SH Comments
Reged: Feb 16 2004
Posts: 1056
|
|
This thread is for comments about David Icke, the Reptilian Infiltration, and the Limits of Science Fiction, by James Trimarco
|
Alexandru
New user
Reged: Mar 13 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
This is a very interesting article. I have to admit that it brought some bad memories back, memories of insane conversations.
I have a friend that I consider one of the most educated and intelligent individual I know. It scared the shit out of me when he first introduced me to Ikie.
I could not understand how a intelligent individual could believe this cult like madness.
I agreed to read some of the books, and I immediately saw the attraction. Its pure cult methods aimed at disenfranchised individuals. Its a nice blend of spirituality, scapegoating, and hocus pocus bullshit.
David Ikie is no different than any other cult/bullshit artist. He just took every single conspiracy theory story, mixed it with visuals from a shitty 80s tv show, and wrapped it in a "you are smart if you understand" cult logic.
|
Chuck
New user
Reged: Apr 02 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
You've addressed some of the things that have been bouncing around in my head.
I haven't read David Icke's books, but I've heard his interviews on Coast to Coast A.M (usually hosted by Art Bell or George Noori). Icke's arguments are strangely compelling stuff -- perhaps in the sense of conspiracy theory serving as a sort of allegory -- even if they're not easily believable. As for Coast to Coast A.M itself, I do enjoy listening to it, although not necessarily in the role of a dedicated "believer" -- it's probably more accurate to say I assume the mindset that I'm "willing to consider" whatever's being discussed, and passively assign various levels of non-committal belief to those topics. (It's mostly entertainment for me, but that's not to say there aren't interesting things in that show.)
I didn't realize how powerful these topics could be with people until I started writing a story based off things I'd heard on Coast to Coast A.M. and began showing snippets of that story to friends a couple or more years ago. Surprisingly, I got back questions akin to: "Did this really happen? Are you exposing a greater truth? Is this a horrible truth that's been covered up? Are the voices talking to you?"
That sort of jolted me into "YIKES" mode -- it was actually kind of scary having people nudge their way toward believing what was supposed to be a fictional story (Or maybe the voices are telling me THE TRUTH(tm), and I don't realize it). I'd evidently touched on some universal themes that caused people to perk up their ears, even if those snippets were delivered in amateurish scribblings at the time.
Since then I've thrown myself into an on-again, off-again writing slowdown so I could do more reading and study in more of the SF/Fantasy/Horror community's work than I'd traditionally read, just so I could install in my head a different voice than something that might sound like it's ranting about conspiracy theories and coverups. I guess what I'm saying is that I didn't necessarily want to be BELIEVED.
Since I've familiarized myself with more SF/Fantasy/Horror, I've noticed my past writings resembled something of a history (some of it will have to remain a history -- that's unavoidable). Now I've been deadlifting some sections of that old stuff to focus on characters experiencing events in those "histories." I don't know if that will help make things less "believable" -- and, thus, less discomforting for me -- but it's worth a try. I suppose I won't find out until I finish one long, revamped section and show it to somebody.
But you bring up interesting points about the suspension of disbelief. Would it actually be a mistake for me to attempt to subtract belief, as I'm trying to do?
If you can write something with that David Icke sense of belief to it, you can make a lot of ears perk up. Art Bell and George Noori will even mention the occasional science fiction novel -- novels that speak to the show's mindset -- and interview those authors sometimes. With millions of people listening to that show, that's a heck of a lot of additional potential customers besides the ones you'd get who peruse the sci-fi conventions or the sci-fi section at the bookstore (pardon me for wallowing in the business end of things). Considering that, it might be tempting to strive for "believability."
Side note: In one of your notes, you mentioned David Icke's potential association with anti-Semitism. While I have heard him in interviews say that Judaism is a product of the Reptilians, he's made even more generalized statements and said that ALL religions are inventions of the Reptilian campaign to manipulate the human race. From what I've heard, he's been pretty much an equal opportunity critic of the ways almost any religion has been used for manipulation and ill-gotten gain. And, as you also sited, he claims the Reptilians hide out more amongst the white/Caucasian races, and I've even heard him blame the Reptilians for inciting racial hatred. It's all a weird, confusing mix -- but I suppose such obfuscation all a part of the business of conducting an evil conspiracy. Like I said before, I haven't read his books, so I may have missed something specific when it comes to the subject of anti-Semitism, but I wanted to share my observations on that point as well.
|
Rachel Swirsky
New user
Reged: Apr 02 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
I find all this terribly intriguing.
I'm particularly interested in the ways in which this is a modern and western allegorical truth.
I also wonder, though, whether an intellectualized understanding of how to tug at the readers' emotions is the most useful way to tackle the problem of suspension of disbelief. Obviously, hitting the right chord works very well. But can one cynically simulate that effect? Perhaps, but I don't think it's the way my brain works, at least.
|
james_trimarco
New user
Reged: Apr 02 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
Hi Chuck,
I'll definitely check out Coast to Coast—my experience with Icke is pretty much just a couple friends and then the books and videos. Sounds like it might be interesting to me.
You really pique my curiosity when you say that you're interested in "subtracting belief" from your own writing. You mean you want the reader to respond by saying "I just couldn't believe this would ever happen?" Usually I find that causes readers to engage less with the work but I'd like to hear why you want that. I've never heard anyone say that before.
—James
|
james_trimarco
New user
Reged: Apr 02 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
Rachel,
This is a good critique and I'm glad for the opportunity to respond to it. Yes, I'm putting forth an intellectualized understanding of how some readers' emotions might work. But it had to be that way because it's a complex topic and I wanted to get down a kind of rigorous depiction of it. In use by a writer, however, I imagine this principle being less intellectual and more intuitive, just an urge to "speak your convictions in fantastic terms." And, in my opinion, there's nothing cynical about that.
Just the contrary.
Kind of an antidote to so many stories that I see in critique groups, or in print, where the goal seems to be a joke or a riff on some other story and the author is not engaging with deeper fears, hopes, et cetera.
I'm curious which authors people think are doing this well today?
—James
|
Rachel Swirsky
New user
Reged: Apr 02 2007
Posts: 3
|
|
"where the goal seems to be a joke or a riff on some other story"
Yes, exactly. As the semester continues, I'm writing more and more of these, personally.
I'd say most of my favorite writers are those who are engaging with a deeper subtext. I think this may be one place where liminal writers have an advantage; there may be a greater drive to speak out of being silenced.
My personal take would be that most successful science fiction deals with some issue, overtly or covertly, that reflects the anxieties of the readership. In feminist utopias, for instance, there's a lot of concern about who owns reproduction, and that's certainly something that comes out in political discussions. Obviously, talk of the singularity reflects discomfort with technology, and the ongoing question of what it means to be human; I might make the argument that stories which specifically discuss the fracturing of the human experience (like Cory Doctorow and Charles Stross's "Flowers from Alice") reflect a tension with the pressures of omnipresent communication and multi-tasking.
I enjoyed this article a lot, but at the same time, I feel like you've only begun to scratch the surface of this rich material. From the content here, we can see the powerlessness of the people who credit Icke, but I wonder what else their words and a deeper analysis of the text could tell us about how Icke is functioning. Maybe the subject for a different article -- here or aimed toward one of the glossies?
|
Chuck
New user
Reged: Apr 02 2007
Posts: 2
|
|
>Hi Chuck,
>I'll definitely check out Coast to Coast—my experience with
>Icke is pretty much just a couple friends and then the
>books and videos. Sounds like it might be interesting to
>me.
You might have an interesting chance for some compare and contrast if you catch an interview with Alex Jones. While Jones covers quite a bit of Icke's arguments, he does it in an arguably more mundane fashion. For one, he doesn't involve the supernatural element much (if at all), although he does insist that the "globalist elites" -- or whatever term you want to use for them -- participate in dark pagan rituals and symbolic sacrificial rites. And he doesn't equate the World's evil power brokers to Reptilians, other aliens, or any other race/species -- I remember him saying he wasn't interested in UFOs -- but he has said things along the lines of "the global elites don't even view themselves as the same species as the rest of us." But even while Jones insinuates a bit of separation between the global power brokers and the rest of us (not nearly as much as Icke, of course) there seems to be an implied message that humanity needs to take at least some responsibility for that evil and the need for power -- in comparison, as you noticed, Icke takes those evils out of human hands and puts it into alien hands, and maybe that's more comforting for some people.
I don't know if Jones' example would be any help to what you're trying to do with SF, but I've thought it's interesting to look at, especially in comparison to David Icke's similar yet different beliefs.
>You really pique my curiosity when you say that you're
>interested in "subtracting belief" from your own writing.
>You mean you want the reader to respond by saying "I just
>couldn't believe this would ever happen?" Usually I find
>that causes readers to engage less with the work but I'd
>like to hear why you want that. I've never heard anyone say
>that before.
Hmmmm. So I'm guessing you think this isn't such a good idea.:-)
As I mentioned before, I had sort of that "yikes" reaction, mainly because I was a little uncomfortable with the possibility of belief systems -- or, god forbid, religions -- spawning off of what was meant to be a work of fiction. I'm not guaranteeing that's what would happen if this gets finished, published, and disseminated to the public -- those are merely extreme, possibly worst-case scenarios (perhaps I'm worrying too much, taking that aspect too seriously). Plus I didn't want this story to turn into a larger-scale version of the Da Vinci Code (besides, Dan Brown was working off existing legends, while I've been tinkering with several extremely convenient coincidences).
But now, if you'll pardon this sudden shift, I'll engage in some self criticism and ask myself the question:
Why SHOULDN'T this be a larger-scale version of the Da Vinci Code? Didn't that book sell in the millions and trigger discussion? And sure, maybe it caused people to leave their churches and enter into homosexual marriages with goats; but is that Dan Brown's fault? And would it necessarily be MY fault if people wandered the streets, muttering to themselves:
"Can't go toward the light anymore -- it's a trap!"
...or...
"They're coming back -- have to get out of the city -- they're coming back."
...or...
"What do you mean 'coming back?' Some of us have been here for millions of years."
"US?!?!?!?"
"Well, you have a point there. I'm not a part of the main invasion fleet."
...even something loonier like...
"Those bastards murdered the dinosaurs!"
Of course, those examples are merely overdone and exaggerated grandiose speculation of what could happen. The most that happened with the bits I showed friends was that they stopped, wondered about it, and had one version or another of those questions about hidden or greater truths and so forth. Judging from my experience with listening to Coast to Coast A.M, when you throw out some loony idea -- whether you present it as fact or fiction -- there's always the chance somebody's going to believe it.
I guess it comes down to whether or not I want to responsible for that -- or even if I would, in fact, be responsible for it. (I'm vaguely remembering seeing articles and discussion regarding the topic of whether writers/artists/etc. are responsible for what others wind up thinking, but I can't recall where I saw those.)
Maybe, as a traditional advocate of personal responsibility, I should just be consistent and abandon all responsibility for what other people's thoughts are and just let them either riot in the streets or, more likely, lay awake at night wondering.
Again, I'm probably giving the impression of taking this too seriously, but I kind of like thinking out loud in this fashion. It's all very intriguing, but I've probably thought enough for now. Probably should go off to do other things now.
Thanks,
Chuck
|
Sabathius
New user
Reged: Apr 04 2007
Posts: 1
|
|
That is a fascinating article, James. I don't think anyone over here in the UK has given David Icke's theories this much consideration for about 15 years.
I don't have much critique to offer but thought you might be interested in some of my memories of him.
I grew up in Southampton (the mainland port that services sailings to the Isle of Wight) and, as I was a football fan, David Icke was frequently on the TV in my youth, both as a local sports journalist and later as a national one. I remember his switch to green policies being received cooly by the press (at the time environmentalism was seen as part of the Loony Left fringe) and I often wondered if this played a part in his decision to pursue ideologies that would inevitably isolate him from mainstream thinking.
When he first started wearing turquoise (I seem to remember purple was okay, too) he appeared on a very light chat show hosted by an extremely popular presenter called Terry Wogan; this was when he was still able to get TV to take notice of him. Despite the rising incredulity of his host, Icke was calm, erudite and generally a very impressive speaker. It would have been easy to see him as a messianic figure if only what he was saying had not been complete nonsense.
I even met him once, while waiting for a ferry to the Isle of Wight. It was around the time he was working for the Green Party. I think he stopped to speak to me because he liked the look of my dog. He was astonishingly charismatic and left me with an incredible feeling of wellbeing. My memory of that exact occasion is analogous to that of being patted on the head by a beaming friendly giant.
I never for one moment thought his work would have crossed the ocean to America. Extraordinary.
Richard Hayden
|
Steve Wallin
New user
Reged: May 02 2007
Posts: 1
|
|
For someone with personal experience living and working with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and paranoia, it is pretty easy to diagnose Icke. But what about his followers? Every time I think about a cult, I end up asking myself what is the difference b/n a cult and a "legitimate" religion? What is the difference b/n believing in reptilians who control us and Satan who tempts us? What is the difference between the "you are smart if you believe it" logic of cults and the "you are good if you believe it" logic of "conventional" religion? And what can "conventional" religions teach us about how to make a story believable? What does the Ickes phenomenon tells us aobut why religious fundamentalism is expanding even as scientific knowledge advances? What would really happen if prescriptive morality faded away, leaving us with nothing but descriptive Darwinian psychology? What plot lines suggest themselves?
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
