Among other subjects, David Icke has put together compilations of material on the history, financial power and machinations of the Rothschild dynasty that, in my view, are so important and valuable that I firmly believe they deserve publication in their own right - not only but least for Jewish readers. He is also very clear, as it is also very obvious, that it suits the Rothschild-Zionist agenda very well to identify anti-Zionism with anti-semitism. But it is just as easy to tar too many people with the brush of being ‘Rothschild-Zionists’ agents’ - here I am thinking specifically of thinkers such Karl Marx, whom Icke does brand in this way. I feel strongly however that to refer to any great thinker in this way - yet without actually referring to his actual thinking and writings can be most misleading. In this context I would be tempted to say: “David, take a bit of time to actually study Marx. If you did so I think you would see that, far from being a Rothschild Zionist or ‘agent’, if anything, Marx was nothing less than the David Icke of his day!!!” For what sort of ‘Rothschild Zionist’ would write words such as the following - which might remind you of someone!
“At their birth the great banks, decorated with national titles, were only associations of private speculators, who placed themselves by the side of governments, and thanks to the privileges they received, were in a position to advance money to the state …”
“The Bank of England begin with lending money to the government at 8%; at the same time it was empowered by Parliament to coin money out of the same capital, by lending it again to the public in the form of bank notes … It was not long before this credit money, made by the Bank itself, became the coin in which the Bank of England made its loans to the state, and paid, on account of the state, the interest on the public debt. It was not enough that the Bank gave with one hand and took back more with the other; it remained, even whilst receiving, the eternal creditor of the nation down to the last shilling advanced. The public debt becomes one of the most powerful levers of primitive accumulation [of capital]. As with the stroke of an enchanter’s wand, it endows barren money with the power of breeding and this turns into capital, without the necessity of exposing itself to the troubles and risks inseparable from its employment in industry …”
“The Jew has emancipated himself in a Jewish manner, not only because he has acquired financial power, but also because, through him and also apart from him, money has become a world power and the practical Jewish spirit has become the practical spirit of the Christian nations. The Jews have emancipated themselves insofar as the Christians have become Jews … "
“Captain Hamilton, for example, reports: ‘The devout and politically free [Christian] inhabitant of New England …. makes not the least effort to escape from the serpents which are crushing him. Mammon is his idol which he adores not only with his lips but with the whole force of his body and mind. In his view the world is no more than a Stock Exchange, and he is convinced that he has no other destiny here below than to become richer than his neighbour. Trade has seized upon all his thoughts, and he has no other recreation than to exchange objects. When he travels he carries, so to speak, his goods and his counter on his back and talks only of interest and profit. If he loses sight of his own business for an instant it is only in order to pry into the business of his competitors.”
“Indeed, in North America, the practical domination of Judaism over the Christian world has achieved as its unambiguous and normal expression that the preaching of the Gospel itself and the Christian ministry have become articles of trade, and the bankrupt trader deals in the Gospel just as the Gospel preacher who has become rich goes in for business deals.”
More true today than ever – particularly in the context of the big Christian-Zionist evangelical churches in America. Not least however, Marx also strongly echoes the words of Heinrich Heine in speaking of money as the new ‘God’ of our times, with Rothschild as its prophet:
“Money is the jealous god of Israel, in face of which no other god may exist. Money degrades all the gods of man – and turns them into commodities. Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value … The god of the Jews has become secularized and become the god of the world.”
Yet all David writes to back up his accusation against Marx is that he “married into the aristocracy” – as if this said enough to confirm the accusation against him - whilst not mentioning that in so marrying Marx pauperised his own ‘aristocractic’ wife – whom he effectively removed from her ‘bloodline’ rather than marrying into it. Unfortunately the ‘tarring’ of Karl Marx and other later Communists by many of those opposed to a global ‘New World Order’ does not in any way serve the noble purposes of overcoming ignorance but is itself an expression of it - for few who write of Marx in this way have actually ever studied him. Marx himself of course, like David Icke, devoted his life to study, research and analysis. In contrast the founder of the Rothschild dynasty himself took pride in having abandoned a life of almost wholly unpaid study of the sort Marx led – and instead opting for a ‘successful’ career in banking and usury.
And what did Marx have to say about usury itself? Quite a lot, both in volume 3 of Kapital and in his essay ‘On the Jewish Question’.
As Michael Hudson writes (see From Marx to Goldman Sachs) Marx also recognised full-well the parasitic nature of unproductive ‘money capitalism’ or ’usury capitalism’ i.e. the interest burden it places on the profits of productive industrial capitalism, the upward pressure this places on prices and the downward pressure it places on both the wages and purchasing power of the working class.
“Usury centralises money wealth,” Marx states. “It does not alter the mode of production, but attaches itself to it as a parasite and makes it miserable. It sucks its blood, kills its nerve, and compels reproduction to proceed under even more disheartening conditions. … usurer’s capital does not confront the labourer as industrial capital,” but “impoverishes this mode of production, paralyzes the productive forces instead of developing them.”
“Under the form of interest the whole of the surplus over the necessary means of subsistence (the amount of what becomes wages later on) of the producers may here be devoured by usury…”
The words of a Rothschild agent? I think not. More like those of a David Icke. More the pity that David appears so unacquainted with Marx’s actual thinking and with principal works such as The Communist Manifesto and Kapital and like so many others opposed to world government by a ruling elite into the trap of equating and conflating ‘fascism’ and ‘communism’ (“fascism/communism”). This is easy to do if neither are actually studied as ideologies and philosophies and not just as historical phenomena. Ideologically, fascism places a suprem value on the state. It is hard-line statism – more specifically corporatist and totalitarian ‘state capitalism’ of the sort we see in China today. ‘Communism’ on the other hand – as defined by Marx himself – would be above all characterised by a “withering away of the state” and of state power as such – both nationally and globally. In its place would come no form of fascist or Soviet-style state-run state ‘collectivism’ or 'New World Order' but something completely different: a money-less society in which a new form of non-egotistic individualism would flourish and in which, to quote The Communist Manifesto itself: “the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all”.
As for the neo-Nazi myth of Lenin and Stalin too being Rothschild agents, whilst there can be no doubt that the Rothschild bankers profited enormously from both world wars – and from the ‘cold war’, let us not forget that is was Lenin who first alerted Marxists to the growing danger of international finance capitalism, and that the nature of money and banking in the erstwhile U.S.S.R. – both under Lenin and Stalin - bore absolutely no relation whatsoever to the type of debt-based money creation, speculative bond trading and profiteering from usury that is rightly associated with the Rothschilds (see Money, Banking & Credit in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe by Adam Zwass, not to mention Lenin’s own writings on Finance Capitalism and the Financial Oligarchy.
That said, I believe there is a far deeper dimension to Marx’s own thinking which has so far remained unthought and which I address in my own writings. In these I reinterpret Marx’s view of history as pointing to a fundamental shift in human consciousness, one that occurred alongside the development - out of early and highly equalitarian tribal communities – of class societies - each governed by a ruling class obsessed with the accumulation of wealth in the form of private property. For alongside this growing concentration and fetishism of private property went something much deeper, namely a belief that human consciousness or ‘subjectivity’ itself - far from being but one expression of an infinite and universal Awareness - unifying and connecting all beings - was nothing but the private property of individual beings, egos or ‘subjects’ – each separate from the other. The result was a new experience of consciousness as something bounded by our bodies – and ultimately the current scientific nonsense that it is or could be a mere product of our brains. Along with this fundamental shift in human consciousness also went a new experience of natural phenomena and of other beings – one which reduced them to mere objects of egotistic consciousness, and ultimately to a mere “standing reserve” (Heidegger) of resources and commodities to be sold and disposed of at will. It was as a result of this most fundamental shift in human consciousness that the ruling elites ultimately came to worship a single ‘monotheistic’ god , one which representing nothing other than the human ego itself – which saw its duty as ruling over nature, human feelings and other human beings, in the way that its ‘God’ – a type of divine ‘superego’, was seen as ruling over man. The human ego – rather than our innermost and divine soul or self, was seen as the very apex of the pyramid of human consciousness - a single ‘I’ symbolised by a single ‘eye’ - and one which reduced everything beneath it to a mere object of perception and of enslavement.
The divinisation of the human ego - and with it of competitive egotism – replaced man’ earlier sense of communion and cooperation with nature and other human beings, and turned the most egotistic worldly rulers into gods in themselves. The sovereignty and power and worship of god-kings and their divine right to rule replaced the experience of a divine-universal Awareness. Yet what followed was a further transformation – from the worship of monotheistic gods and/or ‘divine’ kings or monarchs into the worship of money.
“Money is the God of our time, and Rothschild is his prophet.”
Heinrich Heine
If Abraham and Moses were the prophets of religious monotheism in all its forms – Jewish, Christian and Islamic, then the first of the Rothschild dynasty can indeed be recognised for what he was, the prophet of a new religion - the Monotheism of Money. Yet it was Marx’ profound analysis of the nature of commodities that first provided the key to this new understanding of history. For it was Marx’s great insight that whereas the properties and ‘use value’ of commodities was something sensually tangible – like the shape and texture of an apple or sword – the same could not be said of what he called their ‘exchange value’ in the market place, for ‘exchange value’, whilst it could be defined as a number (the amount of one commodity deemed as necessary to trade it for another) was something that which by its nature was something immaterial – having no sensual or ‘material’ qualities of its own. In this sense, as Marx intuited, ‘exchange value’ was akin to a type of quasi-religious, supra-sensible or immaterial ‘spirit’, one which came to be the universal measure of value as such – a supreme value superseding all other values - not least all that we understand as truly human values. Money in the form of commodities, precious metals was merely the incarnate ‘spirit’ of exchange value, only eventually to be dematerialised - first in the form of mere symbols (such as the image of a pyramid!) printed on paper notes - and ultimately as mere ‘electronic’, ‘digital’ or ‘virtual’ money, mere abstract numbers on electronic accounts and created principally as credit i.e. what David Icke rightly calls “money that does not exist”, being accumulated solely as debt. Rather than representing anything of human value it serves only to expropriate and substitute for anything of substantial or tangible human value.
Marx again: “Money is the universal self-established value of all things. It has, therefore, robbed the whole world – both the world of men and nature – of its specific value … The god of the Jews has become secularized and become the god of the world.”
6 comments:
The big difference between Marx and Icke is that the former based his theories firmly in material reality, in the actual recorded and obsevable workings of capitalism and history. Icke's books, whilst giving the outward appearance of great scholarship, are in reality based almost wholly on the work of fringe 'conspiracists' like himself. He has produced a system that whilst intenally consistent, is really based on unproven and very doubtful assertions, like the claim that the Rothschild's and other leading bankers, political figures and major celebrities are actually extra-terrestrial shape-shifters disguising themselves in human form, and the Moon is an artificial construct. This has nothing at all in common with the Materialist philosophy of Marx. There is also a money making element to Icke's writings and speaking tours. He seems to be making rather a nice living out of his own celebrity, wereas Marx, as is pointed out in the article, lived in a state of vuluntary poverty in order to produce his invaluable works. Lastly, Marx was also a practical political activist who sought to build an international movement to organise and lead the Proertariat to power. Icke confines himself to vague calls for us to spiritually 'awaken', mainly by reading his books and paying to see him speak. There is, as is said in the article a spiritual element to Communism and Marxism, but it is the need for us to recognise the true nature of our interests as a class, not as spiritual beings that Marx appeals. Real spiritual growth can begin after the hard work of overthrowing the existing order and building a new one has been accomplished. To call the great Marx the 'David Icke of his day' really does pay him a great disservice, although the article is correct in challenging the 'Totalitarian Communism/Fascism equation with which we are force fed by the ruling class.
David Icke does some good work by putting up links on his website to important news - such as Trump demanding UK spend more on buying US weaponry, and pay for it with cuts to the NHS! Sadly, he also talks a lot of nonsense, such as his shape-shifting lizards and metal spaceship moon theories. The impact of mixing news and nonsense is to justify the concept of fake news. Jumbling together news about the Israeli massacres in Gaza, with crackpot theories, invites blanket criticism that it is all nonsense.
The most worrying aspect of the conspiracy theorist is his universalism, which repeatedly tells us that we are all one infinite consciousness experiencing a holograph which we perceive as reality. Thus there is no need for borders between countries, individual experience as part of a collective global whole is what matters, and all other manner of new agey globalism. Marx taught that we must organise to become free. Icke preaches (at a price!) that we must be innocent hippy types and that resistence must be done on a higher non-physical level.
Icke is a gift to the Globalists. He has become rich pushing stuff, which if taken seriously, stops people rising up. 'Keep Calm and Know That You Are One with the Ruling Class!'
Icke is no threat to power, but he is a threat to revolution. Its almost as if Icke, Maxwell, Jones and the rest were put in charge of the conspiracy theory networks to distract people from the need to revolt, and to keep people obsessed with side-shows and nonsense. Icke doesn't even go as far as passive resistance, let alone Action!
The question of Reptilians:
An ancient cultural and mythological 'meme' is the association of particular species of life with ‘evil’ – for example snakes or other reptiles. Most recently this meme came to renewed and ferociously vivid expression through the Alien movies - which picture a ruthless exta-terrestrial but also clearly neo-reptilian species. One might suggest a new term here in addition to such terms as ‘racism’ or ‘sexism’ – ‘speciesism’. The branding of an entire species – whether an earthly animal species or an extra-terrestrial one – as evil, is essentially no less perverse than the tarring of an entire race or ethnic group with the same brush. In this context too, however, there are much deeper questions and issues to be raised than merely whether or not one can accept or agree with David Ickes’s ideas about an evil, extra-terrestrial ‘Reptilian Alliance’ – or even whether or not all ‘reptilians’ are evil. Perhaps the most basic question of all is: what actually constitutes ‘a species’ – any species? For as the zoologist Jakob von Uexküll argued, what we perceive, through our specifically human sense organs and patterns of perception, as ‘a snake’, ‘a shark’, ‘a cat’, ‘a spider’, ‘a jellyfish’- or any species of life – can in no way be the same as how other species besides our own (with their different sense organs and patterns of perception) perceive either members of their own species or those of others. Thus a snake’s or spider’s perception of a cat or human being – or of another snake or spider - would probably bear no relation at all to how we human beings perceive snakes, spiders cats - or other human beings.
The question raised by this understanding has even deeper implications however, as Uexküll recognised from the start. Thus whilst for us human beings, cats and dogs, like us are just different species of ‘mammal’ – and the word ‘mammal’ is merely a generic concept - for a species such as the tick, it is different species rather than ‘genera’ such as ‘mammals’ that would be mere ‘abstractions’ if it could think in words – for what it actually senses is principally ‘mammal-ness’, i.e. any life form that is warm-blooded. The word ‘reptile’ denotes a genera rather than a species. In this sense we can no more ‘see’ a ‘a reptile’ than we can see ‘a mammal’ – we can only see or perceive a particular species of reptile or mammal – and we can only do that in our own highly species-specific way. Thus even what human beings perceive as a particular species of reptile is, in itself, a uniquely anthropomorphic and anthropocentric perception, and in this sense also a ‘this-worldly’ perception.
It is my understanding, that I am sure David Icke would fundamentally concur with, that all species are fundamentally species of consciousness – defined not by their outer form as we or other species might perceive it, but rather by a specific field-pattern of awareness. It is their own unique field-pattern of awareness that configures each species sensory perception of the world - and of all other species within it. Understood in this light, there is no essential difference between so-called terrestrial and extra-terrestrial species – for both are essentially species of consciousness. I am equally sure that David Icke would concur with me in understanding all species and all beings as essentially inter-dimensional and multi-dimensional – each capable of manifesting in different forms in or in-between different planes or dimensions of Awareness, and each being a unique manifestation of that infinite and universal Awareness that is the source of all All That Is. This being the case however, the question arises: ‘what is a reptile?’ – both in the ordinary sense and also in the specific sense given to the term ‘reptile’ and ‘reptilian’ by David. If the extra-terrestrial reptilians he refers to are, like all species, essentially species of consciousness, did they choose to manifest in a form that our human species perceives as reptilian, or is their reptilian appearance purely a product of our own highly species specific and specifically human and terrestrial mode of perception?
A related question - do they shape-shift into human form or do we shape-shift them – this other species of consciousness – into a reptilian form familiar to us from the animal world. This would be understandable given not only the species-specific nature of human perception but also through the long human association of reptile species such as snakes with evil or at least with danger. Here facts, historical evidence, mythological stories or even direct ‘experiences’ do not and cannot suffice to answer what are fundamentally philosophical questions. Thus if someone perceives Bush senior as a humanoid type of reptile, this is certainly an experience that cannot be invalidated – any more than can any subjective experience. No one can invalidate, deny or disprove what we perceive or experience subjectively in our dreams for example. Moreover all experiencing is essentially subjective, and therefore no dimension or instance of subjective experiencing - whether in waking or dream life, or in altered states of consciousness can be invalidated, denied or disproved.
It is through this fundamental philosophical understanding however that we come to the main issue. For it is precisely through recognising the fundamentally subjective character of all experiencing in all planes of awareness that we are safeguarded from seeking to objectivise those experiences – to assume for example, that just because one or more individuals from a given species of consciousness, or even an entire species, experience another species of consciousness in a very particular way - for example as ‘reptilian’ – that therefore this other species exists ‘objectively’ in this way. To make this leap from the subjective to the objective would require not only that all individuals of the same species (for example the human species) but also that the entire spectrum of different species perceive other species in the same way. And that, as Uexküll demonstrated long ago through the example of the simple tick, simply cannot be the case and is not the case.
Indeed the very need or attempt to prove that something exists ‘objectively’ completely misses the point. For it is based on a deep but wholly false ‘scientific’ identification of ‘knowledge’ and ‘truth’ or ‘reality’ as such with ‘objects’ and ‘objectivity’ – rather than with Awareness and its expression in the form of countless species of consciousness, i.e. with subjectivity. To someone with awakened awareness therefore, there simply are no such things as ‘objects’ at all - ‘physical’ or otherwise. There are simply patterns and shapes, tones and textures of awareness – each and all of which can and do appear in different forms to different individuals and species of consciousness, and do so differently in different planes and dimensions of the one Universal and Infinite Awareness. For as Uexküll already understood, the environment or experienced world of all living organisms – I would go so far as to say all beings – can be compared to a type of subjective perceptual ‘bubble’. What we perceive as other beings, life forms or ‘species of consciousness’ within the ‘bubble’ of our own subjectively perceived environment therefore is nothing physical or objective but rather a pseudo-physical body image – one shaped by our own highly individual and species-specific mode of subjective perception and experiencing.
As regards the notion of an ‘extra-terrestrial’ species of reptilian form, the key question therefore is not whether such a species exists ‘objectively’, but how it exists subjectively. By this I mean whether not just the human species but the species in question, as a species of consciousness or subjectivity, perceives itself and its own kind in reptilian form. For put in more general terms, when we speak of something existing ‘objectivity’ we are really speaking of a common inter-subjective way of perceiving it - as in the way human beings inter-subjectively construct an agreed and jointly perceived world of apparent objects, albeit one whose appearance can completely change (as can our own appearance to others) when our consciousness changes or alters - and with it our conventional and consensual mode of perception. As for another non-human species of consciousness having shape-shifting capacities, I am sure that David would agree that all human beings too, are innately capable of shape-shifting. I know this not just from subjective experiences of my own but from inter-subjectively validated experience – for others have seen me shape-shift on countless occasions and in countless ways – in this way embodying some of the infinite forms, qualities and ‘wavelengths’ of awareness latent within us all.
It is without doubt that the members of ruling elites, global and national, that David Icke describes are characterised by a type of ‘cold-bloodedly’ calculated cynicism and genocidal criminality of such extremity that it can only be described as inhuman - and to which anyone with human feeling can only react with absolute disgust and repugnance. But to lack human empathy and feeling is, paradoxically, a unique potentiality of human beings. Therefore - and despite many human being’s bearing a similar repugnance towards cold-blooded reptiles such as snakes – we should be wary of projecting this in-humanity on any other non-human species, whether cold-blooded or not, terrestrial or not. There is and can be nothing evil about a crocodile – or lion – however rapacious. So to describe any non-human species as ‘inhuman’ or ‘evil’ is to project essentially human features on it - in other words to anthropomorphise that species.
Anthropomorphic images and perceptions of non-human species of consciousness have a long history in human culture and mythology. For there have always been and still are species of consciousness – even on this planet – that are invisible to most human beings, not in the ‘frequency range’ of their perception. For those that can or used to be able to perceive such species, their specifically human mode or ‘field patterns’ of perception invariably made them appear in either quasi-human or animal form – whether as humanoid or animal-headed gods, as quasi-human or beastly giants or as fairies, angels or horned demons. And when it comes down to it, the essence of the human being is – as David Icke himself bravely recognises – not itself anything essentially human or even a ‘being’, but rather that Infinite Awareness that is the source of all beings and of which they are all a unique portion, expression and embodiment – each capable of taking of countless possible shapes and forms, whether pre-human, human or trans-human. In our essence we are all shape-shifting beings – portions of a Universal Awareness capable of taking on infinitely diverse forms, and hailing, like Icke’s Reptilians – and all species of consciousness - from other, non-physical planes of Awareness.
Post a Comment