Talk:Reptilian conspiracy theory

Misleading sentence in the text

This part:

particularly Helena Blavatsky's The Secret Doctrine written in 1888, with its reference to "'dragon-men' who once had a mighty civilization on a Lemurian continent".

is misleading. There is no reference/word to 'dragon-men' or 'dragon men' in all of the two volumes of The Secret Doctrine. Also is the whole context of this very misleading and insufficent.

Blavatsky was not the only one who wrote about dragons. What is happening here is quite selective. There is a dragon Nidhog in the edda, didn't Michael fight a dragon in the bible? And is there not a wicked dragon of the garden of Eden, a dragon of the Apocalypse or a crocodile dragon in the egyptian sacred writings etc. etc.? This wide range of the word is here completely missing and the perhaps hundreds of authors who wrote about it. Blavatsky reports on this wide range of use of the term dragon in her writings, yes. But none of the past humanities in Theosophy are described there as dragons or dragon-men, as you can read also here in Wikipedia. A daily newspaper is not a suitable source, especially not for such esoteric topics. Especially as it becomes clear in the following paragraphs of this article that Blavatsky is not the basis of this strange theory, but rather symbols of one or more religions.

So this misleading, contradictory and selective not sufficiently documented insert should be deleted or modified.

Here an original quote that's prove thats the sentence is misleading and shows the origin of the human being and what theosophists understand by it. Reptiloids, as the author misunderstood it, are in any case not what Theosophist think about humans related to Blavatsky:

Man in the First Round and First Race on Globe D, our Earth, was an ethereal being (a Lunar Dhyani, as man), non-intelligent but superspiritual; and correspondingly, on the law of analogy, in the First Race of the Fourth Round. In each of the subsequent races and sub-races . . . he grows more and more into anencased or incarnate being, but still preponderatingly ethereal. . . . He is sexless, and, like the animal andvegetable he develops monstrous bodies correspondential with his coarser surroundings. II. Round. He (Man) is still gigantic and ethereal but growing firmer and more condensed in body, a more physical man. Yet still less intelligent than spiritual (1), for mind is a slower and more difficultevolution than is the physical frame . . . III. Round. He has now a perfectly concrete or compacted body, at first the form of a giant-ape, and now more intelligent, or rather cunning, than spiritual. For, on the downward arc, he has now reached a point where his primordial spirituality is eclipsed and overshadowed by nascent mentality (2). In the last half of the Third Round his gigantic stature decreases, and his body improves in texture, and he becomes a more rational being, though still more an ape than Deva. . . . (All this is almost exactly repeated in the third Root-Race of the Fourth Round.).....

(Secret Doctrine, Vol. I, p. 186 f., free online for everyone to check)

Anyone who has referenced a dragon at any time, and these are numerous in literature and religion, could stand in Blavatsky's place here. It makes no sense, unless you absolutely want for whatever reason to associate Balavtsky with this crude hypothesis, but in this we are no longer talking about an encyclopaedia. So it has to be changed.

Anti-semitic connotations?

I've learned of an alleged anti-Semitic component to this theory. Is that a common or mainstream connotation? I am talking about whether people who know about the theory (believers or not) understand it to have an anti-Semitic element, not about the validity of the theory. Does this source [1] establish this sufficiently to add it to the article?

Jaufrec (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The theory often employs ancient anti-Semitic tropes (blood rituals, child murder etc) but subs "lizards" for "Jews". Icke often cites the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for instance. Serendi^podous 01:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

This is a debatable one. There DOES seem to be some anti semetic tropes involved, but despite that when Icke talks about lizard people I think he geninely believes these are space lizards. The key here I think is about stucturalism and second order semiosis. The myth may not be directly anti-semetic either in form or intent, however by replicating the mechanisms of antisemetism it achieves similar effects, and ultimaetly when it comes to conspiracy theories all roads lead to rome, or in this case the mother of all conspiracy theories;- Antisemetism. It may well be both an academic point and somewhat in the realm of original-research however without good academic sourcing. 103.94.51.49 (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

There is some good academic research, however, that supports the theory being antisemitic in nature.. See eg: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0963947020971997 Leirbagflow (talk) 02:51, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Netherlands

A far right MP,Mr. Baudet, of the Forum voor Democratie, has claimed that lizzard-people control international politics.... he did so in a speech in our parliament. Robert Prummel 2001:1C01:3B06:1900:1D58:2DF8:B8F6:6488 (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Le Monde mentions it, I think it's notable. Serendi^podous 20:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Reptilian humanoids

the article says"Icke ... claims shape-shifting reptilian aliens.. take on human form". Therefore they are not reptilian humanoids but humanoid reptilians. Let's keep our nouns and adjectives straight. 142.163.195.205 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Image

Why was the image changed to add small genitals? Here is the original https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Reptilian.svg 64.98.31.14 (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah, there seems to a bit of history here. That old version was removed from this article in 2019, after a discussion on this talk page. A new version of the image, with genitalia added, was uploaded to Commons that year, and added to this article four years ago. Frankly, I don't think either version belongs in the article, but since I've not noticed it was there for four years, I'll wait to see whether the previous consensus to remove it still holds. Donald Albury 15:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Austin Feff, El cid, el campeador, Herostatus, and Doug Weller: participants in previous discussion. - Donald Albury 15:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

@Herostratus: again, spelled correctly. - Donald Albury 15:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I would still remove it per my previous argument that AFAIK it's just one guy's drawing. I don't care much tho, I won't be heartbroken if it's kept. It is a cool picture, and since the monsters are mythical who knows what is wrong or right.

As the the genitals, yeah, I believe these monsters reproduce by cloning or something, so they should go. The genitals, not the monsters. Well the monsters should go too, but that's up to if the people of the world will rise up against them, not us. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

The picture, or the uprising? Cos I'm on board for the uprising if you are. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2024 (UTC)