Let's get two things straight right from the outset:

1. David Icke believes that the plant Earth is ruled, for the most part, by Annunaki lizards from the fourth dimension. The most important political and business leaders of the world are either half-breed human lizards, White Martians or full-blooded lizards temporarily living in human form. The lizards have unimaginable occult power compared to us, but are unable to cope with the vibrations of human love. So, as a result, they have attempted to create a world in which humans are brainwashed and trapped into the patterns of negative emotions (chiefly anger and fear) which provide the kind of vibrations that sustain the lizards. It's important at this stage to point out that, so far as we can tell, Icke believes this literally and non-metaphorically. When he talks about lizards, he's referring to Annunaki inhabitants of the fourth dimension, or about other lizard species from nearby dimensions. He's not using "code words" to talk about Jews, freemasons or basically anyone who isn't a lizard or lizard halfbreed.
2. We, the editorial and executive staff of adequacy.org, do not believe that the earth is ruled by Annunaki lizards from the fourth dimension. We basically don't believe in Annunaki lizards at all. We don't think that the cosmogony described in Icke's books makes sense, we think that his use of the word "dimension" is usually incoherent and self-contradictory, and we think that a few suggestive carvings and pieces of jewellery is damn poor evidence for believing that lizard spaceships landed in the time of Rameses and have dominated the world through the Masons ever since.

Given 1) and 2), we can see how people might be forgiven for asking why adequacy.org, never usually notorious for giving a fair hearing to people who disagree with us, are so keen on David Icke. Well, when you think about it, it's not so unreasonable after all. Because when you read Icke's books (memo to our friends at the Globe and Mail: "read" in this context means "read", not "read a summary of a review of and then proceed to slag off"), there's a lot of good sense in them. Consider, the following:

• David Icke believes that the former US President George Herschel Walker Bush is a lizard and a drug dealer.
• The Washington Post believes that former US President George Herschel Walker Bush is not a lizard, and not a drug dealer.
• Adequacy.org believes that former US President George Herschel Walker Bush is not a lizard, but is a drug dealer.

So, it appears that we disagree with Icke on the subject of whether Bush was a lizard, and with the Post on the subject of whether Bush was a heroin pusher. And the fact is that, while it's more or less impossible to prove one way or the other whether Bush is an Annunaki lizard from the fourth dimension, it's very easy indeed to show that Bush was the head of the CIA during the period in which Air America was carrying opium by the ton from Burma and Laos to the heroin labs of Hong Kong and Saigon, from whence it was sold to American GIs. So it appears that David Icke makes a claim that is pretty difficult to believe, with not much evidence in favour of it, while the Washington Post is asking us to believe something in the face of a vast amount of conclusive contradictory evidence. Furthermore, while Icke's organisation is supported almost entirely in the free market by selling books and videos to the public, the Washington Post is bankrolled partly by the CIA, and partly by the Reunification Church of the Reverend Sun Myung Moon, a bona fide cult.

Just exactly who's the loony here, mates? The fact is that the mainstream media do this all the time. There are all sorts of people who believe in things far more bizarre than anything David Icke wants to foist on us - Tony Blair believes that the MMR vaccine has no connection with autism, Richard Dawkins believes that everything we do is determined by our DNA, and Ann Coulter believes that George W Bush won the election in Florida. But they don't get pilloried in the newspapers in the way that David Icke does for merely bringing up the possibility that a group of people who act all the time as if they were cold-blooded power-mad reptiles who thrive on creating fear and hostility, might actually be cold-blooded power-mad reptiles who thrive on creating fear and hostility.

So, we're going to try and redress the balance. Over the next few weeks on adequacy.org, we're going to be running a few articles on the subject of David Icke's theories of cosmogony and global politics, plus as many copious plugs for his books and videos as we can. If we can get an interview with him, we'll run it, unedited. Obviously, this isn't quite as good for him as if the New York Times decided to play fair and respect some of its much-vaunted standards of objectivity and fairness in a case when they might actually prove controversial, rather than just using them to blow off following up indymedia tips. But it's a start. The rehabilitation begins here. We Licke Icke.