Return to: Home | Life & Society

Interview: David Icke

Paul Evans

Published 03 March 2008

Former football player and sports commentator David Icke talks about cock-up versus conspiracy and the final stage of centralisation of world power by the Illuminati

“I don't really use the expression 'new world order' any more,” says David Icke. “It's become devalued as a point of reference by its use in so many different contexts.” The 'Illuminati', or more precisely, the 'Babylonian Brotherhood', are his favoured terms for the forces he claims guide the course of human history.

After a career in professional football and sports broadcasting at the BBC, Icke became increasingly drawn first to environmentalism and then New Age philosophy. But public indulgence subsided into ridicule when he announced to Terry Wogan, and Britain, that he was a channel for the Christ spirit.

He took to sporting symbolic turquoise shellsuits, and dedicated himself to investigating the powers at play in global politics. Today, he remains a prolific author and speaker on the subject of the Illuminati. I spoke to him on his return from addressing the Oxford Union.

For Icke, recent events point to a final-stage centralisation of world power; taking in everything down to the ownership structure of ITV. This is orchestrated by the Illuminati, a shadowy group of families with reptilian blood in their veins, working to complete their millennia of power-grabbing. “We'll be living in a fascist global state within 10-15 years,” he asserts.

“They don't yet control the world, just massively influence it – and they're now looking to run everything,” Icke says. “They're able to control a spectacular amount through a Russian doll power structure.”

In his book 2002 book, Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster, Icke argued that the 11 September attacks on New York were the work of this global elite. He regards this as the only logical conclusion of an enquiring and sceptical mind, which has asked: “who stands most to gain?”.

Assailed on all sides, he currently reserves special disdain for what he regards as a naïve global Left. “They are asking us to believe that Bush and Blair lied about everything except 9/11. Who benefited from it? Clearly, those who wanted to use it as an excuse to impose an Orwellian state.”

But when asked to apply this logic in other areas, he grows irritable. I raise his extensive use of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as evidence. The book is widely seen as an anti-Semitic forgery.

"Whoever wrote it was either in knowledge of what was coming, or an extraordinary lucky prophet.”

But much of the The Protocols are simply lifted from fiction: Joly's The Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.

“Maybe they were just a lucky prophet then,” he responds in what seems an oddly brittle defence of a source he uses as key evidence of a world conspiracy.

Icke contends that the Illuminati strives constantly to divide humanity, through social constructs such as religion. How does he explain events in world history which seem to run contrary to this narrative, such as the peace process in Northern Ireland?

“People ask whether I believe in the cock-up theory of history or the conspiracy theory of history. They're not mutually exclusive, because the Illuminati don't control everything, just an increasing amount of it.” Of course the effect of this approach means there's scarcely an event in history that cannot be either explained away, or taken as evidence of cool manipulation by a higher power.

Icke rather seems to project his own problem onto others. In criticising the mainstream media, he challenges the underlying norms which journalists accept about the world – norms which he contends are lies fed by controlling forces.

“If you have a pre-conceived idea of the world, you edit information. When it leads you down a certain road, you don't challenge your own beliefs.”

Does he fear that he, and other conspiracy theorists, may have fallen into precisely this trap – leading them to ignore both the inconvenient and the glaringly obvious?

He exempts himself from this human frailty, explaining, “I don't edit information, I follow it.”

And the human condition does present something of a problem to conspiracy theorists. The idea that ordered hands are able to penetrate every sphere of our lives is troublesome to reconcile with our understanding of the way humans work. But the fact that people are illogical, make mistakes and frequently fail to respond to authority is overcome by Icke's explanation that the leaders of this world movement are literally cold-blooded reptilians.

Wiser counsel may have advised him to leave this aspect of his theory in the realms of metaphor.

As he acknowledges, 'new world order', is now a meaningless term. He sees what was once a relatively unified theory sprawling out of control. Conspiracy theorists struggle to agree on the nature of the enemy and Icke finds that those seeking to help his research are rarely helpful. “About 90% of the people who come to me are talking nonsense,” he sighs.

Conspiracy theorists resolve that everything in the world that vexes us, known and unknown, is a single conflatable entity.

We should not believe that people like Icke are inherently bad. Indeed, instead of channelling the urge to blame a unified malevolent force at visible minorities, they look to an imagined controlling hand.

Invariably though, their theories are desperately incoherent and myopic. Human life on earth is complex and irrational and it's perplexing why David Icke can't see that.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

27 comments from readers

gnuneo
04 March 2008 at 14:39

for much of recorded human history, human affairs have tended to be controlled by a small minority, in feudal/monarchical ages this is blatant and overt.

this can hardly be denied, and anyone who has ever had contact with the political/economic aristocracy will know that there is a strongly held belief in the Platonic notions of "Born to Rule".

as for 'lizard genes':

"Much of the European Community recognizes the Dragon Court as an ethnic racial group and Sovereign State,"

http://www.geocities.com/newworldorder_themovie/dragoncourt....

however readers of Herman Hesse's 'Demian' will recognise the characteristics are merely those of an awakened human, combined with the aforementioned Platonic belief in their 'Right to Rule'.

david would therefore gain much from recognising that just because the 'Dragons' *believe* they are a separate species, does not make them so, and that this is just a psychological cover for their megalomaniac belief systems.

i myself have noted in conversations with some 'Dragons', that if they really are "Born to Rule", then they should support democratic mechanisms, as others will 'naturally' follow their genetic ability to inspire and lead, and do not require to have legal frameworks that force others to obey.

naturally, such notions did not go down well. :)

however, David's work in revealing the ongoing attempt to increase the control of this small minority over our lives has been, and still is, extremely valuable, disregarding any questionable 'genetic' beliefs.

Jonty Stang
04 March 2008 at 16:16

Guy's a fruitcake - as apparently are half the people who comment on Statesman articles.

Colonel Blimp
04 March 2008 at 16:40

My god man, what have you got against fruitcakes? They can be perfectly delicious - especially when served with brandy butter by your favourite maid.

Colonel Blimp
04 March 2008 at 16:40

Sorry, I meant 'and by your favourite made'.

skawf
05 March 2008 at 07:24

in my time, ive had many dealings with the system, also, ive held a keen interest in politics.i used to see the world in THIS way....

'ok there are good people an bad in every walk of life', and also, 'its not a perfect system, but its the only one we have'. taking the reptilian thing out of the equasion for a sec (well, its a lot to take on board even for me, though it can be confirmed that the oldest part of the human brain is called 'the R complex' the reptilian brain, yet we came from apes???)

there can be little doubt over the existence of some organisations, such as the knights templar, teutonic knights, knights of malta, and a couple of other knightly orgs, their symbolism, the legacies they left, such as banking systems etc and the very visible facts that, a lot of the symbolism that has been used for thousands of years, is STILL bieng used to this day... eg the maltese cross, you find it on the queens crown, the popes robes, and a whole collection could be found on any SS officers uniform during WW2. also, the existence of secret societies such as freemasonry 'york rite & scottish rite freemason' and a few others too, and right through to our 'modern history' with the royal institute for international affairs, council on foreign relations , the project for a new american century, an the billderbergers. these institutions very clearly exist, so i'm suprised that people disbelieve to the degree they do. the only conclusion that i can reach, is that if you disgree with what is said about them, and then go on to ridicule, without even getting of your ar*e to check, then you do so from a point of complete ignorance. interesting to note colonel blimps view on the world.

of all the words in the world you couldve used to make a point, you choose the ones that make you look stupid.

Titurel
05 March 2008 at 20:48

I'm backing Mr Icke. People often forget that many prominent individuals have spoken out about a wide-reaching conspiracy:

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the Field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." - Woodrow Wilson, "The New Freedom" (1913)

Dibsy
07 March 2008 at 03:34

Here is what I don't understand. Conspiracy theorists talk about how small groups of wealthy elites are trying to take over running the world, people like the Bildeberg group, etc. My question is this -

Don't they already run the world and have all the money and power anyway?

Titurel
07 March 2008 at 05:44

In response to Disby's comment above:

These elitists, such as those in Bilderberg, etc., obviously don't have enough control otherwise they wouldn't be conspiring to aquire more! Also, see what Woodrow Wilson stated above...

snarfsnarfsnarf
07 March 2008 at 11:15

skawf: where do you think apes came from?

Thinkforyourself
10 March 2008 at 16:17

You listen to icke, take what you will from it and make your own decision. Paul Evans, keep yourself in the eggshell of consciousness, its obvious you cant see whats around the corner, simple minds. I would get irritated with you interviewing me too! How much research have you ever done on your own accord without being told what to do??? Open your mind

Paul Evans
11 March 2008 at 12:23

Every time I try and do independent research, lizards turn up and eat it.

gnuneo
11 March 2008 at 16:58

dibsy: because they are also struggling amongst themselves for domination.

Think about it - the Roman (horrific) Empire was ruled by senators/emperors/popes etc, and they by and large generally had common values such as this situation should continue - however they still fought amongst each other for 'domination', in quite some part because having power yourself prevented power being used against you and yours.

paul evans: beats "the dog ate it" i suppose.

may i suggest a strategy, place some of your 'independent research' in view of CCTV, and wait until the lizards come to eat it (i presume you have seen them yourself, from your certainty it is lizards?).

and then we will finally have proof that scaly-skinned shape-shifting lizards are the true dominant species on this planet!!

(it would be a you-tube classic vid to watch the Queen metamorphing out of lizardness to eat your notes... LOL :D )

your fame and fortune awaits!

skawf
13 March 2008 at 06:44

response to snarfsnarfsnarf, ok, if ive got the point your making right, then there should IN ALL CASES be similar 'r complexes' in every animal type on the planet, if not, then the complex would have to have been introduced at some point into the human gene.

i dont know, i'm not a vet.

what i DO find is that, people have a knack for bieng able to come up with all sorts of reasons why something ISNT the case. show them one thing and they dismiss it as 'paranoia' , show them everything and its too much to take on board. almost like there is a ceiling inside the minds of people. anything above a certain level, and they cant process it. people have a base of 'knowledge' which they dont like to stray to far away from, and to ask someone to step outside of that base, into the unknown, with the intention of getting them to aknowledge the existance of something on the scale that David icke talks about....... well you wont get many takers. given a choice between the 'uncomfortable unknown' and the 'comfortable known' you know what most people would choose.

i realised a while back that comfort or not, knowledge is good, and that if i wanted to be more than i am, i would have to confront the unknown no matter how uncomfortable it felt, plus a realisation, that fear comes from within, and that theres no reason to fear my self now is there?,

gnuneo
16 March 2008 at 18:49

skawf: you are to some degree correct about people's intellectual 'comfort zone'.

But if you think about this, you will realise its just normal, and in every activity, not only intellectual.

Fx, if you took up mountain biking as a hobby, do you think you will start of on the 'black' runs, or the easier ones?

when you start driving, you don't immediately go out on silverstone and try to beat world records.

its about familiarity, as you said - comfort. We take 2 steps out from the 'nest' - and then one back.

having said that however, there are also social reasons why people are more 'afraid' of new experiences, new thoughts, here is one of them:

http://hometown.aol.com/tma68/7lesson.htm

unlike the writer though, i think organised schooling is not necessarily bad, like O'Neill who founded Summerhill School, i believe the key lies in the pedagogy concerned, not with the actual experience of being schooled per se.

it is interesting, how a discussion about a small minority controlling our lives, has led to the topic of mainstream schooling, and how it shapes and limits our experience as full human beings.

skawf
17 March 2008 at 10:38

response to gnuneo,

yes its interesting but not all that suprising. we are born as unique free spirited biengs, where the only concerns are whether something is comfortable /uncomfortable, opposites if you will, but confined within a narrow band of extremes (due to experience, or lack of, at that stage). but for a couple of years, before we understand who we are, and have an understanding of the circumstances we exist in, our developement is in line still, with universal principals. then as we start to interact with the already controlled world around us (without knowing its controlled of course) our main stimuli are our parents and siblings and TV (the stories of hero's and villains/good and bad etc. our parents shield us from the harsh realities of the world we live in as well as nurturing our development, but lets not forget they aleady have a good idea of whats in store for us, and so there is a bit of shaping us for that as well. then we get to the age where we can be educated. i should say at this point, that i'm all for education. its a good thing, but the style of education we have, is one that turns out a uniform breed, the one that says 'you must learn these thing and do well, to get a good job, so you can buy a house and get married and have kids' to basically repeat the whole cycle again. you only have to look at an end of year photo to see how a large group of unique biengs are shaped to an ideal thats been dictated to the school from governmental level or above, and then from the teachers.

i dont see why bieng in an educative setting should involve me having to be 'brought into line with everyone else', like for most of my formative years bieng distracted away from what was already within me. personally i felt that even though it was good to learn stuff and interact with my peers, i also instinctively felt i was loosing something as well. rather than having the education that added to, as well as working with what was already there.

so when one finds out that the banks and media, gorvernments and industry, are controlled by a small number of people, you can see exactly why its in the interests of these people to make sure that people are as non free thinking as possible. and one or the biggest ways this is achieved is by education, which distracts people from the individuality they were born with, and fills them up with information the controllers need them to have, so the cycle can continue. and everyone does it, because eveyone else is doing it, add to that the fact that we now face GLOBAL problems (manufactured mostly) billions of people turn to a few sources of information to find out whats going on, and news reporters parrot what the controllers want us to hear.

for me, true education isnt about the taking on so much complicated information that we end up submerged and only able to specialise in a couple of things, its about using education to understand the principles of knowledge that enable people to simplify, to unify that which they already have.

acs1978au
19 March 2008 at 22:21

Icke is a master at manipulation of information. He is a very dangerous man and should be taken very seriously. Yes, he was laughed at, and by and large this is probably the best way to deal with people like this. He uses the same techniques that he mentions these so-called "Global Elite" use to manipulate his reader or audience. Hes very much about reverse psychology, repetition and smoke and mirrors disinformation. He very cleverly takes small snippets of information from lots of different sources, and somehow by the logic, or illogic of his mind manages to piece them together in a wonderful conspiratorial web. He then uses logical fallacies to support his arguement. Like, well they said this guy was wrong when he said the world was flat. Now look at what we know. That may be true, but it does not follow into his own arguements.

kaleled
23 March 2008 at 13:19

the world is not what it seems, a few years back i had a ackward dream, i was woken by some reptile like being's" very big" who asked me to have tea with them their policing law enforcer's quickly picked up that there was a disturbance in their frequency of life something that came through that were not supposed to be there... i nearly got caught but they got me back just in time... the morning i woke up and thought "hell that seemed quite real... what a Dream!!" until i saw next to my bed the tea cup from my dream my heart nearly stopped .. my breath gassped for air i ran to drink some water got back and the cup was gone !!! know this seems sureal but it's the truth i live in South Africa and the place were i was in my dream state was in London some place....things are not what they seem in this world!! Tust NO ONE!!

angel_42501
25 March 2008 at 13:43

Does anyone read the book called Revelations that is included in the New Testament of the well known book called the Bible? Or maybe the book or chapter called Daniel in the Old Testament of the same book? Read those books and then pick back up on your research...oh yea Genesis is interesting also. Good Luck

angel_42501
25 March 2008 at 13:46

P.S. My last comment was not a slam or sarcastic to anyone on this website; I am just actually blown away by all the stuff I've been reading over the past year. I would love to have suggestions for more reading. Thank you.

Harris
25 August 2008 at 05:41

If Icke knew as much as he claims, then what on earth was he doing in the Green Party? It seems the greens are influenced by some rather shady organisations, e.g. the Club of Rome.

NevBlak
27 August 2008 at 14:42

100% spot on, we live in a world of cover ups/conspiracies. We are all being controlled in some way. And why are Lizard like beings so unbelievable?

Andy_Whit
08 September 2008 at 16:06

David Icke should not be discounted completely. I find him very astute at finding things that just don't seem right but he falters in his inability to cite evidence or, when he does, citing evidence from other uncited conspiracy theorists. He could convey a strong message against a global elite that definitely exists but lets himself down by lacing his accounts with unverifiable suggestions that this elite is reptilian.

I have no doubt that a global elite exists because the way Western society is structured dictates that there has to be one. Whether or not it's all powerful is disputable but it is powerful nonetheless. It is made up of those whose inherited wealth has snowballed over generations; among Royalty and nobility seated or disposed; an educated elite who find their way into politics and the descendents of those in the public eye.

I don't think it's because they're a related Bohemian Brotherhood. I think it's because social mobility in the West is pathetic. The reason most US Presidents are related and most Tory MPs can be easily linked to nobility is because they get the base from which to propel themselves into public life that no one else gets. The rest of the world political establishment is then made up of trade unionists and the like, tied into two party elected dictatorships.

The real 'conspiracies' are obvious and not far fetched at all. Rich boys get powerful jobs because daddy is networked. The left and right wing has a permanent place in politics because it's nye on impossible for their to be more than two parties in a system of Government and these parties hate the idea of changing a system which will disadvantage them.

The next conspiracy is media related. A lot of media (the NS is a distinct exception) can't be bothered to find out the real truth, as John Pilger has pointed out several times. Most of this media is owned or linked to the establishment. Their primary function is to sell advertising space, not to sell news. So most people are spoon fed rubbish as the truth.

Finally there's powerful groups like Bilderberg. The truth is these groups probably only exist so that members can meet without having to wear a tie. But I'd be a fool not to accept that these groups are extremely useful at networking. And because they're closed groups, the status quo builds the vital networks to seek power and these groups control who's allowed to be a member. Jimmy Carter wasn't the unknown peanut farmer who beat more famous names to become Democratic nominee. He was the Trilateral Commission's favoured candidate, which gave him the necessary media coverage before the whole thing even started.

David Icke pointed that one out. It's just a shame he thinks Jimmy Carter had scales too.

TRUBOY
08 September 2008 at 20:23

shut up fool {jonty} youre the real fruitcake here! don,t know the truth when you see it do you? could it be you,re too proud and haughty not to have thought of it yourselves, and therefore hate him for it? and jealous of his success from it? there fore "SHUT YOUR TRAPS ; ALL OF YOU! YOU,RE ALL JUST A BUNCH OF SNIVELING IDOITS ! YOU COULD,NT HOLD A CANDLE IN A HURRICANE TO THE LIGHT THIS GREAT MAN ICKE HAS REVEALED ON THE N. W. O. SO EITHER GET ON BOARD AND JOIN HIM ; OR JOIN THE NEW WORLD DIS-- ORDER YOU ALREADY SOUND LIKE!!

anne
16 October 2008 at 02:14

Having read many of David Ickes books -I wonder where he is getting the informatian from - think aout that-.

I wonder too- why no-one has taken serious action to repress his statements. It;s all quite frightening to some people to think about . Isn;t it though what the world needs especislly now-- perhaps we should think about it for ourelves at last ,---and set us free. Once we recodnise a catastrohpy-- we think about it for ourselves and do something about it, and set ourselves free. It really is Truth that sets us free from fear. Once we do something the catastrophy we shall be free to love ourselves --- and others,

gabriel
17 November 2008 at 21:24

After reading through the article and a couple of comments about Mr Icke, a curious feature has struck me. Why do the people who disagree with what he says address/ attack him rather than the content of his message or the claims he makes?

skawf
21 November 2008 at 10:24

well gabriel its like this.... people who attack the messenger, only do so, because they are unable to accept the message.

i think every generation has hsd its 'summer of love' time, like the 60's and the 90's, times where we all felt connected to one another, at peace, free, i'd ask people to compare and contrast that with what the state has in store for us, control.

Dododan
07 December 2008 at 20:41

I recently discovered that there are a lot of significant world events that are either not reported in the media or bias, for whatever reason.

I've always had deep mistrust for authority and tend to question everything much to their utter shock and disapproval. (I tend to laugh).

Over the years I have experienced the type of politics which affects our everyday lives and seen how the manipulation occurs to the benefit of very few - Those powerful and influencial.

I am under no illusion that very powerful 'people' control our lives and the masses are being dumbed down with celebrity trivia and all manner of material possession and other nonsense. I've always shunned this tripe but i'm not a hippy.

I recently stumbled upon David Icke's webiste and was a little skeptical since i've heard he was some kind of religious nutcase. On viewing his work and reading a lot of what he says I can safely say he is neither religious nor a nutcase. In fact a lot of what David says makes perfect sense and to my mind explains a lot in the world today.

On the subject of consciousness, I unfortunately know very little on this subject but I know that there is more to life than an ordinary existence on this planet.

I tend to read everything, question everything and spread the word. If nothing else significant news needs to be seen by the mass population. I'm fed up being deceived by the authorities and later finding out the truth.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

Paul Evans

Paul Evans is a freelance journalist, and formerly worked for an MP. He lives in London, but maintains his Somerset roots by drinking cider.

Read More

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker