to the absence of draconian morality. When I speak of morality I speak of that nagging superstition of immediate consequence brought about from higher power, where within the subject strays from doctrine. More or less the typical doctrine of Biblical Religion or a subsidiary thereof.
This doctrine in terms of its vice, regulates vice itself. Inveterate habit, sudden caprice and the occasional hostile thought involuntarily entertained. It is difficult to identify something that operates within the darkest recess of the mind, where upon confronted openly betrays no mutual disposition. The main feature of monotheism that renders it inescapable is precisely the doctrine of the monistic logos.
As every deed, cause and response is relayed back to one singular entity. The belief system establishes itself associatively within the mind and reverts all psychic activity back to its centralized presence. The implication of a personified, relatable God accessible at all time implies a certain sense of auditory traffic necessary for the entity to sustain itself, which is more than enough to plant a latent seed of dementia.
You may think that this doctrine is not pervasive and not adequately inculcated into every individual due to the decrease of educative religion. Could we remark a more liberal tendency introduced into schools today and the explicit removal of monotheistic religion taught at contemporary schools, compared to twenty years ago since the early 90s? This lacklustre transitory shift of standard has little to do with the obscene measure of Icke’s self-proclaimed destiny at that time, but I wish to impart a sense of how the reaches of secular religion impinged upon his mind. Furthermore I must add that although the grip of religion seems to have weakened, and ostensibly being replaced with a policy of free-thinking tolerance mixed with a mild hint of intractable vanity, the reign of Christianity has all but diminished and still functions holistically on a clandestine level, being a portion of a much greater regulatory system
n any case, during the process of a new ideology replacing the previously stern and old, the subject is overcome with excitement while his mind is filled with new ideas brought about from the release of emotional current, and so he feels eager to share his thoughts and feelings. This freedom is partly distinguished by a new-found sense of alleviated responsibility stemmed from the lifting of the mental bar of self-consciousness. It could be considered something a relief for Icke to realize his thoughts were in fact his own and not shared with an all-knowing omnipresent tyrant of a one-sided duality! But that nagging sense of singular omnipotent influence is never forgotten, and too, the personification of the singular messiah figure.
As the subject removes their former conscious reference of good and bad, which theretofore served to evaluate their actions they then become impetuous and operate on impulse as those tiresome virtues of patience and delayed reward are discarded. But this acting on instinct does not account for the madness of David Icke. We must visualize the dimension of his mind at that time as he became immersed with new-age doctrine.
Ordinarily, when the old ways of conduct undergo the process of annihilation, a void fills the remaining emptiness. That emptiness is at risk of being replaced by ideas beyond the subject’s capacity. Few people are equipped to ably withstand the flood of disbelief. But it is not disbelief that causes madness, but the channelling of an idea, fused within the mind and nourished by energized obsession. On the other hand, the void fills their mind and they are de-centralized from their former realm of self-possession. But the subject does not soon forget the veneration previously bestowed upon the personified God figure. That messianic character chronologically factored into human history. It is difficult to discharge all the importance surrounding that person, who for long years stood superior in relation to the subject’s human nature. The next best act is to assume his position or at least that of a lesser derivative, which is precisely what happened to David Icke, and during this substitution it is logically expected that visions of prophecy end up filling the mind.
You may think that he differentiated himself from the framework of religion by saying he was “the son of the god-head” but I will prove to you it was not so. For in order to appear fashionably opposed to secular trend he merely distinguished himself as someone representing the universal spark, whence all his inspiration emanated from. He spoke aloud of things that would come to pass in due time but those things never did come to pass. It is unthinkable that Icke would be recruited to relay a prophetic message that failed subsequently to eventuate.
As lamentable this incident does appear, the memory does not discredit him nor render his material questionable, but make no mistake it doesn’t count in his favour. A state of insanity, if the mind recovers from it suggests that the personality underwent some type of experience beyond their power to reconcile. It can attest to a personality defect at risk of resurgence, or someone that underwent some harsh period of strengthening. In Icke's case it was his mind adjusting to a slick new feel of the new-age outlook, and him getting carried away as the censor of moral discernment was dissolved within his mind, which in turn released an influx of emotional current theretofore pent up. And.. Had he not already been slightly famous through sport, he would have had no suitable outlet of expression, there would’ve been no audience to project his madness upon, and he might never have become insane in the first place.
One would be taken aback to discover that countless people - with or without the influence of medicine or trance-inducing drugs - have at some point undergone a personal messianic crisis.
This evidence is noted by empirical experience, gathered through various encounter with a variety of folk.
The intrigue
Given the range of information he covers it’s virtually impossible to react to any sub-section of his material without assailing the entire thing. When I say he has covered material, I really mean he has included it into his corpus, layering it upon an already many-layered mass of text. These accounts take the anecdotal form of historical records, archaeological finds and geographical observations, of which all are never thoroughly explained and appear disjunctively related.
Every teleological occurrence he asserts with a hint of zeal is very relevant and very true and so serves to bolster and reinforce his overall claim. He relies upon the audience being hungry for controversial flame. He simply assumes that his preceding reputation engenders credulity, or that everyone united in conspiracy will support him on impulse. His writing, in its crude form is simply awful, purporting no disingenuous style or any persuasion artful, and the reader is expected to be on the same puerile page of optimistic stride. Devoid of prudence, he purports a misanthropic stance when he declares all people to be mindless unthinking sheep. He does so indiscriminately and so it follows thus, all those that oppose him are mindless, unthinking.
He made an appearance on a well-known TV show (This week - TW), which others have remarked surprising. As it was, the conversation steered towards 9/11 and the reptilian anomaly. The host was rightly unbiased putting a word in saying he can understand Icke ably believing 9/11 a conspiracy, but, when placed in the context of the Queen being a lizard all veracity was cast aside. At that point the host prompted Icke to reiterate if he did believe the royal family are lizards, and the latter replied unflinchingly "yes".
Now, observe the just inquiry in part of the host, granting impartial interest in the implication, and during those few seconds he gave Icke a chance to tell the world who was behind 9/11. The question was literally “Who was behind 9/11?” His reply was something along the lines of once again, there is a whole backstory to this; once again, I must re-route the audience to my already existing books; and once again I discursively bow out in a manner suggesting that what I purport can only be grasped by those who conform to my product.[4]
4. It is suggested by this behaviour that Icke will gladly use any sensation or historical event in history to unscrupulously sell his product to the people of the world
It is critical to note the implication of David Icke incapable of answering that question. He cannot explain the source of these events. He’s unable to locate where the influence emanates from. And he has no idea of their identity or even how they orchestrate events. And I remark here, at that time he had whole-heartedly gained the respect of the audience present.
Another more subsequent interview showed someone over video conference, asking him where they can find objective evidence that substantiates his reptilian claim. As usual an answer longer than a minute was given doing nothing more than lay out his schedule for upcoming shows. And incidentally a momentary shift in his attitude was seen, a shift that could be considered self-abased retreat. The question did not ask for nonspecific guidelines or assurance. David Icke answered with the dismissive key word “Teach”.
In other words, he cannot re-direct the person to evidence of special interest, but what he can promise is further appearance, where he will project his influence onto a willing audience.
The word teach replaces the word tell, defining what he does is educate instead of imposing.
For what seemed a matter of conviction suddenly became a matter of opinion, adding as an afterthought (hoping to relinquish zeal) that “the last thing this world needs is someone who tells people what to believe”. It seems when backed into a corner he lets opinion take its course, which does not match the dire expediency of his theme.
For a long time David Icke has been acknowledged as the most fluent conspiracy theorist of the generation, and perhaps a gateway to the world of alternative literature. A commercial product offering the first outrageous step towards liberation. I speak of liberation denotative of breaking away from established tradition, where the candidate blindly steps into a new world unexplored. This description sounds fantastic and pre-supposes that secular tradition is inherently constrictive.
In any case, for that nebulous service Icke proves adequately resourceful, yet at what cost.
The Monopoly
In a manner, Icke provides people with a belief system, or lack thereof. A system where bad things are apportioned blame to non-human entities, which the individual cannot control nor be accountable for. It is a system where within you receive the rank of Slave, slightly above that of Sinner. This designation is unavoidable, insofar he makes a point to quote the Matrix movie.
Whether the matrix franchise was a load of glamourous gimp-mongering or if it holds supreme relevance is immaterial for now. We concern ourselves with Icke’s ideology and its conformity, for it is inexplicitly clear that to make use of his stance, you must take a hostile stance against society. You are compelled to renounce all things that until then seemed innocuous or neutral. You are obliged to declare the sensory world a prison of unreality, even though until now your senses have served you well.
David Icke is an ineffectual stimulant.[5] He does not induce strength or provide ammunition to resist any opposing force. By exploding things out of proportion and carrying himself with an air of self-righteous duty, he spreads a web dampening the senses, inducing boredom and demoralization.
5. Possibly even worse, a sedative disguised as a stimulant
The tragedy of the situation be that there, midst his blither are found secretly hidden certain seeds of vital information. And these seeds should be nurtured and given time and care to flourish into something. But when those bits of information are found in his context, presented in the light of his attitude, they lose their virtue.
Some have said he writes generically and his work is accessible to a large audience. What good is that if his work subsides into a hype? He does not impart knowledge incrementally but leads people from one energized disenchantment to another. Your vitality is weakened by his barrage of unequivocal onslaught, rendering you deprived of strength to remark the underlying significance. The worst affect is that the mind tends to retreat from the subject, associating the aforesaid content with the manner of his burble.
He has become a public figure with adequate celebrity status, and with that status - whether notorious or admirable - comes instant accessibility to the public. And when someone is accessible they are robbed of suspense as the inner workings of their design is exposed and consumed by the prying audience. He is forever ready for fervent discourse and when he does appear, he is ill-equipped to extemporaneously dismantle the subject at hand.
As you will ALWAYS see him redirect the audience to previous writings, or make promise of some scheduled talk in the foreseeable future.
Upon skimming his books, patently obvious quotes uttered by authors renown attempt to set the mood for his flimsy content. This is a cheap tactic of mechanical reference where one is presumed to believe the author can relate to those figures referenced.
His writing takes the form of anecdotal bombardment, with one too many a reference. He will often, invent some self-styled method of tactical subversion used by the 'supposed power', then verify it with an array of countless example.
These anecdotes when recited, whether true or semi-true, quickly become impersonal and lose the intended effect, doing nothing to allay the incredulous. As the reader is forced to embark on a repeated switch within the mind, moving from scene to scene separated by date and time. No credit can be given to the author for reciting things so robotically. He does not even write persuasively, and assumes the reader will simply remark the significance of an event, let alone believe it offhand.
The works of Icke do not instill any defensive prudence necessary to defend against lies and misinformation (if there is such a thing), but rather explosive desperation. An inability to apply reticence or subtlety. He points an accusing finger at political figures embroiled in anecdotal byplay, ignoring the risk of exoteric alienation, in hope to expose some alleged esoteric scheme.
It is critical here, to introduce terms inverse in hope to relay that my purpose, is not to oppose him with contradiction. For I purpose to reveal his diluted incompetence, as he speaks of things which should be removed from his ill-flavoured light.
The vast array of material covered is immense, and in most cases the topic only vaguely attests to the overall claim. It is hearsay and rumour or a suspicious hunch. Or on the other hand, he has hi-jacked an entire field of interest that previous authors have spent great length to expound upon. Most of it is readily controversial and relied to be already known to the reader. Yet as he assimilates all the information that ever surfaced, he inadvertently lays associative claim to THAT piece of information.
He has unwittingly established a monopoly on the subject. And a bulwark of one where reader and author alike feel reluctant to approach the topic. We speak of the elite who run the world. If I were to decide a word suitably denotative of this group, the term Hierrachy would emerge. In truth we know nothing of this alleged Hierrachy or their nature and origin. If they exist, we do not know where they reside, or in what measure they relate to our current world.
The turncoat
We must cover in proper sequence, two recurring themes. The first being the monopoly of inquiry he has established, and then the overt incapacity of his nature, which in itself is poisonous to behold. If we were to gauge the precepts of his ideology, the only precept he abides in accord, is to do what you want, not what is advisory or within sensory offset... as he would encourage people to uphold the truth, even though the truth runs the risk of being branded as a lunatic.
He has established a monopoly since virtually every mysterious topic has been absorbed into his great scheme, and so speculation becomes impossible.
How can one rightly expand upon anything related to him without becoming a derivative of incredulity? If one mentions Stonehenge or questionable ethics, or any political short-coming, people say David Icke talked about that, so David Icke must be informed upon this, and so the speaker and David Icke are of the same ilk. His name becomes an associative reflex synonymous with delicate matters which in their original form deserve careful scrutiny, instead now they are marred with unpleasing texture. His bad influence however is not seen regarding secular opinion (which seems his daily ambition to sway) but amongst fellow aspirants of alternative academia.
The aforementioned interview, where upon Icke was prompted with a single question. Something phrased along the lines of "How can we begin strengthening ourselves against these things that grip us?" A typical question that should typically result in a few non-vague hints in the form of advice.
He did not answer the question, but instead he branched off describing things on his own terms. I awaited the advice continuing to watch, keen to hear something in which it seemed - though misleadingly - his tone promised to eventuate.
Literally after 30 minutes of blither (not even insightful blither), he hadn't even remotely hinted at anything. Discursively avoiding the question, introducing yet more vernacular and idiosyncratic terminology. He could have said anything, urging one to enrich their mind by reading or researching. The audience could be steered to other books written by other people (which he never does unless obscurely privy to him). He could have commended the general human spirit at hand. Nothing was said, save for further exposition originating from HIS interpretation of things. Nothing was delivered, save for more blithering and blundering minutia.
All this here, evidenced by his inflammatory non-docile manner shows he does not reinforce the defensive nature of his audience, or equip them with suitable counter-measures in psychological warfare. He does not leave one walking away feeling revived or enriched or uplifted. The only solution he offers is to submit to his blithered framework of belief, and once you know the ‘truth’, all else follows.
Recall we began here talking about a disposition sensed within the individual. Rightly sensed but not immediately known.
And in response to this universal disposition, David Ickes' wayward solution is to liberate the mind from enslavement and resist a hidden power.
Let us describe now the characteristics of one conforming to the belief system of Icke. It will result in a vulnerable state of psychological sensitivity, or conversely, a concrete mode of unbending obstinance. Both entail the annihilation of personal initiative. Concerning the latter notion, it is not unheard of that someone newly introduced to an idea so encompassing suddenly shows resistance to reality. They view everything with a new found distrust. It is perfectly conceivable that when Icke recruits a follower, they only trust what he approves. This selective activity is exactly what his theme promotes.
To commit to his framework is to identify with a collective people united under the same shade of resistance, the same shade of incorrigibility. A resistance declaring the world a harsh prison, a resistance awaiting promise irresolute of boundless freedom of mind unrestrained.
What use is this self-inflicted byplay acting out some prisoner of illusion? Distraught, resentfully undergoing fervent sessions of introspection. Observe the inmates of the illusive prison, straining to shake off the mindcontrol induced by invisible lizards. Introspective paranoia junctioned with secular disenchantment, the essence of madness flows within!
The followers of Icke all strive to overthrow the sensory prison, for boundless freedom awaits them. Such nebulous description impossible to relate, is not dissimilar to the promise of eternal life bolstered with heavenly faith.
Personality Analysis
He is accountable and amenable to the bulk of his work. Yet he is not capably answerable to account for his work. His tone and rate of speaking is not concise, and heavily relies upon the listener to hang upon every word. In fact, his rate and depth of relaying information seems to be capped at a certain level. Take a moment aside to observe his volume during talking, as if always shouting above a certain height. He is basically shouting continuously yet at the same time not reaching a volume inappropriate for the scene, and always slowly, never concise!
In one interview - and this blunder was monumental - he was quick to dismiss the psychological definition of 12 known personality types.
Based on the premise that the human being is simply a being of infinite possibility, and cannot be limited by personality classification.
This unwillingness to acknowledge psychometric evaluation (and actual psychology), shows that he either, does not want to alienate listeners unwilling to undergo academic comparison, or he himself has no forbearance for such discourse.
He has incorporated virtually every disparate conspiracy theory into his holistic scheme. He proves unwilling to budge when new information comes to light contradicting him. It is interesting to note he was unwilling to make way for new discoveries concerning 9/11 whereby he actually said it be a waste of time to investigate how the incident of physically executed, while all that mattered is the aftermath. He speaks of the predetermined aftermath as if something tangible and self-evident meanwhile it is not so and is a subject downplayed and unrecognisable amongst the general populace. Of this account, more appalling is his absurd notion that to undertake investigation of 9/11 is purely infantile. From this it concludes, he shows no urgency to revise his work, or make any changes when improvement presents itself.
By incorporating virtually every outlandish theory into his books, he leaves no leeway for personal interpretation, taking every account, conspiracy theory, sub-theory, fleeting rumour, legendary myth, and greedily absorbing it into his reality. Those that recommend his books always promise a mind-boggling experience transformative.
He has been around for many years as a media icon and is well known to assail conventional news. Though his dislike of journalists does not elevate him above their mercenary ambition, as his lack of depth places him alongside them.
It is said he predicted things that happened. Credit was given to him, as he divined events that transpired in the past subsequently after him saying it would be so. Yet such deeds midst the clamour of history do not establish the envisioned apotheosis matching his neurosis, or earn laurels of merit. There is something inherently despicable about the iron form unquestionable his material takes. During interview and discourse, he is never relied upon for scientific exposition in concise form.
All his terms are self-styled computer terminology, obliquely comparative to human psychology. I have demonstrated his way of talking is slow as if shouting, in a steady manner, being entirely reliant upon the listener having regard for what he's saying, and such polite regard is literally exhausting to bestow.
It is critical to note that if someone takes the time to read something, they expose themselves willingly to the resonant flavour of the writer, as they step into the psychological climate contrived. That is why it be inadvisable to read his material in effort to appear impartially informed. A sample of a paragraph is more than enough to give small taste of the theme.
As I discover my unwillingness to give credit to David Ike, I discover it to be jejune fiction applicable to daily life. The chance for someone to view reality through the lense of fantasy, where the world suddenly seems no longer dull or colourless. But despite the harmless sci-fi them we cannot overlook him saying people are a "herd of sheep". As if a person must sacrifice their self-possession to make way for his belief. How can he rightly feign indifference to those indifferent to his stance, when he describes an individual like so?
I begin with repetition of that already said: Multiple things and historical accounts holistically encompass his scenario and amongst these things some truths are hidden, symbolic or absolute. But they, in their current form lose their significance when surrounded by his words written in context of his attitude. David Icke leaves no room for revision and reading his writing or simply hearing him talk will render you de-sensitized and unresponsive to true information. Avoid him! Count any verity he accidentally stumbles upon a fluke chance!
And finally, our efforts constrain us to examine his mental break down. Such things happen to those who daily immerse themselves with introspective analysis, always on the lookout for the hidden strings of puppets.
I support this notion with a story about a fellow friend. This was someone who'd just finished his initial years of film studies and secured an adequate job in the industry. He devoted his free time to reading and watching David Icke online. During our talks over the phone he was generally excited but I caught a hint of longingness & manic-desperation in his voice.
He soon revealed that upon reaching a point in his life he'd become overwhelmed with new-found freedom and felt a certain void. Amongst other things he talked, but mostly about Icke and the purported conspiracy. It seemed his mind was urging him towards some quest of self-discovery. He soon made plans to travel to my region for a short holiday but during that course we suddenly lost contact and he never got back to me. I was disappointed, as I welcomed his company and imagined many hours and nights of bickering amongst ourselves about the universe. I subsequently discovered he'd gone into a clinic to regain his health after suffering some break-down. Whatever the reason was, in any case, something occurred to me. When one reads or looks at conspiracy theories and alternative literature, it is not done out of rebellion or outlandish hearsay. It is not to gather ammo, or to resist against established order. It is a process of examining your surroundings and coming to your own conclusions. David Ike, does not allow such conclusions to be found alone, and offers his own morbid conclusion that he speaks of unwavering, as if it was an incidental reality.
David Icke is a stain in the history of modern alternative literature
