III: Spookland & the Dark Age of Secrets
How many people do you think are in the employ of intelligence agencies? Consider first of all the number of these agencies, worldwide, starting with the ones we know of and then positing how many others we haven’t ever heard about. Factor in the amount of money (including the unknowable “black budget”) that goes into these agencies and the sheer number of “ops” which they are collectively involved in, ops that span the various fields and disciplines of government, military, police, law, organized crime, science, religion, medicine, pharmaceuticals, big business, the entertainment and media, economics, illegal drug smuggling and distribution, charities, and fringe cultures such as UFOs, spiritual groups, and occult societies (to say nothing of the more long-established secret societies that lurk behind the intelligence agencies).
Keep in mind that, for every operative, there may be twice or five times as many “snitches” working for them. Now pick a number, or a percentage of the overall population of your country, town, or neighborhood. Compare that number to the number of people that you know personally, or have ever heard about, who are working or informing for said agencies. If, as in my own case, the second number is a big fat zero, try the experiment instead with the number of people you suspect might be operatives or informants. Now compare the two numbers. What? Same problem?
What’s wrong with this picture?
Where are all the spooks? Are they living in their own private cities somewhere, going about their business making the world safe for you and I? Nope. The people you are wondering about are are here among you, every day and everywhere you go. They cook your meals, they haul your trash, they connect your calls, they drive your ambulances. They guard you while you sleep. This IS Spookland and you are a resident of it. If they haven’t recruited you yet, it’s because they haven’t found a use for you. Yet.
You’ve heard all about old boy networks, and about how only those who belong to the “club” (Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, whatever) get to advance within the extended club of society, in the various fields of the media, government, law, medicine, industry, entertainment, and so on. So how far does this old boys’ network extend? If we don’t belong to it and if we never get recruited by it, how would we ever know?
Suppose that every single establishment in the modern world, from government on down, was established by and for these old boy networks, to the same end? Would that mean that everyone who’s anyone would belong, essentially, to the same club, a club that only exists for those who know it does? What if everyone you have ever heard of (outside of your own private circle) is, by definition, an operative, because, hey, if they weren’t, you would never have heard of them! I’m not saying this is so. I’m just asking—what if? Is there a strong, clear, and logical argument why it could not be the case? Keep in mind I am only talking about the (potential) operatives you have heard of, and that most operatives work under the radar because a high public profile isn’t required, and may even be detrimental to their work.
What if everyone is now an operative or working for an operative except you? Most of them probably don’t know this, however, because there are so many agencies and ops currently working that there’s no way for the lower level operatives to have any real idea exactly who is on the agenda and who isn’t, or even what it is. And once every last person is recruited—what happens then? This is a joke (I think); presumably that can’t ever happen. It may be that the “chosen ones” are precisely those precious few who decline to be chosen. The conspiracy researcher Kris Millegan (whose father was an operative) wrote to me this succinct, and I think more accurate, picture of Spookland:
You have spooks and then you have the folks that spooks influence. Basically intel ops operate with deceit and subterfuge. Even if you’re a spook they lie and compartamentalize. You are only told what is needed. If you want someone to go from a to b, if you can get him to go there without even knowing you exist is great. If you have to tell them to go from a to b, you never tell them the right reasons. So many that are involved are simply played, and are not under orders. Most that get involved do it for all the right reasons, god and country, but are used by higher-ups. I find the final agendas come from the secret societal system, beyond the nation states that they have captured.
The sci-fi scenario of They Live, The Matrix, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and the modern paranoid folklore of David Icke, Whitley Strieber, et al, may be a metaphor not just for psychological and spiritual truth (or “truth”), but also for the parapolitical social reality. Isn’t conspiracy just another, juicier and flakier, word for espionage? Perhaps these exciting, sensationalized narratives are a way for the real situation to filter into our conscious awareness, the real situation being that we live in a world overrun by operatives (and their informants). These operatives have their magic Rayban glasses, they are unplugged, they exist in a very different world to the rest of us (or at least, to me). To them, we are the sleepers, the slaves, the goyim, at best useful idiots, at worst useless eaters.
I have a terror of being naïve. It is combined with a certainty that what’s occurring in the world is very different from what we have been led to believe is occurring or what appears to be the “general” view of events. This leads to an attempt, as above, to paint an alternative picture of truth, a counter-narrative whose purpose is less to describe the actual truth than it is to expose the untruth of the predominant narrative.
Finding the ground means first recognizing that, whatever we are standing on, it ain’t it.
I just read a book about the Kray twins by John Pearson (Profession of Violence). The Krays interest me because their activities seem to provide some important “connecting tissue,” both in my own secret family history and the larger history of 20th and 21st century social engineering. The Krays are connected, to varying degrees, to Jimmy Boyle and hence to my own family, to the Pheasantry and therefore (tenuously) to the counterculture, Whitley Strieber, and the Process Church, to Donald Cammell, Mick Jagger, and the entertainment industry, and most demonstrably of all to Lord Boothby and Tom Driberg (homosexual MPs), Jimmy Savile and the “Pink Ballets” (sex orgies of the 1960s), and to the now-infamous Haut de Garenne, the Jersey Island care home which allegedly hosted child sex parties for a very elite clientele.
After reading the book, however (which mentions almost none of the above), I came away with next to no clues as to what the notorious London gangsters were really involved in or how they made their fortune. There’s some mention of financial fraud and of protection rackets, and of the many clubs they owned (frequented by celebrities); but there’s nothing that gives any sense of a criminal enterprise and how or why exactly the Krays were as powerful, and seemingly untouchable, as they were during their heyday in the 1960s. There’s only one mention of Jersey Island, an innocuous mention at that, referring to Ronnie Kray taking his male lovers there because he didn’t feel safe in the UK. Admittedly, the truth about Haut de la Garenne only came out quite recently, but I found myself wondering: was this the reason why the description of the Krays’ empire of crime seemed so insubstantial? Had all of the primary elements been concealed or omitted? Judging by Pearson’s account, the Krays didn’t deal in drugs or in any other contraband, yet they were courted by an impressive stream of celebrities (from Muhammad Ali to Judy Garland, Frank Sinatra to Lee Marvin), and enjoyed the protection of members of parliament such as Boothby (eventually implicated in Haut de la Garenne), Tom Driberg, and by extension, the Labor PM at the time, Harold Wilson. So what was their attraction to these people, and what made them so invaluable?
What were they selling?
Driberg, whose biography I am currently reading, was notorious for sexual deviance. Winston Churchill, reputedly a closet homosexual (well-suppressed, if you can find a good solid online lead, let me know), said that Driberg “gave sodomy a bad name.” While the official account, to date, gives no suggestion that he was involved in the sexual exploitation of children, naturally I am unconvinced. My interest in Driberg is at least as keen as that in the Krays, because Driberg can be linked to my family by two, possibly even three, seemingly independent roots—via my grandfather (who knew several of Driberg’s associates, including Sir Richard Acland and J.B. Priestley, who were instrumental in Driberg winning his seat in Parliament in 1942), my brother (who belonged to Driberg’s drinking club the Colony Room, albeit during a different period), and my mother, who was friends with the family of Christopher Sykes (as I was in my teens), Sykes being Evlynn Waugh’s biographer and Driberg’s fellow Oxford alumni. My grandfather attended Oxford during the same period as Driberg, so they may have met then, and almost certainly did afterwards. All in all, the proximity of Driberg to my own family background is nothing short of striking.
Driberg was friends with Aleister Crowley, who thought so highly of Driberg that he nominated him as his successor as World Teacher (which never came to pass). According to Robin Bryans’ The Dust Has Never Settled, Driberg was a regular participant in Black Mass, as well as a frequent attendee at the Krays’ notorious “orgies.” He was also antagonistically associated with Anthony Blunt, the communist spy whose name appears on the list of VIP visitors to the now-infamous Elm Guest House “kinder-brothel,” located in Barnes, London. Driberg’s biographer, Francis Wheen, mentions the “rumor” that Driberg was recruited by MI5 agent Max Knight (on whom Ian Fleming based his character “M”) while still a schoolboy. Wheen dismisses the notion as absurd, but at this point I’m more inclined to dismiss Wheen as absurd (or a liar). Most damningly of all perhaps, Driberg worked closely in the 1940s with Lord Mountbatten, who has been linked to the Kincora child abuse ring and who introduced Driberg to Prince Philip; years later, Mountbatten also introduced Jimmy Savile to Philip—an inconclusive but for me highly suggestive detail. (In passing, my stepfather was a vocal admirer of Mountbatten, and may even have known him….)
The chances of Driberg somehow being innocent in all of this, of anything beyond a little consensual pederasty, seem slim, to put it mildly. And yet, at the same time, how far am I willing to take the logic of “guilt by association”? If I extend the guilt to my own family, as is an almost irresistible temptation, then aren’t I, by the same logic, also implicating myself—at least in the eyes of some future conspiratorial zealot like me?
Returning to the Krays: it seems impossible not to conclude, however tentatively, that the business they were in was not so much a profession of violence but one of sexual violence: catering to the aberrant appetites of the power elite, including (but presumably not limited to) the sexual abuse of children. There is plenty of suggestion (though how verifiable it is I don’t know) that the many “orgies” which occurred—such as at Haut de Garenne and Elm Guest House—also entailed the manufacturing of child pornography. It has recently come out that Jimmy Savile owned several film companies, though there’s no sign of what they actually produced. There’s also the suggestion, perhaps inevitably, that the orgies, and the films, included sexual violence, what has now entered the lexicon as “torture porn.” And why stop there—since victims are also witnesses, this alleged industry included snuff movies. Beyond the obvious market for such fare, these films, in the right hands, would also have been invaluable for exercising total control over the participants.
(One hour video interview about Elm Guest House with Chris Fay)
While I haven’t come across any concrete evidence for this—I’m not sure I’d want to see it if I did—I find it too logically consistent to seriously doubt. What increases coherence can only be presumed to be accurate. And while presumption is not fact, if the main facts can be confirmed, the other, more speculative ones that are found to fit the larger picture and which increase the coherence of it, I think can be tentatively accepted.
This level of human depravity is such (or so it seems to me) that even knowledge of it, combined with an association with its perpetrators, at least if it doesn’t lead to radical action (even if only getting as far away from the scene as possible), amounts to guilt. Of course, there must be plenty of people on the periphery (as at the BBC during Savile’s long and grisly reign) who don’t know about it but who only hear rumors. One way to avoid the moral conundrum of having to act against one’s self-interest in order to retain one’s self-respect is, simply not to believe the rumors.
So at what point can ignorance be regarded as complicity—and to what extent does that implicate us all?
There is currently a lot of shock and outrage in the UK as high-ranking members of British society are outed (many of them after they are dead and gone, but some of them still living) as child abusers. One of the sentiments commonly expressed within the mainstream is surprise that these offenders were given the highest peerages of British society, OBEs, Lordships, and the like. How is it that, “despite” their widely-rumored involvement in such illegal activities, they were still nominated for titles? The answer is probably that it’s not despite it but because of it.
The structures of power that are firmly in place in British society (and beyond, since the sun never sets on the Empire) are perhaps such that, not just complicity with but active participation in the systematized sexual abuse of children is a prerequisite for ascending the ranks. I know this is all very David Icke, and I’m a bit surprised to have ended up blogging about a subject which I considered, just a year or two ago, to be passé: the nature of the beast, Earth society is a systemized Hell-zone, move on and get over it. I trust anyone who’s followed me this long already knows this, or at least knows it’s the way I see things and isn’t overly opposed to said view.
But there is a world of difference between a general, theoretical perspective and one that begins to crystalize into something directly and palpably experiential. It’s roughly the difference between reading David Icke/watching They Live (or writing Homo Serpiens) and bumping into Reptilians while they devour babies at the local Laundromat. Unexpected.
While this is still all speculative, it’s also based on and inspired by quite visceral, non-intellectualized, living insights into my own personal history and background. It may be a mistake to try and extend those insights outward to the level of society at large, or it may just be an inevitable part of the attempt to make sense out of experience by finding the larger context for it. Either way, I think it’s a reasonable speculation, based on the evidence, and the recent flurry of exposés in the UK would seem to confirm the links between organized crime, police and intelligence agencies, the entertainment industry, high-ranking politicians, peerages, the sexual abuse of children, child pornography and worse, and a massive institutionalized cover-up. And there really is a difference between looking into conspiracy theories and staring at conspiracy facts: for me at least.
We don’t and can’t know the number of spooks, snitches, and shills among us. But if Lloyd de Mause’s statistical facts are accurate, then 50% of the adults we interact with on any given day and 50% of the children we encounter are victims of sexual abuse. (There is probably no way to calculate the numbers of adults involved in the sexual abuse of children, whether their own or other people’s, or both.) This idea is so incredible that it is somehow incomprehensible. It’s not so much the idea that it could be true that’s hard to comprehend, as the idea that it could be true and yet be so thoroughly and completely hidden from our view.
One oft-touted criticism of a conspiracy-based reading of history is “People just can’t keep a secret that well.” I think the truth is the opposite, and that keeping secrets is what we humans do best. I think we have been doing it for so long we have got it down to an art form. Jan Irvin’s vision of a grand conspiracy to bring about a new dark age seems to ignore the fact that a new dark age is unlikely to be anything like the previous one, and that the likeliest possibility of all, is that we are already in it.
 Famous OBEs implicated in sexual abuse of children include Jimmy Savile (DJ, TV presenter); Benjamin Britten (composer); Cyril Smith (MP); Jess Conrad (pop singer); Cliff Richard (pop singer); Rolf Harris (children’s entertainer); Jimmy Tarbuck (comedian); John Peel (DJ); Robert Boothby (politician). Some of the accused could be straw men, and since one way to protect the guilty is to serve up innocents in their stead and make it look like a “witch-hunt,” I certainly don’t want to add to that. But while it’s probably a mistake to think that just because all ravens are black everything that’s black is a raven (there are people implicated in child abuse who don’t have OBEs—hello, Freddy Starr—so it’s reasonable to suppose the reverse is also true), still and all, the PIE chart overlap is pretty striking, and I can’t help but wonder what’s being signaled by an OBE to those “in the know.”