Another Savior Or Another Crank?

Throughout history the human species has, at fairly regular intervals, produced individuals who believed they were on a mission to change mankind and/or the world, or their followers have dubbed them with that dubious honor after they were gone. Long before one of the better “masters”, Siddhartha Gautama is purported to have achieved Enlightenment five hundred years pre-Jesus of Nazareth, there were those who sought power and wealth by marketing their self-delusions, or just plain lies.

Equally, there has always been a ready audience willing to jump on the ‘master’s’ bandwagon and declare themselves “followers”. It’s a strange and fascinating quirk of Homo sapiens, this need to adhere to and admire the “Alpha-male.” Neither is it confined to the less intellectual of the species. The so-called “Great Religions” are adequate proof of that. In fact, any supernatural factor with which the “master” can imbue himself, greatly increases his appeal to his followers. One only has to study the incredible incomes amassed by men like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and other religion-toting “masters” to realize the immense magnetism of one believed to maintain close and personal contact with a supernatural deity.

In the West, modern day, would-be, “masters” have found the field rather cluttered. Christianity being the major, and therefore most lucrative market, has become almost a closed shop, dominated by the wealthy American fundamentalists. The self-professed prophet of the late 20th/early 21st century needed a new angle, and after the wildly successful, though somewhat brief reign of Swiss writer, Erich von Daniken, whose books caused a no less notable tome than the British Sunday Mirror to proclaim in front page headlines, “IS GOD A SPACEMAN?”, the idea of metamorphosing Christianity’s omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent deity to a more physical version, almost a modern-day, intergalactic Olympian, seemed a bandwagon worthy of exploration.

Von Daniken lacked credentials, but even some from the more conservative scientific community poured forth credulous theories in a form that became known as “popular science”. The respected psychiatrist and psychoanalyst Immanuel Velikovsky threw himself out on a limb with suggestions of galactic happenings lapped up by the advocates of this new medium. As a young man, I slavishly read all von Daniken’s and Velikovski’s books, without questioning – until much later in life – the scientific accuracy of their content.

Later, when I had learned to take nothing at face value, and to cross reference so-called “irrefutable facts” to establish their true veracity, it became obvious that neither von Daniken nor Velikovski could offer any solid scientific basis for hypotheses, von Daniken at least, had proclaimed to be fact.

While I consider von Daniken little more than a charlatan, I do agree with Stephen Jay Gould, in his 1977 essay, “Velikovski in Collision” when he states,

“Velikovsky is neither crank nor charlatan�although to state my opinion and to quote one of my colleagues, he is at least gloriously wrong.”

Since the days of von Daniken and Velikovski, “popular science” has declined somewhat, but there is still room for a modern day seer to fill the gap.

When a young, fresh-faced David Icke wandered onto the set of the BBC’s “Terry Wogan” show back in 1991 and announced to the audience he was the “Son of God”, he seemed more of a village idiot than a modern day prophet.

Icke now says he was misinterpreted, that he was merely stating he was one of the son-s of God, as we all are. Unfortunately, that full interview is not available on the web, just an edited version that begins after Icke’s revelation of his divinity. I, however, do not need the film clip. At the time, I was following Icke’s career with interest. He was a spokesperson for the Green Party in Britain, and often on television. With an interest in matters environmental, I was always keen to hear what he had to say and was tuned into “Wogan” the night in question. I can categorically state, hand on heart, that if Icke insists he did not blatantly and openly announce he was the Son of God, with a capital “S” and a capital “G”, he is lying. I watched; I heard; I noted.

Icke was virtually laughed off the stage that night, and any career he was following disintegrated. He lost his Green Party job – he was hardly a credible spokesperson – and disappeared into obscurity, only to return a few years later with a tale of reptilian creatures, the Illuminati, a supposed powerful elite, composed of Fourth Dimension reptilian extra-terrestrial humanoids, running the world in the guise of, among others: George Bush, the Clintons, The British Royal Family, Kris Kristofferson, and the singer Boxcar Willie. Quite what poor old Boxcar had done to deserve the “Lizard” title belies reason. If Icke had included Dick Cheney, a human with the closest approximation to a reptile on the planet today, he could perhaps be considered a tad more credible, at least by some.

As to yet another resurrection of the “Illuminati”, that much maligned band of philosophical atheists who upset the Church of Rome back in the late eighteenth century, and whose reputations have suffered from the effects of Papal lies and falsifications ever since, Dan Brown beat Icke to the punch with his novel “Angels and Demons” in which he claimed the Illuminati to be an important and powerful secret society. Nothing could be further from the truth; though Brown at least had the grace never to suggest it was more than a novel. The Illuminati were founded in Bavaria on May 1, 1776 by Adam Weishaupt. The Order was abolished and its members disbanded in 1785. In 1783, two years prior to its dissolution, Weishaupt wrote to a fellow member:

“I am deprived of help. Socrates*, who would insist on having a position of trust amongst us, and is really a man of talent, of the right way of thinking, is certainly drunk. Augustus’ reputation could not be worse. Alcibiades does nothing but sit all day long with the vinter’s pretty wife and spends his whole time in sighing and pinning with love. … Tiberius attempted to ravish the wife of Democides, and her husband took them in the act. …”

*Illuminati members assumed classical Greek or Roman names for themselves.

Hardly the words of an evil, satanic, sect leader.

The Illuminati were never revived, except in the fertile imaginations of New World preachers back in 1798, when with a lot of hard work the population was whipped into Illuminati hysteria as a means of inducing them back into the pews from whence they’d tended to stray over the preceding years. Since then, the much maligned and short-lived Order of the Illuminati has been allowed to rest in peace, except for occasional resurrections, once by the self-styled British black magician, Aliester Crowley, and for the purposes of best selling novels and one, self-styled, modern day seer.

There is neither room here, nor any great desire on the part of the writer, to pursue Icke’s weird ideas in greater detail. To believe his tales, one has to accept he hears voices, has been chosen to communicate with “fourth dimensional” beings, and is in some way a very gifted individual, superior to the rest of us. I would not argue with anyone who finds his stories credible. For me, anecdotal evidence that has little or no basis in fact and relies solely on the integrity of the informer, is worthless.

Icke makes much of the Bilderberg Group, proclaiming them a secret society plotting world domination behind closed doors. No-one, he says, ever knows what goes on in these annual get-togethers of corporate and political might. The official explanation is that it presents a rare opportunity for attendees to discuss matters frankly without media intrusion. While I am opposed to anything that isn’t completely open government, a chance to chat free of media encumbrance is not a totally unreasonable explanation, particularly, since schNews managed to purloin a transcript of the 1999 meeting, the contents of which appear relatively innocuous.

Another of Icke’s favorites is the much fabled, “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. The content was plagiarized from a political satire pamphlet by the Frenchman Maurice Joly, around the mid-19th century. The pamphlet was entitled, “The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.” In 1921, the London Times ran a series of articles conclusively proving the “Protocols” to be a fake work.

Few would argue that much of what Icke professes contains elements of truth, but they have never been peculiar to him. The rise of corporate power is an obvious factor, as is US empire-building, but the idea of a worldwide conspiracy is plain daft. Yes, conspiracies exist. I have written of corporate conspiracies many times in Sparrow Chat. Every time a boardroom sits, the doors are closed, security is checked, and matters are discussed in a conspiratorial manner. Why? For fear competitors may infiltrate and gain a march on that company’s strategy.

The make-up of the human species does not allow for a united worldwide conspiracy. Corporates don’t yet control the planet. They do control America and its media, and certain other nations, but in Mafia style, though more sophisticated; lots of individual units all scheming and plotting to gain the advantage of the others, each energized by greed and the lust for power. Nowhere was this more obvious in the last twenty years than in the downfall of Soviet Russia, when gangster businessmen like Boris Berezovski moved in, bought out state companies and looted that nation of 90% of its wealth virtually overnight. Individual greed will always reign supreme. A minimal degree of cooperation may be utilized occasionally for a mutually beneficial purpose, but such cosy relationships rarely last long.

No, it’s that sheer lust for greed and power that threatens this planet, not reptilian beings in need of our genes. I’m afraid, to me a least, Icke’s fairy stories smack of an episode from the sixties TV series, “Twilight Zone”.

I would conclude by simply repeating that over the millennia many have come to save the world, or make it better, and have gone again without achieving much success. Some of the greatest have even managed immortality if only in legend, and the hearts of their present day devotees. Long after their passing, such men as Ghandi, Jesus of Nazareth, the Buddha, remain fixed in the memory.

Two years after David Icke’s demise, you may walk down the street and ask the passers by if they remember him. They’ll look at you with blank expressions and ask, “Who?”

An excellently researched essay entitled: ” The Enlightenment, Freemasonry, and The Illuminati” by Conrad Goeringer is available HERE.

An interesting article by Michael Marsden of the New Humanist, entitled “Alpha Male” is available HERE.

Finally, for his side of the story, David Icke’s website can be accessed HERE.

Filed under:

Please follow and like us:

7 Replies to “Another Savior Or Another Crank?”

  1. WOW. I bow, sir, to your scholarship.

    Yes it does seem that we – homo sapiens – are always on the lookout for someone to tell us what to do, which path to take, which commandments to obey. Well, it’s much less bother than thinking for yourself. Unfortunately it is more dangerous too.

    We are so terrified of even contemplating the possibility the life may not be ‘about’ anything that we are ready to follow almost anyone who will offer us ‘truths’ and ‘certainties’, which we cling to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

    Evolutionary theory may have its ‘gaps’ but it does offer – for me at any rate – the most convincing explanation of why we are ‘here’.

    We are, indeed – as Chris Langham recently (and rather desperately) asserted – ‘a work in progress’.

    I do think there is such a thing as ‘spirituality’ but that this is also a product of evolution.

    Of course I could be totally wrong. But for the moment I will worship at the altar of doubt.

  2. What a fascinating self-indictment your posting is.As you seem to have deemed Icke unworthy of your further attention,you have nontheless taken an inordinately long time to type out your posting,if not research it.It must indeed be a ‘non-news-week’if there is nothing else in the world for you to comment on;resulting as it did from my,yes,goading you with my accusation of prejudice.My simple point as to whether you had ever actually read any book of Icke’s before passing your judgement has now,by your own hand,been answered with a resounding NO.Your piece is littered with this or that reference,all of which appear to be obsolete,irrelevant,incomplete or obscure.The overall impression to your readers may be one of a ‘thoroughly researched’ posting,but in fact you have been extremely selective,cherry-picking,in an attempt to support your view,whilst making no mention of the real facts freely available to you had you had the integrity and courage to include them,for fairness’ sake if nothing else. But in any event,that is itself largely irrelevant as it is your blog,and therefore you would,wouldn’t you? The reason for my reply here is to prove my previous point,or rather,allow you to prove it for me.That you have written a posting which is not based on evidence is,in the scheme of things,neither here nor there. That you then attempt a ham-fisted hatchet-job based on your ignorance,prejudice and bigotry is inexcusable.How do I know you haven’t read a single word of any book of his? Let me go through your posting as you wrote it,and your readers can decide for themselves.
    1. Your first major point,repeated (remember ‘repeaters’?)with glee is Icke’s appearance on the Wogan show in 1991.For your American readers,Wogan is,in my opinion,an ill-educated,boorish,sanctimonious individual who is,unfortunately for us, overpaid and over here.You skim over the fact that there is only an edited version of this ‘interview’,and that his alleged statement of being the ‘Son of God’ is not actually on the videotape. Stop for one moment to ask yourself why would that be?? There was such a MEDIA frenzy over it (and people like you still try to use it to your advantage)that any reasonable person intent on ridiculing the victim would NEVER edit it out.That was supposed to be the laughing stock,wasn’t it? So why was it edited out then? Logically,the only explanation has to be- because he actually did not say that in the way the media said he did,and the context was also lost.Here in the UK we are in the centre of a controversy because a TV channel split,spliced and edited together a cobble of statements,completely out of context, for the purposes of sensationalising the programme. 59 hours of filming edited into 1 hour of programme.The Police and the Crown Prosecution Service,having reviewed all 59 hours,promptly reported Channel 4 to the TV Regulator,and it is possible criminal charges may be brought against that company.This illustrates what has happened to Icke-and mystically the only piece of ‘incriminating’evidence against him,his alleged utterance of those words,has disappeared into the ether.In his truly excellent essay (deeply-researched,note JR),Richard Finnegan (of whom,more later)quotes Icke,from a transcript,as actually saying “a son of Godhead” Not quite the same,then, as your so-called remembrance. So now let us address your statement that you ‘watched’,’heard’ and ‘noted’. Ordinarily,I would not mention it because it is irrelevant to most correspondence,but in this case it most certainly is relevant,so at this point I would like to reveal my profession.I am a practising barrister of 43 years experience in the Courts,from Magistrate to High Court.I have prosecuted,and defended all manner of persons from all walks of life,and must frequently,as you would expect,subject all EVIDENCE to the most rigorous scrutiny,before,during and after a case.And most especially the evidence,visual and/or verbal,of witnesses.Thousands of them over my career. You,JR,must be the ‘superior’ one,nay,perhaps even a chosen one.For you possess something which neither I nor any of my learned colleagues,have EVER encountered in all those years experience at the sharp end.YOU have a audiographic memory.YOU apparently can remember,with absolute accuracy (even down to the capital letters-how did you distinguish those from speech,by the way?) the precise words of someone you supposedly consider a nobody,instantly forgettable.That in itself is more than remarkable,but you go further. YOU can do this from a fleeting appearance(with nothing to refresh your memory on videotape)on a now obscure programme broadcast SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! Now I take my hat off to that. Speaking personally,many traumatic events have punctuated my private life and career,but the words spoken even at those most desperate times are lost forever in my memory.Your readers hopefully will ask themselves if THEY can accurately remember ANY words spoken on such an obscure programme from 1991. I know the answer,and so should you. I note from your bio that you served as an RSPCA officer.I have acted for the Society on quite a few occasions against appellants,and one of my good friends in life came as a result of that work,so I do have contacts within the RSPCA.Perhaps they remember you.In any event you should,therefore,have been trained in basic legal procedure,as well as evidence gathering and subsequent presentation to the Courts.TO ENSURE JUSTICE IS DONE,ALL EVIDENCE,FOR OR AGAINST,MUST BE PRESENTED IN FULL.The ‘bread and butter’ for my profession is the human tendency to get it wrong. It happens VERY extensively with so-called ‘eyewitness’ evidence. What starts out with “I’m certain it was him” ends up as “I think it was him”.Often more than one ‘eyewitness’ describes totally different versions of the same event! Audio evidence,what was said,is if anything even more unreliable.Any salesman will tell you that people ignore,mishear,mistranslate or just plain twist words. It’s natural,we have selective senses. Even words spoken very recently,hours later even,are frequently lost in the repeating.Chinese whispers. Now, JR,as you should know,that is precisely why,under PACE, you as an RSPCA officer,and every Police officer,had to make CONTEMPORANEOUS notes of anything both said by you and said to you. So that there was,at least,a fighting chance that evidence later given in Court sometimes months later,was accurate. But here you are,never mind months,but 16 years later,professing to remember to the letter! So the words you used in your posting to try to convince us of your veracity,i.e. you ‘watched,heard and noted’ are spurious.You may have watched,you may have heard,but you certainly did not note,and your assertion of same is patently self-aggrandising and bring into question your integrity.On a final note on this,I mentioned your comments on your 16 year old remembered words to my mentor,an extremely learned and highly-educated man,with even more experience than myself,and asked him what he thought.He also had never come across such a remarkable person. He pondered a moment,then said “He is either deluded or mistaken in his memory” I pointed out that your absolute insistence,down to the capital letters,precluded a mistake and therefore delusion,and he then said “then he is either a fool or a liar,or both”. You stated that if Icke has said anything other than what you state,he was lying. Well,Icke has never said anything other than the truth. So he wasn’t lying,but can the same be said for you in the light of the above?
    2. (I’m going to get through the rest quickly now) You cannot compare Dan Brown’s works of fiction with Icke’s research(unless of course you are attempting a hatchet-job),Disingenuous and misleading,as the one is based on a different fictional premise to the other.But then you have had to admit to being a little misleading in your writing before.
    3. The Illuminati have been in existence under different names since Babylonian and Sumerian times.Wikipaedia is not the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.
    4. If you had READ just one of his books,you would be well aware that the despicable Cheney is not just named and shamed,but is absolutely prominent and abhorrently involved at the highest level of corruption worldwide. So perhaps,in your eyes,Icke might be a ‘tad more credible’ after all.You show your ignorance and lack of research again.
    5. You state that “anecdotal evidence that has little or no basis in fact,and relies solely on the integrity of the informer is worthless” Firstly,Icke’s books are stuffed full of checkable facts,but you choose to totally ignore that.Secondly,that sentence is the mote in thine own eye.
    6. Bilderberg group. Transcript ‘purloined’ ?? Really?? From where? One of the highest security-level discussions on the planet allow a transcript to be ‘purloined’?I don’t think so.A nice convenient leak,perhaps.
    7. You falsely give the distorted impression that the ‘Protocols of Zion’ are a ‘favourite’ of Icke’s.AGAIN showing your ignorance of the actual words he has written. I have 4 of his books,totalling some 1,750 pages.There are but FOUR mentions of them,ranging froma paragraph to a single page.Hardly a ‘favourite’. Distortion yet again.
    8. Finally,your comments regarding the greed,lust for power certain individuals is self-evidently obvious. These are the very qualities which will,over time,result in the many being ‘sheepled’by the few. It is naive in the extreme to think that individuals will always or ever be rich enough to exert those controls over us over and beyond the State,let alone the New World Order.The likes of Berezowski and his ilk are but fleeting pawns in the game.
    In conclusion,and so that your readers might find a balance,I suggest they type into Google the words David Icke Wogan 1991. There they will find views for and against.They should in particular check out the videotape of NOT ONLY Icke’s appearance on (edited/censored)Wogan in 1991, but should then contrast that with his re-appearance on Wogan’s own ‘Then and Now’ program in 2006. He makes Wogan look like the bumbling ignorant fool that he is,and the audience reaction to Icke’s amazement at Wogan’s ineptitude is telling. You forgot to mention that one JR. I heartily recommend the aforementioned essay by Richard Finnegan,a piece written by a journalist of real integrity.It can be accessed at No,JR,he doesn’t actually believe in Icke’s message,so he is an anti. The enormous differences between his piece and yours are that a)he has researched Icke the man very thoroughly, b)he has taken the necessary expedient to reach his conclusions,i.e. actually READ HIS BOOKS, c)he writes absolutely free from prejudice,distortion,bias and downright bigotry d)he has DONE HIS RESEARCH. (You should also read it JR,he talks a lot about you and people like you.) For all these reasons,even though he does not believe Icke’s ideas any more than you do,JR,I consider his contribution to the debate to be a superb one.He at least has the decency and integrity to refrain from the sneer,and base his conclusions on facts.
    I regret that this reply must inevitably turn somewhat personal,but you yourself prompted this by your own pen. Bigotry and prejudice,even literary,in all its forms cannot be allowed to go unchallenged. I too have made an error here,however. I stated before that you were not a ‘repeater’. Please watch Icke’s 2006 Wogan appearance,where he describes you precisely as that. He is right,I was wrong. I doubt very much whether you will let this piece rest as the last word you promised me.It’s your blog.But you will be happy to hear that I will not be engaging in ‘debate’ with you again. I rather hoped I had found a little oasis of integrity,truth and honesty in this vast mire of deceipt,lies and distortion. Apparently not. It seems that Sparrow-chat is aptly named

  3. Greta – welcome to Sparrow Chat. I believe one of the greatest assets man has is his ability to doubt. To throw oneself into another’s beliefs, unquestioning, is to deny the worth of one’s own thought processes. I applaud your doubt. If world leaders controlled their egos to a similar degree, we would not be experiencing the traumas that are presently wracking this planet.

    JPGR – I bequeathed to you the final word on David Icke. You’ve made it. The prerequisite for intellectual discussion is an ability to present an opposing viewpoint without recourse to personal insult. That, sir, is my final word on your comment.

  4. Thank you for giving me the final word-I shall now take same.If you use personal assertions in support of your intellectual discussion,as you did,rather than actual fact,then you must expect those assertions to be scrutined,dissected and where necessary refuted.If you “state categorically”,as you did,you should not then complain when it can be proven that it certainly is not,and cannot be,’categorical’. Unfortunately,it is now necessary to bring to you and your readers’attention the sheer breathtaking hypocrisy in the words “The prerequisite for intellectual discussion is an ability to present an opposing viewpoint without recourse to personal insult”.Did YOU present your opposing viewpoint to and of Icke without insulting HIM?? You called him,amongst other things,a crank,implicitly a charlatan and an out and out liar! YOUR writing was stuffed full of such insults,actual and implied,to say nothing of its mocking,sneering tone.THEY certainly sounded like personal insults to me.Yet you bleat if someone has the temerity to dish out the same treatment to you! It is proper,then,that such a hypocrite be hoisted on his own petard. Shame on you.

  5. JPGR – my last comment to you contained the words, “I bequeathed to you the final word on David Icke. You’ve made it.” It was not an invitation to further vitriol. This is not about David Icke; it’s about you. I am loathe to bar anyone from commenting on this site, but the one rule here is “no obscenities”. By definition, that rule is not necessarily limited to obvious swear words, but includes personal and offensive attacks on the writer or other commentators. I have made no personally detrimental comment about you in these pages. My articles and responses have concerned the subject matter, which is most definitely not you. You, on the other hand have resorted to personal insult against this writer, using words and phrases as “hypocrite”, “sneering”, “lacking integrity and courage”, etc. It would appear my writing is “excellent” and “spot on” so long as it agrees with your opinion. When it fails to do so, you resort to personal attack and vitriol. Your tone and style of writing do no favors to either you or David Icke. While not placing a complete bar on your comments, all future input from you will be placed in moderation pending my decision as to its publication. If, as I surmise, you take this as a personal infringement of your right to free speech, consider it no more than that which any newspaper editor undertakes on a daily basis.

Comments are closed.