Analysis of The Biggest Secret by David Icke

Here is an indepth yet rough analysis of the first 92 pages of The Biggest Secret by David Icke. My intention was to explore this entire book at great length but I did not anticipate how monumental of a task this would be. Instead, I resolved to write a lengthy piece detailing my thoughts on the man as well as his followers and other such conspiracies. If this is too extensive for you, there is a shorter summary focusing solely on the book availible on Goodreads here.




These are certain interbreeding bloodlines that have always controlled (and continue to) control the world. But what you need to know for now, is that the ancestors of these lines used to walk among us, giving us extra knowledge to build crazy stuff while we worshipped them as gods.


I spent far too much time researching these claims and they are absolutely fascinating.
Nobody can agree how these monumental 750-ton stones were moved over miles of terrain but one thing Icke already seems inaccurate with his "thousands of years BC" dating. Most historians place the events around 15 BC with the construction of the Temple of Jupiter.
The "block nearby" is known as the “Stone of the Pregnant Woman” which weighed around 1,200 tons (often accurately noted to be the same as three Boeing 747s). What Icke conveniently didn't mention was that this stone weighed so much that whoever was trying to move it gave up, cut in place then abandoned before the project was done.

So how did they move these stones? According to Icke above, "Official history does not wish to address such questions because of where it might lead" but this is unfair of him to say as many solutions have been proposed.

Sure, aliens are one theory. A common one, in fact. But the difference is that other studies are not afraid to talk about what other options we have. For example, another theory (that more Biblical scholars lean towards) is the supposed-giants who have been documented to live during this time (which Icke believes are aliens anyway).
Meanwhile, others simply claim that it was the Romans who had devised pully contraptions to get the job done. This last one often seems so far-fetched that aliens may be the easiest answer! But as Ancient Aliens Debunked points out, around the same time (19BC) Herod the Great was building his own temple, imaginatively called Herod's Temple. Pieces of this temple still stand today, the heaviest of the stones weighing approximately 600 tons. This is less than those at Baalbek, true, but only by 100 tons. What's more, Herod's Roman methods of construction were well-documented, no aliens necessary. So... is 100-tons the difference between Roman capabilities and alien intervention? Maybe.

I spent a lot of time looking at this piece because it exposes a lot of Icke's strategy. Whenever there is some debate, any alternative solution is brushed aside in favour of the alien theory, calling the other suggestions "cover-ups" or "fear-driven" or even "stupidity". He then uses the theory to base his next theory on top of it, now using it as fact. It's a very fragile system of Jenga which requires the reader to simply accept it then move on, which I think most Icke readers tend to do. But if you take a moment to flick at the fundamentals, the stack plummets fairly quickly.


This is true and once again, so awesome.
So I guess the Incas were drawing pictures for the aliens? Perhaps! Another explanation could be pictures for the deities that this civilisation (like many civilisations) believed lived above them. Naturally, Icke believes these are all one and the same, which is fine.
There are plenty of other theories including maps of constellations and irrigation systems. They all have a similar amount of evidence.


Icke is using these examples to indicate that multiple "Gods" existed back in the day who walked among men, certainly extraterrestrial of nature.
There is some truth to this grammar suggestion. Elohim can be used as both singular and plural. Adonai (my Lord) can be considered a "royal plural" as the singular use of the word does appear in the Hebrew Bible (adon/adoni) to address distinguished humans (also my lord). The truth is, Judaism has many names for God, most of which are singular and said to reflect different aspects of the almighty. Officially they believe there is only one God. Of course, this doesn't disprove anything Icke is proposing.


And thus begins the most important piece of information from this chapter. Almost everything Icke believes about the Chapter One aliens comes from these tablets.
The "Sumerian Texts or Tablets" exist in great numbers and have been dated to around 4500 BC. Written in Sumerian (the oldest known written language) many of these texts are yet to be translated and the ones that have are often under loud debate. Some of these writings appear to be keeping track of how many loaves of bread they traded. Some of them feature poetry suggested to have been passed down by generations before recording (the most famous of which is the Epic of Gilgamesh). And some talk about the creation of the Earth itself (such as the Enûma Eliš).
Information on these tablets were inconsistent but, much like any ancient civilization, the Sumerians personified their gods, many believing that deities named the Anunnaki used to walk among them, ruling the Earth, the humans as their slaves. These Anunnaki since relocated to the heavens but could be summoned to Earth using statues, instructing certain chosen holy men.
These stories are not very different from most religious beliefs (hey, Jesus!) and have often been hypothesised as the original basis of all religions, the text changed over the millennia but many details remaining same, like the longest game of Chinese whispers ever.


What's interesting here is that Icke is very careful to not give his full support to Zecharia Sitchin as an accurate Sumerian Tablet translator. This is clever because a little bit of research does paint Zecharia in a questionable light, his translations coming under heavy scrutiny while his scientific and astrological work accused of being speculative posed as factual. Reminds me of someone else, right? But what do they know, they're the manipulated mainstream, we must not trust them, we must only trust Icke and his sources!!

Regardless, Icke's disclaimer appears to mean nothing in the greater picture as he uses Sitchin as a reference 14 times in this chapter, a core piece on which this entire book is built.

Now I know it's easy to get excited and say "omg, this checks out, old tablets talking about "gods" living among them" but it is no different from The Bible stories. Was the Abrahamic God an alien? Sure could be! But don't think of this as new information or evidence of any kind. It is stories passed down where God/gods/aliens communicated to us directly. I am not so closed-minded to believe this was impossible. I am also not so closed-minded to believe that fiction writing hasn't been a staple of human existence since 4500 BC. Traditional fables to manipulate behaviour may be human nature. Santa Clause is a good example. Wait, was Santa an alien??


I added this because it sounded lovely. Heavenly boats is a beautiful concept, lending itself to many ideas including aliens.


This is a bold claim which comes with no references. I am struggling to find anything to back this up, help? But one thing for certain is that the Babylon astronomers were next level, organizing the very first astrological system on which our Western astronomy was based on today.
One interesting bit of information I did find was a Sumerian tablet that currently sits in the British Museum in London. On here, Babylonians describe the exact methods of astrology where they tracked Jupiter over 60-days, measuring the shift of degrees the planet took each day, describing what's known as a trapezoid graph. This is incredible because this technique was thought to have been discovered in 14th-century Europe but these guys were doing it in 350BC! However, this doesn't exactly lend itself too well to the alien theory, does it? They showed their work. It was maths. But did someone teach them the maths? That's the question.


The idea that aliens are the missing link between apes and humans is nothing new. I've wrote about the topic myself in 2013 without any inspiration from Icke. There's plenty of debates for and against it. I see no reason as to why this isn't as possible as any other theory.


This came out of nowhere! Such a sudden tangent that I was caught off guard like Icke was a mad man rambling his paranoia. I looked into it and I did find some evidence that Percy Shelley (the husband) tried and failed to perform necromancy on occasion, but nothing worthwhile has been noted anywhere reputable.


Lots to love here, especially the "sorry mother" quip.
The problem is that it feels like such a stretch, jumping from one point to another in an attempt to make a hazy connection. The parallels between the Adam Even story and Sumerian beliefs are widely reported on. A god named Enki eats 8 plants in paradise (like Eve eating the forbidden fruit) and she is punished. That's just about it.
The Sumerian word "ti" does mean both "rib" and "life". But any direct link between this story has never been proven despite many (many!) scholars efforts. They want to prove it!
And then Icke goes from "that which is with life" directly to "living cells" as if some sort of evidence towards alien interference. r-i-d-i-c-u-l-o-u-s.


Not exactly, but close. According to a NYTimes article, "Wallace also said evidence from the mitochondria DNA did not necessarily trace the human DNA to a single person, although it probably did suggest a small number of ancestors. He said the mutation rate of 2 to 4 percent every million years may be subject to some error."
There are other studies with similar findings. This is where the aliens made us, I guess. Although have we tried to do the same for all animals? Do all creatures perhaps trace back to a singular point? I mean, where else would it start if not... somewhere?


Omg. Spot the problem here. How is this even allowed in any book ever?


I slightly paraphrased for length's sake but now we're getting weird.
First of all, Brian Desborough is a sketchy resource that Icke uses freely here. Not only was he the topic in question for the quote above this one (the unofficial study), but he is also a friend of Icke's with verrry little presence anywhere which could validate anything he says. In fact, Brian Desborough is credited as a proofreader for this very book, so they're tight.
Regardless, these claims are insane with no basis in the slightest. White people come from Mars, do they? Oh, please do go on.
Even more troublesome is some of the phrasings here and elsewhere ("Desborough believes that these white Martians were the highly advanced race of the ancient world") that could lend itself to white supremacy. This might be where Icke's reputation as a racist comes from.
Also, check how he casually drops the "war of the gods" from the Vedas in here. Be a little more specific with your references, please.


This is huge if true! And it even came with a citation number!
This led me to the title The Great Pyramid Mystery by... wait for it... Brian Desborough again! It's a chapter in his conspiracy book called They Cast No Shadows: A collection of essays on the Illuminati, revisionist history, and suppressed technologies. This book currently has 12 ratings on Goodreads and 8 ratings on Amazon. I couldn't find any qualifications for this guy either, besides that he once provided some consultation to "a company involved in deep space research".
It gets worse. Of the 35 sources that Icke provided for this chapter, 15 of them come from Desborough's book. If this isn't sinking in, allow me to spell it out for you:

42.86% of this chapter's ENTIRE research came from another unknown conspiracy book written by Icke's friend who has no discernible qualifications in anything.

Did Icke... did Icke think no one would check this out? What the actual fuck??

Regardless, I did try to find anyone anywhere with anything at all that might indicate the original claim racial circadian rhythm differences might have some truth to it. I couldn't.


This is long but a basic summary of the whole chapter, so it's worthwhile. Please note that while Icke refers to these as "views" you have to accept this paragraph as truth if you want the following chapters to work. It's based on literally nothing. I worry for people who believe this, man. I really do.


And thus ends the first chapter, "God" helps us all.



Firstly, what a great name for a chapter! It's these little humourous remarks which make Icke so much more likeable especially in the self-awareness of his reputation.
Still, I must say this chapter was a letdown. I was super excited to hear how he's managed to convince his groupies of such a far-out theory and even more excited to see if he could do the same to me. Unfortunately, it fell short and was what I predicted. Everything is based on some drawings or some historic text or some third party account which loosely mentions some variation of cold-blooded creatures, all stitched together and then leapt forward to connect to a bloodline controlling our lovely planet.

It all makes me wonder... what if human civilisation ended now and we were discovered by another race thousands of years in the future? Does our literature and illustrations and statues accurately reflect where we are at? What we believe? What about our fiction and films and general art? What if the future races manage to log onto the internet? Do memes tell a true tale? They'd probably think we worship cats! Which is only half true!

Anyways, this is the money shot, make up your own mind. Here are the pieces I've extracted as of some sort of a higher interest:


An extensive list has been provided here. Probably the most fascinating is that of the Ubaid culture from prehistoric Mesopotamia (6500–3800 BC). Figurines have been found which clearly show a humanoid creature with a lizard head cradling a baby. Very few mainstream explanations exist for this, and there are plenty of alien theories about their appearance. It's eerie!

That said, this is the only reasonable example put forward and obviously the singular basis for many of Icke's theories. A little clay lizardman. Beyond this, he has isolated various other ancient cultures with serpent Gods but completely ignored other elements which could be used in completely different ways.

A particularly good one is that of the Nāgas, deities noted by Hinduism (and its Buddhism offshoot) as divine serpent entities that can take human form. Pretty spot on! But keep in mind that there are 330 million deities in Hinduism so if a reptile didn't exist, that would be weirder? What's more, the Nāgas aren't even very high up on their list of importance. A much more recognisable diety would be that of Ganesha, for example, known for his elephant head. Where did that come from? Elephant aliens?
Aztec's had Quetzalcoatl "a feathered serpent" but they also had hundreds of other deities in their canon.
Similarly, Hopi mythology has their own Quetzacoatl named Pahana (which Icke named as Baholinkonga for some reason? After some brief research, it seems only conspiracy theorists call it by that name?). This is a small deity in their list of deities and much more popular creatures include a Spider Woman, a Skeleton Man, and a coyote.
The Egyptians have Kneph which is often a ram but also a serpent surrounding eggs. Then again, Egyptian texts mention over 1,500 deities, including a falcon (Horus), a lioness (Sekhmet) and a hippopotamus (Taweret). Once again, Kneph is very small in their timeline, so why aren't we asking about these other much more predominant creatures? Who do they represent?

There are plenty of even lesser-known examples given (Agathodemon for Phoenicians; Damballah Wedo for voodoo; Ophiolatreia for ancient Britain) but I think I made my point. A plethora of animals have been represented in religious texts, often in terms of symbols. The snake is commonly used throughout history as a representative for danger (as they were a big threat to human life in many areas) or renewal (as their ability to shed their skin). Once again, if reptiles weren't represented it would be waaaay more surprising, because every species has been used in one way or another.


Icke provided a reference to this which led to another reptilian conspiracy theory website called Reptoids. This led me to a "thought experiment" (not a study and certainly not "studies" plural) by geologist/palaeontologist, Dale Russell. He came up with the Dinosauroid, a hypothetical path of evolution if the dinosaurs (more specifically, the Stenonychosaurus) had not gone extinct. His model did look strikingly humanoid, which was a big part of the reason why it was met with much criticism.
Still, Icke's research checks out, even if it doesn't actually mean anything if you think about it. Pretty difficult to find any evidence that dinosaurs weren't wiped out.


Yes, but who is to say it did? You?


I wholeheartedly subscribe to this concept but it's far from a provable fact that consciousness works this way.


This is undeniably true but can actually work against Icke. Some historians believe that the dragon legend comes from the discovery of dinosaur bones, not some reptilian overlord being represented in folklore like Icke would have you believe. Although, maybe, right?


This is important for two reasons.
(1) It introduces the main theories of how these reptiles came to their position; and
(2) It is a fantastic example of how much of a sly bastard Icke is.

There are multiple occasions throughout Icke's teachings where he manages to cover all bases at once, no matter how contradictory they may seem. Even crazier is how none of his followers seem to pick up on this sneaky manoeuvre.
Look at the above statement and analyse points 1 (extraterrestrials) and 2 (‘inner’ terrestrials). Icke shamelessly states that he thinks "they are all true". This now grants him permission to use any ancient belief which talks about gods that come from above or below. Either which way he can tie it to his narrative. I'm sorry but what doesn't apply to this criteria?

He performed the same trick during his famed COVID-19/5G interview with London Real. China's quick release from isolation was used as evidence towards Corona being a hoax. Meanwhile, an increase in global lockdown proved that this was a government conspiracy to remove freedoms. Whether release or isolation, his theory becomes true! Manipulative man.


Sounds about right. Draco being the Latin for dragon, the whole thing fits together sweetly.
He also earns additional respect a bit later when he talks about the theory that Angkor Wat temple in Cambodia lines up with the constellation but also mentions how many studies question those findings. Good work!
Icke also points out that the Egyptian Pyramids were geometrically aligned so that the constellation (or, more importantly, the Thuban star) would be visible to them at night. My research agrees.

Side history: in both Greek and Greco-Roman mythology, this mythical constellation Draco creature was killed, which doesn't slot into the reptilian timeline very well? Meanwhile, Arabic astronomy replaces the dragon for two hyenas attacking a baby camel.


Cool plot summary here. John Rhodes is the same resource from earlier, Reptoids.com. He doesn't have any formal qualifications. An independent study of the lizard theory is basically his life. A lot of circle-jerking happens in this community, it seems. I'll source you if you source me!


That Arizona Gazette article definitely exists but the story surrounding this claim is very hazy. The author was anonymous while both sources cited (G.E. Kincaid and Professor S. A. Jordan) have never been identified with no records of their existence anywhere. Rumours offer many theories: the paper ran a hoax to sell more copies, it was a delayed April Fools joke, or... of course, it was a big fat cover-up. I do not know so I will not say. It's a suspicious one, for sure.


This is a lot of information that really doesn't feed into the bigger picture quite as Icke intends it to.
Ant people? Spider Woman? A magical mocking bird? At what point are we meant to take legendary reptiles at face-value and yet dismiss other creature references as folklore? Or are these all aliens? Based on fucking what??
Regardless, the Hopi do have a lot of respect for snakes, even performing a snake ceremony (complete with the aforementioned snake dance with snakes in their mouths!) to bring about rainfall.
The Tower of Babel connection is fun but I'm unsure of the relevance.


"a mixture of the two" cover all bases, Icke.
"I have spoken to former CIA employees who confirm this" once again, Icke is his own reference.
Also, please note that a "reptilian race definitely live within this planet in a physical form". Definitely?? Really??? So we've all arrived at that conclusion now. It's no longer a theory, this is a definite. So is everyone ok with that?


Omg, so obvious! So simple!


Just a quick catchup: Icke describes dimensions like radio signals. Many exist but you can only experience the one you're currently tuned into. We are tuned into the third dimension. Reptilians are running their game from the fourth.
I find this all quite funny. Obviously, it's a fantastic theory, one which has been discussed at great length by physicists and mathematicians since the 1700s but who knew it was here that Satanists drew their dark powers? I need to make a phone call!
Do I disbelieve this? No. But do I believe it? How could I? Who is believing this?? Based on what?? Icke???


Did you notice what he does here? Not all reptilians are bad? Can you tell why?
It's that classic Icke move again. By ensuring that reptilians can be both a positive influence and a negative influence on humans, he can now cover literally every single mention of serpent iconography throughout any culture's beliefs. Whether texts worship the snake as an ally or fear the serpent as a slavemaster, they fit Icke's narrative. Clever, huh?

And then it's like BAM! They suck blood! Wait... why??? Where did that come from????


This is surprisingly close. Dracula was named after and based on Vlad "the Impaler" Dracula, a Romanian ruler from the 1400s. Although my sources aren't fantastic, there are reports that this man used to dip his bread in the blood of his enemies and, even if he didn't, Romanian folklore provided enough blood-sucking vampires for Bram Stoker's fictional inspiration.
And, yes, Dracula does mean (the son of) dragon, a title bestowed upon Vlad when he joined the Order of the Dragon group for selected nobility. Still unsure where the reptilians sucking blood thing comes from though, was that it?

UPDATE: In Chapter 3, Icke does elaborate on this information by saying "According to Gardner, the name Dracula means ‘Son of Dracul’ and was inspired by Prince Vlad III of Transylvania-Wallachia, a Chancellor of the Court of the Dragon in the 15th century. The prince’s father was called Dracul within the Court. Dracul = Draco."


This actually checks out even though the wording is very misleading.
It's referring to the basal ganglia cerebral system which is in control of many human functions, including emotions, which covers Icke's examples. Paul D. MacLean came up with the theory that each brain is actually three brains in one, and one of those brains was the basal ganglia. He named it the reptilian complex because he believed that small animals (such as reptiles) were dominated by that part of the brain. The theory has been deemed useful due to its simplicity but this simplicity has also led to some opposition.


I disagree.
The idea of lizards ruling the world is fully comprehensible but highly unimaginative. In a universe of infinite possibility, a recognisable earthly creature has not only taken over but is also very humanoid in appearance? That took zero creativity, it's dull.
I find the certainty of the specifics less comprehensible. The fact that people have read this far in the book and have accepted the provided "evidence" as some sort of a fact is where I am in disbelief.


Originally written in 1998, we're still waiting.


Cathy O’Brien is referenced quite heavily as a massive source over the next while and it's easy to see why.
According to the lady herself, she was s victim of the government mind control program known as Project Monarch. For most of her life, she was sexually abused by many high profile figures (such as Bill Clinton, Hilary Clinton and George H. W. Bush) as part of satanic groups and paedophile rings. It's a harrowing tale no matter the validity.
Icke has latched onto this story due to a part where Bush's face transforms into a lizard in front of her eyes. Cathy believes that this was a hologram created by George Lucas but Icke is less convinced, using this as evidence to support his reptile theory. I don't blame him.
The issue is how much we can trust O’Brien's account and I'm not the one to make that call. Many have dismissed her for lack of evidence as well as highlighting inconsistencies in her accounts. She has also been diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder which doesn't always help her case. It also seems unlikely to me that someone telling a story this damning could get away with it if there was any truth to it. Kinda like this Secret book itself, actually.
At the same time, if we give her the benefit of the doubt, then the reactions still make sense. Of course it would be unprovable. A cover-up on this scale would be immediate and perfect. I just hope she's ok. Apparently the book is a decent read.


Oh, is it. Do you now.


"It makes sense".


Omg, seriously?? This section even had a source number which repeats Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas as a reference, ughhh. I could write a very interesting book on stories I've heard from people on drugs.

That said, it's worth mentioning that in 2015 at Secret Garden Party Festival in the UK, I took acid and drank a lot of whiskey. At some point, my vision disappeared and all I could see was what looked like an ID card of a Chinese man whose face kept shifting to a lizard and back again, over and over and over. It was such a bad trip, complete panic mode, not sure what that means though hehehe *nervous laughter*.


Please note his reference here is "this psychic lady".


To be honest, the shape-shifting element is fine with me, I accept it on a theoretical basis although I doubt anyone can find any reputable evidence of it being done.


Omg, the Domesday Book!!!! Wait, what's the Domesday Book? Turns out, it's the "oldest surviving public record of landholding and resources in late 11th century". It's got nothing to do with Satanism but it sure sounds like it, right?
I can't find any evidence predating Icke about his dark claims here but whatever, I'm super keen to check this place out! Let's gooo!


I couldn't find this exact translation but South African History Online claims that "Zulu" means "sky". One could argue these two translations aren't too far off.

I would like to point out, however, that most religions have looked to the stars/planets/sun/sky as the "heavens". Icke is adamant this is because of aliens but there are so many other paths of thought to explore. The rain and the sunshine, the days and the nights, the different seasons were all considered supernatural sky forces (and still should be!) as they kept the people (and their crops) alive. This could easily be the stronger case hence why I dislike how Icke has scooped up these wonderful observations and slapped his reptilian sticker over them. I'm not saying he's wrong, I'm saying he's wrong to not include the debate.

I recently spent many months studying the religion of Thelema and their holy scripture (The Book of the Law) states "Every man and every woman is a star" on the third line. This has many interpretations and aliens could be one, but it reminded me that this statement has a scientifically proven alternative. As I said in that review "We are made of stardust. Every planet is a result of stars dying then exploding into rocks, ultimately evolving into the life we see now". Perhaps the otherworldly knowledge of the ancients was simply that? Just a thought.


If there was a definitive moment where I lost all interest in Icke, this may have been it. Imagine you used this reference in a primary school paper? In what realm of research is this ok?


I wrote a little bit about Denver Airport once for an article called the 15 Craziest Conspiracy Theories Of All Time. It truly is an interesting place full of questionable imagery as many have noted before.
As for Gargoyles being the symbols of the reptilians, it does seem a lot of early sculptures were based on dragons, so at least the evidence isn't completely contradictory.


Dulce Base is a common UFOlogy site in conspiracy theory timelines, never proven to exist according to MAINSTREAM MEDIA. It's said to be a jointly-operated human and alien facility around the Colorado-New Mexico border. Somebody somewhere has written reports either as or pretending to be a worker from the place, detailing the company from the inside. Icke quotes these texts verbatim and they are really dark, definitely worth the read, I'd like to write some myself one day.
Check out the full piece on Sacred-Texts.


This stretching to breaking point, even for Icke. He's now claimed that, because reptilians are like dragons and dragons have wings, we can now include all mention of bird symbology through history as being directly related to his theory too. This is fucking insane.


Without question? Really? I have some questions.


This dragged me down an incredibly fascinating rabbit hole which I enjoyed thoroughly!

I'll leave Caucasus Mountains now as more information is coming from Icke, but the bloodlines were worth the time.

The Rh blood group system is a measurement of proteins. If your blood type has the word "positive" in it, then you're part of the (USA/European) 85% who have it. If your blood type states "negative", then you are part of the 15% who do not. I'm one of the special negatives, btw. Type O Negative, just like the band.
Rh is named after blood found in rhesus monkeys. This is a big win for Icke's theory as it indicates that 85% of humans are more monkey descendants whereas 15% of us... aren't. What's more, it's also true that the European Royal families are predominantly Rh-negative.

Blue Baby Syndrome (infant methemoglobinemia) occurs when there is a lack of haemoglobin in the child's blood. This results in starvation of oxygen, and the baby turns blue. Nitrate-contaminated water is the highest cause of this but it can be the result of various heart conditions.
Now here is where it gets interesting: when a pregnant Rh-negative mother is carrying an Rh-positive child (a common occurrence) her immune system identifies the baby as a foreign body and attacks its cells which can result in a blue birth. One small sterilized solution gets rid of the problem but it's still pretty weird, right?
I came across a few sources (because I actively searched for them, granted) which claim that this never happens in nature and has only ever been noted elsewhere during the crossbreeding of horses and donkeys. So it's almost as if humans are crossbreeding with themselves. Which is impossible... unless... there was some outside interference with our DNA?
It's a delicious push for the theory of alien intervention even if the reptile connection is a bit far off. Green blood would have been way more convincing!

Speaking of which, I can find no outside evidence to back up the "blue blood" statement. It seems a more common theory was that of a pale skin (and therefore strong visibly blue veins) was considered a sign of nobility because it meant you didn't partake in manual labour and never saw the sun. I'd actually heard that one before.


Due to the abundant reports of Icke's racism, I feel it's important to note any such remarks for later studies. As it stands, I haven't found anything too incriminating.


Icke uses this Christian verse as evidence for otherworldly beings breeding with humans.
I'm unsure which Bible version he is using, it almost seems that he's mix-and-matching?
Regardless, the most popular Bible version (King James) uses the word "giants" instead of "Nefilim". Other scholars argue that the words "Nefilim/Nephilim" are Hebrew for "fallen", generally considered to be angels but is obviously Icke's preferred solution. Others simply accept the common Nefilim translation "sons of gods" to mean descendants of Seth and Cain, muddying up their holy bloodline.

Also note the line "the Nefilim were on the earth in those days". It sounds pretty damning but it is just as standard (especially in older versions) to find the line to read "there were [Nefilim] in the earth in those days" which sounds closer to earthly mythology rather than visiting entities.

Furthermore, please let it be known that the KJV uses the line "the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men" which is way hotter.

Seriously though, as someone who has read The Bible, it says way crazier stuff to worry about than that.


We discussed the Nāgas before, confirming them as serpent gods albeit quite insignificant in the Hindu timeline. Naga is Sanskrit for “serpent”.
The problem comes that the "Naga" in "Kebra Nagast" is utterly unrelated. This Ethiopian book was originally written in Coptic and the title is Ethiopic for “the Glory of Kings”. We can't start pretending similar words in different languages mean the same thing. It doesn't work that way and only erodes at Icke's credibility.
However, the part about angels having giant babies with humans is in the book as promised.


Why even try this shit? "Sir" comes from "sire" which comes from the Latin "senior" which means older.


Lines like this are so frustrating to me. It's such a stretch of ideas to connect to something that proves nothing. There is no scientific evidence that snakes hypnotise their prey. There are plenty of "evil eyes" throughout cultures but seeing as Icke has already claimed rights to every single ancient timeline ever, he'd once again swear this was alien references. Of course, you will struggle to find the idiom relating to a serpent anywhere reputable.
What I did find is where Brazilian cultures consider the "evil eye" (or the mal-olhado) to be a curse. They have various amulets to protect against such things, one of which is the sansevieria trifasciata, also known as... the snake plant! Holy crap sticks, someone call Icke right now!!


Oh hey, just a reminder of this duality trick of Icke's, the one where no matter whether a culture loved or feared snakes/dragons/iguanas/frogs/tortoises, his theory can gobble it up as one and the same. No matter what historical texts say about any reptile, Icke's madness can apply. Am I the only one noticing this?


"Banned" is a very misleading word, I can find no evidence of any banning. It was always available to be read.
However, the Book of Enoch was excluded from various Bibles, which isn't as uncommon as you think. I've seen upwards of 70 books said to be removed in different fashions throughout denominations, at least 19 of which are not in any Bible anywhere (see this fun table).
The Book of Enoch does appear in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church too.
Why it has been omitted from others is anyone's guess but Icke's report on the content is accurate. The Watchers (angels) fathered the Nephilim by having sex with humans. I'm unsure if this is the exact reason why it is not featured in most Bible canons but, as many have noted (including Icke), similar teachings were put forward in Genesis 6:1-4 anyway.



This chapter deals with the earthly migration of the alien Martian Aryan race after the Great Flood. Icke uses this time to bombard the reader with an immense amount of rapid data, point after point, idea after idea, theory after theory to such a detailed degree that researching every line would be an insane undertaking. I won't do it, it's unreasonable to ask.
Actually, to be fair, I'm probably not the best person for this job in the first place as geography was never my favourite subject in school. This also feels like I'm fighting a losing battle, as, by this part of the book, Icke has already accepted every previous chapter as fact, the once interesting hypotheticals now the foundations to run off in whatever direction, and I only have so much energy to tackle these distortions. As a result, I will avoid repeating myself and only highlight what I consider to be new information as my previous analyses have already laboured against much of this battle.

I do have one question though: if aliens came from space, what technology did they use to get here? Could they not have used those very same mechanics to travel across the globe rather than on foot or boats or other such primitive modes of transport? Hey, now that we're asking questions, where are the spaceships? Apparently we have old stone tablets from this period, so where'd the machines go? Even the documentation of these machines would be a reasonable request, right? I'm sure David has all the answers. What reason do we have to doubt the man?


I don't have the space to call out Icke every time he does this, but I will do so occasionally to reinforce one of his trickster techniques.
In Chapter One, Icke introduces the Venus theory which states that the planet was once part of Jupiter, coming into its own after a collision then orbiting Earth before finding its place in the solar system. This gravitational act caused great floods on Earth, which plenty of cultures speak of yet many scientists question (including Leonardo da Vinci who, according to Icke, was a big member of the Brotherhood, meaning a conflict of interest there).
When this book initially speaks of this Venus theory, he informs us that his friend Brian Desborough told him about it. Desborough claims he heard it from an unpublished study written by a group of unnamed physicists which is a long path but that's fine because it's a great theory.
The problem comes now, where this is suddenly no longer a theory but an imperative basis for the entire story Icke has created here. What was once proposed as a "could be!" quickly becomes a fact to move in the direction the author needs to continue his grand design. He does this a lot and it's difficult to read onward when the bridges have such fabricated foundations. But what can I do at this point? Nothing. I read on anyway.


This chapter starts with Babylon, the capital city of Babylonia from ancient Mesopotamia, now in Iraq. Nimrod was the Biblical king of this land, most notably as a God-defying man who ordered the construction of the Tower of Babel to reach the Heavens. Icke brings up this tower a lot. I'm unsure why he does so, but I'm guessing it's to illustrate how all legendary tales come from the same source, as he connects this Bible story to another tale from Hopi origins. I noted that during my Chapter 2 analysis.

It should come as no surprise that Icke believes Nimrod existed and was of alien origin. However, as it stands, there is a tremendous debate in historian circles whether this figure was real or not. Many consider him to be an amalgamation of various figures who "ruled after the flood". There are certainly ways to look at this which don't entirely negate Icke's position.


While sources aren't all clear or trustworthy, there is an abundance of studies which link Dagon and Nimrod as the same person. Dagon is also clearly noted as a "fish-god", a merman-type of diety seen both in ancient Mesopotamian scripture and the Hebrew Bible. I'm surprised that Icke didn't try to connect the name Dagon to "dragon" as evidence of a reptilian symbol but that wouldn't work anyway, as Dagon/Dagan is Hebrew for both "Be Cut Open" and "grain". Still, I did find that drákōn in Ancient Greek (δράκων) means "serpent, giant seafish" so we are getting some lose unified ideas here.
Regardless, my main gripe with all of this is by saying fish-god Dagan was Nimrod was an alien, he can now claim any fish symbolism as that of alien origin too. Slowly, every single symbol ever is becoming associated with Icke's theory which only works to dilute the specifics.


In and around these pages, Icke blasts a rapid-fire of information into our eyes which he uses to pick apart Christianity as a derivate story. I won't go much into this now as the entire 4th chapter is entirely focused on this theory and we can address it then.
For now, I will reiterate that the true identity of Nimrod is up for much debate and Icke is picking and choosing the ones that fit his tale. The Clementine literature (written around the 1st century) and The Two Babylons (written by notorious Roman Catholic Church hater Alexander Hislop in 1853) agree that Nimrod was Ninus. However, there are many other alternative individuals put forward as the identity for this man that Icke doesn't mention whatsoever, such as the Mesopotamian god Ninurta, a merging of Akkadian kings Sargon and Naram-Sin, Assyria king Tukulti-Ninurta I, Euechoios of Chaldea, Gilgamesh, Lord (Ni) of Marad, Enmerkar, Belus... the list goes on, I only stopped because I got bored.

Going back a step to The Two Babylons book, the deeper I dig, the more obvious it is that this is Icke's primary source on this matter. While historians agree that Semiramis was married to Ninus, it was author Alexander Hislop who claimed Ninus (who is also Nimrod) to be Semiramis' son as well as her lover. According to the book, this incestuous couple has a son named Tammuz (aka Dumuzid) another ancient Mesopotamian god. For some reason Icke claimed Tammuz is Ninus is Nimrod too, so it's very confusing.
What's more important to note is that The Two Babylons book has been picked apart by scholars for a myriad of inaccuracies, my favourite of which is when influential Professor of the Hebrew Bible, Lester L. Grabbe, noted that no text in existence mentions Semiramis and Nimrod together ever.

I can also find no strong evidence that Tammuz was crucified. In fact, the more common story was that Tammuz was attacked under a tree then dragged down to Hell by demons. Some beliefs say that Jesus was nailed to a tree, so perhaps that it where Icke was mistaken? However, there are many variations of the story where Tammuz does rise again, so we can stamp that one with some sort of possibility (if any of this ever happened at all).


Google the medal and you'll agree it looks like the Statue of Liberty lady. Officially, the Statue of Liberty is of the Roman goddess Libertas, but many sources argue they are the same. I'm neither convinced nor unconvinced.


I don't accept your source, sorry.


What the actual fuck is this? Once again this comes with a source leading straight to Brian Desborough. This dude basically wrote the book, ughhh.
Cardinal does mean hinge associated as “something on which a development turns” but how Icke leapt to Nimrod and the door of heaven is beyond anything anyone has ever said ever. It's missing so many steps to begin to take seriously. I can't even find any other source which mentions Nimrod and the door of heaven in the same sentence? Name any object and I'm pretty sure I can vaguely reach out to the same ballpark. Madness.


But that's exactly what Icke is doing himself! He's digging through past stories and symbols and taking them to literally mean reptilians! Why is his story the right one?? How does he justify this??


OMG, my ex-girlfriend!


Where is he getting this from? He doesn't even try to reference this shit, there is no back-up text to this, it's all Icke's brain.
Also note that he has now booked possession, demons, devils, evil spirits etc. It's all the reptilians, they are responsible for literally everything you've ever heard of.


And this? Quite an extensive list of name-drops there. I look forward to the evidence, I'm sure he has loads.


There is a lot more on this in chapter 4, but for now, it's common knowledge that all religion/concept of a Higher Power started with the Sun. This is one of the primary reasons why cultures looked up to the sky to worship. This could be used as evidence against the theories of aliens but, of course, in Icke's world, the Sun is another symbol under his belt. It's a dick one too because he's truly covering one of the biggest blankets of ancient prayer with this one.
That said, I adore the idea that the Sun is a "multidimensional consciousness" which led me to the belief of panpsychism, where literally everything has some level of consciousness. That excites me!


This makes me MAD. He's directly quoting Mexican President Miguel De La Madrid as if the man said this when there is no evidence of such an utterance! The citation is from Cathy O’Brien's sensational book Trance Formation Of America which we discussed in Chapter 2. Icke does his trick again where, back on those pages, he tells us that Cathy claims Miguel said these words. One chapter later, and he's using this as if it's a factual word-for-word account from the man himself. It's a horrible manipulative trick.


The line "working out what is literal and what is symbolic is a considerable challenge" is such a strange thing to include here. It's as if he's almost confessing that he doesn't know the answers and is picking and choosing whichever ones suit him. Soooo much of Icke's reports are black and white, (a) is literal while (b) is symbolic. I keep asking myself how he's coming to these conclusions and yet right here he's saying he struggles with it. Maybe I'm being unfair but I consider this strong evidence towards the man making it up as he goes along. He provides no proof for anything and draws conclusions to benefit his plan.
Regardless, he's slowly getting us used to the fact that the almighty Sun is in on it too. There's a lot more of that coming in Chapter 4.


Icke brings up the Caucasus Mountains continuously as supposedly where our more modern civilisations all began. If I understand right, after "the big flood", the alien race retreated up to this "highest peak in Europe" and waited for the water to go down before they made their move.
Interestingly enough, the word ‘Caucasian’ was first coined in 1785 by Göttingen School of History member Christoph Meiners. It was, as David has said, a term to describe the people of the Caucasus area (occupied by Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and Russia) which includes the Caucasus Mountains. However, it's worth noting that anthropologists disagree that this blanket term can be accurately applied to white people because even races from South Asia and North Africa were once considered "Caucasians".

That said, the Caucasus Mountains mountains do come with fascinating mythology. In the 18th century, it was believed that Noah's Ark landed here and therefore was where all humanity came from. Furthermore, it was also claimed as the location where Greek Titan Prometheus made humans out of clay. Both of these tie in with Icke's theories perfectly, although it would be irresponsible not to mention the many other Earthly areas that come with similar claims, most notably being Mount Ararat in Turkey by far.

From here, Icke maps out the journey of these "aliens from Mars/reptilian overlords from the 5th dimension/the white race/whatever", crossing lands and taking over. I'm going to give the author the benefit of the doubt and assume his geography checks out for the most part, because I can't be assed to go over every step of every country in every date. I'm certain that whatever he wrote has some truth in it sprinkled with extraterrestrial spice because that's the game here.


This is bullshit once again. My research showed time and time again that at very least 70% of all Jewish ancestry leads to the Middle East. The Caucasus Jews (or Mountain Jews) are commonly considered descendants of the Persian Jews that came from Iran. As for Icke's Khazar statement, one of the most common names for this study is the "Khazar myth" due to its lack of any evidence. There's a fat Wikipedia page all about it if you want to check references. Icke has no references, of course.


The Phoenicians are an ancient civilization that spread across the Mediterranean between 1500 and 300 BCE. Icke talks about them a lot so worth keeping note.


The area of Cydonia was where our 1976 telescopes not only picked up pyramid-type structures but also a creepy face staring up at us. For a long time following, ample scientists and conspiracy theorists alike were very excited about what this meant but when we finally managed to snap another high-quality image in 2001 (after the publication of this book), the face was not quite as visible and the "pyramids" looked closer to hills. We've also since had four robotic rovers riding around Mars, none of which reported any ancient ruins. Although I'm sure this is a NASA cover-up anyway, right? But then why would they even tell us they were putting the rovers up there in the first place? Idk idk.


A few places I could pick into this but mainly just wanted to make note of Icke now claiming ownership of water-symbolism for his alien narrative, which he continues to do from here.


While this report isn't set in... stone... the writings from experts seem abundant that this very well may be true. The general consensus isn't automatically aliens but usually how underrated our ancestors were at discovering astronomical and geometrical truths long before more modern humans did. Of course, the debate here is whether they did so on their own or not.


Ughhhh Brian Desborough again! Allow me to remind you that Icke is using a friend as a source here, a guy who once wrote one conspiracy book called They Cast No Shadows and otherwise has no other qualifications. His book isn't even remotely popular! (see Chapter One analysis)
Side step: for lols I decided to see how Chapter Three fairs in this source department. Of Icke's 46 references behind this section, 15 of them are from The Great Pyramid Mystery chapter in Desborough's book. 32.61% in total. Not as bad when comparing it to the 42.86% of Chapter One but still not great, hey. I'd shudder to know how the entire book stands in this regard but I don't have the heart to check.

Regardless, let's give Desborough the benefit of the doubt and take a look at what he's saying. Dr. Ernst Hartmann "discovered" Hartmann lines, a network of connecting energies across the globe that Hartmann claimed caused serious illnesses to those who lived along the grid. It's an interesting discussion that unfortunately can not be proven by any modern devices and is not currently accepted by the scientific community whatsoever. Doesn't mean it's not true. Doesn't mean it's true.


This is fascinating but, much like so many statements in this book, once you research it, a level of frustration rises.
This 19.5 theory was made famous by Richard C. Hoagland (as Icke did note in previous paragraphs). He's an author who doesn't have the greatest reputation, not only as someone without qualifications and as someone who makes their money writing conspiracy theory-related books, but mainly as a man who steals work from others and crediting it as his own (most notably researchers Andrew Johnson and Judy Wood).
Of course, this shouldn't matter if his claims ring true, right? Right! And, well, it almost does. But when talking about a very specific unit of measurement, when does almost register as ok?

Of just the ones that Icke mentioned:
The Pyramid of the Sun sits at 19.69° N.
The Olympus Mons on Mars sits at 19.3° N.
The Great Red Spot on Jupiter sits at 20.0° S.
And the Great Dark Spot of Neptune sits at 20.0° S.

Are these tiny differences important? Then again, would it be possible to pick another line of latitude and map out a vast array of joining dots especially if we allow ourselves a half a degree leeway either way? That appears to be the main argument against this.

Looks like Mars' Olympus Mons does qualify though and while repots are slim, Jupiter's Schild volcanoes too. Great! So what does it mean? High energy lines where the reptiles can better communicate with the 4th dimension? I mean, obviously!

I do want to make a quick personal note and say that I do believe specific locations of higher energy is believable. I like to believe it, even. I enjoy it.


This is super important to me. So, basically, The Brotherhood are losing this battle? Like, badly? Christianity (and general religion) gradually falls in numbers, the Internet spreads free knowledge (including this "knowledge"), this organisation must be freaking! For an all-powerful alien race living inside of the most powerful people on the planet, I can't imagine how upset they must be with Icke for exposing them! It's amazing they let him live!! Unbelievable!


Ah my fuck, this is head-spinning.
Let's break it down: Stone circles = Hare-Stones = Harri = Arri = Aryan. Therefore, Hare Khrishna is obviously the work of the white aliens from Mars. It's all there! I was going to research this but I decided not to.


We discussed the Nāgas in Chapter Two. My conclusion was that they were semi-irrelevant due to the 330 million deities in Hindu mythology, of which the Nāgas were not even one of the most powerful/popular ones. If they wrote the Vedas, why give yourself such a minor role? Why place such bigger gods above you? And who were these bigger gods based on???
I couldn't find anything about a serpent at the birth of Buddha, but I did find that his original tribe (the Shakyas) focused a lot of worship on the Nāgas (among other things). Furthermore, when this leader reached enlightenment, a Nāga named Mucalinda protected him from the elements. That's way cooler!
The Hindu deity Krishna did once battle (and defeat) a serpent named Kāliya, in canto (chapter) 10 of the Bhagavata Purana. Perhaps worth noting that there were at least 24 other demons in this same canto.
I also want to remind everyone that there was a massive snake villain in the story of the Jungle Book too.


Look at that, Icke has now claimed trees too.
I feel like this might be a fun juncture to prepare a quick tally of the symbolism that Icke has taken ownership of.

Thus far, if you see any of the following images throughout history, it means that Reptilians Were Here:

Lizards
Snakes
Dinosaurs
Dragons
Serpents
Any reptile creatures really
Gods who walked among us
The Devil
Any demon/deity who loves us
Any demon/deity who hates us
Evil spirits
Those that come from above (sky)
Those that come from below (earth)
Those that come from water
Those that come from light/energy/another dimension
The Sun
Space
Stars
Mars
Jupiter
Any planet really
Birds
Any creature with wings really
Fish
Any creature with scales really
Pyramids
Vampires
Gargoyles
Giants
Eyes
Trees

Should I predict flowers next? Ok, I reckon he's going to book some flowers soon.


I mean, this does make some sense, right?


Icke spends a long time connecting the Near East (Turkey, Egypt, and Western Asia which includes the Caucasus Mountains) and Middle-East to map out our(?) race's movements. He does so via "culture, language, deities, symbols and rituals" which is fine but there is also another important case which supports this. The DNA of a woman's skeleton (found in Belfast, dating as far back as 5,000B.C.) was analysed by Trinity College and the results suggested that she may have come from Turkey. This is interesting in terms of migration, sure.


LONDON REPRESENT! Is it weird that I kinda hope this part is true? Does it mean that my city will be ok no matter what? Cos we're living on super energy lines or the aliens will protect it or whatever? That'd be comforting!


Troia does mean Troy in Gaelic, correct. I couldn't find any evidence that Troia means "three places" in either Greek or Hebrew but I could find that it means "slutty" in Italian. It is also a town in Italy and a peninsula in Portugal. Not sure why I mentioned that.
Even if I could find any evidence at all that it means "three places" (I can't), I'm not sure why this would automatically be associated with the Christian trinity? Sometimes three things simply... exist.
Anyways, Tripoli does mean "triple city" in Greek, so that's something. However, it refers to the fact that there are three of them, one in Libya, one in Lebanon, and one in Greece (Tripolis). You could argue that the Tripoli in Libya is of most importance as it's their nation's capital.

Finally, it's interesting to note that Colonel Gaddafi is a "frontman" of the Brotherhood. From what little I know about this Libyan revolutionary/politician, it does seem he was a highly controversial figure whose 2011 death was met with varying reactions. Both then-US President Barack Obama and then-UK Prime Minister David Cameron were very happy with the result. Hang on, but aren't they also in the Brotherhood? Where is the loyalty in this organisation, man??


Once again mad-props to my home city but if you want to make a holiday of it, here's the full package.


Another race-flag but he's not entirely wrong, is he? Still, there are simpler solutions as to why this happened, and I do feel we're gradually sinking into more questionable realms with the racial content as we go on.

From here, the notes get really rough, please excuse the spelling errors and the nonsensical stream of thoughts!

The problem I have with secret codes and hidden symbols is it’s like ppl wanted to get caught. If you were keeping a secret, why all the clues? Questioning the Bible is nothing new, common to see pagan traditions merged, specific books chosen, question the stories legitimacy. To automatically use this as evidence of reptile interference is a little hasty, unfounded, stupid, that’s the point here, he speaks so much sense that you almost forget to look for the bridge connecting the reptiles, rehash info Pagan religion ties


This is true and something I hope most people are acquainted with by this point (most of us thanks to the 2007 Zeitgeist docco, right?). The list of heavy-weight "gods" born to a virgin on this date include Horus, Mithra, Tammuz, and maybe Dionysus. Plenty of sources like to also mention Buddha, Krishna and Heracles (among many others) but there are some disputes about them.
What's important to note is that The Bible never mentions Jesus' birth date. In fact, due to Luke 2:8 (And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night) many argue that the 25th of December is highly unlikely because December = Winter in Palestine = not the typical season for flock grazing. This helps to bring some validity to the Bible because if it was made up, why would these details not be changed? Why wouldn't these dates be introduced?
The truth more than likely comes from Sol Invictus, the adopted Syrian sun god of the Roman Empire whose birth obviously coincided with the aforementioned winter solstice date of December 25th. This was reportedly decided by Constantine, a former Pagan who converted to Christianity, the first Roman emperor to do so. It makes sense as this provided a lubricated path of familiarity for other followers to make the transition, and now we get presents on that date, so everyone wins from the decision.


This is cute and fun! I thought this was a stretch but comparative mythologists have similar theories while Samson literally translates to "man of the sun". During my research I also found comparisons with between Samson and the 9/11 attackers, each of whom were "suicide terrorists" as well as known for bringing buildings down.
This was one of my favourite Bible stories!


Also true. The Christian prophet's name was originally the Hebrew Yeshua which should have been translated into the English Joshua. Instead, the Greeks took that to be Iesous (Ἰησοῦς) and when you run that (Iesus) through the Latin-to-English machine, Jesus comes out the other end.
Not quite sure why Icke has included this but a decent guess would be his intention to slowly discredit Jesus as the figure you thought you knew. Icke starts by getting the reader to question everything they know about the man until it all evaporates into the mist as a fake story. Good luck!


This made me lol. I think there are more crucial questions to ask ourselves, for example, does this Brotherhood even exist? What evidence do we have that they destroyed all ancient knowledge? Aren't you using "ancient knowledge" in a vast portion of your arguments? I think Icke wants you to ask yourselves questions only when he tells you to.


I mean, "beyond question" is a strong phrase, Icke. We'll take these claims one at a time.

First of all, I can't seem to find anything about the "Sumerian story of Edin". Where it seems Icke is confused is that the word "Eden" may have Sumerian origins from their word "edin" which means "plain" or "steppe". Then again, many Aramaic words are associated with "Eden" too, namely "Ednah" {עדנה} meaning "pleasure" and "Ada’necha" {עדניך} meaning "delights". However, there is a Sumerian paradise known as the Garden of the gods (located in Dilmun on Bahrain Island) which is often connected to the Garden of Eden by scholars, so there is a connection there albiet void of any "edin".
Something I've already covered in Chapter One (REF***) is the bigger debate about the Adam and Eve story coming from Sumerian roots. The argument is about the tale of Enki and Ninhursag, where Enki eats eight plants in paradise just like Eve did. Goddess Ninhursag plays God in this production and curses either of Enki's body parts including... his rib! The similarities are undeniable but also very vague as the study continues to this day.

Something I discovered along my way here was The Eridu Genesis. It's a single Sumerian tablet found with portions missing, dated around 1600 BCE. It tells the story of how the gods (An, Enlil, Enki and Ninhursanga) created humans but when a flood hits Earth they decide not to save them. After a missing piece of the tablet, Enki then instructs Ziusudra to build an ark to save the animals and mankind. This sounds mad familar and I'm surprised Icke doesn't mention it. Maybe he will later, maybe he already has and I missed it, or maybe it doesn't fit into the timeline he designed. I'm unsure.

Moving onto the "Moses is derived from Sargon of Akkad aka Sargon the Great aka King Sargon the Elder" thing, and the birth myth is correct. Sargon was placed in a basket and sent down a river, as was Moses from the Bible, and as was Karna from the Hindu epic Mahābhārata (amoung others). This seems really exciting until you learn that this is literally the only similarities between their stories. To say Moses was completely based on Sargon because they were both placed in baskets and sent along their way is a bit unfair. Maybe people just put unwanted babies in baskets back then, who knows?

But wait, it gets better! I eventually discovered that these birth details about Sargon were dicovered on a text dated from the 7th century BC. No other record has been found. This confused the timelines a touch. Modern scholars agree that the Biblical Book of Exodus was compased during the 6th century but how long the story was floating around before then is anybody's guess. This puts these two tales roughly within a 100 year period of one another, leaving the debate of who was inspired who as very much open.

Regardless, historians tend to agree that Moses was mostly a legendary figure due to his propsed fame with very little texts to warrant this. But even then, the door is open that some dude named Moses may have lived around the 13th century. This same perspective can be applied to the other examples where scholars continue to debate the validity of these tales, generally leaning further towards the "myth" status. It's uncertain but does help Icke's case.

Now, if I may, I'm going to add my two controversial cents and say that I think this doesn't prove anything new. People who believe Genisis or the Adam and Eve story or any New Testament story to begin are already on shaky ground. However, when you find texts dating further and further back with similarities, the story actually becomes much stronger. Legends get passed down from generation to generation but if you can piece it backwards to the very first human recordings, then it becomes strangely beleiveable. The more stories of origin that come from same place, the more yo can trust that timeline! Details evolve and adapt to fit different civilisations, but if the key elements remain, then that might actually be the true story!

Of course, that is Icke's fundamental point. In his version, the aliens came and that story became the story told over and over again, becoming different versions per religious teachings. Sure, that's one outlook. But what if they weren't aliens and they were gods? That'd be wild. There is also a chance that they were fictional stories because humans have been known to make those from time to time.


Maybe it's a symbol but maybe it was just a mountain? I've seen mountains, even climbed one or two, they do exist. Anyways, any mountain imagery in history can now be used as evidence in Icke's story blah blah you know the deal by now.


I definitely am not opposed to this theory. Having extensively studied Thelema then dabbling in Kabbalah and Egyptian Mysticism research as a result, the numerology and symbology aspect is a potent fixture in their worship. It does assist to justifiy why the Reptiliam overlords are playing this game of Easter egg hunting.


As is the pattern with the Old Testament, the debate over (at least the Biblical) existence of King Solomon is filled with opposing arguments and little Jared who writes cartoons for a living is not going to dare step in the middle of that.
However, it was around here that I did connect up an Icke incosistency (ickensistency?). From way back in Chapter Three all the way through the book, Icke builds upon the Biblical Nimrod figure who is mentioned in Genesis (see *** REF). Of course, Icke's argument would be that these recordings refer to a Sumerian indviudal (under a different name) and David wouldn't be the first to draw those connections. But why could the same not be said for Moses or King Solomon? Why are certain pieces of the Old Testament fabrications while others derivatives are the truth? Such as when Genesis 6:1-4 was ok to be used because it fit his theory (see ***ref)? Something feels a little self-serving to all of this.


This is hefty and certainly the most damning example of Icke's antisemetic ways yet. If I was Jewsih, I wouldn't appreciate this in the slightest. It's all fun and games to say the world is being run by lizards but when you start to attack someone's culture and spiritual beleifs with it, it's not something people should just be open to.


I've often wondered about this and where the line is about ethnicity. And the truth is far more complex than what these texts make it out to be.

Jews are considered to be an "ethnoreligious" nation. This is a term to describe an ethnic indentity which is strongly connected to their religious beleifs. There are a many examples of this on our planet today, but I thought another good example would be that of the term "Hindus" often used interchangeable with "Indians".
In both of these instances, it's easy to pick them apart in a multitude of manners. Not all practicing Hindus will fall under this South Asian umbrella, and not all of those practicing Judaism will fall under the Isralean umbrella. Due to mixed marriages or a commitment to the theology, people of all races are converting to the religious side of Judaism, and that dilutes the connection between the spiritual faith and the proposed enthic grouping.

But there have been studies (for example, those done by medical geneticist Prof Harry Ostrer) that prove a DNA heritage can be traced back to Israel of a definite Jewish race, meaning you can be genetically Jewish. Furthermore, a poll done by the Geocartography Institute showed that many Jews no longer associated their ethnicity with the religion at all, and it has rather become a path of culture and ancestry. Another argument has been made for recogisable visual traits of a Jewish person.

Moving on and Lilenthal's statement of three-to-four races and that is not only far from the decided measurements but also considered outdated by many. One of the most popular of set of classifications was proposed by Carleton S. Coon who has put it down to five: White; Black; Bushmen/Hottentots; Oriental/Amerindian; and Australian Aborigine and Papuan. Mr Coon places the White race to include everyone from Europe, Central Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, North Africa, and Northeast Africa. This model is reguraly used today but is just as widely rejected on the basis on the authors questionable motives as a pro-segregational racist.

Regardless, this is a hefty and delicate debate that continues today, one where a lot of Jews don't even want to be considered a race because they feel it opens them up to race-related hate crimes. Which, as we all know, is dotted all over history in the most gruesome of manners. Hence why I consider it a senstivie topic which needs to be treated with compassion, an approach Icke has not done in this book in any regard.


Following directly on from the above is this, which I think helps to cement my previos remarks about how Icke really is laying into this one culture quite specifically. The reasoning behind his antisemitism reputation rises.


OMFG THIS IS THE WEIRDEST SHIT.

So I read the above and, to be fair, it didn't surprise me. I'd heard similar things before, we all have, right? The parrelels between Jesus and other dieties is commonly spoken about. Regardless, I decided to look into this specific tale a little deeper and I was blown away by what I found...

Google Virishna and it tries to send you away, searching for Krishna instead. No, I want Virishna! Ok, got it. Except, why is every link mentioning David Icke? Surely a 1,200 years old Eastern saviour god would have countless of pages of research on it? How about wikipedia? Nope, nothing. And slowly, I uncovered the truth:

VIRISHNA DOES NOT EXIST!! DAVID ICKE MADE HIM UP!!

I looked for a long time and all I could find was people referencing Icke and people using this same point to proive it was a hoax diety created purely by the author to further his theory. Try it yourself! How... what? Did he think he would get away with this?

I'm sorry, I'm trying to be open here but David Icke is a liar!!! How can we trust anything he says???? Shit like this blows my mind, he's taking all of his readers for fools, what an asshole.


This piece of text follows on directly from the previous. After the colon, it provides a lenthy list of diety names to pick from, some of which are highly familair, some of which, are not.
As I mentioned before, connections between the stories of "gods" are common knowledge to anyone with a religious interest but we'll give Icke the benefit of the doubt and suggest that maybe this was not the case back in the time of this publication. What Icke has failed to do, however, is give any examples of what exacty his chosen gods had in common with those dieties. It's very sloppy work. I guess, I'll have to do his work for him and present you with some of the more famed examples: Like Jesus, Zoroaster (Zoroastrianism) and Quetzalcoatl (Mesoamerican) were both virgin births. Plato (who was said to have "divine insight") was born from virginally conceived him after the god Apollo impreganted hiw virgin mommey Perictione. Despite what many say, the virgin births of dieties like Krishna (Hindi) and Horus (Ancient Ehytpian) are inconclusive. Buddha was not.
Like Jesus, Krishna was threatehend to be killed at birth. Despite multiple texts on the matter (made famous by The Da Vinci Code) there is no scripture which confirms a visit from sheperd-figures with gifts.

My research led me to a highly lauded book by the name of The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors by Kersey Graves. It's a big reference point in the Jesus-myth circle and does exactly what it says on the tin: gives a list of 16 saviours (from varying degrees of popularity) who predated Jesus and yet met his same fate. As many example cross-pollinate with Ickey, I will be looking into the most popular ones:

Krishna: Seemingly incorrect. The official Hindu scripture of Mausala Parva disagrees, with Krishna dying from an arrow to the foot. It appears the theory comes from Indian images where gods are seen with holes in their wrists and feet. Some claim Krishna to be the drawn figure. I'm uncoinvonced this is enough to go on.
Vithoba: This is a curious inclusion as Vithoba is a manifestation of Vishnu which is another form of Krishna, overlapping with the above to the point of redundancy.
Dumuzid/Tammuz: Seemingly incorrect. Demons dragged Dumuzid to Hell while he sat under a tree. Some denominations believe that Jesus was crucified on a tree so that may be the confusion.
Buddha Sakia (Muni): This is a confusing listing because Sakya Muni is a Buddhist temple. Regardless, they still worship Gautama Buddha, so is that what he meant? I'm unsure because Buddha had never been reported to be crucified, he died from food poisoning.
Prometheus (Greek): Prometheus was a god and gods cannot be killed. Instead, he was chained to a pillar/rock where his liver was eaten by an eagle every day, only to be regenerated at night, the cycle repeating for years. Brutal! That said, some interpretations do claim he was chained to a tree and the definiton of crucifiction can apply to bounds instead of nails, so it depends on what you want, really.
Mithra (Mithraism): This is an interesting one that I will explore in depth shortly because the belief was considered a direct rival to Christianity and, as a result, was essentially crushed out of existence. Jump to [4.14]

This all really surprised me. So much of my research went in circles directly back to this book, it seems like it's some authority on the matter whereas very little outside information to back it up. I was a little relieved to find that certain scholars (including some in the same Jesus Myth circle such as Richard Carrier) have expressed concerns with the book's lack of sources and speculative conclusions. I struggled to prove any of it! I really tried! Although perhaps I have to read the book itself.

When it comes to the death and ressurections story, James Frazer's book The Golden Bough seems to be the first to propose that the story of Christ was based on previous dieities. Here is that list:

Dumuzid/Tammuz: This one is sketchy. The texts that speak of a ressurection were assumed and filled in by scholars due to pieces missing. But when the text was re-translated at a later date, it ended with Dumuzid's death as he was pulled into Hell. Another text has since stated that Dumuzid was rescued from Hell and sent to Heaven but his soul had to be repalced with his sisters'. Not quite the same concept.
Adonis (Greek): Adonis was gored by a wild boar and died in Aphrodite's arms. His blood and her tears became the anemone flower, which is sweet. Aphrodite convinced Zeus to allow Adonis to spend half of each year with her, the rest in the underworld which seems like a metaphor for the seasons. He is considered a god of vegetation after all.
Attis (Greek): This dude went mad and cut off his penis and died. By some divine order, his body was never to decay. According to the Metamorphoses poem Ovid, he was resurrected as a pine tree which sounds more like reincarnation to me. Others claim the self-mutilation/death/decay/resurrection elements allude to the fruits of the earth. It's worth noting that Attis was a mortal.
Osiris: This ancient Egyptian god was murdered by his brother Set who cut him into (up to 42!) pieces and sent them all over Egypt. Isis and a bunch of other dieties find the peices, put tthem back together, and totally ressurect him! That was a good one!
Dionysus (Greek): There are so many variations of this story but some sort of central plot goes like this: Dionysus was born with horns and was attacked by Titans who ate him. But they did not destroy his heart and his grandmother Rhea managed to ressurect him using that.

Like before, these similarities felt really loose to me. And like, maybe that's just how gods do, you know? The "coming back to life" plot point isn't exactly the most original of thinking anyway especially when death is such an imperative driving force behind most religions (and, indeed, life itself). If a film uses this idea, I immediately lose interest. That's how lame it is.

Sorry this was so rushed and long, but I could only fit in so much because there are literal books upon books written about this subject. But my conclusion was not what I thought it would be. Yes, there are connections but they are way less obvious than I'd anticiapted. I left feeling unconvicned. You can draw parralels to almost every story ever written if you're looking for it. The details to each of these tales, however, are impressively unique. I expected it to be a lot more undeniable.


Mad down here is right.

Around this paragraph, Icke continues his claims that Jesus was made up but he spends a dispropotionate amount of time on the Mithra cult. His list of claims are many but cover the same basic ground as before. For example, the 25th of December birthday which is a tired argument. Once again, there is no Biblical reference to this date and the same rings true for Mithras. These were Pagan holy dates based around the Sun integrated with furture beleifs, it proves nothing. Mithras was also not a virgin birth, he was born from a rock.
Icke claims Mithra was "visited by wise men at his birth who brought him gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh." The earliest reference I can find for this dates back to a 1864 book called Gnostics and their Remains Ancient and Mediaeval by Charles William King. As far as ancient depictions go, the closest we have is the torch-bearers Cautes and Cautopates who are often shown to be at the birth, no gifts.
Icke also claims "Mithra was crucified, but raised from the dead". I can find no scripture stating Mithras even died, can you?
Icke also clams that the Mithra "members had a meal of bread and wine in which they believed they were eating the flesh of Mithra and drinking his blood." This is a difficult one where I can find a few sources backing this up coming from the Jesus Myth standpoint. But when I dig deeper, all I can uncover is some text painted on a wall which translated to "and you have saved us ... in the shed blood". No one knows what this means but some take it as evidence towards the blood-wine thing. Meanwhile, others relate it to the most famous story of Mithras where he slayed a bull, the blood a sign of sacrifice just like Jesus. Crossed wires? Maybe.

During this quest, what really pricked my interest is another debate of who actually stole from who. The timeline is uncertain but there is evidence which places the New Testament in circulation before Mithraist doctrine.

What's more important than any of this is that Mithraism and Christianity were early rivals. And so when the Christians started to take over, Mithraism faced persecution and was essentially eradicated. When Icke says something about Mithra's "image and symbols have been found cut into rocks and stone tablets throughout the western provinces of the former Roman domain" it's really not surprising. Rather, once Christianity conquered, Mithra-related churches and even art pieces were adapted to mimic the Jesus story. Of course traces of the former were still visible if you looked for them.


The pattern continues, this time Horus under fire. I feel like I'm wasting my time so I'll try and do this one much faster.

(And then I quit)