About David Icke & James Redfield

[dannybananny]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

I’m not entirely sure how David hypothesises the reptilian thing these days, whether his understanding grew or changed.

He doesn't really speak about them so often as he used to, only if he is asked about that. He prefers now to speak about globalization, NWO, EU.
I started also with Icke and read some books like The Biggest Secret and Love is the only truth, everything else is illusion. Shijing described this later book, but he also talks about New Age and he says about how he is against New Age and this article says that he is something like New Age guru, and that New Agers are his followers, and I find it contradictory. He also says he doesn't believe in channeling, but says about how he heared stories about people that went to South America(I don't remember really wich country) and they took some native drug and they saw reptilians, so he also took that drug there and he fell in trance and he heard voice that was telling him about reality and that this was all illusion. That reminded me what did C's said about Don Huan and his mescalito, so it could be that he was expecting that or some lizzard or something gave him some disinformation. He didn't find it maybe possible that they were giving him that "information" wich would be logical conclusion if they were "seen" there(but this is also questionable). So what I was pointing here is that he is open minded to some trance like state and hears some voices but thinks that channeling is disinfo. If he is so open-minded why doesn't he explore if it works(this sounds like distraction from channeling because there could be some truth). In the Biggest Secret he talks about Nibiru and he relays on Sitchen. And about all this stories about people shape-shifting to reptilians and then back to humans didn't he thought that people that tell that stories could be cointelpro agents and are feeding him with desinfo that would eventually lead people to think that everyone who talks about lizzies and NWO are lunatics.

Its almost as if someone in 4D saw Cass coming on the scene in the 90s, and said 'hey -- let's do some damage control and set up a Cass lookalike ahead-of-time, so when Cass actually gets rolling, someone will have already been there, done that.'

Yes, and there is also Alex Collier with his dimensions. It there is more disinfo there are more people that would be fed with disinfo and distracted from true info. But it's hard to find true info in that jungle of desinfo and it's easy to be led astray if you don't have someone to warn you like C's, so I think Icke means well but he made wrong turns.

The reptilian connection is obvious (I know Cass lizards and Icke reptilians are like apples and oranges in many ways, but your average person on the street won't see the difference at first),

Exactly, I was talking about these things with my sister that is bit older and her friend reads Icke. She said to me you see she(her friend) also talks about reptilians and that there are 7 dimensions. I said it isn't actually the same because densities are not dimensions and lizzards can't be 3D for a long time. You can see here that someone who doesn't knows and reads about this automatically thinks that this is all same stuff, that is disturbing because uninformed people could put Laura with Icke and others in the same basket!

 

[kenlee]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Very true... What Icke actually says could be made so vague that the bulk of his followers (and detractors) just gloss over it, focusing instead on the "flashier" idea of 3D alien lizards. I've noticed most of them doing this too.

I think this is a good point. By putting a concrete image into the subconscious of his followers regarding an idea that must be studied from many different perspectives, each with their own frame of reference to put it in proper context, will lead to just another ‘gloss’ of reality that will simply replace their old gloss of reality. If people’s level of Being doesn't change then their new gloss of reality will be as subjective as the old one. No essential difference. The majority of Icke's followers will, imo, simply have a 'total perception' of this new reality that's constructed and glued together by emotional thinking and simplistic imagery. Nothing in their understanding will essentially change since they’ll still be seeing the world through a reactive lens and be no closer to reality then before.

Castaneda in one of his interviews spoke of ‘glosses’ that represents how the mind constructs reality based on a consensual agreement. He said in his interview with Sam Keen that:

“A gloss is a total system of perception and language. For instance, this room is a gloss. We have lumped together a series of isolated perceptions--floor, ceiling, window, lights, rugs, etc.--to make a totality. But we had to be taught to put the world together in this way. A child reconnoiters the world with few preconceptions until he is taught to see things in a way that corresponds to the descriptions everybody agrees on. The world is an agreement. The system of glossing seems to be somewhat like walking. We have to learn to walk, but once we learn we are subject to the syntax of language and the mode of perception it contains.”

David Icke may say a lot of stuff and talk about science and all that, but when you get down to the basics his followers have no way of objectively comparing their old gloss of reality with their new gloss of reality since both Icke (and Alex Jones) seem to not talk about the crux of the matter very much, which is the subject of psychopathy, and which, imo, links the old and new glosses of reality together from which comparisons can be made. So Alex Jones will talk about the vague NWO and Icke talks about evil Lizards in a higher dimension and such but, bottom line, I think it's designed to get people to react and not “think with a hammer,” making them even greater slaves to their subconscious then before (and not freeing them from it) leading to 'conversive thinking' pending future ponerization.

http://ponerology.blogspot.com/2006/01/information-substitution-and-selection.html

Unconscious psychological processes outstrip conscious reasoning, both in time and in scope, which makes many psychological phenomena possible: including those generally described as conversive, such as subconscious blocking out of conclusions, the selection, and, also, substitution of seemingly uncomfortable premises. We speak of blocking out conclusions if the inferential process was proper in principle and has almost arrived at a conclusion and final comprehension within the act of internal projection, but becomes stymied by a preceding directive from the subconscious, which considered it inexpedient or disturbing. This is primitive prevention of personality disintegration, which may seem advantageous; however, it also prevents all the advantages which could be derived from consciously elaborated conclusion and reintegration. A conclusion thus rejected remains in our subconscious and in a more unconscious way causes the next blocking and selection of this kind. This can be totally harmful, progressively enslaving a person to his own subconscious, and is often accompanied by a feeling of tension and bitterness. We speak of selection of premises whenever the feedback goes deeper into the resulting reasoning and from its database thus deletes and represses into the subconscious just that piece of information which was responsible for arriving at the uncomfortable conclusion. Our subconscious then permits further logical reasoning, except that the outcome will be erroneous in direct proportion to the actual significance of the repressed data.

 

[Laura]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Perhaps it would be useful to compile the "corpus of evidence" - the reasonable stuff, that is, including the historical evidence - and write it up?

This would be excellent. Other than Icke himself, maybe a brief analysis of his major info sources would help too (Arizona Wilder, Credo Mutwa, Cathy O'Brien, etc). I have a lot of Icke audio and video I can go through to contribute some data; most of them are official releases from David Icke himself, but it could still be useful.

Actually, I thought that Laura meant to collect evidence about this more general idea:

...we have a hypothesis based on a large corpus of indirect evidence that hyperdimensional beings exist, that they can be subjectively perceived as reptilian as a direct result of how we read waves, and that they have interacted historically with humanity in such a way that they have sometimes been seen as gods.

But correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, this could be very challenging (but fun).

You are right. I want the data and sources, not what Icke says. If he has data and sources collected together, let's see them and check the sources.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

A note about "reptilians" and Laura's quote from SH: In Lewis-Williams' The Mind in the Cave, he talks about the nature of shamanic visions. Basically, the form and stages of the process are human universals - they're the same in all cultures. This is because humans are neurologically the same - shamans in each culture have the same wiring, so to say. In the first stage of deepening dissociation the shaman sees entoptic phenomena (lights, geometric shapes). After that they become more organized and the shaman starts seeing or interpreting them based on culturally available images. In the third stage, full blown hallucinations take the form of the myths of the culture. The template is the same, but it is shaped by the archetypes available as raw data for perception or "inner world creation". I guess the more data a person has to begin with, the more objective will be the hallucinations. When dealing with inner phenomena, the higher centers "see" things based on their qualities. 6D archetypes reflect in the forms of nature (2D), and these provide the basic raw material for visions. The also give the material for 3D and 4D forms. So when we "see" 4D beings, they take the "shapes" provided by nature, depending on their own nature or essence. At least, that's how I see it right now.

 

[daco]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Is David Icke cointelpro,this question is in my mind for some time and still I,m a bit confused,I dont know what to think about him.

Look this video interview go at 2.52 and listen answer of Icke and in 3.25 he said it (in which contact,manipulation from 4D or not).Listen carefully what he answer and look in 3.25 when he say that he is in contact he doesnt look in guy eyes he looks down (why he escaped to look direct in eyes when say such think?) .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzKBSMLuflk&feature=related

"By the fruits you will recognize them".

But still I dont know.something is fishy about him.

 

[Joe]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Its something to really think about, because if you have a serious (not to mention ambitious) goal of trying to change the world for the better through something like FOTCM, how do you avoid situations where people say 'If you join them, you're just scared of some . . . some . . . lizard conspiracy.' Food for thought!

But isn't that the truth . . . there really is a lizard conspiracy?!! At some point won't FOTCM have to acknowledge that reality?

There is no point in publicly decrying a "lizard conspiracy" when there is in fact no overt or obvious such conspiracy here. To do so invites ridicule. Wise as serpents, gentle as doves. There IS however an overt conspiracy of psychopaths that can be convincingly and scientifically argued. We live in this 3D world, and if we are to have any chance of freeing the people of this world, we must deal primarily with the 3D control system.

Ask yourself, what are the main and most pressing problems besetting humanity right now and what approach is going to have the best chance of freeing the masses of ordinary people from it? Is widely and publicly claiming a "lizard conspiracy" going to do it, considering the facts on the ground in our world? Remember Gurdjieff "sincerity with everyone is madness". Those with more knowledge who would presume to spread the word have a responsibility to consider the level of their audience and the freedom or lack thereof of the environment in which they live.

 

[Joe]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

We don't know that reptilian beings are "real" in the sense that we consider things in 3D reality to be real/concrete.

Precisely, and to go around exclaiming the "reality" of lizard beings is therefore totally misguided and irresponsible of anyone who claims to want to "set humanity free". IMO, Icke is clearly a "nut job" and he has only himself to blame for the fact that he is received as he is by the general public. There seems little doubt that he is a dupe of someone. His messianic complex is a clear hallmark of it.

 

[Joe]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Yes, this would help a lot. He also talks extensively lately about the 'human computer', compared to Gurdjieff's 'machine', and recognizing programs and so on... :/

He also talks about human beings being infinite consciousness and that there is no difference between you and everything else and all you have to do is free your thoughts - in short, new age fluff par excellence. He is the worst spokesperson for eoterica and the current global control system that we could ever have not hoped for.

 

[daco]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

He also talks about human beings being infinite consciousness and that there is no difference between you and everything else and all you have to do is free your thoughts - in short, new age fluff par excellence. He is the worst spokesperson for eoterica and the current global control system that we could ever have not hoped for.

I agree well made point and there are surely much more.
Icke writes that December 12, 2012—12/12/12—will be a "real focal point of transformation"

 

[shijing]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Hi Perceval --

There is no point in publicly decrying a "lizard conspiracy" when there is in fact no overt or obvious such conspiracy here. To do so invites ridicule. Wise as serpents, gentle as doves. There IS however an overt conspiracy of psychopaths that can be convincingly and scientifically argued. We live in this 3D world, and if we are to have any chance of freeing the people of this world, we must deal primarily with the 3D control system.

Ask yourself, what are the main and most pressing problems besetting humanity right now and what approach is going to have the best chance of freeing the masses of ordinary people from it? Is widely and publicly claiming a "lizard conspiracy" going to do it, considering the facts on the ground in our world? Remember Gurdjieff "sincerity with everyone is madness". Those with more knowledge who would presume to spread the word have a responsibility to consider the level of their audience and the freedom or lack thereof of the environment in which they live.

I think these are all good points, and I'm not very concerned that we are going to shoot ourselves in the foot by crying 'lizard conspiracy' -- I think we know better than that already. My only concern at present is that, as JEEP pointed out in an earlier post, there are people who will figure out the connection between FOTCM and the Cass material (not that we are trying to hide it, although we won't be advertising it either in my present understanding), and among those people who do so, there will be a subset of Vincent Bridges who could use it as ammunition for defamation, saying 'check out what the founders of FOTCM are into -- reptilians!' I realize that at some point you have to just stand your ground, but since we are trying to be wise as serpents, this seems to be an issue worthy of some attention ahead of time. We know what happened in Icke's case, and we also know what choices he made in the management and dissemination of his information that led there. So what could we do to minimize the damage, or even turn the situation to our advantage if a third party pointed a finger at us one day and said 'lizard conspiracy' or something similar? (And that's a question for the entire forum, not specifically directed at Perceval).

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

The account Laura posted shows Icke making a dramatic scene whenever he thinks he's being censored or repressed. Jones does the same thing. Could this be a clue that they're acting?

I actually don't think its true that Icke 'makes a dramatic scene whenever he thinks he's being censored or repressed' -- you can sometimes sense his frustration, but this is actually representative of a huge difference between Icke and Jones IMO. I have never seen Icke throw a tantrum or treat anyone -- even the people laughing at him openly -- with disrespect. In this sense, he's an adult. Jones, on the other hand, is a mean, loud-mouthed man-child in perpetual delayed adolescence. They may still both be unwitting dupes (the likeliest hypothesis I think), but I think this is one more reason why (as you said) people who aren't attracted to one will be attracted to the other.

Icke doesn't throw infantile tantrums like Jones, but his frustrated responses are still on the dramatic side. It could be genuine frustration, just like Jones's reactions could be genuine anger. That's the problem - it's almost impossible to tell. An expert COINTELPRO agent - and/or a psychopath - could convincingly fake the entire range of human emotion. We've never (to my knowledge) seen David Icke without some media presence there recording him. So it's hard to tell if his responses are genuine, or if they're "performances" calculated to achieve some end. But we could look at the results in the reactions/attitudes of his followers (or even by examining our own reactions). We could ask ourselves, "If I wanted to emotionally 'fire up' my followers, how would I act in this situation?" Alex Jones's followers eat up his angry rants and his rage. But followers of Icke may be turned off by such extremes, and might need a more "subtle" approach. The two are different, but both are the same in that their reactions show "righteous indignation" that speaks directly to the emotions of their fans. Which could serve to deepen their sense of loyalty. That said, I'm right with you in wanting to see them as unwitting dupes. Especially Icke, who seems so kind and sincere.

Shijing described this later book, but he also talks about New Age and he says about how he is against New Age and this article says that he is something like New Age guru, and that New Agers are his followers, and I find it contradictory.

The article is the author's opinion of Icke, or may even be trying to smear him. Laura's also considered "New Age" or worse by some people. Still, I think Icke is on the outside fringe of New Age thought; he's almost like a "net" intended to catch seekers who find themselves dissatisfied with the New Age movement. Jones could be a similar "net" set up on the other side, to catch angry or dissatisfied Christians and conservatives. Christians can be caught in either direction, actually - if they become disillusioned with their religion they might go "left" towards the New Age (and possibly Icke); if they just become disillusioned politically they can veer "right" instead, where Jones is waiting.

Actually, I thought that Laura meant to collect evidence about this more general idea:

...we have a hypothesis based on a large corpus of indirect evidence that hyperdimensional beings exist, that they can be subjectively perceived as reptilian as a direct result of how we read waves, and that they have interacted historically with humanity in such a way that they have sometimes been seen as gods.

But correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, this could be very challenging (but fun).

You are right. I want the data and sources, not what Icke says. If he has data and sources collected together, let's see them and check the sources.

I'm so caught up in the question of whether Icke is a dupe or a deliberate liar, that I misread your statement as being about that. My mistake. I have to be careful to avoid turning this into a "crusade," because in the end it doesn't really matter whether he's a liar or just a tool. The result is the same. I agree with shijing; examining Icke's sources could be more challenging than examining Icke himself - but also more fun.

So what could we do to minimize the damage, or even turn the situation to our advantage if a third party pointed a finger at us one day and said 'lizard conspiracy' or something similar? (And that's a question for the entire forum, not specifically directed at Perceval).

Based on what Perceval said, a good response might be to say that we have theories based in our understanding of 7-density Reality, but we don't know for sure whether there are "lizards" or not. We could then use the opportunity to talk about psychopaths, and other aspects that are directly observable in our world. I really like the idea of discussing this question; I think it might be different enough from a discussion of Icke's ideas - and strong enough - to merit its own thread.

[Edit: Removed a misplaced quote]

 

[celtic]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Perhaps it would be useful to compile the "corpus of evidence" - the reasonable stuff, that is, including the historical evidence - and write it up?

This would be excellent. Other than Icke himself, maybe a brief analysis of his major info sources would help too (Arizona Wilder, Credo Mutwa, Cathy O'Brien, etc). I have a lot of Icke audio and video I can go through to contribute some data; most of them are official releases from David Icke himself, but it could still be useful.

Actually, I thought that Laura meant to collect evidence about this more general idea:

...we have a hypothesis based on a large corpus of indirect evidence that hyperdimensional beings exist, that they can be subjectively perceived as reptilian as a direct result of how we read waves, and that they have interacted historically with humanity in such a way that they have sometimes been seen as gods.

But correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, this could be very challenging (but fun).

You are right. I want the data and sources, not what Icke says. If he has data and sources collected together, let's see them and check the sources.

I agree with Laura we need more facts.
He is talking about these jewish shape
shifting lizards with no type of source to
give us. How do he know about them what
source can he give us to search on our own.

What evidenc can he use to show us this is in
fact happening? How does he apply this to
history? I yet to get any of these answers.
He is going around doing stand ups getting
aggressive with people to believe in his
theory. To be honest with you I think he is
part of the disinfo.

 

[shijing]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

Some of my family and friends are aware of my "belief" in the Lizzies, but no matter what I say most of them reduce the ideas to a caricature, claiming that I "believe lizard people control the world." As if that sums up my entire view of Reality. This is because my original views were shaped by Icke, and even though my perspective has changed the Icke version stamps such a strong image on the psyche that they have trouble letting it go. To them, that's THE viewpoint of anyone who talks about reptilians. I've now stopped bringing it up unless asked. Which is what I should've been doing in the first place. :)

I can really commiserate with you on that one -- when I first discovered Icke, I started his books at the beginning, and just devoured them. I tried to share what I was reading with a couple of my closer friends at the time, and they got very turned off, more than anything else by the reptilian angle. To his credit, one of them gave a shot at reading the Icke book on 9/11 that I recommended, but I have never been able to approach any paranormal topic with them since (even something as mundane as UFOs or crop circles) without them visibly tensing up. I know that one of my own programs instilled from my youth (thanks largely to evangelical Christianity) is 'spread the truth and change the world', and I definitely did not understand the concept of external consideration -- I just thought 'wow, Icke is such a good researcher and has put so many of the pieces of the puzzle into place about more mundane things like politics and economics, he can't be completely wrong about reptilians!' I still fight with this program, and haven't expunged it yet, but I think I am winning the battle slowly but surely...

I agree with shijing; examining Icke's sources could be more challenging than examining Icke himself - but also more fun.

I hope so :) I picked up his latest book today to finish reading it with this in mind, and was reminded that one of the challenges is that although he has a bibliography in every book, nothing is referenced internally. So to the bibliography I shall go, and see where that leads me...

Based on what Perceval said, a good response might be to say that we have theories based in our understanding of 7-density Reality, but we don't know for sure whether there are "lizards" or not. We could then use the opportunity to talk about psychopaths, and other aspects that are directly observable in our world. I really like the idea of discussing this question; I think it might be different enough from a discussion of Icke's ideas - and strong enough - to merit its own thread.

I agree -- especially since lizards aren't the only topic relevant to this question. The same thing could be said for ouija boards, Grays, etc. And I agree with you about Perceval's strategy, I think its the correct one -- I am just worried less about people who would be interested in having a rational dialogue about this, and more about people purposefully out to make trouble using information taken out of context in a smear campaign. But yes, this should probably have a separate thread.

 

[shijing]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

He is talking about these jewish shape shifting lizards with no type of source to give us.

In all fairness to Icke, I don't think he really says 'Jewish shape shifting lizards' -- he does criticize Zionism, but goes out of his way to try to separate the Zionist political entity from the Jewish cultural entity (much the same as is done here, really).

To be honest with you I think he is part of the disinfo.

I'm pretty sure that's the general consensus here. One can ask whether he does this purposefully or as a dupe, but yes, he is disinfo.

 

[Argonaut]

Re: About David Icke & James Redfield

...when I first discovered Icke, I started his books at the beginning, and just devoured them. I tried to share what I was reading with a couple of my closer friends at the time, and they got very turned off, more than anything else by the reptilian angle. To his credit, one of them gave a shot at reading the Icke book on 9/11 that I recommended, but I have never been able to approach any paranormal topic with them since (even something as mundane as UFOs or crop circles) without them visibly tensing up. I know that one of my own programs instilled from my youth (thanks largely to evangelical Christianity) is 'spread the truth and change the world', and I definitely did not understand the concept of external consideration -- I just thought 'wow, Icke is such a good researcher and has put so many of the pieces of the puzzle into place about more mundane things like politics and economics, he can't be completely wrong about reptilians!' I still fight with this program, and haven't expunged it yet, but I think I am winning the battle slowly but surely...

I fight with a similar program (also from evangelical Christianity, most likely), but it's getting easier to keep external consideration in mind and avoid trying to evangelize. Another big help to me was learning about Strategic Enclosure, and how lying isn't always "evil" and honesty isn't always best. I was so into the belief that one should be completely honest at all times and hide nothing from anyone. But now I understand that's a paramoralism. It's funny; I never thought of Icke as totally lacking in external consideration, but Perceval made that very clear. And now it seems obvious.

I picked up his latest book today to finish reading it with this in mind, and was reminded that one of the challenges is that although he has a bibliography in every book, nothing is referenced internally. So to the bibliography I shall go, and see where that leads me...

I only have his book Children of the Matrix, plus a few of the books he's mentioned as good info sources. One of these is called Flying Serpents and Dragons (R.A. Boulay), and it purports to tell the real story behind ancient myths. The "real story" is apparently that reptoid aliens created and enslaved the ancient human race. The problem is, this book gets its information seemingly from nowhere. There's an impressive bibliography in the back, but the books listed are mainly of two kinds: direct tellings of the myths, and "straight" academic studies of the myths. A lot of good information, but it just doesn't look like anything which would justify Boulay's reptilian interpretations, especially not to the extent he takes it. So Boulay weaves an elaborate account of ancient history, based on... what, exactly? The answer might be found in this quote from the publisher:

Although it is not a new notion that our gods and ancestors were probably alien reptile forms, "Flying Serpents and Dragons" was the first (and only) comprehensive in-depth study based on ancient documents, both religious and secular. In this work, no attempt has been made to provide supporting physical evidence, which is beyond the purview of this book.

Without the groundwork laid by three great writers who had a powerful influence on this author, this work would not have been possible. They are Velikovsky, von Daniken, and Sitchin. Immanuel Velikovsky reintroduced the theory of catastrophic evolution in the 1950's for which he was vilified by mainstream science. His revised chronology is used in this book and it was an invaluable help in putting all the pieces together. Erich von Daniken introduced a whole generation to the idea that our ancestors may have come from outer space and that their presence was world-wide; an idea which seems to have taken firm hold today. Zecharia Sitchin who, in his series on the Anunnaki called The Earth Chronicles, described in detail who these extraterrestrials who colonized the land of Mesopotamia were, and how they created modern man as a slave race.

So right away we see that physical evidence of Boulay's claims is "beyond the purview of this book." I suppose that's fair enough, but then the three authors who had "powerful influence" on him are listed. And - surprise! - we find Sitchin. Velikovsky provided Boulay with a chronology, and von Daniken is only there because he was a "pioneer" of the whole alien astronaut idea. But Sitchin "described in detail who these extraterrestrials who colonized the land of Mesopotamia were, and how they created modern man as a slave race." So it appears that R.A. Boulay read a lot of Sitchin, did an extensive study of mythology, then imaginatively combined the two and called it "truth." The motive may be hinted at in the last paragraph from the Publisher:

When "Flying Serpents and Dragons" came out in 1990, the idea of our ancestors being reptiles seemed to be complete fantasy. However, events have transpired since then which have softened the impact of this work and today it is debated world-wide and even suggested that indeed our ancestors may have been reptilian astronauts.

Exactly. "Events have transpired" since the book was written which "softened" people up to the idea of reptilian ancestors. I don't know what "events" this is referring to, but seeing how the book has influenced David Icke - who in turn has greatly influenced people in general - I'd say this book itself could've been part of the "softening" process.

Hm... So here we have one of Icke's major sources, and it traces back to Sitchin. Why do I get a strange feeling that quite a few of Icke's written "sources" will do the same? I guess we'll see. :)

A second Icke source I've read (but no longer own) is called The Return of the Serpents of Wisdom (Mark Amaru Pinkham). Here's the Product Description (from Amazon.com):

This book recounts the complete history and teachings of the spiritual masters around the world who have been associated with the serpent.

According to this book, ancient records claim that spiritual masters associated with the serpent initially appeared within Motherlands which once existed in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. These Motherlands are referred to as Atlantis, Pan, or the Old Red Land of the Atlantic, and as Lemuria, Mu, Rua, or Kumari Nadu in the Pacific. The records maintain that the ancestors of the first "Serpents" were extraterrestrials who came to Earth and mated with the native population.

The records further maintain that when the Motherlands were destroyed, the Serpents migrated to various parts of the world and founded new civilizations. Within these civilizations they reigned as priest kings and as the heads of mystery school traditions. They taught their new, adopted people the esoteric wisdom and rites they had learned on the Motherlands. In India these colonial Serpents and their descendants became known as the Nagas (Sanscrit for Serpent); in China they were known as the Lung Dragons; in Egypt they were referred to as the Djedhi (the "Stable Serpents"); in Peru they were the Amarus (Quechuan for Serpent); in Mexico they were called the Quetzlcoatls (Nahuatl for "Plumed Serpent"); in Britain they were the Druid Adders (Welsh for Serpents).

Some of the wisdom the migrating Serpents carried with them from the Motherlands concerned the awakening of the internal "Serpent Power," the latent, alchemical force within humans which normally lies dormant at the base of the spine. Once awakened, this mysterious power moves up the spine of a seeker and eventually transmutes him or her into a living god and goddess. Pyramidal temples and mystery schools were established around the globe by the Serpents in order to disseminate the wisdom of the Serpent Power and promote its awakening within worthy seekers. Megalithic reminders of their ancient schools survive as the Great Pyramid of Egypt, Stonehenge of Britain, Machu Picchu of Peru, and Teotihuacan of Mexico.

During the rise of Christianity, the Serpents were forced to hide within clandestine orders or become assimilated into eastern cultures which welcomed their ancient rites and practices. In the west the Serpents continued to survive as the Freemasons, Templars, and Rosicrucians- organizations which from their inception strove to overthrow the shackles of Christianity and eventually transform the entire Earth into a world based upon freedom of belief and speech.

According to the prophecies of many traditions mentioned in this book, the free world dreamed of by the Serpents is now on the threshold. We will soon move into a new cycle of time called the 5th World, the World of Love, and the World of Venus. This time period has also been referred to as "the thousand year reign of Christ" and as the Aquarian Age. In the 5th World all polarities, all nationalities, and all ideologies will unite through the power of love. The perennial battle between science and religion will come to a conclusion and the two will unite as Sacred Science. Many people will have the opportunity to fully develop the Serpent Power and become Serpents during this New Age. They, and other "returning" Serpents, will oversee the creation of a new World Government.

So based on all of THAT New-Agey claptrap, which barely even mentions actual E.T.'s except once in passing, why is this one of Icke's big sources? Well, turns out this description is a bit misleading, as far as what's actually INSIDE the book. Once you start reading it, you find that Pinkham spends his time listing appearance after appearance of "snakes," "dragons," and other reptoid concepts in mythology and culture, and tries (very badly) to claim that it's all secret evidence of the "Serpent Masters" - as if they passed through all these cultures and the symbolism was left as a sort of secret "footprint" marking their passing. He draws these connections to a ridiculous degree, and it all feels very forced and unbelievable. So anyway... It seems that Icke likes this book for reasons unintended by the author - as a mere catalogue of reptoid symbolism through the ages. And I admit it does function ok for that, if you look past all the garbage. The problem is, the fact that reptiles of various kinds were honored or pictured around the world clearly doesn't mean that Icke's particular interpretation is correct. So I think this is yet another resource which doesn't add any substance at all to his claims.