-
Damnsod...!!!
-
-
ZONED OUT
-
Banned
-
- Posts: 66
- Thank you received: 7
-
Karma: -238
-
|
David Icke - The Green Globalist...!!!
By Dexter Raymond 3rd
October 2002
David Icke is one of the star performers in that community of disparate and mostly unaccredited researchers devoted to exposing the who, where, what, how and why behind the New World Order. And, by all reports, he does so more effectively than most. "David Icke is the closest thing to a rock star the conspiracy set has", the Fortean Times (August 2001) observed in its report on Conspiracy Convention 2001 held in Santa Clara, California. "He's a performer, a showman. He pulls it all together, all the theories – just absorbs them and compiles them…it's Icke who makes them sexy", gushed one attendee.
Such adulation is not something that Icke modestly shucks off; on the contrary he has a very, very high opinion of himself and the impact of his ideas, evident in the unpretentious subtitles to his books: "The book that will change the world" (The Biggest Secret), "The most explosive book of the 20th century" (…and the truth shall set you free), and "The Story of the Spiritual Renaissance" (The Robots' Rebellion). While his latest book, Children of the Matrix, is peppered with quotes at the head of each chapter from a range of notables, including Einstein and Socrates, on the nature of truth and how those who reveal it are often ridiculed by lesser minds until the truth is finally accepted. His website opens with Icke described as the "most controversial speaker in the world". And lest there be any doubt that Icke's message is profound, one is offered the same choice that confronted Keanu Reeves character "Neo" in the film The Matrix of taking the "blue pill" and staying with ones present conception of "reality" or taking the "red pill" to find the "truth", in this case by entering Icke's website. Exposed to Icke's own self-promotion one cannot help but come to the conclusion that he regards himself as a brilliant individual whose insights are truly unique and earth changing.
These surprisingly flagrant claims to genius do serve a purpose. It enables Icke, who has attracted more than his fair share of public ridicule and humiliation over the years, to rise above the frenzied, even bigoted, howls of derision that his most recent claims have generated. Ridicule that has even come from within the N.W.O. research community following his claims that the rich and powerful, among them the British Royal Family, are in fact child abusing and sacrificing shape-changing reptilians, part of an ancient cabal which has controlled humanity for thousands of years and is now striving to build a "global fascist state". The "biggest crock to be foisted on the public in many moons", N.W.O. researcher Jim Keith wrote of Icke's The Biggest Secret, before his untimely death. Nexus editor Duncan Roads registered his disappointment with Icke's "dubious allegations" and described The Biggest Secret as "poorly researched" (Nexus, June-July 1999).
In the furious dispute that ensued, Icke was to remain resolute in his belief that he was right all along and damned his critics as part of the conspiracy. He has maintained his stance, evident in one his most recent books Children of the Matrix (he has since launched Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster) In Matrix Icke tells the reader it is because he is "free of any dogmatic belief system" and has learned "not to give a damn what people think and said" about him, that he has been able to see the truth which eludes others. Icke also consoles himself with the claim that "many condemned and ridiculed ideas in the past have later become conventional wisdom" (p.xv). These comments are illuminating about Icke's particular mind-set. Personal survival in the face of public ridicule involves building walls, and Icke has built strong ones. But, we might still note, that not all conventional wisdom was once ridiculed; and not all ridiculed ideas become conventional wisdom…most are either forgotten or take their place in the pantheon of wacky ideas of times past. Icke's walls, it seems, not only protect him from ridicule, but also keep out reason.
But for the purpose of this missive we will be taking a leaf or two out of Icke's books and will transcend Icke's own "conditioned reality" in search of the truth. And from this one might note that when we dare to think about it, and if we choose to sidestep his claims to unrecognised brilliance; that Icke's message is not that far removed from the prescriptions of the One Worlders he fulminates against. This may seem incredible and illogical to his legions of fans, but his books and lectures, far from being an unequivocal rejection of the concept of One World, are an insidious endorsement of the concept. And his model of One World is no less alarming for the implications for personal liberty than the apparently imminent "global fascist state" he rails against. It is difficult to believe and any reasonable person familiar with his works would conclude that such analysis must be mistaken, but having raised the allegation we are compelled to consider if the facts support it.
Some Background: The Limits to Growth
David Icke's "One World" ideology is not a new thing, and certainly not the product of any stretch of the imagination on the part of this author. It is a fact. And it is belief system Icke has held for well over a decade and which he remains committed to, despite all that he proclaims.
For the discerning Icke fan one must start with his 1989 book It Doesn't Have To Be Like This, written when he had become national spokesman for the British Green Party. Hidden Mysteries Books claims that It Doesn't Have To Be Like This "lets you see the early ‘grassroot movement' of the Green Party" before it was "corrupted with non-green goals and agendas" and "corrupted with fascists…" This is wishful thinking. Although mostly concerned with domestic policy, Icke's first book is peppered with globalist prescriptions that would not be out of place in many a pro-New World Order tract…
In the introduction, Icke wrote that his book would "outline the Green vision of a human race that lives in harmony with the planet; of a country and a planet that puts the needs of all peoples before the wants of a few." These very words confirm Icke's book as a classic example of what we might describe as "green globalism." Icke endorsed most of the one-world environmental themes that became popular in the 1970s, as well as the internationalist themes of the nuclear disarmament movement and socialist opposition to global capitalism.
Thus back in 1989 we find Icke repeating such Malthusian arguments that both population and economic growth are leading to a global environmental catastrophe. These scenarios of imminent ecological doom and the need for global solutions, as most good N.W.O. researchers would know, were heavily popularised in the 1970s by the Club of Rome studies The Limits to Growth and Mankind at the Turning Point, the Carter Administration's study, The Global 2000 Report to the President, and Lester R. Brown's (currently better known as the Director of the Rockefeller funded Worldwatch Institute) bestselling book World Without Borders (1973), and incidentally by the Rockefeller funded Population Council.
The message of these books and the Council was simple, as were the solutions offered: only through strengthened supranational organisations and profound socio-cultural change could we hope to prevent the inevitable global environmental catastrophe caused by rampant economic and population growth. "The basic behaviour mode of the world system is exponential growth of population and capital, followed by collapse", warned Limits to Growth. To prevent this Limits endorsed a halt to industrialisation, stabilising population growth and encouraging people to spurn material yearnings in favour of education and recreational pursuits. Lester Brown argued that mankind's values, especially those favouring economic growth were "inconsistent with [mankind's] survival" and were "becoming threats to our future well-being." Brown's solution to this dilemma followed the familiar pattern:
"Man must evolve a new social ethic, one which emphasises economic and demographic stability and the recycling of raw materials. Such an ethic replaces international competition with global cooperation and sees man in harmony with nature rather than having dominion over nature (WWB, p.39)."
In 1989 Icke echoed these doom laden assessments without question, informing the reader that "nothing can go on growing forever without destroying itself" (p.7), and "the economic order is the cause of all the trouble" (p.9). It was, wrote Icke, an "illusion...that you can go on having more unquestioned economic growth on top of growth year after year...." (p.13). Indeed, Icke went further asserting that the "first rule of green politics, truly green politics" is:
"You cannot divorce the economic system and human values from the destruction of the planet. You can't because one causes the other. You can't have uncontrolled market forces and indiscriminate economic expansion, you can't have free-for-all consumerism and shockingly wasteful energy policies and protect the planet you simply can't. (p.17)"
Icke attacked the "system", the "suicidal conveyor belt" of "unlimited, uncontrolled, uncaring growth" which is "destroying tomorrow" (p.14). Chapter 3, "The Growth Obsession" carried these arguments further; and under a sub-heading "The limits to growth" – surely a coincidence – Icke claimed the "environmental limitations" of economic growth were "now becoming obvious" (p.38). The need for population control was explored in chapter 6, Icke reminding us that it "does not take a genius to work out that a population cannot continue to soar while their home, the Earth, stays the same size" (p.83).
Icke canvassed a number of solutions to overpopulation including ending poverty and emancipating women. Eliminating poverty was not as benevolent as it sounded with Icke declaring his "sympathy" for the view that the destruction of traditional societies by "growth development" was at fault. According to Icke, the "Coca-Cola society" that we had "imposed" on the Third World "for our benefit" had "shattered these societies and generated enormous fear, confusion and instability." Thus resulting in the Third World producing too many children (pp.84-5). Such sentiments confirm Icke as a purveyor of the conceits and deceits all too typical of his kind: from the exhausting luxuries of post-industrial Britain, Icke romanticises pre-industrial societies as simple, spiritual and pure, conveniently ignoring their brutality, grinding poverty and oppressive superstitions, while pouring scorn on development (even if the people affected want it). And like most "concerned" environmentalists from rich countries, as much as he venerates the "noble savages" and Third World peasants, Icke can't abide the fact there's just too many of them…
Nevertheless Icke offered no specific solution to this poverty, except to hint that a return to "traditional societies" might be the way to go. But of more concern to anti-N.W.O. researchers and activists is Icke's statement that the Green Party would seek to solve over-population "both by direct aid and influencing countries through European Community, the United Nations and the World Bank" (p.86). And woe unto us all if we did not act now:
"Once again humankind has a choice to make. We can be sensible and limit our numbers voluntarily or we can go on until nature does it for us with disease and hunger. That will be deeply unpleasant for those around at the time…and the time isn't too far off (p.87)."
Like most green globalists Icke also indulged in socialist economics. Consequently we find that Icke rejected free trade claiming it promoted too much competition and lead to increased pollution. Icke's solution was to increase tariffs to deter trade (pp.56-58). And he attacked multi-national corporations (MNCs) because of their "shocking" role (p.68) and "callous disregard for human life and human dignity" (p.70). Icke proposed monitoring the MNC's through the UN and using the European Community to impose "world-wide" rules on corporate behaviour. Ultimately Icke claimed that "Green Government" would seek to "break-up" the MNCS into "smaller, less powerful units on at least a national and ideally a regional basis" (pp.80-81). That all these proposals would involve the massive increase in the power and intrusiveness of government to the detriment of personal freedom, was not something Icke casually avoided, probably because he did not care.
Icke also advocated complete nuclear disarmament. Such sentiments are hardly controversial, having a history dating back to the emergence of the world government movement in the late 1940s. And in 1980s such issues remained quite topical, but in view of his current writings some of Icke's specific proposals are curious to say the least. Claiming that Soviet President Gorbachev's apparent eagerness to disarm could spur nuclear disarmament, Icke not only endorsed taking advantage of the opportunity, but also suggested strengthening the UN's role in disarmament:
"The only safe nuclear weapons are dismantled nuclear weapons…Once they are gone the United Nations should set up an organisation to cut arms spending to ensure that no one possesses nuclear weapons or is in the process of making them. Failure to permit UN inspections should result in immediate and total economic sanctions by all member countries until those inspections have been allowed. The same should apply to all chemical and biological weapons. (p.167)"
But Icke did not stop there, going on to make a few last plaintive pleas for unity among humankind and an end to the arms race:
"The arms story shows how clearly how humankind have lost their way, lost their grip on reality. This can't go on or we won't go on. We have to stop squaring up to each other and start co-operating in a new sense of partnership. We must join together to fight the real battle to win back the future. To do that we need total nuclear disarmament and serious conventional disarmament until we only have weapons of defence. (p.172)"
We might also note, in concluding this quick review of Icke's book that his messianic tendencies were evident even then, well before Icke completely succumbed to the psychic attack and began to question and then redefine the nature of reality. Thus we find at the start of his book this confident assertion:
"The Green movement is now growing to span the world it is dedicated to protect....We are setting the agenda and will continue to do so because the Earth will demand it. The world will have a green future or no future. (p.11; emphasis added)." [Note: original formatting lost. -IA]
And at the end we discover a paragraph with sentiments that are now vastly expanded in all of Icke's books, but also strangely reminiscent of Brown's calls for a "new social ethic" or even Trilateral Commission founder Zbigniew Brzezinski's' wistful talk of an "emerging global consciousness" or "universal awareness" that "inevitably clashes with the last hundred and fifty years of national and ideological conflict" (Encounter, November 1968). Indeed, Icke was as certain as Brzezinski when he wrote:
"There is a quiet, peaceful revolution taking place in the hearts and minds of millions of people in this country and hundreds of millions around this world we all share. It is the dawning of a new age of consciousness about our links with the rest of creation and how we are so physically and emotionally dependent upon them. (p206)"
So what we have here, by Icke's own hand, is a golden example of the very thing both Icke and countless other N.W.O researchers have warned us [against]: the prospect of nuclear war or environmental catastrophe being presented as compelling reasons for moving towards centralised global controls, including strengthening the UN and complete global disarmament. And remember, Icke wrote it…
The True Believer
The obvious question is: how much of this stuff does Icke believe now? We might note his casual put-down of the British Green Party as the "global headquarters of Navel Contemplators Anonymous" (COM, p.14). Although that bad blood is perhaps inevitable after the Green Party and Icke fell out over his somewhat eccentric turn in the early 1990s. Of more importance, though, is that despite all that he has discovered about the originators of many of the ideas he once advocated, Icke avidly maintains the green globalist faith.
Some examples will suffice to prove this contention. On the limits to growth Icke remains convinced that unchecked population and economic growth will eventually devastate the Earth. "Greens are ridiculed for their policy of a no-growth economy. But what could be more sensible and efficient?", Icke wrote in Robots Rebellion. "No growth is sustainable, because we live on a planet of finite size with a finite ability to take punishment" (p.255). There has been some backtracking with Icke solemnly warning readers about the Club of Rome's Limits to Growth and how its arguments "have been widely quoted by the environmental movement." And also much detail is suddenly given to the genocidal intent [of] Global 2000, the evils of the Worldwatch Institute and the Rockefeller funded Population Council. Icke is of course, heavily reliant on an EIR Special Report on Global 2000 for much of these revelations, which he – or his research team – merely recycles without much self-examination on Icke's part (…ATTSSYF, pp.176-9).
But even then Icke still doesn't repudiate his views on that issue. There are, he writes, "limits to growth if you are talking about the constant expansion of what we take from the planet and throw at her in pollution" (p.179). He goes on to warn us about Elite using the environmental threat as a reason for centralised global controls (pp.180-2). Icke even mentions how as a member of the Green Party he could "see how many of the responses of the environmental movement resulted from the Club of Rome and Global 2000, approach to both problems and solutions" (p.179). Right David, just like in your book It Doesn't Have To Be Like This? No? You're not going to mention your little transgression? Perhaps not.
On the contrary, Icke still endorses It Doesn't Have To Be Like This on his website and refers readers to certain segments in that book in his other works (e.g. COM, p.348; Robots' Rebellion, 258, 262.). Yet his previous green globalist fervour is dutifully ignored, completely erased from Icke's past, but if we look closely the "one-world" themes crop up again and again and again…
The "Law of One"
Evidence that Icke remains attracted to this green globalist and collectivist mentality can be found in the section in Matrix on the "Law of One". Drawing heavily from W.T. Samsel's channelled work The Atlantis Connection, Icke introduces us to the philosophy of the "Law of One" – "the understanding that everything is the same energy expressing itself in different forms…that everything is connected to everything else…" – that supposedly guided the early inhabitants of Atlantis and Lemuria between 100,000 and 48,000 years ago (COM, pp.17-18). However, this Atlantean-Lemurian utopia with its "positive intent and…harmony with the natural laws", was not destined to last. Corruption soon came in the form of an extraterrestrial race that interbred with the locals forming a "white royal lineage" who controlled the "Atlantean Temple of the Sun" – "Today…known as the Illuminati" (p.18).
Samsel's account paints the Temple of the Sun as being driven by "greed and lust for power". They prevailed over the One Temple, establishing a global empire that was finally destroyed in a global cataclysm. Icke draws on this account to make the following remarkable observation:
The tussle between the Atlantean advocates of the Law of One and the opposing Temple of the Sun is highly significant. The Temple of the Sun has been the religion of the Illuminati from Atlantis/Lemuria right through to the present time…Put simply, the Law of One sees everything as connected, part of the same unified whole, and the Temple of the Sun represents the desire to present everything as unconnected and isolated from everything else. One seeks to unite, the other to divide and, therefore, rule. (COM, p.19)
This passage is remarkable because of its implications, which are indeed extraordinary when considered in light of Icke's loud proclamations of opposition to the Illuminati's plans for a "global fascist state"; but because of Icke's effective system of doctrinal control, uncritically absorbed by most readers. So we must consider this: the "Law of One", which Icke lauds for its "positive intent", as it portrays everyone and everything as "connected to everything else" and "seeks to unite"; is defeated by the Temple of the Sun, identified by Icke as the "religion of the Illumanti", "right through to the present time" which presents "everything as unconnected and isolated from everything else" and seeks to "divide and…rule." Thus, in one simple paragraph Icke unashamedly endorses the ideology of global collectivism, characterising it as a more natural philosophy in contrast to the notions of individualism, nationalism and other sub-global forms of political organisation, which he implies as tainted unnatural ideals; the product of a corrupt and literally alien way of thinking.
"Problem-Reaction-Solution"
Of course, Icke's apparent belief in a golden age of global unity under the "Law of One", causes him some significant problems later when he tries to explain the logic behind the alleged plot to form a "global fascist state". Indeed, his attempts to reconcile his theory on the Illumanti's plans for both "divide and rule" and to establish "world government" generate some of one of the biggest contradictions in his canon.
One might note that it is truism to say that Icke's recent books contain some significant contradictions – something Icke happily denies, showing his contempt for his audience, by assuring us that that there are no contradictions in his works as he is in "reality" merely accessing different dimensions (COM, p.423).* Scattered throughout his books are countless contradictions, and, of course, numerous factual errors. But it is the contradictions in his basic theory of N.W.O. plot that are of greater importance. And there is one in particular that stands out. But one that, for some unknown reason; possibly a consequence of Icke's doctrinal control, his insistence that he is breaking ground, or even because of tacit support from the Anunnaki-Illuminati-Reptilians-Brotherhood-"All-Seeing-Eye" Cult axis of evil (for simplicity's sake we will refer to it as the "AIRBASE cabal") he rails against; that has escaped serious comment from both his public critics and supporters.
The implications of this unresolved contradiction becomes clear if we start by examining one of the key theoretical underpinnings of Icke's four books, his notion of "Problem-Reaction-Solution." The following explanation by Icke in Children of the Matrix (pp.7-) will suffice:
"[This] technique works like this: you know that if you openly propose to remove basic freedoms, start a war, or centralise power, there will be a public reaction against it. So you use problem-reaction-solution. At stage one you create a problem. It could be a country attacking another, a government or economic collapse, or a terrorist bomb. Anything, in fact that the public thinks requires a "solution". At stage two, you report the "problems" you have covertly created in the way you wish the people perceive them. You find someone to blame…and you spin the background to these events in a way that encourages the people to demand that "something must be done". These are the words you wish to hear because it allows you to move on to stage three, the sting. You then openly offer the solutions to the problems you have yourself created…With this technique you can so manipulate the public mind that they will demand that you do what, in normal circumstances they would vehemently oppose."
His conception is a slightly confused reinterpretation of the famed "Hegelian Dialectic" of thesis-antithesis-synthesis, referred to by most New World Order researchers, but it carries the same basic message that the most effective means of getting people to embrace your desired outcome, be it world government for example, is by creating a crisis of such a magnitude that it compels people to embrace the preferred policy. Icke defender Richard Finnegan points out an academic article (cf. Baumgarten & Jones, The Journal of Politics, November 1991) which lends credence to this tactic and if we put store in academia then we might do well say that Icke is right, but obviously not original, in pointing out this apparent strategy. After all, the "Hegelian Dialectic" features prominently in Spotlight, the now defunct magazine Icke acknowledges having read while in the US in the early 1990s escaping from ridicule in the UK.
Divide and Rule
But that aside, it is inevitable that Icke runs into deep trouble when trying to explain how the AIRBASE cabal has used P-R-S to achieve their goals. Consider first, Icke's description of the AIRBASE cabal's strategy:
"The Anunnaki covert empire…has manipulated the world once more to the brink of global dictatorship…tribes have been brought together into nations; the nations are being brought together into power blocs like the European Union; and the final stage which we are now seeing unfold, is to bring the power blocs together under a world government, central bank and currency. (COM, p.335)"
Icke then goes on to describe how the Problem-Reaction-Solution tactic has been employed in this strategy:
"The plan has always been to create so many "problems" in the world that the only answer to them is perceived to be a global government to "sort out the mess" (problem-reaction-solution). What the public has not been told – until now – is that those pressing for world government are the same people who are creating the problems to justify it. (COM, pp.241-42)"
This all seems fair enough until we consider Icke's next comments which expose a fundamental contradiction in that the underlying philosophy he attributes to the AIRBASE cabal is very much at odds with the intended outcome of their alleged plans.
"Another scam is to persuade us that a world government would be the way to bring all the people together as one humanity, caring and sharing, and recognising we are all one family. Very nice sentiment on the face of it, but from the Illumanti point of view, that is their worst nightmare. They want humanity to be divided and ruled, not united and free. They use terms like "Global Village", "Global Commons", "Global Neighbourhood", and "One World" to manipulate people into missing the fundamental difference between "One World" (coming together in mutual support and co-operation) and a global centralised fascist dictatorship. (COM, p.342)"
Analysed further we find that Icke's arguments actually posit the impossible union of an irreconcilable set of beliefs:
The AIRBASE cabal behind the New World Order, employing the "problem-reaction-solution" formula, is creating conflict and other crises to encourage global unity under the aegis of a world state.
The essential philosophy of that same AIRBASE cabal is the antithesis of unity, the natural human state; instead they promote individualism, nationalism and hence division, because those values reflect their own corrupt alien mentality.
So Icke's belief (1) carries with it the implication that global unity is not natural and therefore the AIRBASE cabal is intent on undermining the present system of nation-states to cultivate support for that unnatural world unity. But belief (2) suggests that global unity is natural and the AIRBASE cabal is irrevocably opposed to "natural" world government by instigating warfare and other forms of competition. Or to put it another way: according to Icke's own explanations the basic belief-system of the AIRBASE cabal is the exact opposite of that required for true global unity, that is a collectivist mind-set; yet that same divided, individualistic cabal is supposedly behind the plot to establish a "global fascist state." Talk us through that one David.
So Icke has created a logical trap for himself, which naturally makes one wonder if Icke has really thought his ideas through that well, especially when we consider that Icke, after telling us that the AIRBASE cabal are responsible for introducing conflict and competition into the human psyche, as a means of furthering global unity by obviously discrediting nationalism and individualism, he then explicitly advocates global unity as the solution. Has Icke been caught in the AIRBASE cabal's PRS scheme? Or is Icke the author of his own?
If we think about it, in a way all three PRS steps are evident in the essential argumentative structure of Icke's works. In fact Icke's openly stated goal is to get us to embrace his "new consciousness", to become as "One". But his problem is winning us over, so he adopts the PRS stratagem to scare people into adopting his belief-system (sorry, his "truth"). Thus: in step (1) Icke identifies the problem facing us, claiming that certain human activities, especially competitive behaviour is in fact false and unnatural, the product of dastardly Satanic child-abusing and sacrificing "lower fourth dimension" reptilians who seem to control all aspects of our society and now want the world; this naturally leads into step (2), his terrifying tales prompting a horrified reaction from his customers; and finally we go into step (3) where Icke promotes his globalist ideology, insisting that we shed our corrupt values and embrace the globalist "Law of One" as the "natural" solution to overcome this threat.
Icke's Good Globalism: "World Cooperation" not "World Government"
Icke tries to resolve that dilemma by fostering the notion of "good' and "bad" globalism, just like the misnamed "anti-globalisation" movement. Consider Noam Chomsky's statement to the World Social Forum held in Brazil in February 2002:
"The freaks at the "anti-forum" here are defined as being "opposed to globalisation", a propaganda weapon we should reject with scorn. "Globalisation" just means international integration. No sane person is "anti-globalisation.""
On this assessment, Chomsky was well preceded by others, including Icke. In his first foray into the conspiracy scene, The Robots Rebellion, Icke made the following observations about the centralisation of political power from Westminster, to Europe through to the world:
It is all leading towards the Brotherhood dream of a World Government and I even hear some intelligent, caring people supporting the idea, often from the best intentions. I say again and again…NO, NO, NO. As with most changes that give power to the few, it can be presented as highly desirable. If we had a World Government, they say, we could stop this or stop that, do this, or do that. Others believe that the move towards World Government is a natural part of our evolution and journey towards wholeness. We started in tribes and communities, this way of thinking suggests, and we are evolving through national and continental government into World Government. I challenge this few. World Cooperation and World Government are not the same thing. (p.274)
Icke's vision of "World Cooperation", curiously explained in some detail only in The Robots Rebellion, is hardly the stuff that most anti-New World Order activists dream of as the desired alternative. Indeed, it is positively frightening if we look past Icke's constant fear-inducing calls to act now and embrace the "new consciousness", dispensing with all those values that divide us (but also make us different), so we can all collectively prevent the imminent reptilian-inspired "global fascist dictatorship" just around the corner…
In his "One World" fantasy, Icke posits the fairly laudable aim of devolving economic and political control to communities. This sounds fair enough, except that Icke's Arcadia is built on a hitherto unimaginable global conformity of thought. He writes, "With the new consciousness, cooperating will come naturally without the need for laws and regulations of the kind we have today" (p.276). This "new consciousness" says much about Icke's vision, which is of a society clearly devoid of individuality, where social interactions are governed not by rules but "natural" instincts. Social order will be innate, much like ants and bees… But wait there's more. This means that contemporary democratic politics, with all its flaws, will be gone: "Eventually we will see the end of political parties. They are the product of a divided humanity and have no place in the new tomorrow" (p.275). And what will be in its place, one might ask, the "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
Icke's answer is hardly reassuring, suggesting a multi-tiered system for global order with "neighbourhood councils" at its core. Encompassing a few streets, these would form "because circumstances and awakening consciousness would demand them." That is one gets no choice in the matter as all will be united in unquestioning conformity with the dominant ideology of "love." While the "neighbourhood councils", one suspects, will be much like those arbiters of conformity in Cuba, the so-called "Revolutionary Councils", perhaps? But still, there is more… Above that level would be the "Community Council", to which the "neighbourhood councils" would contribute representatives. Working alongside the "Community Council" would be a "community forum" to give everyone a say; and to decide economic matters there would be an "community economic co-operative" dominated by the elected representatives to deal with day-to-day management, while an "economic forum" would give everyone a chance to speak. The "task of community economies" in the ominously named "transition period" would be to provide basic aid but in "ways that are environmentally sustainable" (pp.276-78).
At the next tier would be "regional government" tasked with managing relations between the communities. And above that, in place of national governments, deemed unnecessary by Icke, the "next level of representation" would be "continental". Although they would cover similar areas to the European Union they would act as "forums and coordinators, not governments." The continental entities would "arbitrate on disagreements between regions", ensure that regions were not harming others "economically and environmentally", and provide relief for disasters. Finally, above this would be a "World Forum", which, Icke assures us, "is not the same as World Government." How is that so? The "World Forum" would be a place for representatives from the continental forums "to meet and discuss topics that affected the whole world." Although having no army at its disposal – Icke claims that "all armies will be dismantled when the transformation of consciousness is well underway" – the World Forum would have "powers to intervene to prevent environmental degradation that had global implications" (pp.278-). Which gives those of us appalled by Icke's collectivist vision of the future the faint hope that some glimmers of individualism will remain…until the "new consciousness"-driven "World Forum" stamps them out...........
|
I thanked you twice, but it only shows up once 
