Letter
from Lhasa, number 277. David Icke’s Biggest Secret
by
Roberto Abraham Scaruffi
Icke, D., The Biggest Secret. The book that will
change the world, Bridge of Love Publications, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA,
1999.
(Icke 1999).
David Icke
The English Icke is a
brilliant social writer and he divulgates a considerable amount of
ethnographic, historical and cultural information. He is even better when he
didactically explains matters. He moves at different levels and he is certainly
interesting and useful. He unmasks certain realities while presents in my
opinion only hypotheses relatively to other ones.
The UK, as all the
Anglophone countries, is a tight totalitarian area. We may raise only
questions, absolutely not undermining what just affirmed in the first
paragraph. It is always useful to contextualize subversive or apparently
subversive authors, as well as whoever and whatever.
British Secret Police
corps do not seem to have in any way, or not in an effective way, interfered
with his life, tried annihilating it, silenced him. We may suggest that
perhaps, despite his denunciations, he do not contradict current stereotypes
and interests of the British Empire (I use this formulation because the British
Crown is considerably more than the UK). For instance, if his denunciations of
the British Royal house may not be too much liked from it (or perhaps they like
this kind of publicity), certainly his campaigning from an independent, not
‘mondialist’, UK is absolutely consistent with the British Crown policies (conflicting
with the U.S. ones despite apparent continuous convergences), even if Icke see
it as mondialist and part of a mondialist or a-national network.
The British Crown is ‘mondialist’,
but with its own mondialism. So it likes, as a useful cover, anti-dollar,
anti-euro and other similar demagogies, and that for the banal reasons that the
UK have dimensions (both as space ad population) considerably inferior than the
USA. If the UK tries to dominate the world by financial and other less visible networks
(services etc), the USA ‘colonise’ it by a growing web of military bases, what
the UK could not afford since its reduced scale dimensions. For the UK, it is a
question of reduced budget, relatively to the USA, but it is also a different imperial
model.
At page ix of (Icke
1999), as part of a banner or pre-introduction, we find a quotation from
Wilhelm Reich, the Austrian brilliant psychiatrist and psychoanalyst, a
scientist, persecuted and jailed, in the USA, after WWII, since his researches.
Six tons of his books, journals, and papers were burned. He died in jail. It
was a relatively short detention. Since it was and is easy, in US prisons, to
induce strokes, it is not improbable he was assassinated since government
order. His researches and work contradicted current medical stereotypes and
interests, but also current moralism. Also his assistant, Michael Silvert, jailed
with him, disappeared after being released. Officially he committed suicide. When
too many people, or connected people, targeted from a government die in
doubtful circumstances, it is generally improbable it be casual. Anglophone
countries, not only them, have a long history of covert assassinations of independent
minds.
It should not at all
disrupt the British monarchy that one of his subjects remembers U.S. horrors
instead of British ones. About his denunciation of the Satanism and
reptilianism of the British Crown and its networks, we cannot really know whether
it really dislike or, on the contrary, appreciate such unmasking or publicity.
More generally, since there
is a lot of movies (an industry tightly controlled from ‘cultural’ departments
of Secret Police corps), we may not think that the so-called ‘conspiratorial’ (it
is considerably more conspiratorial, in the negative meaning of this word, who believes
in the State/government unbelievable self-justifications and deceptions for
covering whatever State/government crime!) literature, in part or large part
certainly produced from specialized departments of Secret Police corps, be
really opposed from power. On the contrary, it objectively appears very useful
for presenting, in an apparently unbelievable way, as tales, as science
fiction, the Imperial agenda, for preparing people to it. This is the function
of all the ‘catastrophist’ culture. What is not anyway an Icke (and other
supposedly honest authors) fault.
Problem-reaction-solution,
usefully evidenced form Icke, is a banal and classical mechanism for creating
problems and offering false solutions accruing one’s or its own power. It is a
classical, although despicable, power/government practice. ...Problem-reaction-pseudosolution,
for rapidly creating other problems and other pseudosolutions, and so on. In
this way, bureaucracies exponentially grow, society is destroyed, public expenditure
and debt go out of control and systemic implosions are always possible,
eventually overcome from some Statist dictatorship. ... Problem-reaction-pseudosolution...
The militarist-police
bloc is tendencially liberist for destroying other nations and nazi-communist inside
its own country or State. It simulates liberism for destruction. It implements
nazi-communist policies as normal form of control and domination. Its basic model
is different levels of slaves at the absolute orders of a very restricted
oligarchy of only some puppet masters.
Different and opposed
ideologies are just smoke and deception for dividing and manipulating poor
idiots, the various levels of slaves. They will be one day overcome from a
unitary ‘culture’, what will be only a formal difference relatively to nowadays
apparent pluralism.
It is sadly true that people
need to be told what to think. What watched on TV and cinemas (now on Internet)
becomes immediately as truthful, if presented in some professional way. Apparent
pluralism is just a form of marketing. The same contents are presented under
apparently different cultural and political-ideological frames. One is
convinced to be different while it is told him/her what to think from one
branch of the same power. People vote for different parties implementing the
same polices once in office. What is the difference?
The (Icke 1999) biggest
secret is “that a reptilian race from
another dimension has been controlling the planet for thousands of years.” (Icke 1999, p. 029). He sees invisible super-human
forces governing everything. Their, or of their evil fraction, eventually visible
representatives are reptilians, needing human blood for forcing themselves to
assume human forms. For him, humans live as in a holographic television
channel. Different realities can coexist, in the same space or at different
levels, reciprocally invisible. Physical and natural sciences provide different
explanations about these realities and possibilities. At the same time, the
universe is too limitless for permitting supposing that only the planet earth
have what we call humans. In addition, since Darwinism seems plausible although
be not consistent with other natural science discoveries, creationism (the
external introduction of humans on earth) is not so banal as it could appear
when presented from clergy. Icke studies all that and exposes the results of his
investigations.
The testimony of Jennifer
Greene / Arizona Wilder, he interviewed years ago, is particularly suggestive.
She, previously mind conditioned from Joseph Mengele, refers, also with their
real name, to shape-shifters, from humans to reptilians. Icke is clearly under
her influence when he talks of the ubiquity of reptilians in power networks.
There is no apparent reason to doubt of the testimony of Jennifer Greene / Arizona
Wilder, although some further investigation on the various aspects of these metamorphoses
would be very useful. Certainly, it is not an easy matter. It would not be easy, it would be nearly impossible,
to have some real analysis of the body of the people named from Jennifer Greene
/ Arizona Wilder and to have material evidence about their eventual need of
human blood (for preserving human forms instead of going back to their
reptilian nature) and about their metamorphoses.
It would be easy to
declare that what cannot be precisely proved be false. It is a current refrain
obtuse and opportunist academicians love to propose, when useful for
stigmatising whatever heterodox. Actually, it is not so. When the object subtracts
to analysis, it could be claimed that it may be truthful what not proved false.
Also this assertion would not be precise. Anyway what cannot proved as false,
since the impossibility to analyse the object of the investigation, may be
scientifically correct to assume it (if there are apparently credible
testimonies) as possibly truthful while waiting for further elements. From the
other side, a lot of stereotypes assumed as truthful, because convenient, are
not at all provable as such and they are very likely false.
States of denial
determine too easy rejections of what not conforming to Pavlovian conditioned
reflexes, to the mental schemes of ‘lobotomized’ minds. From the opposite side,
there are also people wanting to believe the apparently unbelievable whatever it
be. There actually are too many phenomena which are not explicable with banal,
apparently rational, linear pseudo-explanations. Governments using the State Secret (‘reasons of national security’)
relatively to matter without any real security reason is at least an element of
evidence about hidden worlds power want preserve as such. There is also massive
evidence about government intervention for blocking whatever investigation
about various form of Satanism overall when power networks (at not high levels
too) are involved.
In Icke, the presentation
of ethnographic evidence combines, perhaps inevitably, with his own interpretation.
The advantage of his expositive technique is that his interpretations are
evident and they can be easily separated from the information he provides. Or
another hypothesis is that he had an extra-sensorial awareness, the natural
access to levels of knowledge, other people have not. It is always easy to identify
what we may not, or not yet, access, and consequently what can be a revelation as
well as a simple hypothesis of the author.
It is not certainly more
scientific, certainly is globally less, the current academic vision, largely
propagandistic, of human and social disciplines, where everything is presented
as it was generated and living in a closed system, without any possible
external influence, while natural sciences, even only the direct experience of
the planet earth, show that this planet is an open system in constant
interaction with infiniteness.
One might hypothesize
(without denying the hypothesis of reptilian presence or ubiquity in power
network, and all the connected ritualisms and esotericisms) that the author
needs to build a big, immense, conspiracy because he does not understand how
State bureaucracies, and specifically Secret Police services, departments and
officers work. What he calls cover-ups made possible since the networks he
exposes are actually possible since laws and regulations permitting
institutions to create, manage and cover (by the State Secret, the so-called Reasons
of National Security) Secret Police services, departments and officers and
their crimes. Secret Police [whatever their actual denomination] services,
departments and officers are created specifically for committing insanities and
crimes, at institutional orders. They basically are bureaucracies and people
for whom the right place would be asylums and prisons, together with the ‘people’
of the institutions leading them. On the contrary they can commit insanities,
crimes and insane crime thanks to laws and regulations about Secret Police
corps and about the State Secret, the
so-called Reasons of National Security,
made for assuring their secrecy and their legal unaccountability.
When there are exceptions
as the assassinations of the same Presidents and et similia,who should manage them, it is because there a going on
coup d’État. Such were, for instance, the Kennedys’ assassinations. There is no
need of the networks exposed or supposed from Icke. They may exist. However,
States/governments are a more powerful and totalitarian machine. If such
networks exist, they are under tight State/government control. Of course real
States/governments are those legitimized from people vote although not
depending from it. There is no ‘democratic’ either parliamentary control on
real State/government. Everything is delegated to Statesmen/women who generally
are too busy either in their own businesses and corruption, or in using the
Secret Police apparatuses at their own advantage, for instance for liquidating
competitors. Although with continuous institutional signatures under the secret
decrees for committing insanities and crimes also against their own subjects (the
so-called citizens), and apart from exceptional
State terrorist or other exceptional State/government criminal operations, the
whole State/government terrorist-mafia-criminal machine managed through Secret
Police apparatuses goes on since inertial forces and, according to current bureaucratic
‘logics’, it progressively expands itself. Everything is even more complicated for
comprador States/governments, clients of their owners. However it is always
State/government which creates and manages such apparatuses. They are not usually
composed from ‘007’ but from insane and maniacal-criminal bureaucrats using a
vast mass of irregulars with their same characteristics.
About the UK, Icke indirectly
evidences the dualism between the Crown and the formal governments. The formal
government had considerable power. However, the final control of the Secret
Police apparatuses comes from the Crown. The British formal government can
organize the subversion of Libya. On the contrary, for instance, operations as
the Omagh bombing and the Diana
assassination clearly were British Crown Secret Police operations, the former
against the formal government (in my opinion, apparently from forces did not
want a pacified North Ireland what was in the Blair plans), the latter for
other purposes.
The 15 August 1998 Omagh
bombing was clearly organized from a British Secret Police who amassed people
where there was the ‘IRA’ bomb, while the IRA was repetitiously warning that
the police was not clearing the area but, on the contrary, amassing people.
Perhaps not casually, nobody was convicted for the massacre, massacre since the
government action, while a simple demonstrative bomb for the IRA fraction
organized it, which had no responsibility for the massacre and actually tried
to avoid the police-organized massacre. If a police, under some superior
management, amasses people where it was credibly warned there was a
bomb...
A banal interpretation
of the Diana assassination is that she was pregnant outside her first marriage,
what could not allowed, from a paranoid point of view, for the mother of a
future King. On the contrary, the well documented interpretation of Icke,
suggested from Jennifer Greene / Arizona Wilder, is of a ritualistic reptilian
murder after having used Diana just for producing the future King of the UK and
an accessory child. To watch and listen the free available (on youtube) long
interview from David Icke to Jennifer Greene / Arizona Wilder would be a
perfect complement of the Icke book, also on this point. There is nothing wrong
to be influenced from a witness, an insider, reputed credible and apparently being
such.
The networks exposed or
supposed from Icke have the de facto
function, in the Icke exposition, of deresponsabilizing real
States/governments. It may be argued that reptilians have occupied key power
position because they are powerful, although it may be argued that, if they
need to occupy power positions, it is because they are not so powerful, so they
need the power of State/government structures.
The Icke claiming that
John Kennedy and Diana were driven to their position for being ritually assassinated
did not consider that if the Kennedys had submitted to the militarist bloc and
if Diana had lived silently and, overall, without becoming pregnant and
dreaming other marriages, perhaps they would have not been assassinated. That
the Kennedys assassinations had precise power reasons is difficulty
contestable. They were a threat for the militarist-police bloc.
According to the Jennifer
Greene / Arizona Wilder testimony, Diana was chosen to be ritually murdered in
the tunnel where she as assassinated. Icke literally inundated with esoteric
symbolisms about this assassinations. In effect, keeping an injured person, for
a long time, where the accident happened, until she is dead... When there is
the hand of Secret Police corps, evidence is always made to disappear, avoided,
messed up etc, what was the case in the Diana ‘accident’. When something is
absolutely casual there is no need of abnormal behaviours, secrecy, biases etc.
There is neither the need of Secret Police corps interfering with ‘investigations’.
What on the contrary happened in the Diana case, with absolutely abnormal pseudo-investigations
for covering up everything.
The method of
associations can be useful in various aspects of the historical work, although
it might be deceitful in other ones. The play of symbolisms can allow to discover
symbolisms in whatever. In addition, it supposes too cultivated puppet masters
when generally they are not at all such. Sometimes they may be although
generally they be not such.
From one side, the
author describes an irresistible conspiracy from an omnipotent reptilian
network. From the other side, he claims it/they may be easy defeated by
awareness, people awareness. If they (reptilian networks) existed and they were
omnipotent, it would not be so easy to defeat, even only to contrast, them.
People refuse to face the reality of actual States/governments and need to invent
‘obscure forces’. They (reptilian networks) may exist. They may be not so
omnipotent, although they may appear omnipotent because they are in a for-them promiscuous
interaction with powerful State bureaucracies.
The author solves his
inconsistency, or apparent inconsistency, with a NPL technique, stating that we
are what we feel, what is only partially true. There always are external force
we do not control and not necessarily ceasing to interact with us, or to eventually
obstruct us, only because we see them and reality in a different way. We can
control our own reality, but only partially, and anyway we cannot totally, or
in a relevant way, change or avoid external reality. It may be possible, but it
may not be possible or not always.
Also the author’s
futuristic information and hypotheses are surely interesting and useful. There
is certainly a lot of military research without spillovers to civilian fields. What
make vane the conformist custom to ‘analyse’ reality according only to what is
commonly known, ...and with self-censorship for opportunistic self-convenience.
Icke is a good help for watching
outside current conformist frames, although a conformist-opportunist chap would
simply avoid this kind of literature, if not for stigmatising it.
Icke, D., The Biggest Secret. The book that will change
the world, Bridge of Love Publications, Scottsdale, Arizona, USA, 1999.
