merztrumpet said:
Icke is an interesting read. His books have some well researched theories and lots of good information on bloodlines and the web of connections among people in power. Unfortunately his reptile theories get the most attention.
I guess there are a couple ways you could look at this (not limited to):
Take it all for face value. This is probably the most difficult for the majority of people to accept. Although I won't deny the interesting state of mind that can develop as a result.
Interpret reptiles as a metaphor for cold, selfish, out of control drive by inner desires. This makes sense (especially in reference to the idea of an inner 'reptilian brain') and while some proponents of a reptilian theory construct it this way, Icke seems to continually point towards a more physical element.
Reptilian theory is purposefully constructed and planted as a major topic in his books as a form of self defense that protects the meaty information available from him. Basically a form of disinformation that keeps him looking harmless.
I don't really know though.
This is, of course, precisely how such theories as Icke's continue to prosper in the information age. Since no person's motives or statements can be taken at face value, they are assigned a secret meaning (and accordingly lesser or greater value) by the reader (or viewer, or whatever), and then rearranged and conflated into patterns that reveal Larger Meaning.
It's a Rorschach test writ large - the human mind seeks patterns that it finds desirable or at least acceptable. We dismiss the presence of reptilian humanoids living among us (though that's certainly not universal) and sieze upon the idea of a secret bloodline running through the centuries, dominating the halls of power all over the world. Once you start down this path, there's really no reason to stop - if the "official" history of the world is a lie perpetrated by Them (the greedy, but not necessarily literally reptillian, social elite), then every "official" statement can be interpreted as evidence of "They're" control.
Do people do exactly the above all the time? Absolutely. Read a book by Jim Marrs for some of the best written examples of kookie secret history and conspiracy theory. Dan Brown has made a populist phenomenon of a slightly more mundane version (no ultraterrestrial reptoids, but hey - give him time) with books like
Angels and Demons and
the Da Vinci Code, assigning bizarre motives to any number of historical figures (only some of which, to his credit, directly contradict the established historical record). Even something like the above that's explicitly fiction is taken as the gospel (ha! You'll see the irony if you've read the Brown's books) truth by many readers.
Now, I glean more than my fair share of entertainment from books like Marrs', Icke's, and even Brown's...but I don't sweat the "truths" that any of them reveal. We like to know secrets, and we like to see patterns. If you accept those truisms, nearly every conspiracy and secret history you've ever heard of can be dismissed as a flight of fancy.
And Oswald
did kill Kennedy all by himself.
Or maybe it was reptoids?
