James Delingpole
Politics • Writing • Culture
Erudite but accessible; warm and witty; definitely not woke
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
Why I Entertain Crazy Conspiracy Theories

Does it really matter whether or not the real Paul McCartney blew his mind out in a car in 1966 and has since been replaced by a series of fakes?
Should we care whether the Moon Landings were real or an elaborate con trick?

And who cares who killed JFK given that it all happened so very long ago that many of us weren’t even born back then?

These - or questions like these - have begun to crop with worrying frequency in the online communities which I frequent. If I were of a more paranoid bent I might ascribe this to an elaborate conspiracy to infiltrate my circles with double agents who pretend to be on my side but whose real job is to discourage me from investigating places They would prefer I didn’t visit. Actually, though, I think the truth is rather more prosaic.

I think there are various reasons why a few (but by no means the majority) of my viewers and readers and loose admirers would prefer I didn’t go down certain rabbit holes. Let me address them one by one.

It’s not Christian

One of the perils of announcing to the world that you’ve found Jesus is that you find yourself deluged with Christians - some delightful, some a bit annoying - telling you how to do your job. This is because Christianity itself is a massive rabbit hole with adherents holding a multitude of differing views on what true faith entails. Some, for example, take a Trust The Plan approach, which seems to involve remaining in a state of divinely-approved ignorance. “Just focus on God and the rest will take care of itself!” they urge - and I concede that there is scriptural support for this way of thinking. But I am not one of those Christians - nor do I believe it is the path that God has chosen for me. Imagine how shit and boring my podcasts and writing would be if I did take that approach: “Nah, I’m not going to investigate that because it might divert my gaze from Heaven…”

It discredits our Cause

Yeah. I used to think like that too. I remember at one of the very early marches in London being approached by various types banging on about 5G, chemtrails and such like, who wanted me and Toby Young to appear on a platform at their next rally. Tobes and I agreed that this would be a mistake because by associating ourselves with such wacko causes we might dilute the impact of our message. But looking back I think it was a weak and dishonest excuse. Sure, yes, it’s conceivable that if you think somebody is not credible on one issue then you’ll be less inclined to take him seriously on another. In practice, though, I think most of us have a much more nuanced, sophisticated approach to decision-making and opinion-forming. The fact that Hitler loved dogs, for example, has rarely been a deal-breaker for non-Nazi dog-lovers.

It distracts from our Cause

Ah yes. But which Cause? I notice that a lot of people who take this line are heavily invested in the notion that there is but one key problem we need to address and that the others are insignificant. For some, it’s the vaccines, for others it’s the looming financial collapse, or immigration, or - for one or two stuck in the pre-2020 paradigm - it’s fundamentalist Islam. Well I’m sorry to disappoint all you single-issue fanatics but the problem is much bigger and more universal than you think. What we’re experiencing right now is the culmination of a centuries-old, perhaps even millennia-old, war on humanity by a class of predator/parasites who loathe and despise us and see is as nothing more than cattle to be exploited or culled. This is a war on numerous fronts. It is, at least currently, primarily an information war. Our Enemy’s main weapon is lies; ours is the truth. We do ourselves a disservice if we decide that some truths are dispensable because they sound a bit weird or that our Enemy might mock these truths to try to discredit us.

But that particular theory is just crazy!

And you’d know how, exactly? If there’s one lesson we’ve learned in the last two years it’s surely that the people and institutions which have formed our understanding of the world are at best unreliable and at worst deliberately mendacious. Schools, universities, the food and pharmaceutical industries, the media, the entertainment industry, politicians, ‘experts’ of all hues, even our own parents: none of these are necessarily reliable guides to the true nature of reality. Things that for many of us for most our lives seemed like indisputable truths - the ‘fact’, say, that vaccines wrought massive improvements in public health and that they are one of the miracles of advanced Western Civilisation - have been revealed as arrant lies. The people we trusted most - doctors, for example - have been exposed for the most part as charlatans. So to those who declare, ex cathedra, that such and such a ‘conspiracy theory’ is not worthy of investigation, I would ask: ‘On what basis?’ And if, as I suspect, the answer is something on the lines of ‘Well it’s just obvious, isn’t it?’, I would suggest that this is not the voice of authority speaking here, but rather the voice of someone who (just like most of us) has spent too much of his life placing far too much credence in other people’s authority.

Conclusion

This is a piece I’d been meaning to write for some time but what prompted me to do so now was a comment one of my patrons made with regards to my recent Ole Dammegard podcast. Dammegard, as you’ll be aware if you could get past the appalling sound [don’t worry, we’re doing another one soon to make up for it] is probably the world’s greatest expert on assassinations and false flags.

Now there’s no doubt about it: some of the things Dammegard told me were quite mindblowingly extraordinary, almost defying credibility. For example, he suggested that since 2013, many of the big school shooting incidents and terror attacks which make the headlines and shock us into the desired responses - ‘We must have stricter gun control legislation’, ‘we must give our government more power to protect us’, etc - are essentially faked by teams of ‘crisis actors’. The reason for this, he explained, is that unlike real atrocities involving lots of deaths fake atrocities don’t engender groups of bereaved, angry mothers asking awkward questions and refusing to leave till they’ve been answered. In other words, fakery makes it easier to control the narrative.

This makes intuitive sense, especially when recounted by a man as sober-sounding as Dammegard. He comes across as a credible witness who has done his research, including interviews with former hit-men. Even so, how can we be absolutely sure he’s not a conman? And anyway, why take the risk that he might be, why put the credibility of the Delingpod on the line when there must be thousands of potential guests out there with less contentious, but no less interesting, stories to tell us about the world?

Well, my answer to the first question would be: while you can never be wholly sure whether someone is telling the truth or whether they are an extremely polished liar, what you can do is use your discernment. You can ask questions like: ‘Is Dammegard respected in red-pilled circles?’ [Yes, he very much is]. And: ‘Does what he is saying accord in any way with other things I know to be true?’ [Yes, it does. If you accept that The Powers That Be are cynical, organised and depraved enough to carry out the Kennedy assassination, fake the Moon landings and stage 9/11, then it’s hardly much of a logical leap to infer that they are also capable of false flag terrorist attacks and pretend high school shootings.]

And my answer to the second question would be: because if I were like all the other crappy, cowardly journalists and podcasters who steer clear of these subjects because they want to remain comfortably inside the Overton Window, what would be the point of the Delingpod? I mean, if you’re that desperate to stay safely within the confines of braindead Normiedom, there’s always Triggernometry…

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Posts
Articles
David Icke

Delingpod LIVE: 15th November 2023, Manchester

Finally, in lavish technicolour, the confrontation you've all been waiting for: Delingpole v Icke. It wasn't meant to be this way. The plan was for it to be an entertaining conversation between two truthers about their respective journeys down the rabbit hole. But something went badly wrong. Listen in to decide for yourself what the problem was - and whether you're now Team Delingpole or Team Icke...Very kindly sponsored by Hunter & Gather:https://hunterandgatherfoods.com

↓ ↓ ↓

If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these dark times? - then the place to go is The Pure Gold Company. Either they can deliver worldwide to your door - or store it for you in vaults in London and Zurich. You even use it for your pension. Cash out of gold whenever you like: liquidate within 24 hours.

/ / / / / /

Earn interest on Gold:https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/

/ / / / / /

If you need silver and gold bullion - and who wouldn't in these ...

02:01:02
DelingpodLIVE: Clive de Carle

UPCOMING LIVE EVENT with the great Clive de Carle, the first time I’ve brought the Delingpod to Dorset! With time for networking after. Don’t miss it!

28th July in Dorset, tickets are on sale tomorrow morning at 7:30am from the link below:

https://eventbrite.co.uk/e/670815646657

00:01:48
Laurence 'Lozza' Fox

James catches up with his old mate, actor turned political campaigner and Reclaim Party leader Laurence 'Lozza' Fox, and gives him a grilling: why on earth is he standing in the Uxbridge by-election? And why does he want people to like him? They also broach the contentious topic of Controlled Opposition: who is, who isn't, and can't we just all get along?

↓ ↓ ↓

LOCH NESS STAY
https://lochnessstay.smoobu.net/en/ 10 per cent discount if you mention the Delingpod and book through this site.

↓ ↓ ↓

Earn interest on Gold:
https://monetary-metals.com/delingpole/

/ / / / / /

The Delingpod LIVE IN DORSET | James Delingpole x Clive de Carle

For the first time in Delingpod history, James will be bringing his podcast live to Dorset to chat with Clive de Carle. Purchase tickets here:

https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/the-delingpod-live-in-dorset-james-delingpole-x-clive-de-carle-tickets-670815646657?aff=ebdshpsearchautocomplete

/ / / / / /

Buy James a Coffee at: ...

01:29:36

Fritz Springmeiher

Building Our Own Prisons

Chemtrails are real. This ought to be obvious to anyone with eyes to see: after all, you only need to glance upwards at the right time of day, usually first thing in the morning.

Sometimes, I’m up early enough to catch that unadulterated cerulean blue just as they’re starting to streak it and criss-cross it with all those white lines. Within minutes you can see the solid lines dissolving to form the mist which will then, like as not, transform into yet another of those grizzled, lowering, cloud-enveloped days that have been making us all so miserable.

Yet the weird thing is, if you go on Twitter, or similar, you’ll find lots of people ready to tell you that it’s all a figment of your imagination. Including some of the people who claim to be on the same side as you.

“But why would They do it? Surely if They are poisoning our environment They are poisoning theirs too?”, you’ll often hear.

Or: “I’ve worked in the aviation industry. And I can tell you now, if it were happening I’d know about ...

I am a Doc Malik supporter and am so excited to hear your podcast with him @JamesDelingpole ! When will it come out?

I'm All Out of Hopium. But Try Some of This...

In the days when I used to a podcast with my Normie gatekeeper friend Toby Young, a question he would frequently ask when I raised one or other of my pesky ‘conspiracy theories’ was: “But why would They do this?”

 

  My usual reply was: “These people are not like you and me. They are psychopaths. And there’s no point attempting to rationalise the thinking of psychopaths.”

 

  But actually I now realise that the answer is much simpler. Yes, these people are psychopaths. More pertinently, though, They are Satanists. They are at permanent war with God’s creation which means, since we were all created in God’s image, that They are at permanent war with you and me.

 

  They hate us. They want to torture us, starve us, poison us and kill us. And the few of us that are left They want to keep as slaves, just like They used to in the good old days of Babylon and Pharaonic Egypt, which They are now busily trying to revive.

 

  It would be lovely to imagine that this eternal war between what the Bible calls the Children of Men (us) and the Seed of the Serpent (them) was just a fairy story, dreamed up by credulous religious freaks back in the day to explain all the crazy stuff about the world that they didn’t understand.

 

  I’m sure lots of Normie types would like to believe that this is the case. I’m aware that quite a few among the red-pilled think this too. But as I am wont to say, Christianity is the final and deepest rabbit hole. If you don’t get that what is happening right now is, above all, a spiritual war between good and evil then you are missing the final piece of the jigsaw. And if you haven’t yet figured out that the only solution to the problem is God then you haven’t been paying attention.

 

  This doesn’t mean that there aren’t things we can do, as individuals, to ameliorate the situation. We can use cash as much as possible; we can get better at growing vegetables and maybe even rearing livestock; we can acquire all those DIY skills that our debased culture trained us to think we no longer needed; we can build communities among the likeminded; we can opt out of Rockefeller medicine and work with our natural immune systems; we can turn off our spy phones and say no to digital ID.

 

  What we can’t do, by ourselves, is win a war against people who’ve had a 6,000 year head start in which they’ve acquired almost all the money, land, power and occult knowledge they need to crush us the moment we try rising up against them. Not, you may have noticed, that the vast majority of people around you are even interested in doing such a thing anyway. That, after all, is yet another of the multifarious weapons that They have in their armoury: you might call it the ‘Nothing to see here’ magical spell.

 

  This is where God comes in. He has form in this regard, as you’ll know if ever you’ve had occasion to glance at the Bible. There’s a moment, for example, where a young Israelite named Gideon is required to defeat a numerically superior army of Midianites. Though Gideon succeeds in raising an army more than 30,000 strong, God isn’t interested in a conventional victory. That would be too easy. So He orders Gideon to lose most of his troops - first the ones who are scared, then the ones who drink water incorrectly. Only once Gideon’s force has been whittled down to a mere 300 and the odds against him are insuperable does God grant him victory.

 

  The point about the story - see also the destruction of Sennacherib, as later memorialised by Byron - is that God, being God, can achieve the impossible. Put your trust in Him and the rest will take care of itself for there is nothing and no one in this realm or the next capable of matching His power. When you’re on team God, all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.

 

 All this is by way of a long-ish response to a question that quite often crops up in Awake circles: “What, practically, can we do to stop this stuff happening?” Sometimes, it’s couched in a more accusing way, as when someone said: “How about some solutions for a change, James, instead of constant doom and gloom? There must be people out there with some credible strategies.”

  Well I’ve already listed above what I think are the ‘credible strategies.’ Occasionally I cover these in more detail on my podcasts - the ones say on prepping or alternative health. But I personally don’t believe that any of these are as quite as important as what should be everyone’s number one priority: make your peace with God.

  Perhaps this is just my Christian bias but I do find it increasingly mystifying why more Awake people don’t yet get it. I suppose I understand it scripturally: strait is the gate. And I understand it psychologically: not even the Awake find it easy totally to free themselves from all those years of brainwashing, especially that part of the psyop designed to persuade them that God is just a sky fairy, or that raising their vibrations and achieving oneness with the universe is the way. But I don’t understand it intellectually.

  That is, I don’t get how you can reach as far as adrenochrome, bloodline families sacrifice children to Satan, Elite Gender Inversion as Baphomet worship etc but then fail to draw the logical conclusion that what are being played out right now are the final stages of the battle between God and the fallen angels, led by Lucifer.

  If you don’t believe that this is case, why not? And if you do believe this is case, what are you waiting for?

  Here, to speed you on your way, is one of my many favourite passages from that treasury of wisdom, solace and inspiration, the Book of Psalms.

  ‘Put thou they trust in the Lord, and be doing good. Dwell in the land and verily thou shalt be fed.

  Delight thou in the Lord and he shall give thy heart’s desire.’

  Sounds like a pretty good deal to me. A lot better than, say, burning and/or freezing in hell for all eternity…

  

  

  

  

  

  

Read full Article
David Icke's Gingerbread Cottage
Icke has been right on so much. But here is why I don't trust him...

There’s a moment in my live show with David Icke where I completely lose it.

  “I know why you haven’t been killed for saying the stuff you say,” I yell at him. “It’s because you are one of them! You are part of the Trap!”

It was something like that, anyway. You’ll have to check out the podcast yourself (I’ve now depaywalled it) — https://delingpole.substack.com/p/david-icke— to hear the exact words. But what I do vividly remember as I made the accusation was how shocked I felt to be saying it. I’d begun the evening expecting that we were going to end it as good mates. Instead, here I was, effectively accusing one of the world’s most red-pilled influencers of working for the Enemy.

  This was the point in the evening where I realised I’d lost about half my audience. I could actually hear their groans of disappointment and disbelief. How dare I question the integrity of the heroic, magnificent and sacrosanct guru who first led them down the rabbit hole and who has been proved right about so much since?

  Contrary to popular belief, I don’t enjoy confrontation. But I’m definitely not shy of giving it back if I’m feeling provoked. Icke had already irked me mightily with his sludgy monologues, his inability to answer a question straight, and his reluctance to hold anything resembling a conversation. The final straw, though, was when he started making sneering references to my ‘religion.’

  Now I certainly hadn’t gone on stage intending to defend Christianity to a known atheist. I mentioned my own faith, en passant, just because I was starting to get a bit frustrated by Icke’s vagueness on the nature of his philosophical/religious outlook. Icke is very good at telling you stridently what the deal is: that we’re all living in a simulation, that there are these demons feeding on our energy, and so on. What he is much less able to do, it seems to me, is to provide a persuasive account as to why we should believe him.

  And I don’t think I was being unreasonably demanding here. If you are going to travel round the world, appearing on stage to adoring audiences, expounding a particular world view, then surely it behoves you to be able to justify it. For me, it would be the work of moments to explain why the Bible narrative - that we were created in the image of a loving God, who imbued us with a moral compass and a yearning for truth and beauty - makes emotional and intellectual sense. And I’ve got texts to back it up. All I wanted from Icke was his own apologia for why it is that he thinks what he thinks.

  But Icke either couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver. This for me was a massive tell. I’d started out, as I do with all my podcast guests, wanting to give him the benefit of the doubt. But now there were red flags all over the place. Why, when talking about truly monstrous evils, like the Satanic bloodline families and how they torture and kill children in order to harvest their adrenochrome, did he sound so curiously unmoved? Why, given his oft-stated view that only through ‘love’ can we transcend the simulation, was he so viciously antipathetical to Christianity? Could it be that the ugly rumours about Icke which I’d be so careful not to investigate beforehand might actually have a grain of truth in them?

  You’ll find the answer to these questions in two revealing videos. Perhaps I should have watched them before I did the live event. Then again, had I done so I would have cancelled the whole thing for what they tell us about Icke does not make me warm to him or trust him. Icke is a theosophist; a New Ager; essentially - though he might not use that specific term - a Luciferian. Now that might not sound too worrying if you don’t know what those labels mean. So let’s spell it out: David Icke shares the same religious belief system as the wicked master rulers he has spent the last thirty years supposedly exposing.

I’m surprised by how little this is talked about or even understood in Awake circles. But I think that may partly be a function of the way Icke markets himself. If you’re one of his 500,000 Twitter followers, for example, you get edgy, incisive commentary on everything from Israel/Gaza to the credibility of Alex Jones and Elon Musk. This is the Icke of the popular imagination: unafraid to go where others will not dare; completely on the money with his predictions of what the New World Order will do next; a martyr to the cause of truths that They just don’t want you to hear.

  I fell for this myself. It was the whole reason I had him on the podcast. Though it’s true - as I admitted in our stage show - that I’d never read any of Icke’s books I know lots of people who have and who credit him as their main inspiration for much of what they know about the machinations of the Illuminati. And then there’s that video, which I did see, showing Icke at least ten years ago predicting with uncanny prescience all the things that have since come to pass from the fake pandemic and poisonous vaccines to the menace of digital ID. How could someone so right about so many things that matter possibly not be one of the good guys?

  What I now realise is that David Icke is a game of two halves. There’s David Icke the red-pilled truth warrior with whom it’s hard to disagree on much. But there’s also David Icke the New Ager, whose laborious, dogmatic, third hand ruminations on the true nature of existence deserve much more scrutiny that they generally get from his devotedly cultish audiences.

  For chapter and verse on the latter, I highly recommend this deep dive investigation by Chris White, which quotes closely from Icke’s written work, interviews and stage lectures. It is called David Icke: Where Did He Get His Theories?


Though Icke’s position on some issues has shifted over the years - he used to claim that he conversed regularly with Jesus; now he claims Jesus never existed, for example - the essence of his spiritual philosophy remains much the same as it was over thirty years ago, when the information was fed him by a spirit guide, an ‘ascended master’ called Rakorski.

  Rakorski, it turns out, is not some random guru from the ether who chose on a whim to confer his wisdom on a former Hereford United goalkeeper. He also happens to be a key figure in the automatic writing and inspiration of Alice Bailey, founder of the Luciferian (the clue’s in the name) Lucis Trust, and herself a student of Madame Blavatsky, the Russian mystic, likely a complete charlatan, who in the late Nineteenth Century established a hugely fashionable new religion called Theosophy.

  Theosophy, a mish mash of occultism and Eastern philosophy, mutated into what we now know as the New Age movement. Most people think of the New Age, if at all, as an amiably batty phenomenon - now largely defunct - that surfaced some time in the late Sixties, and gave us the musical Hair (“This is the dawn of the Age of Aquarius”), the more mystical elements of the hippy movement, Shirley MacLaine on a beach shouting to the waves ‘I am God I am God’, shops selling crystals, and so on.

But far from going away, the New Age is now so well assimilated in Western culture it has become a permanent fixture. Yoga, mindfulness, the whale music playing during your Reiki or aromatherapy treatment, the notion that love and hate vibrate at different frequencies, meditation, ashram retreats, “I’m not religious but I’m definitely spiritual’ - we’re most of us part of the New Age these days without even knowing it.

  Having dabbled with quite a few of the above in my time I can perfectly well appreciate their appeal. The problem with the New Age is that it’s a bit like the nice old lady with the cats who couldn’t be more warm or helpful but turns out to be the one who wrote the poison pen letters which destroyed the village. That is, beneath its apparently benign, wise, professedly loving exterior is a core of ruthlessness, intolerance and malignity. Even discerning Awake people often fail to grasp this.

  Indeed, the New Age might have been tailor made for the Awake community in particular because it appeals to their instinctive distrust of the System, their sense that there’s so much more to this world than what we’ve been told, their feeling that something radical needs to change if we are to escape from the current paradigm - and also to their heartfelt belief that more than anything what we need right now is peace, love and unity.

  The New Age appears to be the answer to all this and more. It tells of the dawning of a collective consciousness which will free us from the shackles and superstitions of organised religion (most especially Christianity, which it sees as the main obstacle) and will enable us to maximise our true potential by achieving the latent godhead which resides within us all.

  Sounds great, right? I mean, what could be cooler than discovering that you - yes, little old you! - are actually a god? And the only reason you didn’t realise this is that all pesky religion you had rammed down your throat when you were a child, Christianity being by far the worst, led you up the garden path. But now you’re in on the secret that the world’s elites have known for centuries. Finally you can escape the Matrix and save the world (just like Neo and Harry Potter and Luke Skywalker did: the people who made those movies KNEW) by achieving that state of divine wisdom which some call ‘gnosis.’

  Well if this is all true then clearly it’s the way to go. But how do we know it’s not just another trap - what Christians would consider to be a Satanic ploy - designed to lure us away from the only true form of salvation offered by Jesus? The answer is that we cannot know. Not with any certainty. So I feel in no position to judge any of those myriad Awake types who’ve gone down the New Age path - or variants thereon, such as gnosticism - because they might yet be right and I might be proved a gullible idiot.

  What I can say, though, with absolute certainty is that the spiritual/philosophical world view preached by David Icke is utterly incompatible with the Christian one. If one of them is correct then the other one isn’t. It’s a zero sum game. But you’d be amazed how many Awake people are oblivious to this fact, as I discovered in the aftermath of our event. “You and David have so much more in common than you realise,” well meaning people kept telling me. “You can’t quite agree on terms but essentially you’re saying the same thing.”

  No, we are not. Really we are not. We are talking about polar opposites. From the Christian perspective, Icke’s philosophy is exactly what we were warned about in Genesis 3:5. When the serpent tempts Eve in the Garden of Eden to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge he claims: “For God does know that in the day you eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be as gods.”

  You can dismiss the Genesis account of man’s fall as a fairy story, if you wish. But believing Christians do not - and nor, perhaps more pertinently, do the people who run the world. The key difference between them is that the Cabal - or the Predator Class, the Illuminati, call them what you will - see the serpent not as the Enemy but as mankind’s benefactor: the bringer of knowledge who freed man from the tyranny of ignorance with which a cruel and capricious God held him prisoner. In the Cabal’s version of events, in other words, Satan or Lucifer is the good guy; as he is also in the New Age belief system which Icke claims to despise (“It is an emotional wreck with a crystal in its hand”) but yet embodies.

At our live show Icke sought to present our clash as one between my religious dogma on the one hand and on the other his enlightened, non-judgemental, free-thinking, hard won, deeply researched insight. This was slippery of him. The New Age may not be too keen to admit it but it is at least as much a form of religious dogma as Christianity is. It just uses all that airy fairy talk of raised consciousness and oneness with the universe and so on to disguise its true purpose: the age old Luciferian mission of abolishing God. Any doubts on this score can be cleared up by glancing at the works of Madame Blavatsky or her acolyte Alice Bailey, whence much of Icke’s spiritual philosophy is derived. For more details, watch this video by E511 Ministries


So which version of events do you trust? In the Christian one, God created man in His image, gave him dominion over a world of exquisite beauty, then sent His only son to redeem man for his sins since the Fall which was engineered by the enemy of creation, Satan/Lucifer. In the Ickean one, the wonders of creation are an illusion, man is but an NPC in a gigantic video game, ‘there is no good and evil, only consciousness’ and the God of the Bible is a malevolent control freak from whose shackles we can free ourselves once we release that we - not Him - are the true gods.

Both propositions are plausible. For me, the decision comes down which side has the most persuasive evidence. Of course, I’m aware that there all manner of ‘conspiracy theory’ takes on the Bible - everything from the integrity of the translations and the role of Paul to the behaviour of the Church since. Even so, I think it requires quite an imaginative leap to believe that Icke’s sources of authority for his claims - a mix of personal revelation provided by entities from another realm, sundry texts and interviews of questionable reliability - are more trustworthy.

I’ll give you one example of where I think Icke fails badly on this score. It comes from his book The Biggest Secret (2000) - the one with the lizard-headed royals - in a passage which pours scorn on those foolish enough to take the New Testament literally. Here it is:

“Horus was the ‘son’ of God in Egypt. He was derived from the Babylonian Tammuz and, in turn, provided another blueprint for the later Jesus. The connections are devastating for the credibility of the Christian Church: Jesus was the Light of the World. Horus was the Light of the World. Jesus said he was the way, the truth and the life. Horus said he was the truth, the life. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, the ‘house of bread’. Horus was born in Annu, the ‘place of bread’. Jesus was the Good Shepherd. Horus was the Good Shepherd. Seven fishers board a boat with Jesus. Seven people board a boat with Horus. Jesus was the lamb. Horus was the lamb. Jesus is identified with a cross. Horus is identified with a cross. Jesus was baptised at 30. Horus was baptised at 30. Jesus was the child of a virgin, Mary. Horus was the child of a virgin, Isis. The birth of Jesus was marked by a star. The birth of Horus was marked by a star. Jesus was child teacher in the temple. Horus was the child teacher in the temple. Jesus had 12 disciples. Horus had 12 followers. Jesus was the Morning Star. Horus was the Morning Star. Jesus was the Christ. Horus was the Krst. Jesus was tempted on a mountain by Satan. Horus was tempted on a mountain by Set.”

‘Devastating’ indeed. Or at least it would be if these claims were true. Icke seems to believe that they are, having often used them in his stage shows, and having yet - so far as I am aware - to issue any retraction. They have also received wider circulation in Zeitgeist: the Movie. They’re even cited in Mark Millar’s comic book series The Chosen One. The problem is, though, that they do not seem to have any basis in actual Egyptian mythology.

Icke himself cites the source of these ‘devastating’ comparisons between Horus and Jesus as an author called Albert Churchward, a freemason who claimed in the 1920s that Jesus didn’t actually exist. Churchward’s brother James promoted another of the stories that Icke has since championed: the notion of a lost civilisation on the sunken continent of Mu. James Churchward claimed to have found proof of this via the Naacal tablets, prehistoric records he had encountered on a trip to India, and which were translated for him by an Indian priest (one of just three people who could read this lost language). It’s possible that James Churchward got this idea from Madame Blavatsky, who claimed to have discovered a similarly ancient lost text - the Stanzas of Dzyan - on a trip to Tibet. Translated for her from the unknown language of Senzar by the Occult Brotherhood, this was then used to inform her book The Secret Doctrine, which purported to tell us the mystical philosophy of the earliest humans.There is no evidence that the Naacal tablets or the Stanzas of Dzyan or the lost continent of Mu ever existed. The Horus/Jesus comparisons too, according to Chris White, who has tried unsuccessfully to trace them to an earlier source, appear to be yet another fabrication.

Part of Icke’s schtick, repeated almost daily in the aggrieved, martyrly tone he adopts on his Twitter feed, is that he is a fearless, outspoken seeker-after-truth who has been vilified and marginalised for exposing secrets that our evil controlling overlords would prefer remained hidden. Well, fine. Nothing wrong with that. But if that is the claim you make for yourself, surely the bare minimum you ought to be able to offer your audience is the guarantee that the ‘truths’ you are revealing are actually true - and not just yet more of the made-up shit you are continually berating your enemies in the mainstream for producing.

This ought to be a sine qua non for any author or public speaker seeking to inform the world about, well, anything really. One of the reasons it took me so long to write my demolition of the climate change industry, Watermelons, is because I had to make damn sure that all my claims were properly sourced and accurate. Had I not done so, I would have offered an easy target to that vast, rich and vindictive Climate Industrial Complex just gagging for an opportunity to embarrass one of its critics.

The fact that Icke does not appear to hold himself to the same standards is a red flag for me. Like most truth seekers, I’m genuinely open to the possibility that everything I currently understand about the world - and the afterlife - may be wrong, up to and including the shape of the planet or esoteric stuff like ‘soul traps’ and whether, when you die, you’re meant to avoid the light or follow it. Icke, judging by the stridency of his tone, the dogmatism of his assertions, and his ill-disguised impatience with those who don’t share his point of view - Christians most especially - appears to think he knows all the answers. But extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. And if his sources are as obviously tainted as, say, a pamphlet published in the 1920s by a freemason with an obvious axe to grind and no evidence to back up his claims, I can’t say I’m terribly convinced.

In his documentary Where Does David Icke Get His Ideas?, White gives several other examples of Icke’s sketchy sources. The lizard headed stuff, for example, appears to have been relayed to him via the testimony of a mind-control victim - by definition an unreliable witness - named Arizona Wilder. Some independent confirmation might have been nice, do we not think?

David Icke has been right about many things in the past and continues to be so. But this is no reason to give him the free pass he often gets from his cultish acolytes who appear blind to the possibility that he might be pushing an agenda inimical both to their interests and the cause of truth - not to mention of their immortal soul.

Not only is at least some of his research slipshod but when challenged on detail he is often evasive and defensive. These are not responses which bespeak honesty and integrity. In my experience, at any rate, researchers promoting a contentious point of view which goes against the grain of mainstream thinking are only too happy to be questioned on their thesis. That’s because they are on a mission to explain and elucidate - and evangelise.

In Icke’s defence, it might be argued that he is not a quick fire intellect, and that his curmudgeonly demeanour is the product of all those wilderness years he spent being dismissed as a tinfoil hat lunatic. But those days are long since past. He has a large, appreciative audience for his books and live events, an internet TV show - Ickonic - and the satisfaction of having many of his predictions vindicated by events. At this point, his continued playing of the victim card looks to me suspiciously like a passive-aggressive defence mechanism designed to ward off honest criticism. This was certainly my feeling in the aftermath of our live event. The main priority of Icke and his family was not to respond to the criticisms I made - but rather to try to blacken my name as a rude, insensitive, pushy, lying (“You’re like Tony Blair, mate” - I was told) arriviste who, under false pretences, had taken cruel advantage of a noble freedom fighter and truth seeker whose boots I was not fit to lick.

I’m not buying it. Most especially I am not buying Icke’s spiritual philosophy which he pretends is antithetical to the binding strictures of ‘religion’ - but which is clearly just a warmed over version of the theosophy of Madame Blavatsky and the New Age, which in turn are just an update of the Babylonian Mystery Religions followed by our ruling elites since the dawn of tyranny.

This is why I titled this piece David Icke’s gingerbread cottage. It’s an analogy which I think answers the obvious question: “If Icke is really working for the Enemy how come he has been allowed to do so much to expose them?” All those bang-on predictions, all those juicy revelations, are just the bait…

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals