PDA

View Full Version : Lizard Brains



josef k.
15-12-2008, 02:26 AM
I was reading Slate this evening, and came across this paragraph:

"Prince of Persia—Ubisoft's adventure of a tower-climbing, cliff-jumping prince and his princess companion that posits that, yes, you actually can craft a romance in a game. The slowly developing flirtation of male and female lead don't get in the way of all the less-sentimental climbing and monster-killing the developers needed to put in the game to keep the player's thumbs and lizard-brain engaged."

This touches on stuff which has been sliding in and out of some other discussions. It also touches, intriguingly, on David Icke's theory that lizards are running the world. (this theory last seen in the Minnesota Senate Race Recount: http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/11/23/so_why_would_someone_for_the_lizard_people/?refid=0)

Perhaps lizard people - that is, captivated lizard brains - really are running the world, via the channel of our engaged attention spans...

nomadthethird
15-12-2008, 03:06 AM
If this is true, lizards have always been ruling the world, since the limbic system or "lizard brain" is the oldest (some say the most primitive) structure in the brain.

petergunn
15-12-2008, 05:18 AM
http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/kaneericjim5.jpg

IdleRich
15-12-2008, 10:58 AM
Prince of Persia, I remember that from when I had an Amiga, the way the guy moved seemed amazing at the time, probably looks fairly primitive now I guess.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_zyQ_OVyhNE

Wow that really takes me back to long summer holidays trying to complete that game.
Sorry, back to the lizard brain.

nomadthethird
15-12-2008, 06:59 PM
One thing that's interesting about the limbic system is that in most studies of the functions the limbic system regulates (fear, arousal, anger, love, hate), there's really no way (yet) to distinguish from the outside, from looking at what's going on in the LS on an MRI or other imaging system, the difference between a person feeling love and a person feeling hate.

nochexxx
28-12-2008, 12:45 PM
are there any direct areas where the lizard part of our brains resides?

if so i wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that prolonged use of marijuana or other such mind altering drugs could cause significant brain damage to lizard brain areas. and therefore the user (by default) experiences more thoughts from the neo-cortex area.

Agent Nucleus
28-12-2008, 05:47 PM
i wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that prolonged use of marijuana or other such mind altering drugs could cause significant brain damage to lizard brain areas. and therefore the user (by default) experiences more thoughts from the neo-cortex area.

i hope this is true :D

i think this is called the triune (bird-mammal-lizard) model, and it was either invented or endorsed by Carl Sagan. the idea seems to be that these 'brains' work independently, but i'm not sure if those divisions are clean. i would guess that all our lizard brain impulses are always-already organized/sequenced/modified by the neo-cortex, unless you are a huge sociopath, Internet forum troll, whatever. you could probably overlap Lacan's model with this one (Real = reptile; Imaginary = mammal; Symbolic = bird).

does Icke make an explicit connection between the lizard brain and the reptoids? IIRC, according to Icke the reptoids are shapeshifters from another dimension and they use a bizarre system of occult symbols to communicate. But yeah all electronic media basically turns off the higher cortical regions. I think i read somewhere that, from a neurological perspective, watching television is the equivalent of staring at a blank wall.

nochexxx
28-12-2008, 06:10 PM
But yeah all electronic media basically turns off the higher cortical regions.

what even my mpc?:eek:

nomadthethird
28-12-2008, 06:21 PM
But yeah all electronic media basically turns off the higher cortical regions. I think i read somewhere that, from a neurological perspective, watching television is the equivalent of staring at a blank wall.

You also burn fewer calories while watching TV than you do when you're sedentary and not watching TV.

Agent Nucleus
28-12-2008, 06:23 PM
what even my mpc?:eek:

i think anything that uses CRT technology causes the shift from left to right brain, and beta to alpha brain waves, because of the hypnotic effect of the flashing lights. I think Eric McLuhan (or someone with the McLuhan Institute) did experiments that proved this back in the 70's, and there have been other experiments that back it up. The effect is especially pronounced with young viewers. I wrote a horribly inaccurate article about this for Disinformation about 8 years ago. I can link it up if you are interested.

nomadthethird
28-12-2008, 06:31 PM
are there any direct areas where the lizard part of our brains resides?

if so i wonder if there's any evidence to suggest that prolonged use of marijuana or other such mind altering drugs could cause significant brain damage to lizard brain areas.

The limbic system is deep in the brain, here

http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/class/Psy301/Salinas/sec2/Brain/11.GIF

The amygdala is one of its deeper structures.

As far as drug use goes, I would guess that most drugs damage short-term (marijuana) and long term (amphetamines, cocaine) memory channels more than anything else. The thing about "killing" brain cells is that your brain will always find new/different channels or pathways to perform basically the same function.

The only drugs that are proven to very seriously damage cognitive function in the long-term are methamphetamine and MDMA.

CNS depressants like alcohol slow down dopamine release and other brain functions initially, so in the addict, the receptors/cells eventually speed up production very rapidly to compensate for this. This is why during alcohol withdrawal a person has seizures, because in the absence of alcohol, the person's dopamine receptors (among others) are still producing at several times the normal rate, which is too much for the brain to interpret or handle at once.

The epilepsy meds I take are sort of like a lobotomy in a bottle, they give me hardcore aphasia, but as soon as I stop taking them it goes away.

nomadthethird
28-12-2008, 11:43 PM
This is my favorite part of the brain, not a part of the limbic system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens

There's a book called This is Your Brain on Music about the role of the nucleus accumbens in our perception of music, in terms simple enough that anyone can understand them.

nochexxx
29-12-2008, 10:43 AM
I wrote a horribly inaccurate article about this for Disinformation about 8 years ago. I can link it up if you are interested.

sure thing, hit me up!

Agent Nucleus
30-12-2008, 07:28 PM
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL59.htm

i'm not sure if all these claims are totally accurate, esp vis-a-vis television's narcotic/addictive properties. I was reading Understanding Media at the time. McLuhan is still my favorite writer. There's an article about this article on PBS.org of all places, and Scientific American ripped me off (http://www.tri-vision.ca/documents/TV_Addiction.pdf) a year later.

Agent Nucleus
30-12-2008, 07:41 PM
This is my favorite part of the brain, not a part of the limbic system:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleus_accumbens

There's a book called This is Your Brain on Music about the role of the nucleus accumbens in our perception of music, in terms simple enough that anyone can understand them.

which part of the brain is responsible for representing space? i ran into a theory earlier this year called Tensor-Network theory which says that the senses map space with a matrix, or metric space, but the proprioceptive sense (or kinesthesia) is mapped onto a topology. I have some fundamental problems though with the whole idea of representing space abstractly. It seems like it always has to have a material/physical component to be real. There has to be direct contact and embodied as well as sensory immersion.

nomadthethird
30-12-2008, 08:56 PM
which part of the brain is responsible for representing space? i ran into a theory earlier this year called Tensor-Network theory which says that the senses map space with a matrix, or metric space, but the proprioceptive sense (or kinesthesia) is mapped onto a topology. I have some fundamental problems though with the whole idea of representing space abstractly. It seems like it always has to have a material/physical component to be real. There has to be direct contact and embodied as well as sensory immersion.

Ah I like your article. I'm no expert, but it didn't seem inaccurate to me. I would only add that runner's high-induced migraines happen partially due to a quick switch from vasodilation to vasoconstriction of blood vessels when a runner goes from full speed to resting.

According to google, the hippocampus is important in spatio-sensory perception.

http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/navspace-hippocampus

zhao
01-01-2009, 10:02 AM
http://www.cognitiveliberty.org/5jcl/5JCL59.htm

i'm not sure if all these claims are totally accurate, esp vis-a-vis television's narcotic/addictive properties. I was reading Understanding Media at the time. McLuhan is still my favorite writer. There's an article about this article on PBS.org of all places, and Scientific American ripped me off (http://www.tri-vision.ca/documents/TV_Addiction.pdf) a year later.

yes nice article. will be useful in many ways... thanks.

this might be a dumb question but i suppose films have the same effects on our chemical and neurological states as television? and what about watching programs on computers? also, the article states that the effects of TV is the same regardless of content, but surely there must be a difference between watching the Wire on my laptop and reading Dissensus?? also what about video games, audio books vs. reading... fascinating to think about.

who was it said that the problem with TV is not how it is used, but are inherently part of the technology - akin to violence being inherently part of the gun.


which part of the brain is responsible for representing space? i ran into a theory earlier this year called Tensor-Network theory which says that the senses map space with a matrix, or metric space, but the proprioceptive sense (or kinesthesia) is mapped onto a topology. I have some fundamental problems though with the whole idea of representing space abstractly. It seems like it always has to have a material/physical component to be real. There has to be direct contact and embodied as well as sensory immersion.

what do you mean with that last bit "there has to be... to be real"? particularly what do you mean by "real"? producting real sensations in our brains?

this is interesting to think about in connection to illusionist or virtual pictorial space -- the use of perspective in painting vs. non-illusionistic flat space. also those high tech virtual space simulation goggles, and of course video game space perception.

mixed_biscuits
01-01-2009, 10:13 AM
The current issue of Scientific American Mind has an article on the lizard brain.

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 12:16 AM
this might be a dumb question but i suppose films have the same effects on our chemical and neurological states as television? and what about watching programs on computers? also, the article states that the effects of TV is the same regardless of content, but surely there must be a difference between watching the Wire on my laptop and reading Dissensus??

You burn more calories staring at a wall or reading than you do while watching TV. TV/film puts your brain in a sort of hypnotized, passive, sub-sedentary hibernating or sleep mode.

The computer presumably doesn't, unless you're watching moving pictures on it. Video games I imagine are a lot like films or TV.

TV watching also exacerbates autism and ADD, along with a lot of other spectrum/developmental disorders.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:39 AM
why should games be the same as tv? seems completly different activity to me. i certainly don't feel the same way after a few hours playing a game as a few hours watching tv.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:40 AM
tv and games are more real than the outside world it seems to me. in that they are experiences shared by more of your peers and thus more communicable.

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 12:43 AM
why should games be the same as tv? seems completly different activity to me. i certainly don't feel the same way after a few hours playing a game as a few hours watching tv.

It might not be *exactly* the same, but video games are really awful if you have any sort of neurological problem or developmental disorder, so it's safe to assume that watching cartoons move on a screen, even if your fingers are working a control system, is not brain healthy.

The problem with TV/film is that watching pictures move across a screen, combined with the ambient light that comprises the pictures, has strange effects on the cns.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:48 AM
differences are often more interesting and more instructuve than similarities. don't think lumping the two together is terribly helpful. anyway, boring, who cares....

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 12:52 AM
differences are often more interesting and more instructuve than similarities. don't think lumping the two together is terribly helpful. anyway, boring, who cares....

Sure, but ambient light flashing across a screen is ambient light flashing across a screen, whether it's a TV monitor or a computer monitor makes no difference, neither does the type of remote control you use to work it.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:55 AM
on some level yeah, in the same way as its all just electrical signals in the brain and we're all in the matrix man etc.

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 12:58 AM
on some level yeah, in the same way as its all just electrical signals in the brain and we're all in the matrix man etc.

No, not on some level. On a very specific level.

I could produce a certain sequence of flashing lights on a screen that would give anyone watching it a seizure (theoretically, it's happened before, though)--video game, TV show, whatever.

The fact of the matter is that watching lightboxes whose pictures are sent as bits of info over wires and then spat back out onto pixels has the same effect on all human brains, probably all primate brains (if other primates were stupid enough to actually bother watching TV or playing video games), because there is a specific way all ambient-light-moving-pixel-pictures are perceived by those brains.

It's not up for grabs, the mechanism is pretty well-understood.

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 01:03 AM
Actually the interesting question is whether reading on a computer screen is the same in terms of neurological effect as reading a book would be...probably not, but probably less hypnotic than watching films on a computer monitor.

luka
03-01-2009, 01:04 AM
its alright, miss the point, i don't mind....

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 01:06 AM
its alright, miss the point, i don't mind....

I didn't miss your point.

You do realize that video games and films and TV are all watched on EXACTLY the same sort of technology, a pixellated monitor, right?

luka
03-01-2009, 01:09 AM
yes.
you realise that everything you experience is expereinced through the same technology right? so what? we know that already, thats why its boring. thats why differences are interesting. it doesn't matter though. leave it.

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 01:14 AM
yes.
you realise that everything you experience is expereinced through the same technology right? so what? we know that already, thats why its boring. thats why differences are interesting. it doesn't matter though. leave it.

What was your point? That video games must have a vastly different neurological effect than TV or film?

What is boring? It's boring posting things like the above, that makes no point whatsoever except to say "leave it" when your original point ends up making no sense.

And no, "everything" I experience isn't experienced through the same technology. That makes no sense. Whatsoever.

It's always fun to be a petulant child, though, isn't it?

luka
03-01-2009, 01:17 AM
yes yes

luka
03-01-2009, 01:35 AM
i like the article by the way. i've been talking about this at great length with my girlfriend and writing about it and that....
this bit
The lower or reptile brain simply stands poised to react to the environment using deeply embedded “fight or flight” response programs. Moreover, these lower brain regions cannot distinguish reality from fabricated images (a job performed by the neo-cortex), so they react to television content as though it were real, releasing appropriate hormones and so on.
specifically.
all you need to do is identify your own responses to prove the validity of this. music does this too. you can push the pleasure button, sex button, hostility button (think of grime/hip-hop specifcially structured to induce a fight/flight reaction, or endless nubile young women chosen to front the sex button routine. burroughs is tremendous on all this. just pushing the same buttons for decades and decades with a new face on the front cover but its the same response every time. push the pleasure button! like those rats pulling the cocaine lever. againagainagain!

nomadthethird
03-01-2009, 01:38 AM
If you put a chimp in a cage with an endless supply of cocaine, they will do the cocaine without eating or sleeping until they starve to death.

Not sure if rats do the same but I bet they do.

Agent Nucleus
03-01-2009, 07:04 AM
that was one question people always asked me, and i never had a solid answer: are the same effects produced by a liquid crystal screen that you see in a cathode ray tube, or a plasma screen for that matter? the effects are different i think. mcluhan said television was a cool (ie incomplete, narcotic, hypnotic, low-definition) medium, but with hi-def screens the effect could *conceivably* be different, although i doubt it. The only way to know for sure would be to just re-do the experiments, or come up with better ones. It is a massively under-researched field. I'm not sure anyone has found anything new since the 80's (probably due to underfunding). The actual findings by the McLuhan Institute in the 70's were more alarming than what's in the article. For example, television actuallly puts us in the theta-wave, which is a notch below the alpha wave pattern and is associated with really deep sleep and comas. The statement about the neurological effect being independent of content (doesn't matter if you are watching nature shows or Fellini or whatever) is absolutely accurate. You can will yourself into beta waves but it isn't easy to sustain.

luka
03-01-2009, 12:51 PM
rats, chimps, who cares, i stole the image from you anyway.
now, Agent N, i didn't read our thing very carefully because it didn't seem to be written to be read carefully but it seems that on one hand you say the effect is the same regardelss of content and at another point say the specific images produce approprate responses (which is observationally, evidentlly true) from the nervous system, eg arousal, fear etc.... when those strings start swelling and the tears well up.....
i guess this can be resolved in some way. care to elaborate?

Tentative Andy
03-01-2009, 03:07 PM
'Lizard brains' sounds like it should be a shouted-across-the-playground school insult: 'Oi, you, Lizard Brains!'

Mr. Tea
03-01-2009, 07:57 PM
If you put a chimp in a cage with an endless supply of cocaine, they will do the cocaine without eating or sleeping until they starve to death.

That's because chimps share 96% of their DNA with Rick James.

Agent Nucleus
03-01-2009, 08:04 PM
rats, chimps, who cares, i stole the image from you anyway.
now, Agent N, i didn't read our thing very carefully because it didn't seem to be written to be read carefully but it seems that on one hand you say the effect is the same regardelss of content and at another point say the specific images produce approprate responses (which is observationally, evidentlly true) from the nervous system, eg arousal, fear etc.... when those strings start swelling and the tears well up.....
i guess this can be resolved in some way. care to elaborate?

like i said that article was written when i was 19 and i don't remember writing any of it. the effects are the same regardless of content because the effects come from the medium, not what's in the medium.

luka
05-01-2009, 11:36 PM
yeah yeah we got that.... i want you to talk about image enviroments which the nervous systems responds to as if they were real. which is what it saysin the article. because if that is happening, which it clearly is, then content clearly does matter. even if all content produces theta waves.

nomadthethird
06-01-2009, 12:02 AM
One thing worth mentioning probably is that only film footage of people doing things is taken as "real" by the limbic system (thereby producing fear, anger, arousal, etc.), video games are probably different in that respect since they're cartoon-like.

I did a bunch of research in a class on violence in video games and it's pretty clear that violent video games aren't even a secondary cause of juvenile violence/delinquency, anyway...

luka
06-01-2009, 12:07 AM
yeah? that doesn't tally with my research (which involved um, intuition or something)
can i see the sources? i reckon even music can fool you into responding to its artificial, created enviroment as if it were real. i think thats part of the appeal of aggressive music, that it makes you feel hostile in response.

jambo
06-01-2009, 12:14 AM
Did anyone notice Stewart Home 'blogging' about similar things on myspace?

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=353159049&blogID=460421273

Experiments conducted by researcher Herbert Krugman reveal that when a person watches television, brain activity switches from the left to the right hemisphere.
The left hemisphere is the seat of logical thought. Here, information is broken down into its component parts and critically analyzed. The right brain, however, treats incoming data uncritically, processing information in wholes, leading to emotional, rather than logical responses. The shift from left to right brain activity also causes the release of endorphins, the body's own natural opiates--thus, it is possible to become physically addicted to watching television, a hypothesis borne out by numerous studies which have shown that very few people are able to kick the television habit. It's no longer an overstatement to note that the youth today that are raised and taught through network television are intellectually dead by their early teens.

Is this actually his writing though? Seems like it's pasted from somewhere else.

nomadthethird
06-01-2009, 12:20 AM
yeah? that doesn't tally with my research (which involved um, intuition or something)
can i see the sources? i reckon even music can fool you into responding to its artificial, created enviroment as if it were real. i think thats part of the appeal of aggressive music, that it makes you feel hostile in response.

I know, for a while I was really convinced that video games could only hurt the latently ill, but these days I don't really feel so certain. Especially given the complete lack of adult supervision that most kids get to begin with...

The research was all pre-Grand Theft Auto I'm pretty sure...I will find the paper... it ended up being more about eXistenZ or however that's written because I didn't feel like doing an actual focus group.

Mr. Tea
06-01-2009, 01:27 AM
One thing worth mentioning probably is that only film footage of people doing things is taken as "real" by the limbic system (thereby producing fear, anger, arousal, etc.), video games are probably different in that respect since they're cartoon-like.


That seems intuitively obvious if you're talking about Pac-Man or Space Invaders, or even Street Fighter II (or for that matter most Wii games by the look of them), but a lot of developers for PCs and the more 'grown up' consoles are pushing closer and closer towards photorealism, or at least Hollywood-realism.

nomadthethird
06-01-2009, 01:35 AM
That seems intuitively obvious if you're talking about Pac-Man or Space Invaders, or even Street Fighter II (or for that matter most Wii games by the look of them), but a lot of developers for PCs and the more 'grown up' consoles are pushing closer and closer towards photorealism, or at least Hollywood-realism.

True, my bf always makes fun of really nerdy gamers by saying things like "Lara Croft is hotter than a real girl" in a dorky voice.

Here are a couple of references:

A survey method for assessing perceptions of a game: The consumer playtest in game design, John P. Davis, Keith Steury, and Randy Pagulayan

http://gamestudies.org/0501/davis_steury

On Video Game Death and the Possibility of Extra Life, The Journal of New Media and Culture, Volume 3, Number 2, (Summer/Fall 2005), George Esplin

The Game of Love & Chance: A Discussion with Paul Virilio 8/22/05

http://www.16beavergroup.org/mtarchive/archives/001605.php

“Thou, the player of the game, art God”: Nabokovian game-playing in Cronenberg’s eXistenZ Canadian Journal of Film Studies, Spring 2003, by Mark Browning

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4092/is_200304/ai_n9183870/pg_2

Unsettling the military entertainment complex: Video games and a pedagogy of peace Studies in Media & Information Literacy Education;

Volume 4, Issue 4 (November 2004), David Leonard

The rest were focus groups and sociological studies that are easily googled.

Mr. Tea
06-01-2009, 02:16 AM
Alyx Vance (Half-Life II) is the thinking man's Lara Croft:

http://www.hlfallout.net/images/content/characters/full/alyx_full.jpg

She's also INVINCIBLE, which is a bit annoying as she's a non-player character. If only she'd just stand in front of you and absorb bullets for the whole game, lol.

luka
06-01-2009, 03:15 AM
what people dont' seem to get about icke is that the lizard bit is the best bit. if its not your planet why worry about it? just take what you want and when it's all gone, be on your way.
last lizards airlifted from burning planet vengeful mob rattles rescue ships in hail of missiles
monsterous plumes of black smoke conceal the rescue ships/metal planet recedes in rust and smoke.
exhausted mine. dead earth.

Board Meeting on Mothership.
fat middle-aged comedian with stock 1970s repotiore; racism, sexism, assorted other prejudices, mother-in-laws, pub life, birds, beer, fags,
entertains the board, crumbs from mini-sausage rolls down shirt fronts, lager breath, red faced and racous.
viscious reptile laughter....
burning earth recedes on nav-screen.

Agent Nucleus
06-01-2009, 05:37 AM
not sure if this is correct but i think the limbic system responds to fuzzy data, or large perceptual structures (gestalts), and the neo-cortex is digital, syntactical, combinatory, etc. So it would interpret video signals as a real stimulus in the environment (a dead body, sex, violence, assassinations, etc.), but the higher cortices would understand it as mediated, a televised image. I think it's that parallax that leads to the most alarming effects (paranoia, depression, lethargy, anxiety, poor health) because the neo-cortex is forced to numb the CNS with endogenous opioids (sometimes exogenous if a person makes the decision to anesthetize) iirc - i think virtual interfaces will fuse with drug delivery systems at some point, either as therapy (PTSD) or entertainment.

nomadthethird
07-01-2009, 12:12 AM
not sure if this is correct but i think the limbic system responds to fuzzy data, or large perceptual structures (gestalts), and the neo-cortex is digital, syntactical, combinatory, etc. So it would interpret video signals as a real stimulus in the environment (a dead body, sex, violence, assassinations, etc.), but the higher cortices would understand it as mediated, a televised image. I think it's that parallax that leads to the most alarming effects (paranoia, depression, lethargy, anxiety, poor health) because the neo-cortex is forced to numb the CNS with endogenous opioids (sometimes exogenous if a person makes the decision to anesthetize) iirc -

Makes sense...


i think virtual interfaces will fuse with drug delivery systems at some point, either as therapy (PTSD) or entertainment.

In a more enlightened society we'd already have everyone on a pain management regimen that took care of medicine and bread/circuses all in one go.

That's a fascist regime I'd live in.

jambo
07-01-2009, 03:12 PM
what people dont' seem to get about icke is that the lizard bit is the best bit. if its not your planet why worry about it? just take what you want and when it's all gone, be on your way.
last lizards airlifted from burning planet vengeful mob rattles rescue ships in hail of missiles
monsterous plumes of black smoke conceal the rescue ships/metal planet recedes in rust and smoke.
exhausted mine. dead earth.
Or we've been programmed to 'prepare' the planet for them and one day they'll return in their droves. That was a short story I wrote years ago.

I like Icke but I wonder if he's at all familiar with the various gnostic traditions? He actually makes more sense these days and talks about lizards very little AFAICT, but the lizards thing always struck me as a reasonable metaphor for the way that politics / big business attracts and cultivates psychopathic personalities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jan/21/kurtvonnegut

jambo
07-01-2009, 03:15 PM
what people dont' seem to get about icke is that the lizard bit is the best bit. if its not your planet why worry about it? just take what you want and when it's all gone, be on your way.
last lizards airlifted from burning planet vengeful mob rattles rescue ships in hail of missiles
monsterous plumes of black smoke conceal the rescue ships/metal planet recedes in rust and smoke.
exhausted mine. dead earth.
I like Icke but I wonder if he's at all familiar with the various gnostic traditions? He actually makes more sense these days and talks about lizards very little AFAICT, but the lizards thing always struck me as a reasonable metaphor for the way that power broking 'professions' attract and cultivate psychopathic personalities.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2006/jan/21/kurtvonnegut

luka
08-01-2009, 12:11 AM
exactly, the metaphor is the best bit.