This letter sent to David Icke brought up questions that many have after confronting the facts and evidences which David presents. We have reproduced the letter for all to read. David's comments and answers are in blue.
Dear David, All Content © HiddenMysteries - TGS (1998-2005) Please send bug reports to the Information .
I have recently subscribed to your magazine, so thank you for the opportunity.
I have seen two of your videos and read material from your website. I have a friend who seems to be convinced about the existence of reptilian aliens on earth, but I am far from convinced about their existence. Although I have not read all of the material concerning the range of your claims, I am concerned about many of these.
By some of the readers comments it seems you accept contributions from those who don't necessarily agree with what you say, which seems to be a relatively healthy state of affairs.
I would like to discuss some things you have said regarding religion. In your 'Manufacturing Illusions' video of your 1997 Monash University lecture you talked about the concept of 'opposames'. You say that whereas people think religions have opposite points of view, they are really 'opposames'.
(Yes. Opposames in OUTCOME. Of course they differ in what they claim to be reality, but in the end they are seeking to condition that reality into their followers. They are selling a belief system and seeking to impose it through fear, guilt, and other pressures, at the expense, denial, and suppression, of other information and possibility. A Christian bishop imposing his belief and lifestyle on his children is no different to a Jewish Rabbi, or Islamic priest doing the same, surely. The OUTCOME is the same, the methodology is the same, and the conditioning of belief, so making such religions oppo-sames in OUTCOME, not opposites.
The concept of opposites is rarely used as an absolute term. For example we talk about 'hot' and 'cold' but these are literally a question of degrees. They are relative to human experience and I suppose our blood temperature. We say 30C is a hot day, but in a scientific experiment that same temperature can be regarded as very cold.
Light and heavy. A piece of lead is heavy compared with a feather, but a truck carrying only a piece of lead would be described as having a 'light' load.
(Don't see where you are going here, Steven. Everything is relative to the observer and the situation, of course, but, like I say, I am talking of opposames and opposites in relation to their OUTCOME and methods, not in their every last detail. A Hindu believes in re-incarnation and a Christian does not. Their spin on life is different in the detail, but if a Hindu indoctrinates his children to believe what he believes at the expense of those children being allowed to decide for themselves, and a Christian does the same, the outcome is also the same. Indoctrinated children. So are the methods of achieving that.)
'Night' and 'day' are regarded as the quintessential form of opposites, as in 'as different as night is to day'. However, night and day for us reduce to whether our part of the earth is facing the sun or not. They are actually parts of a cycle of events.
You claim that opposites never conflict and use the example of night and day, but consider the process by which night turns into day, producing twilight. Good and evil are regarded as opposites but they provide the very conflict that has moved the great religious thinkers.
(Firstly, I don't remember using the example of night and day in this context and if I did it must have been for the one and only time. I never have before or since. And secondly, you are massively missing the point I am making here. I say in the videos you are talking about that opposites never conflict in the example of war. I say that the opposite of those who believe that war is an answer to anything are those who believe that war is an answer to nothing. Therefore the latter, if true to those convictions, will never take part in a war because they won't see the point. The so-called conscientious objectors at wartime are prime examples of this.
If you don't believe in violence, you are not going to engage in violent conflict against those who do justify violence. It is quite demonstrably only oppoSAMES who fight wars. Those who, while differing in other beliefs, agree that violent conflict can be justified as a way of solving or achieving something. That's the point I was making, that's all.
Your example of twilight is actually an example of the harmony between opposites, the fusion of light and dark, not the conflict between them.)
So too with opposites in ideas. We regard 'Capitalism' and 'Communism' as opposites because they are economic theories which differ significantly in important aspects.
(Hold on, Steven. They are the same in OUTCOME, effect, because they both lead to the few dictating to the many and controlling and hoarding the flow of wealth. Only the structure they use to achieve this is different, and then not really by much.)
These 'opposite' theories have lost some of their differences recently. For example 'Communist' China is taking on aspects of free market, as in the Special Economic Zones, including Hong Kong. In 'Capitalist' countries there has been a trend to workers receiving shares in the company as a bonus for productivity. The fact that the differences between these economic systems seems to blur comes down to the fact that we have only used to terms 'opposites' as a way of describing them in relative terms. Many theories regarded as 'opposites' are more accurately described as being extremely different in focus. It is only in the area of mathematics that we approach anything like genuine opposites.
(At the risk of boredom, can I say again that the criteria I am using here are the consequences of these opposames, not every last fine detail. Are people any more free in China because it suits the dictators of that country to use Hong Kong as a money laundering interface with the "capitalist" world - just as they did, in truth, before China officially regained ownership of that colony? Of course not. The titles may change, the rhetoric changes, but the result remains the same. By the way, there is no such thing as the "free market". If only there were.
In the Soviet Union, the few controlled the wealth and the flow of money and resources. In China today it is the same. In the so-called "free world", it is the same. Where is this "difference in focus"?)
You say that on the Left Stalin set up centralised power, a military dictatorship and concentration camps, and on the Right Hitler set up centralized power, a military dictatorship and concentration camps. So they couldn't be opposites because opposites never conflict, only 'opposames' conflict. As I have said, these systems, Communist and Capitalist have been commonly regarded as opposites because they are so different, but the term 'opposite' is only relative. That doesn't preclude similarities. Stalin and Hitler were a lot closer together than many realise, anyway. Hitler's National Socialism was derived in many ways from Socialist theory- consider the platform of the German Workers Party. On the other hand Stalin was very much a dictator with centralised powers which was hardly the theoretical basis of the Socialism he claimed to represent.
(It was not communism and "capitalism" in this example, it is communism and fascism, which are presented to us as the far "left" and the far "right". What I am saying is that these "opposites" have the same OUTCOME - therefore they are, in truth, mirrors of each other, though their words and some of their details will differ. And Socialism does, by the very nature of the way it operates, demand the centralisation of power, just the same as Fascism does. I think you are getting caught in the names game instead of seeing the consequences of these "philosophies", which are the same in their fundamentals.)
Clearly you, like many others, do not like organised religion, and I am wary of it myself. You equate it with 'suppressing humanity's multi-dimensional uniqueness'. People are accustomed to accepting beliefs 'off the peg' and are subsequently in a 'prison of the mind'.
However, you tend to use the term 'religion' in your claims, rather than 'organised religion'. You have spiritual beliefs, clearly you are not claiming that your beliefs are the basis for 'suppressing humanity's multi-dimensional uniqueness.' But all religions claim they exist for the good of humanity.
(I make the point that I do not see spirituality and religion as the same thing. The dictionary definition of religion I have just checked says that it is "any faith or worship". That's good enough for me. If religion is about worshipping someone or something, it is, on that basis alone, diminishing dramatically the perception we have of our own status in creation. Respect and love for another is not the same as worship or idolisation, which is what religion demands. Having a belief of how the world works, one that is open to change in the light of new information, is not the same as having a religion, organised or not, which is defined as faith and worship. I do not have a faith, for example, I have things that I believe and they are open to change by the next e-mail I receive if the information makes sense for me. And I certainly do not worship anything or anyone. Religion and organised religion are reflections of the same state of mind.)
The Brahmin religion of India was heavily criticised for the overuse of priestly power. Along came Buddha with what was then a liberating understanding of the journey of the soul. If he had kept this great insight to himself no-one else could have shared what many have come to believe to be the true path to salvation. Now Buddhism has had a long history and of course it is an organised religion. Something big needs to be organised, just like your website.
(But Steven, sharing what you believe is not the same as creating a structure in which the belief itself dictates to the people, instead of the other way around. Belief should surely add to the flow of information and possibility, not become a solidified structure which demands unquestioned adherence. Let's take Buddhism. First of all why does that belief or any belief need to have a name? Why can't people just live those principles without the need to call themselves something, and often dress the same way and have the same haircut? How is worshipping the Dalai Lama or anyone else a road to freedom? I am not saying they do not have a right to that if they wish, good luck to them, I am just offering a different view.
There is NO one true path to "salvation" (not a word I would use), except the one that is best for us because we are all at different points on the journey with different things to experience. The figure, real or imagined, known as Buddha, may have had many enlightening things to say, but he did not have all the answers because no-one does. To therefore build a whole belief system around anyone - including me - is always going to be a mug's game. The example you give of my website does not stand up, I would suggest. What I am doing here is presenting enormous amounts of information which people would not normally see, adding my own interpretation based on what I believe and have experienced, offering the knowledge, experiences and views of others, and then letting everyone make of it whatever they will. That is very different to setting up a structure of belief which, should it not be followed, would lead to people being asked to leave the temple or church. And there is such a difference between organisation and organisations.)
Luther's story is similar. There was much criticism of the corruption of the priests and the popes. The idea of virtually buying salvation came into vogue. Luther challenged this, along with the authority of the church. He developed Protestantism, which, as a direct alternative to Catholicism, became quickly organised.
Even if we look at early Christianity the gospels contain the theme of Jesus criticizing the Pharisees for being too legalistic in their interpretation of the law of Moses. What became Christianity began as a reform movement within Judaism. The earliest Christians were Jews and if Jesus existed then he too was a Jew. It was only with Paul's writings that the idea of salvation 'for the Jews first but also for the Gentiles' was developed.
Because the idea of Buddha, Luther and Jesus were developed within the framework of the established religions of the time, the new religions they fostered had many similarities to the original religion. Their emphasis was on providing new answers to current spiritual questions. Buddha's question was how the soul could eventually achieve liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Luther's question was where the true authority lay in Christianity. Both were on their own when they formed their new ideas.
(I think you are taking the official version of events here a little too unquestioningly, Steven. Martin Luther was actually one of the classic opposames of history. He ran his "new"religion with the same viciousness and corruption as the Roman Church he publicly challenged. And he was certainly not on his own when he formed his "new ideas". Again I ask why we cannot seek answers to questions, spiritual or otherwise, without forming religions, giving them names, making the belief the dictator, and creating hierarchies to police the rules and regulations. Are we adults or what?)
It is easy for you to criticise organised religion (which I am not out to defend by the way) because your spiritual ideas are personal statements. However others have accepted these ideas not on the basis of their own experiences but only after hearing and reading about your ideas. So your ideas have influenced others. Their spiritual ideas are less personal statements than adopted beliefs.
(I would suggest you are confusing the difference between the free flow of ideas that can stimulate new thoughts of possibility with a belief system that is conditioned and imposed through rules, regulations, and fear. Of course peoples' thoughts and perceptions are changed by information and access to ideas, mine certainly are, but tha| is not the same as having that perception rigidly defined and imposed by a religious hierarchy. The difference between the two is the distance between the Earth and Pluto.)
You say that whereas people regard religions as opposites they are really 'opposames'. 'Religions have 'the same belief systems, with a
different name on the door.' You say that if we want manipulation
through fear and guilt you can get exactly the same thing from Judaism,
Islam and Christianity. We may be able to get manipulation through fear and guilt from any one of may religions, but that hardly means their beliefs are the same.
(We are back to outcome and methods. The outcome is the same and so is the belief that what they believe is the only right way and therefore anyone who believes something different must, by definition, be wrong - even evil. You are, I feel, looking so hard at the twigs here, Steven, you are not seeing the forest.)
There are many clear and definite differences between religions, such as the belief regarding the nature of God, the nature and journey of the soul and crucially, the way to 'salvation'. Hinduism and Buddhism essentially agree with Christian thinking that God can take on human form (though the finer points of this agreement are also debatable), however Judaism and Islam strongly reject this idea.
(See outcome and the methodology of protecting the belief)
There are also disputes within each religion. The question of whether child baptism is acceptable or whether only adults could be baptized is one that can be traced back to the gospels. It may seem a relatively minor question but this issue has produced such conflict within the church that some of those advocating only adult baptism before the Reformation were hanged for their beliefs.
(See twigs and forest. The example you give shows what a nonsense religion is and how it turns multi-dimensional infinity into stunning stupidity.)
As far as fear, guilt and manipulation go, this criticism is about as old as religion itself and it is valid. What is important is the preconditions within religions for such fear, guilt and manipulation. In Judaism and Islam non-believers are threatened with God's or Allah's wrath. In Christianity the major form this has taken is in the concept of hell, which is a concept that developed over centuries and culminated with Dante's vision in The Divine Comedy. The 'fire and brimstone preacher' is typical of one instilling fear into followers. If they are afraid, they become guilty about their sins in case they go to hell, and so are open to manipulation in order to escape this terrible fate. That seems to be the equation.
The defence of the 'fire and brimstone preacher' is that hell is real it is in the Bible, being God's word, and he (generally a he) wants nothing more than to deliver Christians from this awful fate. That is, they genuinely believe what they are saying. Can we prove to them that hell doesn't exist? It is unlikely, however churches, both Catholic and Protestant have played down the role of hell in recent times. The 'fire
and brimstone preacher' still, though, has a powerful presence, and I would add does a great amount of psychological damage in the process.
But let us compare this with your beliefs. You believe there are alien reptiles who drink blood and have human sacrifices. You genuinely believe in these creatures based on your 'research' of the 'evidence'. I would argue that most people who came to believe these things did no research other than read your material.
(Big time wrong, Steven. All the sources in The Biggest Secret had no idea what I was being told by others when they detailed their experiences. And they were not telling me about their "research", but their direct experience. At the time I met them I had not written a word about reptilians anywhere.)
And many of these people would have at one time never considered the possibility of such creatures at all and would have no access to evidence one way or the other.
(See above.)
However, I am sure that many of these people who now believe in the existence of these reptiles don't sleep easily thinking about the mortal danger they are in from such creatures. So they are now very afraid of what is out there and I would hardly be surprised if such fear drove some people mad.
(There is a big difference in the comparision you are trying to make here between the fire and brimstone preacher and myself. I am not telling people they will go to hell if they don't believe me, nor am I telling them they should be in fear. I am actually saying the opposite. That this control is a house of cards that depends on us for it's continued existence. I am always saying that we are eternal consciousness on an eternal journey and this is just one experience on that road. And that there is no place called "hell", except that which we create within our own minds. In that sense hell can be everywhere or nowhere. It's just a choice. I not only believe that there is a reptilian element to human control, I am going out and seeking to expose it. Therefore I should be the one in most fear. But I am not frightened in the least. That is another choice we can all make.)
People afraid of the reptiles will naturally ask the question what they can do about them for their own protection. You and others provide the answers, so you become an authority figure for such people. They don't have a clue how to deal with alien reptiles from the fourth dimension. They are no doubt putting themselves entirely in your hands in the hope that you can provide a way of avoiding this dreadful menace.
(Think for yourself, don't let others tell you what to think, do what you believe is right. That's all I do and that is the extent of my "advice" to anyone. Hardly being an authority figure is it? And if there are people putting themselves "entirely in my hands", (a) they are not listening to what I am saying, anyway, and (b) they must be avoiding me because I have yet to meet one.)
If there are these alien reptiles to deal with, people can hardly expect to beat them single-handedly. Organizing to deal with this threat would
be vital, and that is one of the things your website seems to be all about.
How is the fear of the blood-drinking reptiles significantly different from the fear of hell? Both are beliefs that literally make people shit themselves, although their personal experiences provide little or no evidence that such things do exist. You may claim that your belief in the reptiles is different because it's true. The hellfire preacher claims exactly the same thing. You say he's wrong, he says your wrong. That, in a nutshell is why there are so many religious differences. There is always a point on which different belief systems vehemently and dogmatically disagree.
(You are missing the point here again, Steven, and making vast assumptions and generalisations. The fear of hell may, as you so graphically put it, make some people shit themselves, which could be one reason why I have had such an aversion to attending church. But the hellfire stuff, far from stimulating my back passage, has always made me laugh. It's just a choice. In the same way, any information can put people in fear. Explain to people that crossing the road can be dangerous and some will be empowered into awareness and greater safety by that information, while a few will be frightened by it. Does that mean we should not point out that we need to concentrate when we cross the road? It is the choice of the beholder how they react to what they hear. That is not the same however as the systematic manipulation of fear, which is how most religious hiearchies operate.)
No doubt you have no intention to manipulate anyone, however, this does not mean you could not have done so. Even with the highest personal ethics you have, unfortunately, laid the groundwork for the same fear and manipulation you criticize others for. Manipulation does not need to be deliberate. You have defined the terms 'fear, guilt and manipulation', the third comes out of the first two. And since you have inspired some sort of movement, even with the best of intentions from you, you cannot guarantee the goodwill of others. There is no way out of that quandary other than to begin searching for a log in your own eye.
Steven Mendoza, Australia.
(And precisely the same can be said of what you have written here, Steven. Manipulation by its very nature has to be deliberate, otherwise it is not manipulation. Dictionary definition of the word: "To operate on, so as to disguise." The very act of disguising what you are doing is to do so knowingly and therefore with deliberate intent. Even those who say they did not mean to manipulate are actually kidding themselves that they did not know that certain words or modes of behaviour in relation to others would have a certain outcome that suited them.
You can mislead people without meaning too, of course, but that is not the same as manipulation. And it is very difficult to mislead people when you are saying, as I am, here is some information, this is my view or someone else's view, make of it what you will, goodbye.
Also, Steven, what you are actually saying here is that no-one should say anything that might upset or frighten anyone, otherwise you are manipulating them. So even though little children are being mercilessly abused, traumatised, and sacrificed, we should keep quiet about it because it might scare some people if we expose it? What about the children, Steven, those who are suffering now and those who will be in the future if we do not alert people to what is going on? You make a case for doing nothing on the basis of what you have said here, but what greater definition for manipulation can you have than not to tell people something you believe they have a right to know? That appears to be what you are suggesting here.
Anyway, thanks for writing, nice debating with you.
All the best,
David
ThE-Magazine is a publication of TGS Services - Hiddenmysteries.org
Please direct all correspondence to
TGS HiddenMysteries, c/o TGS Services,
22241 Pinedale Lane, Frankston, Texas, 75763
HiddenMysteries.com Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
All Rights Reserved