Being a rational chappie (albeit with a sexy chick in the back of my consciousness) I read things with my analytical faculties engaged. In my Christian era I had read a lot of Christian books – which claimed all sorts of wonderful things. Colin Urquhart was one of the leading lights in the charismatic movement. He claimed that churches he led grew rapidly, money flowed in, they got new buildings, and the like. Although I had discarded the Christian outlook I didn’t doubt his claims. It seemed that he had found a way of implementing a practical faith – but I could still not accept much of the rest of the Christian doctrine. It just didn’t stack up for me. The reason for mentioning that is that I still felt that there was something in the spiritual realm. Magic, if you like.
‘I do, I do believe in magic’ – and always have done. Deep down.
Now I’m confused – because deep down is my feminine persona and I am supposed to be writing from that perspective. Well, I’m afraid you’re just going to have to go with the flow here and try to stay with me. Masculine? Feminine? – at the end of the day it’s just words on a page. Isn’t it?
I can’t remember what started me reading again. I had gone through a phase of reading all sorts of books for my career. I have always been an avid non-fiction reader – looking to expand my knowledge. I collected a huge set of management books – many of which were cheap cast-offs from libraries. They were supposedly out of date – but good management thinking, or indeed good thinking, in any discipline, is timeless. It tends to be the buzzwords that change whilst the underlying substance remains the same. This is particularly true of management where the latest fashion trends are dictated by the large consultancies who woo credulous business leaders with wonderful new methodologies and fancy sounding models that are simply a rephrasing of what has gone before. They make a lot of money out of it, though. What does that say about our business leaders?
One very influential book I read was by David Icke. I know what you’re thinking – but actually that was the very reason I took it off the shelf. Or was it me (little missy in the background) prompting. Anyway. I thought to myself everyone says he is a d**ckhead, but I’ve never actually read anything by him – why don’t I form my own view. This, I believe, was a pivotal moment for me – a true milestone in my journey through life. The moment when I decided to think for myself rather than having my thinking dictated by societies norms. It would take many more years to break free completely (if, even, that is possible at all). I think if more people decided that they would form their own independent view on anything then the world would be a much better place. Anyway I started reading it and, yes, his claims were pretty outlandish, but he did reference most of what he wrote about. This book was called ‘The Biggest Secret’). Essentially his world view is that there is a ruling clique who acts behind the scenes influencing pretty much everything that happens in the world. Now actually that is exactly what you would expect, if you stop to think about it.
Let’s try to explain this thinking by using the analogy of a board game. Suppose you were an arms manufacturer and to win the game you had to make as much money as you could. You would want to start a war so that all the stuff you had already sold would be consumed and the armies would need to buy more from you. It’s pretty much a no brainer (in the board game scenario where you are solely interested in winning). How could you start a war? Well, you also have under your control a newspaper. Mmm.. That sounds interesting, I could certainly use that to influence public opinion. But to start a war needs more than that. You are not the person who actually declares war – so how do you do it. Ahaa. You’ve just spotted the Prime Minister across the table who is also out to make as much money as he can – he also wants to win the game. So you make an excuse to go outside and have a quiet chat with him. You make him an offer that will ensure that he is very rich for the rest of his life. Of course he is very interested, but he realises that he won’t win the game on what you give him, because you want to win the game and you would be stupid to give him that much. But he thinks, I can do this with others as well. So he then starts to think about how he can make money from starting a war.
He quickly realises that another player is the owner of an oil company, and another one owns a mining company. So he thinks to himself, what about invading a country with oil reserves – then I can offer the oil company player some oil. At this point he decides that is probably enough for him so he goes with that. Now he is making money from the arms manufacturer and the oil company – possibly enough to win the game.
You can see where this is going and the only factor that would make you say that this is not a realistic situation is because in real life people are going to get killed and no-one would put money above human lives. That is where you may be very sadly mistaken. Let me give you a few examples of where people in high places take very little account of the value of human life.
Example 1: You run a tobacco company. Research indicates that your product causes cancer and heart disease and accounts for several hundred thousand premature deaths a year. What do you do?
- Increase your marketing budget and form a PR department to counter these outrageous slanders against your wonderful product.
- Verify that this data is correct and immediately stop production and sales.
Interesting question, huh? What do you think the tobacco companies do? You guessed it. So they are quite happy to continue to kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. This makes your game players look like philanthropists!
Example 2: You are a First World War commander. You have been told that you must gain 500 yards of ground. This is vital to the war effort. You have a very strong suspicion that the enemy is well dug in and there will be heavy loss of life if you go ahead with this request. In fact your runners are telling you that this would be suicide for thousands of your men. What do you do?
- Convince yourself that this is all for Queen and country and will eventually lead to a victory and will be justified in the end – therefore a risk worth taking.
- Communicate back to your commanders saying that this is nonsense – we will just end up losing thousands of good men – surely there is a better way of resolving this conflict.
This one’s a bit more tricky, isn’t it? Not quite so clear cut – but you could easily decide here to dispense with a few thousand lives for the greater good. There you are – you have just consigned a lot of people to the grave without batting much of an eyelid. Not so difficult, was it?
These two examples are quite interesting. The first one was a clear cut lives vs money situation – and yet we know that managers in tobacco companies have made decision A and continue to do so. Example 2 seems to speak to higher values, but it still shows that there are circumstances in which we would be prepared to sacrifice large numbers of lives for a greater good.
Going back to our game, for a moment, perhaps, in the context of the tobacco company manager, the behaviours of the hypothetical players are not so unusual after all. In the real world we are talking about people like Tony Blair. It doesn’t take much research to identify just how much money he has made from his premiership. Much of it from oil companies and much of it hidden behind a cloak of accountancy smoke and mirrors.
Back to the main point, which is David Icke’s ‘global conspiracy’ view. Most of us have been nicely conditioned (like Pavlov’s dogs) that when we hear the name ‘David Icke’ (or ‘conspiracy theorist’) we think ‘misguided idiot’ or worse. If we analyse this thought a bit more it’s like we are one side of the playground, with the ‘in crowd’ and he is the other side of the playground’ – the ‘out-crowd’. We feel comfortable over here – accepted, everyone thinks the same, no-one is going to criticise us for thinking this, we are safe. We are in a ‘group-think’ mentality. We don’t think for ourselves in this situation for fear of being different or being pilloried like the people in the out-crowd. This is a pitiful weakness in human character – and yet we are all prone to it. We don’t even stop to think for ourselves if he may be right – we just assume that others have looked into it on our behalf and accept their judgement. Now, if the people who were making the judgement were independent and fair in their assessment (which we, of course, believe they are) then that is fine. But what if those people who form our judgement for us are part of the game? Let’s say, just hypothetically, that there is a global conspiracy. How would the people in power prevent people finding out about it?
Obviously the first thing they would do is to discredit anyone who tried to expose it. Wouldn’t you? But how could you do it? You would have to control the media. Again, purely hypothetically, if you controlled the media it would be a piece of cake to control what people thought about David Icke. Where do 99.9999% of people get their information about David Icke? From the media – whether it be newspapers or television. Do most people read his books to find out what he really says? Not on your Nellie.
So you say, “That’s a big ‘if’. Surely we have a free press. How could anyone control the whole media?’ Well, it’s not as difficult as it may sound. How many individuals do you think control the editorial content of 90% of the media outlets? Ok, so I don’t know the exact answer, but let’s think about it for a moment. Incidentally none of us have access to full and accurate information about anything, and even fewer can be bothered to research – but we do have common sense.
So what do we know about the media? Well most people in the UK get their television news from Sky, ITV and BBC. That probably accounts for over 90% – or if not a very large percentage. What about the papers? Well how many do we have – Daily Mirror, Times, Daily Mail, Sun, Guardian, Telegraph, probably a couple more. Murdoch controls the Sun and the Times (as well as Sky) that leaves another 4 or 5. So we have 3 for TV and 5 or 6 for newspapers which gives a total of about 7 or 8 people who ultimately control what we read or see in the news. At this point you probably have two legitimate questions:
How does the proprietor control the editorial content of all his publications?
Why would they want to ‘rubbish’ David Icke?
On the first question: Let’s assume I wanted a job with the Daily Mirror and I wanted to write good words about David Icke. I’ve read his books, researched his sources, and I believe that he is telling the truth (in the main – I don’t necessarily agree with everything – but I agree with his broad thrust). First of all I have to get hired by a newspaper. Now I am 50 years old and have no journalistic experience – the papers are after young blood – so I’m not going to get a job. Ok, suppose I’m a college grad who has done a media studies degree, first class honours, and by objective assessment would make a good journalist. I go for an interview. I present all my credentials, which they like, pass all their tests with flying colours and then they ask about my political beliefs. I then say that I have read David Icke, looked into all his sources and firmly believe that he is (in the main) correct in what he says. Do you think I would get the job? No, neither do I. Ok, so suppose I keep it hidden, I don’t mention it. I ‘pretend’ to be a journalist with principles, but I want to be free to write what I want and to be fearless in finding out the truth – in the true ‘investigative journalist style’. Well, depending on who is interviewing me I may get the job, but I may also be seen as a threat, or a potential trouble maker. This now depends on the culture of the organisation and the recruitment guidelines. The chances are that they want to recruit someone who will toe the line. What do you think? – maybe I’m wrong here. Let’s give it the benefit of the doubt and I get the job – either because I’ve been up front and tell them I want to be a free-thinking investigative journalist or because I just tell them at I am good at copy writing and happy to toe the party line (all newspapers have an opinion – left or right etc.). So now I’m in.
Now you may think that because I believe what David Icke says I am an idiot (or perhaps something less insulting – but amounting to the same thing). But I have read his books and followed up on his sources – buying many books and reading them to check out what he is saying – and as a convinced rationalist (at least before I became an intuitive stargazer) – I can vouch for over 80% of what he is saying. It is extremely well founded and once you shift your perception on the world the view he propounds becomes the obvious interpretation of the way the world works. It makes perfect sense in terms of natural human behaviour (albeit the less savoury parts of our nature that we don’t like to admit to).
So there I am on my first day, fresh out of college. What are my intentions? Well, I’m probably thinking how can I impress the bosses so that I can get promoted, earn more money, buy a bigger house, pay off my student loan (what a scam – but I won’t go into that now), etc. The key thing here is that someone above me is evaluating my work. So what is he thinking? Well surprise, surprise he is thinking exactly the same, i.e. how he can get promoted, earn more money, buy a bigger house, pay off his student loan (or maybe not, depending on how old he is). But he is dependent on what his boss thinks. This continues layer by layer up through the organisation until we get to the top. And look who’s there – one of our 7 or 8 media meisters. This is the way a pyramid or hierarchy works. This is how the few control the many. It’s very simple. Perhaps so simple it’s profound.
Let’s move onto point 2 for a moment (Why would they want to ‘rubbish’ David Icke?). Let’s assume that our 7 or 8 people are in on the game – they are part of the global conspiracy. Just for fun. They see that David Icke is telling the truth and feel threatened by it. Just play along for a moment – it may do you good! They have a cosy little meeting and agree that they can’t allow David Icke’s ideas to gain ground because it will threaten the establishment (or their cosy existence, raking money in from the unsuspecting public). They agree to stop any articles from being published that portray David Icke in a positive light. How easy is it for them to give an instruction to their trusty first line managers to stop this. Now the ‘first line’ are there for a reason. They wouldn’t get to that position if they couldn’t be trusted by the man at the top. He knows he can say things to them, unofficially, that they will do – off the record. It makes them feel good to be trusted by such a wealthy man – and you never know he may be godfather to one of their kids – and they may even be handed his empire on his departure from this life.
So the message goes down, as far as it can be trusted explicitly, and then it becomes editorial control. The editor can come up with any number of seemingly valid reasons for not publishing a sympathetic article on David Icke – ‘journalistic merit’ or ‘its effect on circulation’.
Coming back to me in my hypothetical innocent journalistic career. I’m a fearless investigative journalist in the best traditions of the free press. I want to expose the scandalous conspiracy that exists. I write an article, well researched – I quote copious sources to back up my claims. But it does say that David Icke is right. What is my boss going to do? Well, if you’ve followed me so far, it doesn’t take more than a few seconds thought to realise that he is not going to rock the boat. He knows that if he does he will have a black mark against him. It may be tolerated on one or two occasions, but more than that and he is out on his ear in favour of the next bright media studies graduate coming through the ranks who is more than happy to sell his soul for the next pay rise. In other words the whole media culture is predicated upon people’s desire to get on in the world. This is exacerbated by the need to earn money to pay off debts (including student debts – no accident). In other words most people are in hock to the system and do not feel that they have the freedom to stand by their principles (at least until they get to 50 – when they discredit themselves by coming out as a transvestite!).
So much for describing my spiritual reading. Strangely it does tie back into that – but that comes later. In the next chapter I will endeavour (honest) to talk about my spiritual reading.
The key point here is to realise that the world may not be quite as we are led to believe…