Skip to main content

Weathering With You: An Agorist Perspective

If someone asked you what your favorite emotion was, how do you think you’d answer? For many people, I suspect they would answer “Happiness”, “Joy'', or some variant of exclusively positive emotion. Someone may think more meticulously and answer with “Contentment”, which while a positive emotion has a lot of nuance attached to it. However my answer to that question is what I feel others would consider more orthodox: Bittersweet. Pleasure accompanied by suffering, not exactly most people’s first pick but from my perspective pain is necessary in order to enjoy the pleasure that life gives you. Perhaps I'm over-romanticizing but there’s something to desire from looking back fondly at times where you were hurting and seeing yourself in a better place in the present. Perhaps you finally have moved on from “The one who got away” and can look back on those times with fondness. Perhaps you are sharing stories of a friend or family member at their funeral and though they may never w

Book Review: Everything You Need to Know But Have Never Been Told | David Icke

The higher the wisdom the more incomprehensible does it become by ignorance. It is a manifest fact that the popular man or writer, is always one who is but little in advance of the mass, and consequently understandable by them: never the man who is far in advance of them and out of their sight. 
- Herbert Spencer
Hardly ever throughout history does there arise figures who truly approach the latter description by Spencer. Renegades, contrarians, free-thinkers, or whatever other labels they may go by, tend by definition to venture beyond the norm, and often end up with significantly different convictions from what the mainstream culture as an aggregate tends to hold on to. I consider David Icke to be among those matching Spencer's criteria, and possibly even the closest contemporary figure in this regard. This is not said because I agree with every single claim and argument Icke presents throughout this almost 700-page-long book - because I certainly do not - but rather in admiration of his extraordinary ability to organize a vast amount of information, and how he makes sense of contemporary and prior events to all fit together.

I think I can say without a doubt that the most controversial part of the book is the first couple of chapters. While he later touches on issues like censorship, Artificial Intelligence, the migrant crisis, never-ending wars, the failure of the American health and education systems, etc., which are definitely closer to Overton's window of "acceptable speech", he first delineates a radically different narrative of reality and metaphysics than either side of the contemporary atheism/religion distinction thereof. Icke's narrative isn't just made up out of nothing, however, as he grounds his perspective upon a certain interpretation of physics - quantum physics in particular. The space between the nucleus and the electron in the atom is composed of energy, he emphasizes, and concludes that it's energy rather than solid material that is the most important component of the reality we're living in. He continually cites Albert Einstein and less well-known physicists to further back his interpretation, as well as philosophers of a variety of eras (especially the Gnostics).

From this, he extrapolates that interpersonal connections are highly dependent on energy/frequencies like the connection between the nucleus and the electron, and also considers - similar to Descartes - the possibility that there are demonic (what Icke calls "archontic" and "demiurgic") metaphysical powers keeping the masses ignorant and using their negative energy as their nutrition source. Here's where the most controversial aspects of Icke's doctrine comes into play, and which appears to have some similarity to that of El Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. The "Archontic Hidden Hand" or the "Demiurgic force" is, according to Icke, what has created the simulation we're living in, the "bad copy" of how the original reality operates, and furthermore, this metaphysical entity has placed out a species of shape-shifting Reptillian/human hybrids to do its bidding in keeping control of the perception of the world population, and to fuel negative energy for its sustenance.

Naturally, such a presentation of reality is difficult for most to adopt as it's so significantly different from what they've been previously taught, and it's important in such circumstances to recall Carl Sagan's dictum that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Regarding the quality of Icke's evidence of such, he cites some personal anecdotes, abstract thinking, and other works he has read on the issue, so I don't find that necessarily in itself to adopt such convictions, but rather to be worth considering if I am later to come across data which appears to support them. Though he has a bibliography at the end of his work with a list of books he's citing, I consider Icke to do a poor job in general with his referencing, and could significantly boost his credibility if he got better in this regard. Having recently authored a booklet with a controversial position on vaccines, I considered the credibility of the references to be my strongest strength of persuasion on the issue, and I'm therefore sort of disappointed that Icke has not been very rigorous on this central aspect of writing controversial non-fiction books. Hopefully, his new book "The Trigger" on the 9/11 attacks and other future books of his will be better at referencing as such, but the perspective he presents I certainly consider thought-provoking either way.

As an epistemological principle, I consider it more beneficial to look at truth as probabilistic than binary, as humans don't have a direct connection with the objective world but have to discover it by using an imperfect mind looking at incomplete and possibly skewed information. In some cases, where all the scientific research and observation appears to support a position, it can seem "obvious" that something is true, i.e. that it has a very high probability - approaching 100% - of being so. In other cases, however, the evidence may be less clear, and what has been previously considered obvious in past eras may sound nonsensical to most of us today.

Furthermore, it's also important to remember that although models of how reality work definitely do not always have perfect theoretical foundations, they can still be useful to acquire a better understanding of reality, which can be used to predict future events. From such a perspective, I think, one can begin to recognize why looking into David Icke and other figures commonly denounced as "conspiracy theorists" and "madmen" can be so powerful. In my opinion, the fact that a statement or ideology is completely outside the sphere of acceptable discourse in our contemporary culture isn't a reason to ignore or ridicule it at first glance, but rather, at the contrary, to investigate and figure out more about it, and then make the judgement accordingly based on a fair, intellectual assessment. Though it's certainly understandable that many of Icke's positions appear insane to many, I consider him to cast light on a lot of important issues facing society today, and where we appear to be headed. Question everything, and as Icke contends, "You don't need to have a scientific mind to understand reality; you need an open one."

Written by Stefan M. Kløvning and republished with permission from his blog MisesRevived.


Popular posts from this blog

The Truth About Global Warming

Libertarians who deny the existence of global warming run the risk of making us all look like a bunch of illiterate fools. Much like economics, being ignorant of planetology or climate science isn't a crime, but having a "loud and vociferous" opinion on the subject while remaining in a state of ignorance can be a dangerous thing. And frankly, the science behind climate change is elementary. Sunlight enters our atmosphere and warms our planet. Earth then gives off that heat in the form of infrared radiation (this is the same principle behind those cool goggles our collapsitarian friends have). However, and this is a crucial point - the CO₂ molecules in our atmosphere do not allow IR to easily escape back into space. This is known as the greenhouse effect. As the temperature of the planet increases, polar ice caps melt and eventually surface water will begin to evaporate. Since H₂0 also prevents IR from escaping our atmosphere, the additional water vapor only compound

The Counter-Economics of COVID

In March 2020 - some say earlier, but by March 2020 at latest - the banking had sector collapsed. In response, coronavirus was manufactured as a scapegoat to justify the liquidity injection necessary to keep the Federal Reserve’s ponzi scheme alive. The State’s narrative would henceforth be: ‘Since all businesses were shut down, an unprecedented amount of money must be printed and distributed to the public.’ Milton Friedman’s helicopter money had come to fruition. But like a junkie chasing his initial high, the Fed had become immune to the effects of monetary stimulus. Each injection requiring a stronger, more potent dose of cheap & easy money. Less than two years later, and the effects of that stimulus have now waned & the banksters are poised to pull off another heist. As the business cycle continues to ebb and flow until the day of final reckoning, the State can be expected to behave in an increasingly erratic fashion. Like a cornered cat, or a fish out of water, the State

The Trouble With Dave Smith

  On the issues, Dave & most agorists can find agreement 99 out of 100 times, but as libertarians we have a habit, a pastime - a duty even, to seek out & argue over the 1% of things we don’t agree on. In keeping with that tradition friends, I've got to tell you, when it comes to strategy, Dave Smith seriously fumbles the ball. The fundamental issue is that @comicdavesmith is interested in creating libertarians, whereas agorists are interested in creating liberty. Dave has a classic case of @perbylund ’s Savior Complex - the irrational desire of individualists to save the collective whole of society. There are lots of problems with this, but even if creating libertarians is a worthy goal, does that mean the Libertarian Party is the best vehicle to accomplish this task? Has anything the Libertarian Party ever done caused even a slight retreat of statism? Dave rightly points to his own success at spreading the message of liberty. It's true, no one - save Ron Paul or Tom