“David
Icke: Was He Right?” is something as weird as a pro-Icke documentary shown on
mainstream television. I watched it on a Swedish TV channel years ago. (Or
perhaps it was another version than the one released on YouTube – I have a faint memory that the original documentary was
longer! Or is that just the Mandela Effect?) At the time, many people still
talked about Icke and his bizarre conspiracy theories. I´m not sure if he is
still as popular as he used to be during the 90´s and 00´s.
David Icke
was a British media personality and political activist who turned New Age
prophet around 1990, was mocked for his efforts at the BBC´s Wogan show (and
pretty much everywhere else) and then went on to become one of the most
controversial conspiracy theorists of the decade. Icke´s early books quoted the
Protocols of the Elders of Zion, one of them was translated to Swedish by an
anti-Semitic sect, and Nazis occasionally showed up at his meetings. So did
radical leftists…in order to bust them up. Personally, I don´t think Icke was
ever a fascist or anti-Semite sensu stricto, but his ideas could be given such
a spin by others. During the 00s, this became virtually impossible, as David suddenly
declared that the enemies are “Aryan reptilian bloodlines” from the star constellation of Draco or perhaps from another dimension of reality altogether. Yes, Icke claimed that the Bush clan, Henry Kissinger and Queen Elizabeth II are evil alien shape-shifters whose true forms are reptoid. Of course, some
leftists still insisted that “Aryan reptilian” was simply clever code for “Jew”.
Those who realized that Icke probably meant it decided to stay away from the
kerfuffle forever after…
“David
Icke: Was He Right?” does mention the reptilian problematique, but only three
times. Most of the production tries to show the conspiracist author at his most
rational, discussing the Iraqi War (which he opposed), false flag operations,
media censorship and the like. We get to see Icke in a confrontation with
London police officers, but also “David the family man” playing soccer with his
son, traveling to Isle of Wight on holiday, and so on. Both David Icke´s
current wife Pamela and his ex-wife Linda turn out to be strong supporters of his
activities, Linda apparently being director of the actual publishing and
speaking enterprise built around him. No critics are featured, only fans and supporters,
many of whom turn up at a monster mass meeting in London to hear the man
lecture. Icke himself looks old and tired, but there is no doubt that he really
believes in the message, both the standard anti-establishment part and the,
shall we say, non-standard dimensions. The most interesting part briefly
mentions Icke´s original epiphany, which took place at a sacred site in Peru
and reminds me of “kundalini awakening”. Icke also states that his conspiracy
theories and dire predictions are *not* based on revelations of this kind, but
on normal research.
Despite the
pro-Icke slant, I nevertheless recommend this documentary to those interested
in the David Icke phenomenon. Further reading: “A Culture of Conspiracy” by
Michael Barkun and “Them! Adventures with Extremists” by John Ronson. The most classical of Icke´s own books is "The Biggest Secret", reviewed by me elsewhere on this blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSome say that in the Brittish laws that prosecute libel there is a paragraph that says if the libel is too absurd, you cannot be sued. I don't know if it is correct but if it is this may be an explanation for the reptilian theory.
ReplyDeleteIf you claim that a leading person (like, for instance, the Queen) is a Satanist that regulary eats children it could indeed be seen as libel. But if you add that this person also is a shapeshifting reptile coming from another dimension you cannot be sued. Because then it is so absurd that no one can believe it.
Some think indeed that this is the reason for the reptilian theory - David Icke should therefore be seen as not so TOTALLY mad after all, but rather a little bit tactical..
Yes, you told me this already 15 years ago, I think. It *is* an interesting theory. David Icke looks like a "wacko" in the everyday sense of that term (don´t we all, LOL) but he is hardly clinical. Also, it´s not *entirely* clear whether the reptilians are physical beings or simply a kind of demonic consciousness - if the latter, then Icke is simply using a colorful metaphor for a spiritual position (that the world leaders are evil and therefore "demonic"). Also, the "Aryan" part sounds like tactics. It could be a tactic against both the adulating Nazis and the opposing leftists: both will leave him alone if he attacks "Aryan reptilians" rather than Illuminati exposed in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
ReplyDeleteHmmm...
I did some checking on Wiki. No such libel law seems to exist in the UK. On the contrary, in British libel suits, the defendant has to prove that his statements are true, or at the very least that they are of such a nature that a reasonable person can hold them. By this token, David Icke would lose every time! So perhaps his tactic is of a different character, and I believe you mentioned this possibility also when we discussed Icke IRL: he is “pleading insanity”. No reasonable person would want to sue him for libel, since that would make the *plaintiff* a laughing stock! Imagine Henry Kissinger suing David Icke for claiming that Kissinger is a shape-shifting lizard from another galaxy… :D
ReplyDeleteWhy has Cathy O´Brien never been sued?
ReplyDeleteGood question. My knowledge of the law in these cases is limited to Wiki articles... :-(
ReplyDeleteIn general, freedom of speech is broader in the US than in the UK. Apparently, if a bizarre statement is framed as an "opinion" rather than a "fact", it´s not libel.
Also, if a statement is patently absurd, it´s not libel. Wiki mentions a case where Hustler Magazine (a porn mag) claimed in a parody ad that Jerry Falwell was a paedophile. Falwell sued but lost the case!
Could this be used by O´Brien? Of course, the most likely explanation is that the people attacked in O´Brien´s book doesn´t want her claims to be widely known (whether true or false) and therefore chose not to sue her...
Finally, libel laws are somewhat different in different states.
I tend NOT to believe in Cathy O´Briens concrete accusations, but I think that what she describes in some way exists, in general terms.
ReplyDeleteIf she was put to trial this would lead to discussions, if something similar to whar she describes indeed may exist, and I think many in the US ruling elite don´t want to have this kind of discussions....
Same with Pizzagate...
ReplyDeleteHar förresten fått Janet Bords bok om "älvor". Wow!
ReplyDeleteJag ser förvisso fram emot din - recension.
ReplyDelete