David Icke Preaches Love and Separationthoughts & comment — 06 May 2012
I HAVE JUST BEEN READING David Icke's latest book, Remember Who You Are. Not sure why I read his books as I never finish one without feeling depressed about the state of the world. Icke seems to give lip-service to the importance of love – which is inclusive by definition – and yet he spends most of his time drawing a line between us (the ordinary people like you and me) and the Rothschild Zionists who are in the process of undermining the whole democratic process and taking over the world. His writing is actually very far from loving and inclusive, and yet he continually keeps philosophizing on the importance of love, placing a fundamental contradiction in his worldview, which is probably why many find his books heavy to read.
Of course, there is a lot of heaviness in the world today, and it is certainly true that there is an agenda afoot by those who own the banking system (which includes powerful families like the Rothschilds) to erode democracy and bring in central a dictatorship where people are completely reduced to slaves to the controlling elite. Already, we feel like slaves as most of us have to work hard just to keep our heads above water, whereas the owners of the banking system manipulate the markets so that they get richer and richer at the expense of the rest of society. (It is a fact that, even during these times of recession, the rich are getting significantly richer, further widening the gap between the rich and the poor.)
But love's answer to problems like these is actually to reach out and embrace those that would do it harm, for it knows that our salvation lies in the recognition of our fundamental unity. Gandhi knew this which is why he was not against the British, he was just for India's freedom. In the same way, our salvation from this control by the banking industry has to come from reaching out to the elite, not from vilifying them. Unfortuanately, many like Icke, label the elite as "reptiles" and "psychopaths" – which is just a shorthand way of labelling them as unlovable and unredeemable. Although there is some truth in the fact that psychopaths do not experience normal human empathy and that they don't tend to change over the course of their lives, if we do not love them then we become as cold as they are.
Most of the facts that Icke presents are standard counter-culture facts, but he then weaves them together into his own narrative of humanity, a narrative formulated from a process of induction, not deduction. This narrative may well have valid points, but we must not forget its nature – it is ultimately just a story. And this particular story paints a picture of a reality in which there is no room for psychological richness, where myth is either forgotten reality or complete fiction, and where anything that involves letting go to something greater is deemed as subservience. For Icke, people are independent separate agents who can either act as free entities by bucking all forms of control (including letting go to higher systems), or who remain slaves to other entities and energy systems. So from Icke's perspective, any form of letting go to something greater – like God – is merely an expression of our inbuilt slavery to reptilian entities which we call gods and goddesses.
And yet, if you look at Icke, for whom I have always had greatly admiration for his remarkable courage in questioning and challenging the status quo, he does comes across as an angry and reactionary man (perhaps understandably considering the reception he got for coming out the spiritual closet). You don't feel the same love pouring out of him as you do with, for example, the Dalai Lama, someone that Icke would classify as a slave to a hidden reptilian agenda. The "slaves" who love the divine (the holy saints and other spiritual giants) give off an unfathomably loving and expansive energy, one that would certainly contradict their classification by Icke as slaves. You just have to be in the same room as a spiritually realized person who loves God to know that they are far freer than the person who intellectually knows the exact location of every prison bar.
Icke's perspective of religions and spirituality is certainly a naïve one, and this is surprising considering that he himself has had some level of spiritual awakening. However, although spiritual awakenings offer only glimpses of the divine, we must not forget that most people who have them afterwards interpret the meaning of those experiences with their minds, turning direct experience into philosophy and dogma. So just because a philosophy is inspired by a genuine spiritual insight does not necessarily make it more valid than one that isn't. In other words, an interpretation of a spiritual experience is still an interpretation.
It is therefore disingenuous to label those who have deep spiritual yearnings … yearnings to merge with the divine … as reptile worshippers. After all, those saints who have loved God wholeheartedly, tend to be the least reptile-like – the most loving and the most free. The paradox of giving up the control of our lives to the divine is that we actually become truly free. But Icke does not seem to understand this, preferring to promote some kind of freedom of the ego, which is actually not really freedom at all. Until we let go of trying to control everything, which we do by believing our philosophies of life, we cannot taste freedom.