Fork In The Road:
Fascism Or Freedom?
Note: The following article is from the September 2002 issue of The SPECTRUM newsmagazine. Permission is hereby granted to quote The SPECTRUM in whole or in part, so long as full credit of this source is given, including contacting information for The SPECTRUM.
It's been a year now since our 9/11 issue, the front-page headline of which blazed: The Day The Earth Stood Still: New World Order Thru "Terrorism". On this first anniversary of that pivotal day, it seemed imperative to speak with David Icke (pronounced "ike" as in bike)-the author of ten of the most sought-after books ever written, who tours the globe addressing increasingly larger audiences of people awakening to what's really real.
This dynamo-who many have dubbed "the most controversial speaker in the world"-has just completed a monumentally eye-opening book on 9/11 called Alice In Wonderland And The World Trade Center Disaster. If you thought his previous gems shattered a lot of lies on the way to exposing The Truth, wait until you confront the awesome reality of the Big Picture that David now shares!
For those of you newer readers who may not be familiar with David Icke, he is a native of Great Britain, born in 1952 at Leicester, England, into a poor working-class family. At one time a professional soccer player, and later a national sports and news anchorman and reporter for BBC television, David's true calling as a researcher, writer, and lecturer of the highest calibre began to solidify only in the early 1990s, as certain Guided experiences crossed his path.
Some of David's most popular and challenging earlier books include:
   
  
David has also produced a number of video tapes, including:
  
  
As is usual fare with David, our conversation took some fascinating and mind-stretching turns, and ultimately arrived at a place that is inspiring, empowering, and hopeful.
On August 20, I spoke with David by telephone at his home in England. The conversation started with a question of his from the other side of the pond:
Icke: What's it like over there, at the moment, in terms of developments?
Martin: In terms of political developments?
Icke: Yes, developments in terms of exposing "the game"?
Martin: We're hitting as hard as we can, as you know. It seems like we're almost a lone voice in the wilderness. There are some people on the Internet, of course, hitting really hard, but as I look to the mainstream, and look to all the different news sources, boy, other than Michael Ruppert, and just a handful of other journalists who are doing some things, it seems like the hour is darkest before the dawn.
Icke: Yeah, I think that's, basically, what we're looking at.
I've been investigating and putting together the 9/11 scenario, since it happened, but I didn't do anything in the first few months because I wanted to see how things panned-out. And then I really started concentrating on putting it all together. Basically, a 3-year-old, with two brain cells working in unison, could take the "official story" of that apart, because it doesn't hold together at any point. If statement A is true, then statement B has got to be a lie. [Laughter]
Martin: [Laughter]
Icke: If statement Z is true, then statements A & B have both got to be lies. And this is what you find.
September 11 has got to be the most classic example of what I've called "problem, reaction, solution" that I've ever come across. And it was the most blatant, and the most transparent, and they've made so many major errors.
And they rely on the knowledge that someone listening to a statement on September 11 will not put it together with another statement on September 16, and another one on October 4. But when you do-and that's what I've done in this book, I've put these apparently unconnected pieces together-it is a blatant set-up. And the focus of the planning of it, the center of the planning of it, was NOT in a cave in Afghanistan; it was within the borders of the United States, quite obviously, when you look at it. And there's a massive cover-up going on.
I've seen from my own research how it's done, or one way that it's done, because, of course, once the horrific events had happened, we're given an "official story", and that "official story" was waiting to be delivered before the events happened. And, at that point, the FBI or the Pentagon or the White House, giving you the "official story", says it is not a problem to the "on-going investigation". What becomes a problem to them is later on, when you start questioning the "official story"; then they say: "We can't answer that question because of the 'on-going investigation'."
Martin: [Laughter]
Icke: And so, what's happening in my research for this book, Rick, instead of just taking newspaper reports, I've gone back to NORAD, the military operation that should defend the air-space of America. It didn't that day. It does every other day; it didn't that day.
I've gone back to American Airlines, United Airlines, to the security of the airports, and gone back to all these sources of what happened that day.
Every single one has said to me: "We cannot talk to you because we have been told to pass-on questions to the FBI."
When I asked a simple question of United Airlines and American Airlines: "Can you confirm for me that the people named as hijackers passed through your normal check-in procedures?"
It's a simple question: Yes or no! You're an airline!
The answer is: "Can't answer that; ask the FBI."
So, this is what happens. And then, you go to the FBI, which I did. I contacted them and sent them nearly 50 questions about the "official story". I sent them to-as I was told by some FBI-guy-a man named Rex Tomb in the FBI.
I got a reply from some government department saying: "Got some disappointing news...."
"Well," I thought, "it's not really disappointing, because it's patently obvious that this is what you're going to say."
"We cannot answer any of your questions because of the on-going investigation. However, in years to come"-look at this-"you will be able to get the files through the Freedom Of Information Act."
Martin: [Laughter]
Icke: Which, of course, is not true, because if they say that the information relates to "national security", then it can be withheld.
So, that's what they've done. They've given the "official story" that they want the public to believe, and then stop anyone, except the FBI, from answering questions about the "official story".
And, the FBI says: "We can't do it, either, because of the on-going investigation."
And this is how they give you the "official story", and then put the blocks up when you try to question the blatant anomalies and contradictions in the "official story".
Martin: Interestingly, SPECTRUM readers will have some background in the issue which comes out the month before this interview, that contains the entire Michael Ruppert timeline for 9/11. This background will have been established, so I'm sure our readers will appreciate the information that comes from this interview.
Icke: What I've done is that I've put September 11 in the bigger context. I've looked at the background, for instance, of the Bush family, to Dick Cheney, to Powell, to Rumsfeld, and all the people who have orchestrated the 9/11 official lie. And then, shown that even before those planes hit the buildings, the background of these people would strongly indicate that they all suffer from the genetic disease commonly known as "lying through your teeth".
And these are the same people who've done this throughout their lives, who have told us the "official story" of 9/11. And also, of course, September 11 has to be seen within the bigger context; 9/11 is not IT, it is another attempt to create a step on the road to IT, which is a global, fascist, centrally controlled state.
They of course have used this, again, blatantly and so transparently, to take away more basic freedoms and basic rights to privacy, which they never would have gotten through without September 11.
So, like I say, this is the most blatant "problem, reaction, solution" event I've ever seen. And I would say, when you really start investigating it, it's not really long before you realize that not only is it blatant and transparent. It actually has been appallingly done; it's not been well done. The fact that it's not been well done yet so many people believe the "official story"; it's not an example of how well they've pulled it off, it's an example of how easy it is to pull the wool over the eyes of vast numbers of people.
Martin: Right, which is really a sad statement.
Icke: Yeah, but what I've found, I must say this: September 11 has had two effects: Yes, it's advanced the agenda, in the short term; but it's also been a wake-up call for a lot of people.
Martin: They over-played their hand.
Icke: I think there were other things that were meant to happen that day and didn't. I don't think that it unfolded as planned at all. I think they've got themselves in a mess. The only way that they can hold the tide of exposure back is to hold back the flow of information into the public arena that exposes the game, and exposes what really happened. And this is what my book is designed to do. And I'm going to really go for it, once it comes out. It's off to the printers very shortly.
And I've called it Alice In Wonderland And The World Trade Center Disaster because Alice In Wonderland is this wonderful analogy of, not just September 11, but the conspiracy in general. What you see is never what you get.
It's interesting when you look at the Illuminati ritual, and the Satanic ritual, and the Satanic symbolism and Illuminati symbolism, which is the same, basically, it's for THEIR symbolism. For example, to the public a dove equals peace. To the Illuminati, the dove is the symbol of their goddess figure who is about control and domination, not about peace.
I couldn't give you a better example than the Statue of Liberty. To the vast majority of people in the world, that is a symbol of freedom, when what it is, of course, is a symbol of the Illuminati, which is working hour-by-hour to take freedom away. It's reverse symbolism.
And I've noticed that this occurs again and again and again, this "Alice In Wonderland" reversal, where what is, isn't and what isn't, is. Even in official statements, when you analyze these official statements-I've done a lot of this in the research of this book-you find that when they say they'll do something, it actually means they won't. When they say they won't do something, it means they will. Everything is reversed. And it's fascinating to watch this.
And so, basically, when you are looking at the conspiracy, and you're looking at what these people say, you've got to reverse it to see what they're really saying.
For instance, you have the cold-blooded killing, according to an investigation at the University of New Hampshire, I think it was, at least 5,000 civilians died in Afghanistan, in response to 3,000 civilians dying in New York and Washington and Philadelphia. And they call the killing of 5,000 civilians Operation Enduring Freedom, was it, or Operation Enduring Justice? Whatever you call it, it's mis-speak, as Orwell called it. When they call something freedom, it means they're taking it away. And there are so many examples of that in this whole 9/11 story.
Martin: It seems to me, and in my discussion recently with Eustace Mullins, we were talking about how they can perpetuate the additional controls that they want to put into place, as you say, for the fascist government, and it seems like there are so many calling into question the events that took place that what needs to happen, really, for them, is another incident, another major incident, or a series of incidents, and then possibly even a good war or two, because by doing that the distractions will be so great that people won't even be looking back at what happened here; they'll be too concerned about what's going on.
Icke: There's no doubt they have major events planned. I think, myself, that while the public has largely bought the "official story", the public reaction has been less than they expected. They wanted to push more on this War On Terrorism, I'm sure, and quicker. But they're getting resistance.
They're getting a lot of resistance in this country [Britain]-not from Blair, of course, who is just 100% Illuminati owned, but from people, and many politicians, and the people in general, against the invasion of Iraq, where at least a million children have died since 1991 and the Gulf War, from bombing and the effects of sanctions.
So they, obviously, have other events planned to try to pressure public opinion to turn their way. And there's no doubt these are planned to come along in the weeks and months ahead.
But, you know, you have an idiot in the White House, and things have to come through him. He's a man with very little public credibility-certainly outside of America he's a joke-and so, he's a real "Achilles' heel" for this whole story, especially with the background the Bushs have in connection with-which I've gone into in the book-the Bin Laden family, and what have you. He is very, very exposed and open, once information about his and his family's background, in connection to all of this, comes out. This is why information is so important. You can only make judgments on what you know.
So, if the Illuminati can manipulate what we're allowed to see, then they are giving us a limited amount of information on which to make decisions on what we believe or not. And this is why they so desperately try to hold the wolves back, to stop the flow of information that challenges the "official story". This is why the FBI won't answer questions. It can't, so it won't.
And so, this is why it is so important that we get this information into the public domain, because once it does, it will absolutely change the face of the game because people will suddenly have a much greater spectrum of information on which to make a judgment on what they believe happened.
At the moment, they're only hearing what the government says happened. It doesn't make sense, but they have no alternative, unless they absolutely go looking for it, which most people don't. And it's vital that this information takes the "official story" apart, gets into the public arena, because people are open to it.
I mean, when I've been to America since September 11, so many people have great questions about what happened, but they will not publicly express them because they see the reaction of others, not the least of which is "you're not patriotic" sort of stuff.
It really is time for people to let that go because we, basically, have a choice now. We get up and out of the chair, and we start letting go of the fear of what other people think, and the fear of consequences, and say what we believe, and do what we believe to be right. Or, we then explain to our children, in a few years time, why we're living in a fascist state.
"What were you doing, daddy, when the fascist state came in?"
"Oh, well, actually, I was watching Wheel Of Fortune, son."
Or, "It was a very good game that night."
We, really, are at a fork in the road. And it's a time of tremendous opportunity, as well as a time of tremendous potential for control.
On one fork in the road, it can advance the agenda because people just take the "official story" of September 11 without question. But it is also a massive opportunity to expose what's going on because-and I know this from spending months and months and months investigating this-the September 11 "official story" is absolutely riddled with nonsensical impossible statements, and taking it apart is not difficult.
The difficult thing, obviously, is getting new information into the public domain. And people better stand-up and start being counted. Because it's kind-of interesting.
I find it rather ironic that, both in this country [Britain] and in America, the laws that have been brought in as a result of September 11's "problem, reaction, solution" have started to affect journalism. And journalists are saying: "Well, we can't operate if we have to name our sources" and all this kind of stuff.
Really, journalists too have to start realizing that a global fascist state does not apply to everyone else EXCEPT THEM AND THEIR KIDS! It applies, primarily, often, to them and their kids, because they're the ones who need to be controlled in order for the public to get the "official version" of events that's not been questioned by journalists.
We're facing a point now that we have a few years-less than five, well less than five-in which to go down the road to freedom by dismantling, by exposure, this global fascist state in the unfolding. Or, we can go the other way and just sit there and acquiesce, and live in a global version of Nazi Germany.
This is a real big time of decision for humanity to make, and they can only make that decision in a balanced way if they have access to all the information, which they don't have at this time.
And that's why I wrote the book [and, of course, why The SPECTRUM exists! ], to pull together the information, so that people can see it between two covers, and see how the "official story" is nonsense that a 3-year-old could see.
Martin: I've been noticing since 9/11 that there seems to be a real fear among journalists. Again, like I said before, there's only a handful who have the balls to say it like it is. Everybody else is living in this fearful state that: "If I really tell it like it is, I will either be arrested, or my family will be harassed; I dare not speak the truth."
And, like you said, we're at a fork in the road, where if people don't start speaking the truth without regard for fear or consequences, it's all over.
Continue to Part 2
Fork In The Road: Fascism Or Freedom?
|
