Confirmed Reptilians, Eliminationist Rhetoric, and Literal Racisms

By Wes Unruh
Years ago, my first thoughts upon encountering the 'reptilian agenda' (or reptilian mythic framework) was to think of it as A Case of Conscience meets Darker Than You Think, although the more obvious mythic maps you as a media consumer might be familiar with are Land of the Lost plus V. Imagine a race of lizard men who are always watching from the edges of society, like predators, feeding on misery. The reptilian narrative has it that an intergalactic race, the Draconis, has been interbreeding with humans since ancient times, and those bloodlines are responsible for manipulating events throughout history. And these reptilians and half-humans need to eat people to maintain their human appearance.

Certainly there have been plenty of historical accounts of tiny people eaters (tiny, as in very small humanoids, people eaters, as in they were killing people with poison arrows then devouring them). In Idaho the problem got so bad that a local medicine man went out to parlay with the spirits. Wolf, Fox, Bobcat and Cougar met with him, and agreed to kill all the little people so long as none of the tribes would hunt any of their own people. After some negotiating, including bringing the entire tribes back to the spirits to verify the terms of the contract, Wolf, Fox, Bobcat and Cougar lived up to their obligation and wiped out all of the tiny people eaters in the area. Rumor has it that some of these little people still haunt parts of Wyoming. Lizard people are rumored to live on the East Coast as well, and should I encounter something as vicious as the Lizard Man of Scape Ore Swamp is alleged to be, I suspect I will act to defend myself as I best see fit.



In Jon Ronson's book Them: Adventures with Extremists, Jon does an excellent job of tackling the question 'Is David Icke an anti-Semite' in the chapter There Are Lizards and There Are Lizards, which I highly recommend you read. David Icke is an individual on an evangelical mission - I do not wish to review his entire back catalog of books and videos to establish whether or not his intent is to cast Jews in a bad light by labeling the most powerful part of a larger interstellar conspiracy. It is enough to point out that he is racist, in the literal sense, as castigating as he is about the Draconis race of aliens. It is enough hopefully to show this selection from 'The Reptilian Agenda' where Credo Mutwa explains that these reptilian aliens are the same thing as 'the Illuminati':




This is clearly racist, if we are to acknowledge that 'Human' is a race, alongside 'Draconis' - that 'Human' and 'Draconis' can commit the racial sin of interbreeding, and that the progeny of that interracial mixing might somehow be both less than and more than 'Human' that, unlike the noble mule, can 'breed true' - the bloodlines nursed along by careful curators. In this racist/mythic framework, documents such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion become reframed as ideological apparatus of the reptilian aliens, not the plagiarization of a much earlier fictional work by Maurice Joly entitled Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu.

It is also a demonizing myth - in much the same way that someone might demonize Dick Cheney by calling him a zombie, you can demonize Bill Clinton, Luke Rudowski or Freeman as a reptilian. In the reptilian myth blood is central to maintaining their humanoid appearance. It may not necessarily be anti-Semitic, except in that the accoutrements of the Draconis should include the earmarkings of previous blood libel from a long, bloody history of purgings - from the purging of Freemasons, the purging of Catholics, and the purging of Jews, in every case accusations of insidious behavior formed the rhetorical space where scapegoating and victimage could be enacted.

It is precisely because of the rhetorical scapegoating - the handing over of all of the obscene horrors of genocide to one of the thirteen manipulative Draconis bloodlines that oversee the Illuminati, that this becomes hateful, eliminationist rhetoric. The family that David Icke calls "one of the top Illuminati bloodlines on the planet" and which he immediately describes as "shape-shifting reptilians" in the article are, and have been, the target of accusations of conspiracy for far longer than David Icke has been on the trail of reptilian aliens. In this one sentence Icke attacks the Rothschilds for their reptilian race and their illuminati connections while having simultaneously firewalled his own cognitive assessment of them as 'Jewish' - they are alien - the alien other, and their only path to power is through the ingestion of the blood of the innocent - while maintaining an ironic distance from the 'anti-Semitic' charge. He is able to be racist, target the same family tree, for the same insidious allegations, but for a different reason than the traditional charge of 'Jew' simply being a 'Jew' - now the Jew has become an ancient intergalactic slave trader, and somehow this is more palatable than, say, Glenn Beck's history of using the Holocaust to advance his political agenda. So, at least from the viewpoint of David Icke and his not-anti-Semitic readership, he's simply a racist, hating those reptilians who engage in eating people for social status, and their cultists, the half-humans who, through no fault of their own, were cursed at birth with reptilian genes. Let's be clear, David Icke's piece Was Hitler A Rothschild? is a complex piece of historical counter-knowledge which can be employed to buttress up anyone's preconceived notions of statist power structures. Icke is conscious of the charges of anti-Semitism and is quick to ward off that reading, emphasizing that the conflict is easily reduced to a few actors pulling strings on illuminati puppets because of bloodlines, ending the article with several paragraphs of capitalized statements to 'JEWISH PEOPLE OF ISRAEL' and to 'ARAB PEOPLE' that we can all 'WORK TOGETHER WHILE THERE IS STILL TIME' and additionally that 'WHILE WE ARE DIVIDED ON THESE IRRELEVANT GROUNDS... FREEDOM IS DOOMED' - something which I agree with - division along any line is a point of endless contention, and we should always work to ensure plurality of opinion and a public sphere where differences can be modeled.

Let's turn this around, and make the assumption that there are not half-humans in the world for a moment. Let's say you're David Rockefeller, and you see that the world could be a more resilient place if there was more networking and travel - that globalism is a way of ensuring constant change, interconnectedness, and the spread of equality and peace. You would have discovered this through a life lived at a different class layer, sealed off in many aspects from the idiosyncratic nuances of counter-cultural transmission of knowledge. The first time you are accused of eating babies, you are going to assume the accusation is tied to the ancient vampiric slander of blood libel, because that is the historical context of such an accusation (see the cases of Simon of Trent and William of Norwich.) In this case, you are more than likely to assume your accuser, in using a slander historically contextualized as an accusation against Jews, that your accuser is an anti-Semite. Either way, the accusation is an act of moral entrepreneurship, the final manifestation of which is elimination of the accused from society by whatever means are institutionally appropriate.

Eliminationist rhetoric is straightforward, it follows a very specific stream for it to be effective. A group is scapegoated, often dehumanized in some way, always as a container, or vessel, semiotically filled with the ritualistically alienated sins of all - that society might be symbolically reborn with the elimination of the demonized group. Clearly there must be a group to hate, and a group which does the hating. It is in the interest of the haters that they be on the side of right - that their hate is holy, is sacrosanct in some way. If it can be fore-ordained, or retroactively edited into religious texts, all the better.

It is of special importance that the group to be hated be present within the social spaces of those doing the hating - otherwise the emotion may well up, but it will not remain. Hating is not a hobby, it is a career. David Icke, along with all those who emphasize this ongoing struggle between globalist interests and populist dissent as somehow a product of exopolitics, are retreating to racism as their default position - because they are very clearly calling out an alien other and blaming that alien other for all of society's ills.

I say that eliminationist rhetoric is straightforward - to a point - but the edges of the scapegoated group shift, grow to encompass any and all groups which oppose the unification rhetoric of the rhetor. That unification message, forming in opposition to an externalized 'them' - is where I start to get uneasy. Here's where I'll break out the Kenneth Burke - he described this whole process last century in an essay published in The Philosophy of Literary Form. Unification consists of four interconnected tropes formulated as follows: a commercial use trope, described as a 'noneconomic interpretation of economic ills' + a inborn dignity trope, which uses the concept of a pure, human birthright that elevates 'us' as more noble than 'them' + projection device that scapegoats 'them' as a cause of 'our' problems + a promise of a symbolic rebirth that will come about if 'they' can be purged from 'our' presence. When I hear anyone using this kind of unifying voice, be they preacher, author, politician, or car salesman, it's as if they'd grown scales in my mind, a slimy, smarmy rat bastard prophet of doom seeking to grow fat on the fears of others. - WU


[Check out some of the books, albums, and soon movies produced by Mythos Media and our various media partners.]