David Icke and the Limits of Human Perception 

banksy-canvas-prints-people-with-television-heads-73cm-by-50cm-1r177mRecently, I have been delving into the ideas of the reputed conspiracy theorist turned metaphysical philosopher, David Icke. I now own several of his books and have watched and listened to hours of video and audio footage of his talks and interviews, so I think I have some basic understanding of some of his more esoteric and mind-bending ideas.

One of his ideas that really speaks to me is what he says about the very nature of human perception of the universe. Complementing the ideas of such brilliant minds as Tesla and Einstein, Icke delineates his concept of the universe as a giant field of wave-form energy that we human beings inhabit as conscious, sentient entities. We interpret this field energy through our five senses and brain to construct the experience of living in a universe of three-dimensional space and time – physical reality, as it were. But this construct really only exists in our minds – it represents how we human individuals interpret the field of wave-form energy in which we are immersed. In its raw form, the universe is nothing like how we perceive it. Icke likens our perception of the universe to the video programming one might watch on a television screen. The TV interprets the electromagnetic waves that it intercepts via its antenna or cable to construct a recognizable experience of the world. However, in its raw form, the TV signal is simply electromagnetic wave energy.

The really fascinating insight that David Icke provides is that the human sensory apparatus is tuned to an extremely limited bandwidth of frequencies. We can perceive visible light and infra-red (heat) radiation through our senses of sight and touch, we can hear a limited range of sounds through our sense of hearing, we can detect a limited range of odors through our olfactory system, and so forth. But the senses we are capable of constitute an extremely limited range – other members of the animal kingdom, in fact, have their senses tuned to different ranges, so that cats can see in the dark, dogs have highly sensitive senses of smell and hearing, and bats have a highly developed sense of hearing that it uses as a form of acoustic radar to navigate through a world in which it is, essentially blind. Furthermore, while our senses are bombarded with signals at all times, our brain filters these signals so that only a fraction of what our senses perceive actually reaches our awareness.

The bottom line is that what we human beings know and experience as reality is only a tiny fraction of what is really around us – our interpretation of the vast field of wave-form energy that surrounds us is extremely limited. There is much that we cannot perceive simply because of the limitations of our senses and the capacities of our brains to process the information our senses receive. Even with the benefit of peripheral devices and technology, our perception of reality can only be slightly extended.

And this brings David Icke to the startling hypothesis that, potentially, explains much of what we conceive – and dismiss – as the workings of the supernatural. If our perceptions are so limited, how can we reasonably infer that what we see or hear or otherwise sense is all there is to the universe around us? If we are tuned to a specific channel on our TV sets, then we are limited to viewing only the specific programming to which we have access. But that doesn’t mean that all of the other channels don’t exist, simply because we are tuned to one specific channel. They do exist, and if we flipped the channel we would be able to access that programming.

But what if we lived in a backward totalitarian state, where the only programming we could receive on our cheap black-and-white TV sets was the government channel of 24/7 state propaganda? Because we would not have the capacity to flip the channel on our cheap one-channel TV sets, we would never be aware that any of the other channels or programming even existed. We would not be aware that there was such a thing as color TV or multiple TV channels!

Becoming aware of color television and multiple channels of TV programming and, in fact, the ability to flip channels on a whim, would be something like experiencing an expansion of personal consciousness. One becomes aware of other dimensions of reality, beyond what one had previously been exposed to in one’s very limited sphere of awareness.

That, in effect, is the profound metaphor that David Icke uses to explain his understanding of what we deem to be the “supernatural” – in other words, phenomena that we dismiss as incredible simply becauase they occur beyond our capacity to perceive them! When you really think about it, it seems perfectly logical, but the implications of this feat of reasoning are profound – and, indeed, terrifying! What, in fact, lurks out there in the universe, behind our very shoulders, perhaps – beyond the reaches of our ability to perceive it? David Icke makes some terrifying suggestions – he claims the existence of parasitic reptilian creatures who feed on human life-force energy. Apparently far-fetched, but is it really?

Having previously written about human perception on my blog, this subject is particularly interesting to me and worth thinking and reading about in greater depth!

Misinformation Age

Recently, I was watching a History Channel documentary about the Dark Ages on TV. At first glance, it looked like a bullet-proof, extremely convincing historical account that told a very clearly mapped-out story of the collapse of the western Roman Empire and civilization and the onset of a millennium of chaos and turmoil in western Europe, known as the Dark Ages. Backed up by a series of historical re-enactments to corroborate the claims made by the academics, the case they made seemed to be irrefutable on the surface.

Still, thinking back on it, what strikes me now is how flimsy and full of holes the case really is and how biased, speculative and propagandist this History Channel documentary, as a whole, was. Genuine academic scholarship or a deliberate campaign at misinformation and propaganda? You be the judge as I systematically dismember . . . I mean analyze . . . the documentary and the claims it makes.

For one thing, the documentary presents us with a series of supposed scholars or academics making various claims—presenting us with their interpretation of historical events, their examination of the repercussions of these events, their assessments of key historical personalities, etc. The scholars—who may very easily be pseudo-academics, for all we know—all had such obscure credentials that their claims could not really be taken seriously. Who were these characters—really? What publications could they attach their names to? How legitimate are their claims, as such?

Even if their claims can be corroborated or attached to authentic academic publications with true scholarly merit, what they are not telling you is that their version of reality, as expressed by them in the documentary, is really only one version among several competing versions, each having equal, if not greater, academic merit. All they are doing is presenting their interpretation of the facts as the authoritative truth—backed up by historical re-enactments to create the false impression that the viewer is actually observing history “as it happens” so to speak.

And furthermore, even if the version of history they give you is conclusively established as the only acceptable version, academically speaking, what they are not revealing to you is how much of the story is purely speculative and how much is based on hard evidence. Typically, what they do is take tiny shreds of fragmentary evidence of very dubious authenticity and then construct an elaborate hypothesis out of it. It remains unclear how much of the hypothesis is inferential and how much is pure fabrication based upon invalid assumptions or extrapolations from personal experience or even deliberately contrived to promote a socio-political agenda or justify a private opinion. For example, I saw another documentary in which a scholar made a pretty far-fetched claim—that he had uncovered evidence that centuries pre-dating Christ, another Jewish Messiah had lived, died and been resurrected in Jerusalem, so that Jesus was merely an imitator. However, the evidence he presented to corroborate his claim was so flimsy—a partially eroded rock-cut slab with some of the key text wiped out—that it became pretty evident that he was distorting the evidence to fit his claims.

Furthermore, even if the version of history that these so-called historians present to you is undeniably the only possible inference that could logically be drawn from the available sources, they do not reveal just how authentic or believable the sources are in the first place. Are they fragmentary archaeological remains acquired from the black-market? Or are they long surviving historical accounts where the original text has long since been lost to history and all that survives is a fragmentary copy that has, itself, been copied and recopied by hand countless times and may include any number of editorial errors or distortions?

So, if you analyze it carefully, it becomes pretty self-evident that what appeared, at first, to be an irrefutable case is actually so fabricated, contrived and full of holes that it can only be classified as pseudo-scholarship. It is actually propaganda—not history at all—and the historical re-enactments only underscore that idea. It is propaganda designed either to reinforce existing societal prejudices or to promote a socio-political agenda or to justify the actions of present-day politicians by claiming a historical precedent (of dubious authenticity). The irony is that any serious academic would be aware of this and how history itself is full of such attempts at propaganda and myth-making—which is why many supposedly ironclad historical accounts are themselves suspect and of dubious authenticity.

And, so, one has to wonder what is the hidden agenda that such propagandists are attempting to promote. Is it anything like, for example, the racist, racially supremacist agenda of Nazi pseudo-scholars? Or the left-wing, naïvely pluralistic social agenda of more liberal academics? Or is it an attempt, by some, to justify certain modes of criminal behavior by presenting us with a dubious historical precedent—suggesting, for example, that because xenophobia, polygamy, genocide and sodomy were acceptable practices in ancient civilizations such as Greece, Rome and Judea, they should be excusable in the present day as well?

Horizon Cybermedia is about questioning such attempts at propaganda and eyewash by mainstream media sources. In this “Information Age,” in which social media are becoming increasingly prevalent and more and more people have access to revolutionary modern media technology, one has to wonder just how valid and accurate the information is . . . and how much of it are distortions or dishonest attempts at misinformation and propaganda.

The last thing we need is for universal access to media technology to create a “Misinformation Age” of widespread questionable information. However, it should also be noted that thanks to the universality of modern media technology, it is now easier to question universally-held assumptions and prejudices and the authenticity of so-called authoritative sources of information.

Please do check out our ongoing film series Exploration with Uday Gunjikar at our website http://www.explorationtheseries.com. The current film is a visual tour of some of the key sites in the city of Calcutta, India. Future episodes visit the ski resorts of Big Bear Lake, CA and the rock-cut Buddhist temples of the Kanheri Caves near Mumbai, India. We look forward to your continued support, entertainment and information.

Wishing you the very best,

Uday Gunjikar,
Founder and CEO,
Horizon Cybermedia, Inc.