The gatekeepers

"The Matrix is a system, Neo, and that system is our enemy. When you are inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters, the very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are part of that system and that makes them our enemies. You have to understand most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many are so...hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it."
Morpheus

in The Matrix

That is a profound quote and a brilliant summary of the dilemma we face. I don't see Matrix-plugged people as my personal enemies because once we see this as a conflict or war between "us" and "them" we are confirming just how "plugged" we are. "Us versus them" is Matrix thinking, a Matrix perception. This should not be viewed as some kind of "fight" because what you fight, you become.

But Matrix-minded people are the enemies of freedom that's for sure. Enemies of their own freedom and the freedom of all who exist in the Great Illusion. They are the gatekeepers of the Matrix, daily suppressing the thoughts, desires, people, and information that could set us -and them -free. Of course, the conscious agents of the Illuminati are placed in the positions of economic, business, media, political, legal, and military power to hold this mental and emotional sheep-pen together. But they could not do this alone.

They have to manipulate humanity to suppress itself. Humanity is like the security guard. He often doesn't know what he is guarding or why he is doing it. He is an automaton, just doing whatever he is told to the letter and never for a moment considering the possibility that he should think for himself and interpret a situation on its merits. It is black and white, no shades of grey. Rules is rules, mate.

Every "plugged" person is an enemy, or potential enemy, of freedom, but some are more arrogantly enthusiastic about it, or, in other words, more profoundly entrapped by the illusion than others. If we are going to break out of this vibrational prison cell we all need to resign immediately from our role as agents of the thought police.

For us to be free, we must set everyone else free. To cease to be a sheep, we must cease to be a sheepdog. How simple that is, yet how difficult it seems to be for humans in their present hypnotic state. But we can only stop being a sheep dog when we realize that we are a sheep dog and we are so blind to our own desire for control over other people's lives and thoughts.

Ask anyone if they believe in freedom and all except a tiny minority will say "Yes". Its not something that people like to be seen to be against. Not good street creed. So we all believe in freedom by reflex action, but do we live it by everyday action? You have got to be kidding. If we did, this book, and all my others, would have no reason to be published. We would already be free and reconnected to multi-dimensional paradise.

Who are the gatekeepers of the Matrix? Who are the prison warders, the border guards of the Great Illusion?

We are.
 

The gatekeeper parents, partners, and priests

We want our children to live in a free world, right? Then why don't we even allow them to live in a free home? Intergenerational conditioning by parents of their children is one of the greatest of all gatekeeping activities. If the parent is a Christian, Muslim, voter for this political party or that, a racist, a sexist, working class, middle class, upper class, whatever, that is the conditioning they overwhelmingly insist on imposing upon their offspring.

The child is conditioned to be a reflection of the parent and the pressure to be like them can be enormous. The very idea that a vehement Christian or Muslim, or Jew, or Hindu, would respect their child's right from birth to reach their own conclusions without pressure to conform to their parents' beliefs, would be utterly abhorrent to such people.

Indeed most could not begin to comprehend such a level of mental and emotional respect for their child's uniqueness, and freedom of thought and expression. As I said at the start of the book, I debated at the Oxford Union with the former Chief Rabbi of Great Britain and he could not see the difference between information and indoctrination.

"How can I do the best for my children," he said, or words to that effect, "If I do not bring them up to believe what is right?"

No, Rabbi, what you believe is right. That's not informing them of your view; it is indoctrinating your beliefs while suppressing and discrediting all alternative versions of reality. It's mind control. Priests, rabbis, bishops, popes, and all the rest of the long-frock brigade are professional gatekeepers working for those who control the Matrix. Yet most of them are so mesmerized by the Matrix themselves, they have no idea that this is so. It is the same with the vast majority of parents.

It goes further. Parents, conditioned by their parents, who were conditioned by theirs, and so on, often decide what is best for their children even after they leave the nest. I met a guy once in his 60s who was still being destroyed inside by the guilt that he did not achieve what his father wanted for him. Well bollocks to the father, I say.

If he is such a parental dictator and emotional manipulator, he deserves to be friggin' disappointed. Do him good. But how many of us don't do what we really want to do in our lives because we fear what our parents will say or because we don't want to disappoint them? Stuff that. They either respect our right to be who we are and express who we are or they can go on their way. Their choice. This is so important to breaking free of the web of fear, guilt, and the need for approval that dominates so many child-parent relationships and continues long after the child becomes an adult.

They are not our parents, in truth, anyway, except according to Matrix reality. They are the ones who seeded our physical form and with whom we spent our formative years. They are close by genetics in this physical realm, but they may not be at all close when it comes to vibrational connection. Many are, but they don't have to be. An obsession with doing nothing to upset our parents or the people around us is the Matrix mentality, a key part of the prison that keeps us in line.

It is the same with our wives or husbands, partners, and children. Observe your own situation. How many people around you, people you love and care for, are suppressing what you want to do with your life because you are concerned by the way it will make them feel? It is a mental and emotional Alcatraz. It can turn a relationship into a prison sentence, and a marriage and family into a prison cell. Don't get me wrong here.

I am not talking about being violent because you fancy it, or making their lives miserable for the sake of it. No, no. I mean to express what you are, say what you think, live your uniqueness, without suppressing yourself because those around you will not like or understand the real you. It means to stop living what they think you should be; the blueprint for what they want you to be; and start being the you that you really are. If they can't handle that, that's their problem and they should find someone else who will suit them better. And if they can't, and insist that you suppress the real you to suit them, they are unpaid, unaware gatekeepers for the Matrix.

But it goes both ways this. Everyone, or almost everyone, is concerned about their own freedom, but what about the freedom of others? How many times a day do you impose your will, your reality, on those around you? I spoke at some financial conferences that were designed to promote "freedom". All you had to do was stand on the stage and talk about freedom and you were sure of wild applause. But most of those clapping their hands, and the organizations that promoted the conferences, did not want freedom at all. It's the last thing they wanted. They couldn't handle freedom.

Most didn't know what it was and those who had some idea were horrified at its implications. The organizers were terrified that I would use the "E" word, extraterrestrials. Even the "F" word would have been less life-threatening to them. They couldn't care less if the extraterrestrial information was true or not. They couldn't care less if anything I said was true or not.

So long as it didn't upset the audience, which the organizations were using and manipulating mercilessly to make their fortune, that was OK. So long as the people liked what they heard, who gave a shit if it was true? Once I began to question in my books the existence of Jesus, sections of the audience who had previously given me a standing ovation for exposing the conspiracy, began to demand that I be removed from the speakers list. My crime? Expressing a different view to theirs.

I am sure many of them are still attending, still being manipulated, and still giving standing ovations to the kind of freedom they really want -the freedom to hear someone support their own beliefs and the freedom to suppress anyone else who has a different view. In fact, that is the "freedom" that most people want. I observed another financial group based in Arizona, and heard them talk about freedom from the system, freedom of expression, and all the usual stuff they think will pull people into their web.

They said the organization was created to promote freedom when it was merely created to make as much money as possible. Fine, if that's your thing, but be honest about it and don't bullshit me with tearful, carefully rehearsed, garbage about how you are doing it to free the people. Free your overdraft, more like.

Funnily enough, it turned out to be one of the most dictatorial, vicious, unscrupulous, manipulating organizations you could ever see and awash with monumental purveyors of bullshit. Both of these "financial" operations and most of their audience are gatekeepers masquerading as promoters of freedom and that, perhaps, makes them the most deluded of all.

The greatest gift we can give our children is the freedom to think for themselves, even if, outrage of outrage, we don't agree with what they believe; to encourage them to question, read, and come to their own conclusions; to respect their right to be different without feeling the need to impose our beliefs because we know best.

Of course, it has to be pointed out when their behavior is unfairly and unpleasantly affecting others, but that's not what I mean here. I mean to encourage them to free their minds and be open to all possibilities. Far too many parents are more concerned with what their neighbors, friends, and the teachers will think of their children, rather than what the children think of themselves and the world. We need to set the children free to think the officially unthinkable and question at every turn the officially unquestionable. If we can't set our children free, we fall on our arses at the very first step on the road to global freedom.

In our personal relationships, we need to set each other free of the blueprints for what a relationship must be. We are imprisoned by blueprints and expectations, and who creates the blueprints? The system, the Matrix, does. Once we have an expectation and a mental design for what constitutes "love", a relationship, or anything at all, we are imprisoned by that thought form.

It becomes the focus from which everything is judged. If the relationship takes another expression we are disappointed; it might be perfect for our personal growth and evolution, but it is outside the blueprint, so it can't be right.

"You don't kiss me and hold my hand like the couple across the street."

Well that's probably because I am not the couple across the street, I am me. Ironically, blueprint relationships are usually the most fragile and superficial because they are often based on image and posturing rather than substance. Relationships are everything. The relationships between planets and stars, water and air, hot and cold, thought and energy, are constantly creating and changing the world around us.

Relationships are literally what makes creation possible and human relationships are an expression of this. It is the main way that we learn and grow, but if blueprint rules are laid down on how relationships should be and the direction they must go, we are immediately building barriers to all other potential experience and, therefore, greater understanding.

The flow of life leads us to what we need to experience and who with, and the flow comes from within ourselves. Once we lay down the way it must be, or else, we are challenging that flow, which may have other plans for us. This creates a battle between the inner flow and the outer, conscious, blueprint demands, and there is always only one winner in such conflicts.

I love to be hugged and held and operating in harmonious situations, but there is so much more for relationships to offer than the classic blueprints and often the experiences they present to us are not very nice. But if the love is truly there between two people they can survive and grow enormously from those challenges because whatever happens nothing will break that bond. True love is not conscious, it is beyond the bounds of the conscious mind. It is also beyond words. I think we have lost touch with what love really is.

Instead we often create an illusion of love and confuse it with purely third-dimensional blueprinting. Among the New Age mentality, hugging people is part of the persona, the blueprint, the mental and emotional uniform to show that you are a "loving person". But I have seen many in the New Age hugging people as a public show while saying how much they hate their guts once they have gone.

I have known many relationships of the "kissy, kissy, my little cherub" variety, which, on the surface, have been perfect matches.

"Oh what a wonderful couple, they are so in love, it's obvious, isn't it?"

Yet at the first sign of a problem between them, the relationship falls apart because it is built on sand. They can't handle it once the blueprint is breached and you also find, talking to them after the break-up, that their lovey-dovey-go-through-the-motions relationship was a cover for the lack of a deep inner connection that nothing could destroy. I have heard that two people in a relationship should never say goodbye on any occasion without saying "I love you". Really?

Just say it now: "I love you."

See how easy it is? You don't have to mean it, you don't have to feel it, you just have to say it. How many people say those words every day, just to get what they want? And how many don't follow that blueprint, yet feel an enormous love for another person and show it in other ways? I saw a quote once that said:

"Just because I don't love you the way you want me to doesn't mean that I don't love you with everything I have."

The need to hear "I love you" all the time or experience constant public shows of affection can say more about that person's own insecurity than a statement about another's love for them. If you had to make a choice, would you rather have a blueprint relationship that collapses when the going gets tough or one of real substance in which you know your partner will be in the trench with you, no matter what, even if they don't say "I love you" every five minutes? Sometimes you can have both, and that's great if that's what you want, but there are other infinite expressions of love that don't come with a set of rules and regulations.

I was married to Linda for 29 years and although we are no longer husband and wife, we are still very close on a deep level, far beyond the nonsensical idea that to be officially "together" you have to sign a piece of headed notepaper. We will remain so forever because our mutual and deeply painful experiences since 1991 have exploded all blueprints and expectations into tiny fragments.

She knows I will always be there when needed, no matter what, no matter where, and vice-versa. If it had been a blueprint relationship it would have been over in an instant ten years ago. But it wasn't and it isn't, and that is why it has endured and grown, even though the form it takes may have changed. The experiences we have endured, shared, and overcome have made us stronger, wiser, more enlightened people.

And, most importantly, more individual people, expressing a far greater inner strength and sense of confidence and respect for who we are. This has been the whole evolutionary reason for what we have experienced: to make us emotionally stronger and free as our own unique selves without the need to have anyone alongside as an emotional crutch. I leaned on Linda emotionally for a long time. I don't now. She leaned on me. She doesn't now.

We are all being challenged to become whole people and we attract the relationships that help us to do that. Such relationships rarely follow the conditioned blueprints. It's funny how we utter sparkling truths without realizing in our every-day words and phrases. Like when we talk of our partners as "our other half". That's what they are for most people, or as much of the "other half" as they can find, anyway. In most relationships, the partner expresses an energy that we have not accessed within ourselves.

This is why opposites can so powerfully attract. The male is balanced by the female, who in turn is balanced by the male, or again, by as much as they can manage. We are accessing such a fraction of ourselves that we need a partner to make the balance and form some kind of "whole" -our other half.

I wrote earlier about how, when two polarities, male and female, are fused together it creates a third force of fantastic creative potential that can take us vibrationally out of Matrix mode. For this reason, the Illuminati have worked furiously over thousands of years to keep male and female apart and maintain the duality. Most relationships do not create the necessary vibrational "wholeness" and fusion to trigger the third force in all its magnificence.

So relationships as we know them today are not a problem to those in control. In fact, male-female relationships as they are currently perceived are a wonderful tool of the Matrix. Even two halves becoming one is not the ultimate goal on our Freedom Road -it is the one becoming one. It is believed by some that the ideal "spiritual" partnership is two polarities becoming one whole with male and female creating the third force when two compatible people come together. I went along with that for a while, but not any more. It is only half the story.

Two halves becoming one still leaves the two individuals concerned as less than whole people. We are everything. Just because we live in male bodies doesn't mean we don't have as much potential female energy within us as a woman. At the level of consciousness, we are both male and female. Just because we live in female bodies doesn't mean we don't have as much potential male energy within us as a man.

But our conditioned roles within the Matrix are designed to pressure the consciousness in a male body to suppress its female aspect -"macho man, big boys don't cry" -and the consciousness in a female body to suppress its male aspect -"little girls play with dolls and big girls look after the kitchen".

What we are being challenged to do here is for all of us to access all of us. Therefore to become balanced "wholes" within ourselves without the need to find an external "other half". The third force then manifests within all of us, and relationships are the interaction of two whole people and not two halves seeking external balance. Those relationships are based on the mutual respect of each partner for the other's wholeness and individuality. If they don't fulfil the blueprint then fine because whole people do not want a relationship with a blueprint.

They want to be with another vibrant, whole, individual, unique, expression of all that is. And if they don't kiss you at the door or say "I love you" every time they leave your presence then who gives a shit because that is them being them. It doesn't mean they don't love you in their own unique way. Blueprints are such a foundation of the Matrix and without them one of its key structures would collapse.

Relationships as they are currently perceived, desired, and demanded, serve the Matrix magnificently because they suppress what is necessary for the partners to reach wholeness within themselves. Once whatever they need to express or experience on that journey starts to affect their partner in ways they don't like, the pressure is applied, internally and externally, to suppress that experience and stay in the prison cell.

If this attitude does not stop, the Matrix will continue to hold together for as long as the attitude prevails. It will always produce the gatekeeper relationship in which each partner keeps the other in mental and emotional servitude while calling it love and the ideal relationship.

There is another aspect to this crazy little thing called love. People talk about love all the time, but what is it, what does it mean? "Love is never having to say you're sorry" is one definition I have heard. Yet others think that not saying sorry is a really undesirable trait. So one person's definition of love is another's definition of being unloving. Which one is right?

It depends on your blueprint and the perspective from which you are observing. There is a different definition of love for almost everyone on the planet and that's because love is indefinable. It just is and expresses itself in infinite ways, most of which we are not aware of in the Great Illusion. And something else we need to ask: which level of the person is expressing the love in a relationship?

This physical aspect of us is only a holographic projection into this frequency range by the higher levels of who we are. Our physical level is the experiencer and the giver of experience. It is not who we are. We are all that exists. Do we want a relationship with a holographic image according to a conditioned blueprint? Or one with the multi-dimensional consciousness of our partner, which will always provide the experience -the love -that is necessary to open our hearts and minds to the true magnitude of who we are?

We might not like the experience, but from realms beyond this world, it is given with love because it is what we need to set us free of the illusion. Do we want the comfortable, predictable, commitment of the cul-de-sac? Or the unpredictable, no guarantees, roller-coaster-ride, the long and winding road that leads us to multi-dimensional freedom?

Those two standpoints will judge a relationship and "love" in very different ways, and from very different wavelengths and universes. When a partner, parent, child, whoever, gives us an experience we don't like, and does not fulfill our blueprint of someone who loves us, we can get caught in the Matrix big time. How do we grow and evolve? Through experience.

All experience, the good and the bad, the pleasant and the unpleasant. In fact, we grow far more profoundly from the challenges than the easy rides. So who loves us most on a higher level, where it really matters? Those who present the challenges from which we grow and evolve, or those who fulfill our blueprints for an ideal relationship, look after us, take care of us, and shield us from responsibility and challenge? Mmmm. Topsy-turvy world, isn't it?

Nothing is what it seems.
 

Gatekeeper teachers

It is crucial to the Illuminati agenda that their gatekeepers serve the cause in complete ignorance of what they are doing. There is no greater example of this than the "professional" classes like teachers, journalists, doctors, psychiatrists, politicians, scientists, bank staff, and so on. There are exceptions, of course there are, with the great and often brave people in these professions who know the score and try to do what they can within the walls imposed by the system.

What I am talking about here, however, is the general rule within which the exceptions have to operate. The emergence of the "education" system has been hailed as a great step forward in human society. But, like the Internet, it is a two-edged sword and the edge marked indoctrination is far sharper than the one marked enlightenment. Yes, "education" means that children can learn how to read, write, and understand numbers to an extent.

That's a good thing on a basic level. But the "education" system is a manipulator's dream. If you wanted to turn out adults who thought as you wanted them to think and saw the world in a way that suited your plans, what would be the ideal situation for you? It would be to take them as small children, three and four years of age, and have control of what they are taught for at least five days a week throughout their childhood and often into their 20s.

You could not ask for a better structure of indoctrination than that. And that's what they have. As Albert Einstein said: "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." We don't have education. We have the indoctrination of a belief system -the belief system of the Matrix. Teachers are the gatekeepers of the developing mind, telling children what is reality, what is history, what is true and false.

And these teachers, overwhelmingly, have no idea that this is what they do.

Look at how a teacher is produced. First they have to do very well in exams in their own school and university life. Put more bluntly, they have to be sponges for the system's version of truth and reality, and be able to express that accurately on an exam paper. Then they go off to teacher training college and they learn how to indoctrinate their pupils with the same "truth" and "reality" that has been programmed into them.

Incidentally, you also have to be a good sponge at school and university and pass the system's examination of your conditioning, before you qualify to go on to learn how to be a doctor, scientist, journalist, and, more often than not, politician. Those who are good at passing the system's exams are merely confirming their level of indoctrination and it is a mental prison cell that stays intact in most people for their entire physical life.

Children and young people who do their own research, think for themselves, question, and offer a different reality to the indoctrinated "norm", do not pass their exams and are called "a disruptive influence in the classroom". Oh you mean they ask difficult questions? Right, gotcha.

Much of what young people are taught about politics, history, banking, business, science, and all the rest, is provable baloney. But it's what the Illuminati want you to believe and that's all that matters. Teachers work to something called a curriculum, a word meaning, in the Icke dictionary of terminological translation: "The version of reality we want the masses to believe." This is decided by the top of the "educational" pyramid and dictated to all below.

Either the teachers follow the curriculum or they consider their other career options. This is the way that all of these "professional" classes are kept in line and any rebels are weeded out. Teachers teach what they are told to teach, or else; journalists write within the bounds dictated by the editor, or else; the editor edits within the bounds dictated by the owner, or else; scientists give a version of reality and possibility within the boundaries of official "science", or else.

Doctors treat patients within the strict, scalpel or drug, dictates of the medical establishment, or else. So it goes on wherever you look. The few at the top dictate and the rest do what they are told to do. It is the same with the teacher-pupil relationship as we come further down this pyramid. Children find out very early on that life is a lot simpler if you don't question what you hear and just accept it.

I instinctively knew from an early age that schools were the places where the clones of tomorrow were honed and produced. I was, therefore, a rebel from the start. I have never passed a major school exam in my life (and never taken one), never went to college or university, and have done all my learning in my time and on my terms. Teachers are crucial gatekeepers for the Illuminati, not least because, in my experience, the vast majority are so stunningly uninformed about the wider world. Most only know what they are conditioned to know.

Well-informed teachers, journalists, scientists, doctors, and politicians, are the last thing the Matrix wants. Being informed of what is really going on is not a good career move. Those teachers who are informed and do understand that the system is an indoctrination machine, will tell you the consequences for trying to challenge it. The "education" system is a well-oiled conveyor belt that sucks in virgin minds at one end and turns out programmed adults at the other. There are some who survive with their thinking processes still intact, but very few.

For the rest their only hope is to spend their adult lives de-programming themselves from the indoctrination that "educated" them. In the USA, and other parts of the world come to that, parents who are already indoctrinating their children at home, are working a second or third job, saving, and going without, to ensure that their children get a good indoctrination at college and university. The wheels go round and round as everyone plays their part in indoctrinating everyone else and keeping them in the pen.

It is so brilliantly done that they genuinely believe they are doing their best for their children.
 

Gatekeeper police and soldiers

Police, the military, government officials, and "civil servants" are at the front line in the imposition of Illuminati policy on the global population. What I am about to describe is "democracy", a word that has become interchangeable with "freedom" in the newspeak of Illuminati propaganda. I wonder if you think this sounds like freedom: first you elect a government by voting once every four or five years and choosing between two or more masks on the same Illuminati face.

These governments then do almost whatever they like in their period in office and there's nothing that can be done within the "law" to remove them until another farcical election is upon us in which we can, if we want "change", elect another Illuminati mask. Governments pass laws in which you have had no say and, because of their majority in Parliament or Congress among the voting fodder that pass for "politicians", they can get virtually any legislation into "law". Once that happens, yet more fodder-people -gatekeepers -appear on the scene. We call them police and soldiers.

Theirs is not to reason why, theirs is just to do or die. You are not paid to think, just to implement the law and follow orders. We pay for the use of your body and your trigger finger, not your brain, soldier. Now FIRE! YES, SIR! If it were not so tragic, it would be hilarious.

Little boys playing soldiers at the expense of other people's lives.

Hey, soldier, you left a pile of bodies there in a country you only arrived in yesterday. What did they do to you?

"They're the enemy, Sir."

Have you ever spoken to them?
"Of course not, Sir."

Never considered that they are just like you, with families and children, and aspirations to build a better life in the face of the bloody dictator your army has been flown in to defend?
"No, Sir."

Ever read anything about this country you're in?
"No, Sir."

Then how do you know they're your enemy?
"My commanding officer told me, Sir."

And who told him?
"His commanding officer, Sir."

And who's the chief commanding officer at the top of this heap?
"The President, Sir."

And who commands the President?
"The people, Sir, this is a democracy."

How many of "the people" just told you to kill that pile of bodies?
"Well, one, Sir."

And who was that?
"My commanding officer, Sir."

And who told him?

(See above).

The training in the military is pure, classic, mind control. It is designed to break the spirit of a recruit to the point where he will do, by reflex action, whatever he is told to do, whenever and wherever, he is told to do it.

The more elite the regiment, the more profound is the mind control. The training for the elite of the British military like the SAS and the Parachute Regiment, or the Delta Forces or Green Berets in the United States, is designed to produce robotic psychopaths because that is the mentality most suited to requirements. Thinking in the military is another bad career move.

It is these clones of someone else's commands that are used to implement the decisions, often on innocent people, of the Illuminati networks operating within global politics, the United Nations, and NATO. They are perhaps the nearest thing to zombies that you could imagine. That is not to say that out of uniform there are not intelligent, thinking, people among them. There are.

But once the military garb is upon their person, their programming locks in and the gatekeepers take their positions at the checkpoint. If soldiers, and others in uniform, refused to follow orders without asking for justification, the Illuminati could not survive. Then the dog would wag the tail, instead of, at present, the other way around.

The police are the same. It is not that we don't need the police in today's society, it is that we need them to think for themselves and assess situations on their merits, and not implement the law to the letter no matter what. There are some who try to do that, but the system constantly discourages them, as it does with teachers who tell their pupils to think and question.

Many world police forces have "quotas" to maintain every month and so we have the pathetic situation in which more drivers are ticketed for speeding at the start of the month to get them off to a good start and at the end of the month when they are trying to complete their quota. It's called justice. We need the police to ask themselves if a course of action is fair in the circumstances, even if the law insists that rules are rules. Otherwise they are just robots to another's command. Thinking for yourself is called "insubordination".

You see this on a minor level when cars are ticketed for illegal parking even though they are not causing a problem and there are reasons why they were there. We have reached the point now where parking a car in an "illegal" area for two minutes can cost you £50 and, if it is clamped, far more than that. To some, the cost of being undamped is a week's wages that should be putting food in their family's bellies instead of in the pockets of vicious "security" firms who win the clamping contracts. The more they clamp, the more they collect.

This is another of the system's little tricks. You make sure that those who serve you and implement your agenda benefit financially from doing so. In this way, you divide and rule the population by setting enforcer and victim at war with each other and making the enforcer benefit from the victim's plight. Why is it that dictators always ensure that their army is well looked after?

The explosion of laws and regulations and of signs all round us telling to do and don't, are designed to bombard our minds with a constant flow of orders and commands. This programs the subconscious into weary submission to following orders and opens people to react robotically to another's instructions. If you drive into your town or city, park the car, and walk through the streets, you will be astonished at how many times you are instructed what to do.

People like soldiers, police, wheel clampers, and government officials all glean their power over others from the "law". This "law", they know, will back them every time, even though to implement it in certain circumstances may be insane. That's the point you see. The "law" has become the god of society. Laws are passed by "elected" dictatorships, implemented by unthinking yes-men, and defended by the general population who are conditioned to "respect the law" and be "a law-abiding citizen".

What more obvious prison can we live in than to see laws passed in which the people have had no say, and those same people to believe that, even though the law is ludicrous or fascist, they must respect it? People should only respect the law when the law respects the people. The "law" is just a piece of paper that results from a group of mostly uninformed or corrupt politicians voting for its introduction. That's all it is.

If the Suffragettes had respected the law that denied women the vote in Britain and had they not protested and chained themselves to official buildings (against the law) women would not have won the right to vote when they did. Had the peoples of Serbia and the countries of Eastern Europe respected their laws they would still live in open dictatorships.

The very people who say we must respect the law would jump for joy if the Chinese people broke their laws and overthrew the Communist regime. What hypocrisy. What self-delusion.

The only difference between the Chinese dictatorship and the "democratic" dictatorships at the level of "law" is that one is an open dictatorship and the other masquerades as freedom. The police and the military are front-line gatekeepers and, like traffic wardens and cops, wheel clampers, security guards, and all the other uniformed enforcers, they are the most obvious examples of the masses policing themselves. They think they administer the law when the law administers them.

They do not answer to what is right and just in given circumstances, they answer to their masters who introduce the "law" and, in truth, the masters of their masters, the Illuminati.
 

Gatekeeper "scientists"

The foundations of "science" were created by the Francis Bacon-inspired Royal Society in London. This "science" claims that we come from oblivion, have a short physical "life", and then return to oblivion. Even by its own official history the Royal Society was created by Freemasons -people like the Illuminati agent, Benjamin Franklin.

Another inspiration was Isaac Newton, a Grand Master of that elite Illuminati secret society, the Priory of Sion, which manipulates on behalf of the Merovingian bloodline. Newton, like the founders of the Royal Society, knew that much of what official "science" tells us to be true is utter garbage. But that was the idea, to sell us a lie to keep us from the truth. It is far easier to control people if they believe they are cosmic accidents, who come into existence merely by chemical reactions and then go back to oblivion at death.

It is much harder to control those who are aware of their multi-dimensional infinity. Also, what better way to hide the fact that we are controlled from another density than to have people believe there are no other densities? The scientist, like the law, has become a "god", who is given free reign to pontificate about the great questions because he is a scientist and therefore he should know.

Modern scientists are mostly babes-in-arms when it comes to understanding the nature of life and existence, and yet they arrogantly insist that only they know best. Worse, anyone inside or outside of their closed order who questions their norms is subjected to hate campaigns of ridicule and vilification. Virtually every major scientific breakthrough, including the Earth being a sphere, was first greeted with laugher, anger, or denial, by the "scientists" of the day.

Science is a fascist club in which all members must stay in line or have their funding and reputation destroyed. When Immanuel Velikovsky published his books on the devastation he said was caused by the Venus "walk-about", he was castigated beyond belief because he dared to question the norm of conditioned "scientific" orthodoxy.

The leading "experts" bombarded his publishers with letters full of bile and vitriol saying they would boycott the company if they did not withdraw Velikovsky's book. As the company was a publisher of official "scientific" textbooks, it once again put bucks before backbone and the rights were passed to another publisher. The assistant editor who suggested publishing Velikovsky's book was sacked. All this happened because a different view to the scientific norm was presented for people to see.

John A. Keel wrote:

"In retrospect many of the anti-Velikovsky critiques read like the work of deranged lunatics who had not even bothered to read the book they were attempting to criticise. They were against the book simply because it propounded ideas that were contrary to the accepted theories of the day ...Above all they resented the fact that the book was very well written (most scientists are miserable writers)."1

Alfred Wegener, a German meteorologist, died in 1930 after 15 years of ridicule, slander, and contempt from his peers and colleagues. His crime? Suggesting that the Earth once consisted of two landmasses, which split and drifted apart over vast periods of time to form the continents. He supported this proposal with much evidence, but because he was challenging the official "norm" he paid with an onslaught of character assassination. We call his theory today "Continental Drift".2 The theme of what he said was correct!

As Max Planck said:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

What passes for science is a sick joke. Most of its efforts are not aimed at answering the big questions of existence because there is little money or sponsorship in that. Science is geared to finding a new drug or industrial technique that will generate a fortune for its funders. It's a money-making machine and not inspired by an open-minded spirit of discovery. As a Congressional Committee established as far back as the 1950s, those funders of "scientific" research in US universities, the tax-exempt foundations like the Rockefeller Foundation, were dictating what the outcome of that research would be before it had even started!!

Without such an agreement, the funding was not handed over (see ...And The Truth Shall Set You Free). This policy is to suppress an undesired outcome because, in Carl Sagan's words: "All inquiries carry with them some element of risk. There is no guarantee that the universe will conform to our predispositions." The whole "scientific" system is structured to suppress knowledge, not advance it, because the Illuminati is desperate for us to remain in ignorance of who we are and the nature of life.

If enough people knew the truth, their game would be up.

Scientists, and their offshoot, the medical profession, are some of the most concrete-minded of the gatekeepers. They are also some of the most important because they suppress the nature of multi-dimensional existence and that is guaranteed to keep us in the Matrix. They are feted as experts and yet they are, like so many teachers, journalists, and politicians, astonishingly uninformed. Their whole structure is designed to keep them compartmentalized in their "specialty" so they are partial masters of one trade and jack of none.

Only when we connect the dots can we begin to see the picture, but most scientists spend their entire careers specializing on one dot. In the UK, one of the most infamous gatekeepers in my experience is one Dr Susan Blackmore, who is constantly wheeled out by the media to dismiss any claims of the "paranormal".

The more that people experience such phenomena, the more ludicrous Dr Blackmore's "explanations" become. But, of course, because she is an "academic" with a title she is seen as more credible than the people actually having the experience. In the New Scientist magazine of November 4th 2000, she was again given the freedom to rubbish all other scientists who say the mind and brain are not the same thing.

The arrogance with which her padlocked mind dismisses anything outside the official "scientific" norm is a wonder to behold. We, the people, are the only ones who can break this stranglehold on true science. We need to stop being impressed by titles and letters after someone's name and focus purely on the evidence. We are encouraged to believe that a scientist must know better than a "layman" by definition. He's a scientist, isn't he?

The track record of scientists talking complete cobblers is simply enormous and goes back to the very start of the "scientific method". While I was writing this book, an official report in the UK exposed how government "scientists" and "experts" had misled the British public for years about the so-called mad cow disease being transmitted to humans through eating beef. The scientists said it could not be passed to humans and so safety measures were not taken when any idiot could see that the chances were high that it could.

I remember saying so on a BBC farming programme in 1989 when I was a spokesman for the British Green Party. But the scientists knew best and people are still dying today as a result. Was it a layman or woman who came up with Thalidomide that led to so many fundamentally deformed babies? No, it was scientists who said it was perfectly safe. It would take a library to list all of the horrors that have resulted from these "experts" we call "scientists". But the masses go on believing them without question and, until we stop, the Matrix will remain unexposed to the vast majority.

The motto of the new and true science should be the words of Albert Schweitzer:

"...those who sincerely seek the truth should not fear the outcome".
 

Gatekeeper censors

Censorship is the life force of the Matrix. If you can stop the free flow of information you are already well on the way to global control. If I emphasize one thing and suppress the opposing view, I am going to get large numbers of people to make imbalanced and inaccurate conclusions about a person, event, or possibility. It is that simple. So if you are a censor, you are a gatekeeper, a prison warder for the Matrix.

All censors are, by definition, arrogant beyond belief because they are saying that their view should be emphasized at the expense of another. They believe they have the right to decide what others shall and shall not have the freedom to hear. I can speak from experience because there have been endless attempts to censor my work. The closer I have gotten to the truth the more determined those attempts have become, especially since I began to speak and write about reptilian hybrid bloodlines.

There have been attempts to close down my website, www.davidicke.com, and to stop me speaking at public meetings and in the media. If what 1 am saying is so crazy and wrong, why the obsession with denying me a platform?

I'll give some examples of how fragile our freedoms really are. The attempts to silence me started in the mid-1990s when I began to publish detailed accounts of the conspiracy in books like ...And The Truth Shall You Free, since updated many times. On to the scene came a couple of naive and immature young "journalists" called John Murray and Matthew Kalman.

They had decided, on no evidence because the opposite is true, that I am "anti-Semitic". Their whole case was that I quoted in a previous book, The Robots' Rebellion, from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which, I suggest, were planted by the Illuminati to blame it all on the Jews and for other reasons. What the Protocols do, however, is reveal in detail the techniques that have been provably used to advance the Illuminati agenda these past 100 years and more.

It mattered not to Kalman and Murray that I called them the Illuminati Protocols, nor that I had emphasized in the book, and later ones, that this is not a Jewish plot. It mattered neither that the first edition of ...And The Truth Shall Set You Free was funded into existence by a Jewish friend of mine. The vast majority of Jewish people have been victims of the Illuminati, not the perpetrators. But mention a few Jewish people, like Kissinger, the Rothschilds, and the Bronfmans, among the 95% I have named over the years who are not Jewish, and you become "anti-Semitic".

This has long been the prime and most effective tool used by the Rothschilds and the Bronfmans to stop research into their activities, and its effectiveness has allowed them to continue unexposed with the manipulation and abuse of Jewish communities as much as anyone.

Some brave Jewish people are trying to make these points also. Norman Finkelstein, whose own parents suffered in the Nazi concentration camps, has published a brilliant and explosive book called The Holocaust Industry (Verso Books, July 2000), which reveals how the Jewish elite have mercilessly exploited the Holocaust for their own financial ends while denying the true victims their just compensation. There are some quotes from this book in Appendix III.

Kalman and Murray, who appeared to think they were Woodward and Bernstein on the Washington Post exposing Watergate, had decided what I was and that's all that mattered to them. Don't let the truth spoil a good story, especially when there is money and kudos in it. Suddenly articles began to appear in national newspapers saying that I was an anti-Semite (which in fact really means anti-Arab!).

What no one was told was that all of these stories were either written by, or the "information" supplied by, the same disastrous duo, Matthew Kalman and John Murray. Their writings led to my events being banned by venues, so people could not hear how their lives were being manipulated, wars created, their freedoms removed, and staggering numbers of children tortured, abused, and ritually murdered. Well done chaps, great job.

This was in the mid-1990s and I had demonstrations by the Anti-Nazi League at some of my events. My children have always been brought up to see racism of any kind as silly and ridiculous. My daughter Kerry supported the Anti-Nazi League and wore their badge all the time. She threw it in the bin in outrage at what they were saying about the father she knew found all racism obnoxious. Friends went outside to the protesters to ask them if any of them had read my books. They had not. Had they ever heard me speak? They had not. So why were they there?

Because of what they had read in the papers and what they had been told by those who ran the Anti-Nazi League (see the earlier section about the soldier and the commanding officer, because there is no difference). They were just a bunch of mindless pawns in a game they did not begin to understand, and they were so full of their own sense of self-purity, they never considered that they were behaving exactly like the Nazi fascists who systematically wrecked the public meetings of those in Germany who were trying to warn of the consequences of Hitler getting to power.

A policeman who attended one of my meetings because of the demonstrations said that he had policed the infamous and violent confrontations between the fascist National Front Party and the Anti-Nazi League in the UK in the 1970s. He said that it had been impossible to tell the two "sides" apart because their attitude and behavior had been precisely the same. Exactly. They are opposames.

Just because people call themselves anti-fascist does not mean they do not express fascist behavior. They are just not bright enough to see it. As a result they become an army of self-indulgent censors, gatekeepers for the Illuminati, and fascists who talk of stopping fascism. When the protestors were invited free of charge to come in and hear my talk and see for themselves, they refused. In doing so, they denied their right to be taken seriously.

The same happened at Swansea University, but then universities are the home of mind control and mental conditioning, the breeding ground of what I call the "Robot Radicals". The London School of Economics is a prime example.

Kalman and Murray have long since left the scene. They suddenly went very quiet. Maybe they realized they had been massively duped into duping others. Maybe the story got old and the fees from the newspapers ran out. Who knows and who cares? However, their nonsense was now in print thanks to newspapers like The Sunday Times, Guardian, Independent, and the London Evening Standard, all run by highly intelligent people, you'll understand.

Once in print, even if the sources themselves may no longer believe it, the articles can be used to further censor what people can hear. Enter stage right, far right from where I am sitting, one Richard Warman. Never heard of him? You are not alone. No one seemed to have heard of him until he decided to dedicate his life to preventing me speaking and anyone having the opportunity to hear me anywhere in the world. No, you didn't mis-read that.

This man, by the way, works for the Canadian Green Party, which condemns the censorship of freedom of speech! Just like David Taylor of the British Green Party who also sought to have my events banned. The stench of hypocrisy fills the air. Richard Warman is an official of the otherwise insignificant Ontario Green Party working out of Ottawa and Toronto, one of the global centers of the Illuminati and one of its key bloodlines, the Bronfmans.

This is the gangster family behind Universal Music, Universal Studios, the liquor giant, Seagrams, and the force behind promoters of peace and love like the Satanic "rock star", Marilyn Manson. Warman has worked closely in his campaign of vilification and censorship against me with the Canadian Jewish Congress or CJC. This was formed and funded by the very same Bronfmans. Just a coincidence, nothing to worry about.

Warman wrote triumphantly after denying my freedom of speech in Ontario in 1999:

"Now that the dust has settled over the recent attempted speaking tour by British hatemonger David Icke, I would like to offer a word of thanks on behalf of the Green Party of Ontario to all those with whom we worked to oppose this individual's message of division and intolerance. Our concern with David Icke stems not only from the need for solidarity with the Jewish and other communities whom he attacks, but also because Icke attempts to gain credence for his beliefs from his prior association with the British Green Party, without ever mentioning that they have disowned Icke and condemned his writings in no uncertain terms.

 

The level of success that was achieved in informing the public and venues of the true nature of David Icke's paranoid conspiracy theories was due in large part to the tireless efforts of Rubin Friedman and Karen Mock of the B'nai B'rith League for Human Rights [Rothschilds], Daniel Fine and Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress [Bronfmans], and Stacia Benovitch of Vaad Ha'lr, Ottawa.

 

It was extremely encouraging to note that, apart from Hart House Theatre, every venue that was contacted made the decision that they were not willing to be a platform for David Icke or his followers. Most impressive was the Bronson Centre in Ottawa and the Order of Grey Nuns who run it. In a remarkable display of common sense, they always try to find out a little more about anyone who approaches them to rent space, and after a minimum inquiry on their own, they quickly decided they weren't interested in having Icke as a guest in their facility."3

This is a classic of its kind and typical of the thrust of the disinformation that has caused venues around the world to cancel my meetings. Note that he says that one venue cancelled after a "minimum inquiry" of its own. Normally it is no inquiry at all and my freedom of expression and the freedom of the audiences to listen is denied purely on this guy's say-so.

He says the decision to cancel by the Order of Grey Nuns was impressive. But, of course, like all disinformers, he fails to mention that they did not cancel because they said I was anti-Semitic. They did so because I was questioning the literal existence of "Jesus". He also fails to mention that the Canadian Jewish Congress was founded and funded by the Bronfman family or that B'nai Brith was founded and funded by the Rothschilds. It is the same with the Anti-Defamation League.

They were created by the Rothschilds to use the label "hatemonger" and "anti-Semite" to prevent legitimate research into their grotesque activities. You have read this book. Many will have read previous ones.

Where am I a hatemonger? Where do I condemn the Jewish people? I don't, and Warman knows that I don't, but then that's not the point is it? And what are Warman and Farber (the Bronfmans) seeking to do in this campaign of personal abuse? To get as many people as possible to hate me. So who are the real hatemongers here?

But the funniest part of all is the claim that I am trying to "gain credence" by emphasizing my links with the British Green Party. Mr Warman, when you are trying to gain credence, the last thing you do is emphasize any connections to the British Green Party, never mind your own.

The bile circulated by Warman and Farber (the Bronfmans) led to me being stopped by both customs and immigration at Ottawa Airport and kept there until two o'clock in the morning. Every item in my luggage was searched (glad I brought those dirty socks) and every piece of paper was read in pursuit of "hate material". They found nothing and in the end the officer-pawn involved could see it was all a set-up.

But I still could not leave because some immigration technicality was then found to hold me still longer. I was brought back the following lunchtime, the day of my talk. They kept me there for hours and then asked me what time my talk was due to end that day. I said four o'clock. They let me go at four o'clock. More men and women in uniform, more gatekeepers of their own freedoms.

They treated me like a criminal, as if all the propaganda by Warman and Farber (the Bronfmans) was true. In other words they were mind controlled by a preconceived idea, planted by someone else. There is nothing more powerful than the preconceived idea because once that is implanted all you see is evidence to support your preconception. The power of that thought form so often unconsciously filters out information that would show that your original perception was wrong.

Richard Warman's abuse of my character devastated my meeting in Ottawa, where the venue had to be changed again and again in the last 48 hours, and the one at Windsor, Ontario, was cancelled. Together with the Bronfmans' Canadian Jewish Congress and its vitriolic spokesman, Bernie Farber, and others, Warman organised a demonstration outside my talk at the Hart House Theatre at Toronto University, which they had failed miserably to stop. A friend of mine, who was married to a Jewish man for many years, went outside to the demonstrators and asked them how they knew I was anti-Semitic.

It was the usual tale. "Someone" (Warman and Farber) had told them, they said. Had they read my books? No. Had they heard me speak? No. Would they be going inside to hear me now? No. Why? Because he is anti-Semitic! The only reason the Toronto talk went ahead was because the head of the university refused to bow to pressure from Warman and Farber to block my freedom of speech. He was a brave man because the pressure was enormous. Soon afterwards, he left the university by "mutual consent".

As a result of the lies directed at me, the head of the Canadian Police Hate Crimes Unit was in the audience. We shook hands afterwards and he had no problem with my talk whatsoever. Warman and Farber (the Bronfmans) never mention that. As I walked off the stage I was greeted by two agents of Canadian Immigration, who threatened me with immediate arrest if I did not agree to see an officer the next morning.

When I did so, I was banned from speaking at any more events. Ask a Canadian if he or she lives in a free country and most will say enthusiastically that they do. I was told that a teacher who had hosted a meeting for me lost his job as a result of this character assassination and, although this turned out not to be correct, many people have had their reputations attacked for their association with me.

The campaign continued when Warman flew across Canada (who paid?) to gather support for a campaign to have my event in Vancouver banned in the spring of 2000. Only a few mindless people were interested, but they still managed, thanks to "Farber's" (the Bronfmans') influence in Toronto, to have the major Canadian book chain, Chapters, cancel a book signing; have invitations to appear on radio withdrawn; and "organized" a rabble dressed as reptiles to rush into a book signing at an independent bookshop and throw pies at me.

Isn't it good to know that our freedoms are being protected by those with this scale of intellect and maturity?

And while all this was unfolding, the children went on being abused, tortured, and sacrificed, and the wars and other horrors went on being manipulated, as Mr Warman and Mr Farber worked so ferociously to stop it being exposed. They have made their priorities very clear.

The Vancouver event, attended by 1,200 people, only survived because it was at an independent theatre. Any connection to a council, government, or major chain and it would have been pulled like so many before and since. Warman sat through my talk and in those more than six hours, he saw at first hand that I do not speak about a Jewish plot at all and never even mention the word "Jewish" because there is no need, except to emphasize what a travesty of the truth Warman is seeking to purvey.

This talk can be seen on a video called From Prison To Paradise and you can see for yourself that what I am saying here is true. If Warman had simply been stupid and mis-guided, this is where it would have ended. But it didn't. That was the point when Richard Warman's true motives became clear in my opinion. This guy had an agenda and, given what small fry he is in Canada, it must, I believe, be someone else's agenda.

To this very day he and Farber have refused to meet me face to face or debate with me on the radio, though the opportunity has been there. Warman, from his home in eastern Canada, now seeks to prevent me speaking anywhere on the planet and if anyone wants to know how easy it is to control the world, they should look at how easy it is to stop freedom of speech without moving from your desk. All he does is check on my website where I am speaking and waits until a few days before the event to ensure that there is not enough time to find another venue.

He then either rings the venue or sends them a package claiming I am anti-Semitic and will be blaming Jews for a global conspiracy, something he knows from his own experience is not true. Ironically he quotes the articles in British newspapers written or inspired by Kalman and Murray all those years ago. Perhaps most sickening of all, he includes the fact that I am exposing famous people as abusers and sacrificers of children as a reason why venues should not let me speak. A few tell him where he can place a large object and they stand up for freedom of speech.

Depressingly, many just pull the meeting on the basis of what he says. Just by doing this, in the course of writing this book, Warman has, from eastern Canada, caused my events at London's Blackheath Concert Rooms, Stourbridge Town Hall, and the Burlington Hotel in central Birmingham to be cancelled because the venues banned my talk. That's how easy it is. The venues refuse to discuss the situation and could not care less about the inconvenience and the cost, not least to the audience, and they could care even less about the freedom of human expression.

So long as it does not affect theirs, they don't give a damn. They do not have the intellect to understand that in banning my freedom of speech they are undermining that freedom for everyone by setting the precedent that it's OK to deny a person's right to express views that don't suit you (even if you don't know what they are!).

It has gotten so ludicrous that I was almost banned from speaking down the road from where I live on the Isle of Wight in a theatre where I have appeared several times with no problem over many years. If I had not challenged the council on local radio, they would have pulled the event, I am sure. The council even sent a "monitor" to my talk with legal advice on hand and the authority to stop the event if I overstepped their mark.

Not naming people who abuse and sacrifice children appears far more important to them than the plight of the kids themselves. The monitor told the local newspaper that there was not a single moment when I said anything that concerned her in any way. This is what the Canadian Police Hate Crimes Unit said, who were set up specifically to make "Anti-Semitism" a criminal offence. So that should be the end of it, you may think, but no.

When the Burlington Hotel in Birmingham had the Warman treatment three weeks later they pulled the meeting and refused to even speak to me and explain. They were given the chance to speak to the council monitor on the Isle of Wight to see that what Warman was claiming from thousands of miles away was nonsense. But the Burlington Hotel did not want to know. I understand that after pressure they did contact the City Varieties Theatre in Leeds where I had spoken so successfully just two weeks earlier.

But even though the Burlington was told that there were no problems whatsoever in Leeds, they banned me all the same. They sent a very short fax, signed by a Sarah Small, the conference sales manager. My talk had been cancelled, she informed me, because they thought it would damage the reputation of the hotel. It could not possibly do any more damage to your "reputation", Ms Small, than the outrageous behavior of you and your colleagues.

Paul, the organizer of those British events, had worked his socks off to make them a success. He did it because he believed that the freedom of all of us is under fundamental threat. But it was all for nothing because the combination of one phone call or package from Richard Warman thousands of miles away and pathetic venue managers in the UK is all takes to deny, this most basic of freedoms.

Everyone concerned with these events is a gatekeeper for the Matrix. There are so few on this planet who are not. People like Richard Warman and Bernie Farber (the Bronfmans) know they are, that's the difference. Either that or their brain cell count must be dangerously low or their capacity for self-delusion dangerously high.

But equally responsible are those Green Party members in Canada and worldwide who have been informed of what he is doing in their name and yet just sit on their hands and let him go on unchallenged. Those who stay silent and allow the bullies to prevail are also gatekeepers by their inaction. I was a spokesman for the British Green Party for a couple of years in the 1980s and it, and its equivalent around the world, is the global headquarters of Navel Contemplators Anonymous.

That's why Warman can use it to front his attempts to have me silenced, including his bid to have my Internet site taken down. This caused us to move quickly to another server to keep the information available. It was yet more time and effort used to overcome his attempts at censorship that could have been exposing what is happening to so many people, not least to children.

Apparently, Mr.Warman was outraged that his activities were being exposed on the website and that his official Green Party office numbers and e-mail addresses were published so that people whose freedom he had denied could let him know what they thought. Richard Warman, gatekeeper to the Matrix, would be a legitimate dictionary definition for the word "hypocrisy".

You will find the contact numbers for the Canadian Green Party on the website. At the same time Warman was having my events banned, the leader of the US Green Party, Ralph Nader, was condemning the "censorship" that saw him denied a place in the televised presidential debates between Bush and Gore.

Warman summed up his attitude to freedom when he told a journalist of equal intelligence in the British Independent On Sunday:

"He has taken all the conspiracy theories that ever existed and melded them together to create an even greater conspiracy of his own. His writings may be the work of a madman, or of a genuine racist. Either way they are very dangerous. There is an unpleasant anti-Semitic undertone in his work [I thought I was a "hatemonger" openly condemning Jewish people] that must be brought to public attention. If he's unstable then so are his followers, who hang on his every word. What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?"

If someone had spoken those words in the middle of the last century while wearing a Nazi uniform, no one would have been surprised. If the speaker in Warman's opinion is unstable, so, by definition, must be everyone who listens. Now that is truly terrifying and truly, truly, dangerous.

Think of the implications of that statement. The Soviet Union's psychiatric hospitals were filled with perfectly sane dissidents of that fascist/Communist system because the very same attitudes expressed there by Mr Warman were used to justify their imprisonment.

And even more sinister:

"What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?"

The arrogance of that question beggars belief. No fascist in Nazi Germany, no Communist in China or the Soviet Union, could ever have said it better. But I still respect his right to express his view.

As Voltaire said:

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

Pity that Mr Warman does not feel the same about others. Green Party members of the world, this man claims to speak for you. How long are you going to sit there in silence? While you do so, you are responsible for everything this man does and says in your name. How many more venue owners are going to have their decisions made by such a fundamental enemy of freedom?

The "journalist" who wrote that Independent On Sunday article, one Jason Cowley, just let those quotes pass without comment while calling my work "extreme", "dark", and "dotty". If more dark and extreme words have ever been spoken than those, then I haven't heard them.

But in one way, Richard Warman, this misguided holographic image, provides a service to those who care about their freedoms. His behaviour has shown how fragile those freedoms are and, indeed, what an illusion they are. The idea that we live in a free world is self-delusion on a monumental scale. People in Manchester, England, think they live in a free city and yet it has proved impossible to find any venue there that will accept a booking for my talk.

The people of Brighton, on England's south coast, think they live in a free city and yet I have not been able to speak there for many years because venues are threatened with mass protests by the "anti-fascists" who tell them that they will not be able to guarantee the safety of the audience. The Brighton Art School lied to me when they said the police had ordered them to pull my meeting there.

The police had done nothing of the kind. It was just an excuse because it is easier that way when your backbone is made of jelly. When we booked an alternative venue at Crawley, north of Brighton, the council asked to see a video of what 1 was going to say. They watched it and confirmed there was no problem; 24 hours before the talk, they cancelled because an anonymous caller had indicated the possibility of violence against the audience if I was allowed to speak. The caller was an "anti-fascist", by the way. Another gatekeeper, another sheepdog in the bewildered herd.

Censorship of the Internet is next on the Illuminati agenda. The Internet is an Illuminati creation and only exists because of military technology. It has been sold as a means of allowing the free flow of global information, but that is only the cover. The real reason is that it allows for the easiest possible surveillance of personal communications through e-mails, and the websites visited by individuals give the authorities the opportunity to build a personality and knowledge profile of everyone.

It's about control. Slowly, and now less than slowly, the benefits of the Internet, the free flow of views and information, are being targeted and the most prominent advocates are... the Bronfmans! You are going to see an onslaught against Internet freedom, just as Richard Warman and his string-pullers targeted my own site. Censors never admit to being so.

It's not good for the image, especially if you publish articles calling for freedom of speech like the Green Party. They will always find a way of justifying why they are defending freedom rather than destroying it. But when the same criteria are applied to them, they scream like a three-year-old. Self-delusion is the very mind-state of the Matrix.

Welcome to the Matrix, Mr Warman.

Gatekeeper "journalists"

The media is the force that holds the whole Matrix together. That's why the Illuminati own it. Without the minute by minute flow of Matrix propaganda through the global media, the power of the illusion would be nothing like as fundamental as it is. You don't have to control every journalist to dictate what the public will or will not hear. If journalists were open-minded, thinking, intelligent, people who care about freedom, there would not be a problem.

But most of them aren't and those who are aware and try to tell some real truths soon realise what a prison of expression they work in. I was a journalist for years and I know how uninformed they are about the world outside the morning papers or the TV news. I have seen them at work from the other side since I began to communicate this information and it is a stunning experience to view at close hand the intellect that stands between what is happening in the world and what the people are told is happening.

And I am talking about top television correspondents as well as the propaganda fodder on the large and small newspapers. There are basically two types of personality who reach the top in journalism, and politics come to that:

(a) The few who know what is really going on and support that agenda

(b) the rest, the majority, who do not understand what is happening in the world

The British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his deputy, John Prescott, are perfect examples of both kinds and journalists are precisely the same. And yet these are the people who tell us every day what to think about people and events. As the old saying goes: "You cannot bribe or twist the great British journalist, but seeing what they will do unbribed, there's no reason to."

Journalists in general are, like most politicians, some of the most uninformed people on the planet. They are slaves to the Illuminati "norms", the mental and emotional sheep-pen. Once the norms are set of what is right and wrong, good and bad, possible or impossible, the media report the world from that perspective. They are clones of the Matrix. A few centuries ago today's media would have ridiculed and condemned as dangerous anyone who said that the Earth was not flat.

Why? For no other reason than the "norm", the accepted "truth" of the official establishment system, was that the Earth was indeed flat. Because the "journalists" report everything from the perspective of the "norms" in every generation, it means that anything that is different is always dubbed either dangerous or dotty. Or, in my case, both. They don't do any research into whether that which is different is actually true.

They assume it must be wrong simply because it is so different. And, of course, they have the ultimate self-delusion of believing that because they are "journalists" they would know about it if it were true. Ask a journalist about the Bilderberg Group and see his or her eyes glaze over. "Bilder-what?" I have tried it over and over across the world and I have yet to find one, one, who has heard of it. But at the same time they dismiss conspiracy information as a dotty and paranoid "theory". Now if you were the Illuminati wishing to keep people in ignorance, is not this the very mentality you would want to have working for your media? Of course it is, and that's why we have it.

I could give you many specific examples of this, but one experience I had while writing this book can serve as an example of them all. I was called by a guy named Jason Cowley, who writes for the Independent On Sunday. "Independent", by the way, is newspeak for anything but. You call a paper "Independent" in the same way that violent dictators who rule with their army call their countries "democratic fronts". It attempts to obscure the reality.

The "Independent" newspaper group is owned by an Illuminati frontman called Tony O'Reilly, who also owns a list of media operations around the world, including the main newspaper group in South Africa. O'Reilly, who loves to show off his connections to people like Henry Kissinger, is a close friend of Robert Mugabe, the corrupt and vicious dictator in Zimbabwe. Yep, what a perfect man to own the "Independent" newspaper.

Anyway, this chap Cowley calls me and says he's coming to my talk in the Isle of Wight I mentioned earlier. My first impressions were not good. He had no interest in what I was saying and changed the subject whenever I got into any substance. He said he wanted to write a "philosophical piece". Now this, in journalistic-speak, means:

"I have got in my head the theme of what I will write, my preconceived idea, and I am not going to let anything get in the way of that."

Like the facts. I have had so much shit written about and thrown at me over the years by those of Jason Cowley's mentality, and I knew that he was preparing to throw some more. These days I can see them a mile off because they're such transparent people. I said to a friend:

"I think this Independent guy is a monumental prat and I know what he is coming to do."

Cowley also told me that he was "coming with an open mind", and that's always a red flag to me. I wish I had a dollar for every journalist I have met with a concrete mind who assured me that he or she was coming with an open one. So along he came. He was actually planning to arrive at the talk some three hours after the start and then write his article about what I was saying!

It was only when I pointed out how ludicrous and unacceptable this was, that he agreed to try to get there earlier. This is simply confirmed clearly that my first impression had been correct. He didn't give a damn what I was saying, he had the article and its theme in his head already. Most of them do. Even then he spent long periods of the day outside the theatre and so could not hear the evidence I was presenting. What an insult to his readers and what contempt he must have for them to behave in that way.

Throughout the day, members of the audience were telling my family that Cowley had been asking them silly and leading questions and it was obvious to them that he had come to do a demolition job. Meanwhile he thought he was hiding his intentions really well! You have got to laugh. In fact, in the end people were laughing at him, as he flitted around in and out of the theatre making his intentions so obvious while thinking no one would notice.

He spoke to me for around 40 minutes about my own mental state (I'm different, so I must be mad) and an amazing experience that happened to me in Peru in 1991 (none of which he quoted). I was not asked a single question about the conspiracy.

From all this "research" by Jason Cowley, one of the least intelligent "journalists" I have met in my own experience, the following was published as fact:

"Icke's vision has darkened as it has become more delusional and paranoid, and there is much that is sinister, as well as dotty, in his vast conspiracy theory."4

This was written by a man who doesn't know what I am saying because he couldn't be bothered to find out. He ended by concluding that perhaps the biggest secret is that there is no secret and that there was no unified field encompassing everything. Some brilliant and open-minded real scientists would be very surprised to hear that, but who can doubt the all-knowing, non-researching, Mr Cowley or the journalistic herd in which he operates?

The problem with my ideas, he said, was that they were based on no sacred texts or a belief in a single deity. He had just attended a talk (or rather not) in which I said all that exists is one infinite consciousness. He quoted G.K. Chesterton in support of his view of my "problem":

"When a man stops believing in God, he doesn't then believe in nothing, he believes in everything, in anything."

So if you don't believe in an official version of God, you are not to be taken seriously.

So how much research had Cowley done to see if what I am saying is true? None. Just like all the rest. And he would have written all that he did had he turned up, as he intended, three hours into my talk. Had he read my books? No. This, ladies and gentlemen of the Matrix, is the mentality that keeps the people enslaved in the illusion because he is not the exception, he is the rule all over the world.

The blind leading the blind and the bland leading the bland. I spoke in the talk about famous people sacrificing and abusing children, people like Ted Heath. What did Cowley write about even the theme of massive ritual murder and abuse? Nothing. What research did he do into it afterwards to see if it was true? None. What did he say about all the detailed connections I made in the talk that showed, for instance, that members of the same organizations, like the Bilderberg Group, were named as all the major peace negotiators in the Bosnian conflict? Nothing. What did he report about any specific detailed information I gave that day? Nothing.

All this specific information and detail was dismissed as me having a conspiracy theory for everything. That was it. Mr Cowley, like 95% of his fellow "journalists", is not intelligent enough to realize that he is a gatekeeper of other people's minds, as well as his own. But, like I say, he's the norm, not the exception. I don't think that Mr Cowley and his like would know how to be an exception. They live in the world dictated by norms and then confirm and perpetuate them for other people.

I met a "journalist" on the British Observer newspaper in 1997 while in the United States, by the name of Taylor, I think it was. I told him about the mind control projects and the widespread child murder and abuse involving people like George Bush and others. He called it the "story of the century". I offered to put him in touch with victims and those involved directly who could tell him more. I gave him my number to call me for their names and contact addresses. He never called. He just went away and the following Sunday wrote an article that took the piss.

And all the time the children go on being sacrificed, tortured, and abused in Satanic ritual and mind control projects. If you saw life in a typical newspaper or radio and television newsroom, it would blow your mind. They take reports that come up constantly on the teleprinter from the global (Illuminati) news agencies and just publish them or broadcast them as if they were true.

These news agencies have correspondents in every country and when a major event happens there, the report of that one journalist is sent all around the world to every major news organization. If that one journalist gets it wrong, or has an agenda, every newspaper, radio, and television news bulletin, gets it wrong or communicates the desired spin.

Every hour on radio stations across this planet, newsreaders are ripping pre-written news bulletins from the teleprinter and reading them as truth. In the BBC in the UK, this process is actually known as "rip n' read". The person reading that "news" has no idea who wrote it or from what source it came, never mind if it is accurate. The listeners hear this "news" and it affects their view of life, people, and the world. That's why we have to question everything we are told through such sources. Just listen to any television news report and invariably the journalist will have taken the official version of the event and put this in his or her own words.

We now have the policy of the newsreader interviewing a reporter about people and events instead of the people directly involved.

"We go over to our correspondent John Reynolds at the scene. John, what's going on ?"

"Well Michael, terrorists, believed to be from the Middle East, appear to have planted the bomb." (Official sources have told him that terrorists believed to be from the Middle East planted the bomb.)

"I understand that police and the security agencies are focusing their investigation on a terrorist group connected to Libya, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc." (Official sources have told him they are focusing their investigation on such a group. It doesn't matter if they are or not, he reports what they say.)

"It appears that the bomb was planted as a protest over UN policy in the Middle East and the Prime Minister says that the policy must continue because they cannot give in to terrorism. New security laws are to be rushed through parliament to protect the public from further attacks."

 

(All this has come from official sources and the reporter has no idea if it is true or not. The way it is worded:

(a) supports the continuance of a UN policy

(b) equates new laws that will remove freedoms with the need to protect the public)

The reporter is not trying to dupe people or give false information. But he gets his information from official sources and so he becomes a mouthpiece for the official version of events. This happens every day. He is not an independent observer and reporter, he is little more than a public relations man for the official version that they want the public to believe.

When a BBC reporter called Peter Snow tried to report the Falklands War impartially, and used phrases like the British Government claims or says, rather than accepting its accuracy without question, he was catastigated by the government and the rest of the media for being anti-British! The men and women of the global media, with a few very honorable exceptions, are some of the key gatekeepers for the Matrix and some of the most deluded of the Matrix mentality.

One journalist wrote an appalling article indicating that I was anti-Semitic and talking paranoid nonsense about a conspiracy. He apparently even made a call to a television programme that led to my appearance being cancelled. Years later he contacted me to say he no longer believed that I was anti-Semitic and had seen enough in his own experience since to see that there was definitely an investigation to be done into a global conspiracy.

At least he had the guts to change his mind and he will not be the last as the evidence becomes more and more obvious. When it does, the Cowleys, Taylors, Warmans, and Farbers will have all those abused children to answer to. I trust they will have a good excuse prepared for looking the other way and ridiculing the evidence of this abuse while doing no research to see if it is true. Or, in the case of Warman and Farber, vociferously seeking to suppress exposure of the children's plight.

In so many ways, the global media is the Matrix and the global journalistic herd are its, largely unknowing, propaganda machine.

Gatekeeper people

We are all gatekeepers to an extent because the illusion is so powerful. It is just a matter of degree. Among the major gatekeeper professions and mentalities I have highlighted here, there are many decent, caring, people who are intelligent within the Matrix version of intelligence. It's the intelligence of the inmate who is streetwise about his prison, who can duck and weave and play the game successfully within its confines and rules.

What this intelligence cannot see, however, are the prison walls. It thinks it's free. It's not intelligence that we need to break out of here. It's wisdom. I have been emphasizing in this chapter how the closed minds and Matrix conditioning of the gatekeeper professions and mentality lead them to stand on guard at the gates to mental, emotional, and spiritual freedom. Their professions make them especially effective gatekeepers, but in truth everyone is.

Everyone, that is, who seeks to impose their reality on others by suppression, ridicule, and misrepresentation of another view; or by parental, peer, and partner pressure to conform to someone else's reality. Partners gatekeep their partners; parents gatekeep their children; children gatekeep each other; neighbours gatekeep neighbors; priests gatekeep their believers; journalists gatekeep the masses.

As a friend of mine, Michael Roll, once said:

"You are born to loving parents and they tell you that 2 + 2 = 5; you go to school and teachers tell you that 2 + 2 = 5; you go to university and professors with letters after their name tell you 2 + 2 = 5; the media constantly confirms that 2 + 2 = 5 because that's the 'norm' they slavishly serve and promote; and all the people around you believe the same because they have been through the same system that you have.

In those circumstances, and that's what we face every day, is it any wonder that billions of people go through an entire physical lifetime believing that 2 + 2 = 5?"

It is an excellent point. The answer goes on equaling four, it's just that people don't know that and most can't be bothered to find out. If we want to be free, it is time that we did.
 

SOURCES

1 Our Haunted Planet, p 79
2 Ibid, pp 69 and 70
3 This communication was dated January 13, 2000
4 Jason Cowley, "The Icke Files", Independent On Sunday, The Sunday Review, October 1st, 2000, pp 6 to 9

Back to Contents