Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by BornFreeNowAgain

  1. 5 hours ago, northern star said:


    Has to be said, Russell is very very late to the conspiracy party. But he spotted an opportunity and caught up, and is very popular because of it, which is why theyre onto making this a trophy case. They only take notice when these things become popular, as with MLK, John Lennon, Avicii etc etc. Maybe he does genuinely care about these issues and wouldnt stick his neck out otherwise.


    Agree Fluke - do these women accusers even exist, or are they a media creation? If this is going to be a serious case there will have to be some proof or its he said, she said. In other words, a nothing burger. Its also interesting the cases are ten years old or so, so the Demonic Cabal might make anything we've said online in the last ten years a hate crime. I expect that's what this is all about and Brand is being used as a catalyst.



    Yes, like many he is an opportunist of sorts. As I was washing up last night I was mulling over the many possibilities of what this is about after reading the forum, and one of the many thoughts I had was "if THEY are going after him, then that must mean he is a good guy/on the right side', and then I thought voila, is that what this is about? Are the 'Cabal' going after him to add credibility to Brand (in the truth community that is)? On any thread I have ever come across regarding Brand, going back to the early days, he has always divided opinion. Much like Trump, is it possible that they are attempting to 'prove' that Brand is on the side of 'truth'; because like me doing the washing up, I have seen it many times where people in the 'truth community' take these things as 'proof' that that said person must be 'one of us'; as in 'they would not go after him/her, if they weren't on the side of good'. 


    It is just a thought, and as I have said earlier, these things tend to be multi-faceted, but there is no doubt that the attacks on Trump, Tate and now Brand, are adding some credibility to these people because as we know, all three have divided opinions in the 'truth community'. So maybe this is for US, and these people really are being moved into position of the organisers of 'the revolution'; maybe these types of people, are their contingency? 

  2. 16 minutes ago, Macnamara said:


    it seems that the first thing anyone who sticks their head above the parapet will have to deal with is an attempted character assassination. For example when bridgen spoke out about the excess deaths he was accused of being an 'anti-semite'. There's no evidence he is an anti-semite, they just made it up.


    So perhaps another aspect to these sort of things is that they are designed to frighten other people into silence because they see what happens to people who speak up. If you speak out you'd better be thick skinned and have some loyal people around you

    Indeed Mac; I was just thinking similar. At first it is an attempt to ridicule, then some accusations, and if none of that works, then something really serious which often has very little actual evidence (which of course playing devils advocate is hard to have with SA, especially when many years ago and that is perhaps the whole point). 


    But you are right with the 'message' that it sends to others. They know that ultimately, most people have a lot of fear whether conscious or unconscious, which they take advantage of, and play on, with these sorts of stories. I was thinking earlier too, that you wonder if they use these sorts of things to act as 'regulators' in which they hinder and reduce the popularity of said person (especially if they are not wholly on the side of the dark), lest they get too big and 'change the World'. In the past they would just assassinate a person who had a huge following, like JFK, MLK and John Lennon, today it is harder to do. Maybe these sorts of things are quite literally 'character assassinations' or 'trial by public media'. 

    • Like 2
  3. It is interesting how the MO matches Julian Assange, Donald Trump and now Brand. One of the easiest ways to bring someone down a peg or two is to accuse a person of rape or SA (true or not), especially historical cases that go back many years. I have never trusted Brand, but the MO is interesting here; and Trump is certainly (like Elon Musk) great at hiding actions (or inaction in Trumps case) with words or as they say, talk the talk but not walk the walk. 


    We will know more in the coming weeks and months but right now, despite always feeling suss about RB, I am not sure what to think as yet. 



    • Like 2
  4. 7 hours ago, Observations said:

    I detest trial by media and the ongoing training of the public to accept and get used to it. I notice it's the same old spats, the stirring up on social media, the same old actors ... Piers Morgan tackles Alan Sugar, and vice versa. It's 'pick a side', with not much middle ground. 


    I always remind myself of 'the old' innocent until proven guilty that we would all want for ourselves. 


    Also that Brand is most likely playing a part. My friend asked me who would want to be accused of being a rapist (and the rest) but if it's a good enough part with the right payoff, who knows how far someone would go? 


    Either way it's a classic example of a marketing campaign? A forced agenda. The shit storm of words and repetition is reminiscent of many of the other ones we've seen 'recently'


    I noticed the use of the word consent, which was also used in the Spanish Women's football chapter / episode, as in "I didn't give consent."


    As Anti Facts Sir said lessons will be learnt  




    7 hours ago, Observations said:

    I don't know if this is all part of the theory, that if enough 'innocent' people are accused then later the 'guilty' will never be accused and will be free to do whatever they like ... but again I always keep that in mind, it's a possibility.

    Great points! It was said on the Lucy Letby thread that perhaps that whole court case was a way to change the way that cases are heard (in the event that she is subsequently found innocent on appeal). So many came out immediately after the trial to say that she had either not had a fair trial, or the evidence just wasn't there. Perhaps that case and the recent 'trial by media' stories are not unrelated? 

    • Thanks 1
  5. 5 hours ago, Nip said:


    And so the scam / fraud continues. A nice number, I have to say. As long as the likes of Strictly, Eastenders,  Bargain Hunt, Champions League and Tipping Point remain a distraction, I can't see the sheep sitting up and taking notice ... ever.

    Some may never wake up, and perhaps they are not 'meant to' (NPC's perhaps). But many others are 'malleable' and will go where the majority or numbers appear to be. I remain very hopeful that once the pendulum starts to swing, many of those considered 'asleep' right now, will join the crowd. We know from many experiments over the years just how much one dissenting voice can provide people the sense of safety to also challenge authority, when the numbers get larger, there may be a massive swing. 


    Using Chris Martenson's (Peak Prosperity) idea of from 'Private to Public Knowledge', I can see a time where so many are talking about it, and it becomes so normal, that it creates a sense of safety in being allowed to voice one's concerns more easily without fear of ridicule. We know that many are totally controlled by that fear of 'non approval', of ridicule or rejection from their peers; once this becomes less of a threat, the pendulum could swing and fast. And I think the 'Cabal' know this all too well, hence the speed of their agenda now. A lot needs to happen of course, and I don't consider it 'in the bag', but the 'potential' is certainly there. Yes, we can consider these people 'cowards' or other such terms, but they perhaps have more fear than us, or more to lose (at least in their minds). 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  6. I am not sure what to make of it all. Certainly like many, I have had major doubts about Brand all along from an intuitive sense. When you look at his past and who he is/has been connected to, it is hard to not have suspicions, and that is before bringing intuition in to it. It is interesting seeing those who demand 'evidence or proof' that RB is not to be trusted, after all, isn't honing intuition one of the skills most often espoused in both the 'truth' community and in 'Spirituality'? 


    Like Elon Musk, you also need to look beyond Brand's words, and look towards his actions for a full picture. I cannot help feeling that perhaps the 'Cabal' are moving their 'back-up' actors into position. In recent times we have Elon Musk, Tucker Carlson, Andrew Tate, Donald Trump and perhaps soon, Russel Brand being lauded as hero's and perhaps the 'new leaders'; right on cue for a possible revolution, but if so, it will be a fake revolution if those are to be the leaders of this.


    As ever, the 'Cabal' always have many irons in the fire, and so this is likely to be a multi-faceted operation. It is strange though, I will give you that. It could well be that Brand has indeed switched allegiances, possible but unlikely I would say. Perhaps it is simply another attempt at a devastating blow to the 'truthers' and to cast aspersions on all of us with guilt by association. 


    There is no doubt whatsoever that this is a coordinated attack on Brand, which is certainly interesting and suspicious. 

    • Like 6
  7. 13 hours ago, Useyournous said:

    Just to add a bit on LLs reported 'poor bedside manner', during my husbands illness there have been about two members of medical staff who have not put their foot in it or been downright blunt! One a nurse and another a registrar - the rest have been awful!

    Yes, that is my limited experience of hospital staff too. A lot of bullying, backstabbing and an hierarchical structure that breeds it all. Thankfully I have very limited dealings with hospitals but when I have, I have always been struck by the energy/dynamic.


    It is yet another of life's myths and strange dichotomy's where you ask a lot of people about how caring hospital staff are, and a lot will say they don't care, but for some reason at the same time, there is an unconscious belief that these people are caring, which fuels the shock when cases like this Lucy Letby case crop up. The same dichotomy happens with Politicians and Media; most know they cannot be trusted, yet cannot conceive of the possibility of an actual conspiracy. Strange reality we live in. It is almost as if we all cling to the idealist (and perhaps historical reality) when the proof is all around us in present reality. 

  8. 3 minutes ago, dirtydog said:


    Apparently it isn't unusual for staff to take notes home, they aren't supposed to but it isn't evidence of guilt in itself. I think if I was a sadistic serial killer under investigation and I had stuff at home which could make me look guilty, I would be disposing of it ASAP, not leaving it there for the police to find. 


    About her behaviour and the way she spoke to people, like some of the families didn't like her manner, thought she said some inappropriate things etc. - like I think one of them was they were spending some final moments with their dying or dead child and she tried to hurry them along. On the face of it, this sounds terrible. But what does it mean? I remember what I was like when I was her age at the time (25) and I cringe at some of the stupid things I said or did. This is one of the reasons I think she might not be guilty or at least not fully criminally culpable - in the latter case she might have done some inappropriate things but not out of cold calculated malice but because she was a bit thick or stupid if that makes sense. 


    I used to be like that. I would say or do things and people would look at me as if to say, 'did you just say that? Why did you say or do that stupid thing.' And then the penny would drop for me, as I was a bit slow, and I would realise oh no I shouldn't have said or done that. It's like autism. You don't pick up on social cues or behave appropriately, and don't realise it. I have improved a lot since then but it taught me to think carefully about how I come across to people so I don't make any more faux pas and embarrass myself or others (or offend others, even worse). And sometimes at work I would do the wrong thing in the course of my work, make a stupid mistake, and then need to have it corrected. It is embarrassing to look back. I was a bit of a late developer and I think Lucy MIGHT have been the same. This means she might have said or done some wrong things but not have grasped what she was doing. And having a sometimes less than ideal bedside manner isn't unheard of among medical professionals after all, some doctors aren't the best in that regard either. 


    Her behaviour while giving evidence proves she isn't a cold heartless person or she wouldn't have shown such emotion at hearing the voice of the doctor she used to be friends with. This was a painful reminder of the happy life she used to have and which she would have known she is likely never going to have again. Who wouldn't be tearful at that moment? And her answers about things being a normal pattern of behaviour, or another thing she was criticised for, giving yes or no answers to some questions, all of that is ridiculous to me. People are reaching and being intent on reading things into it which just aren't there. Those sort of bland answers are what you are told to give in court, especially if asked a binary question, you should answer yes or no, not say more than you've been asked for. If the barrister wants more then they should rephrase their question. 

    Great post and some real truth bombs in there. Being socially awkward is not a crime, if it was I would be serving multiple life sentences 😀. There can be many reasons as you point out about what is construed as Letby's inappropriate behaviours. It could be due to any number of things; aspergers, social awkwardness, stress, being aware that staff are watching her or bullying, or simply she was doing too many shifts. And that brings me to the statistics used in the prosecution, how much of her being on shift was down to her doing over-time covering for the fact that the hospital was short-staffed and LL lived close to the hospital, was single and had no kids and because of living in close proximity probably found doing extra shifts easier than someone who had to commute? None of this appears to have been used in the defence, which of course may mean that even allowing for that analysis, they couldn't come up with a reasonable doubt scenario. 


    We all know people who are awkward, even a bit 'socially retarded'. I worked with one supervisor who was loved by many, but bullied others and she was often saying such inappropriate things. It shows that people are both 'good and bad' and people can always come out of the woodwork from either side to say that person was an angel or the devil-incarnate. 


    When I was 20-25 I was telling friends they should ban smoking, should have a DNA database that forced people into it, and other crazy stuff that I now look back on and think, who the hell was that guy? 25 is young for such responsibility, especially working in a team that seems to have been poorly managed, was understaffed, and had other major issues, as well as possible bullying. 


    Of course she may still be guilty, but at least give her a fair defence. I truly hope as @Malbec  says, Letby gets a chance to appeal and have a defence team that gets out of 2nd gear. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  9. 11 hours ago, Observations said:

    Before I forget to add this; it occurred to me that before Convid things were moving towards almost getting rid of trial by jury, and then during Convid it looked like that aim was one step closer? 


    Regarding the trial of Lucy Letby something felt off for a lot of us. That gut feeling, especially after a whiff of the media coverage. 


    Lucy not appearing for sentencing dominated the news headlines and the conversations on radio chat shows, which felt like a deliberate distraction. 


    The basis for an appeal getting immediate attention in the Mail makes we wonder if this is leading to a pre planned problem, reaction, solution ... but what the goal might be I don't know yet. 


    7 hours ago, Malbec said:


    The court system is in tatters after convid, with delays and cases going on for years apparently. Which is always worse for genuine victims.  Then there were ill timed barrister strikes to exacerbate the delays. So it's like they are currently engineering it to become completely broken and unworkable so they can introduce a new system maybe? Perhaps they want a high profile miscarriage to prove or justify the unworkability ? Solution: A.I judges, probation and solicitors maybe 🤔 

    This 'rings true' for me. It is interesting that even those 'not awake' seem to be having strong 'intuitive' feelings about this case, and in particularly the lack of real proof and evidence. It is like a lot instinctively know that the rule of law and justice, was not met here, and of course 'justice', 'law' and 'trials' have and are a massive fabric of our history and reality, and part of the sense of 'safety' that the fabric of society is built upon. So it feels like a lot are having a visceral reaction to the sense of this verdict, not meeting the criteria of fairness, which affects us all. This time it is Lucy Letby, but it could be any of us, which I think is what is causing this reaction in many, even those 'not awake'. A lot of this is on the unconscious level of course. This is possibly why so many are fascinated by 'true crime'; we all want to try to understand the psychology of a killer, but we also read/watch these things to comfort ourselves in the knowledge that 'justice was served', so that we can retain (even unconsciously) a perception that law is fair and just. 


    So it does feel like this is a potential PRS scenario again. Every 'institution' and 'constitutional fabric of society' is being eroded and quickly, we should not be surprised that the court of 'law' is also being eroded. 

    • Like 4
  10. 1 hour ago, Malbec said:

    It's hard to get an actual running order of witnesses for the trial for example, it may be possible going through reddit or some kind of forum for someone who went and tracked what was going on each day? I've never used reddit. But the public obviously only get snippets which suit the press agenda. So it's likely that any points that helped her during the trial are simply not reported. I don't know the rules on reporting during a trial, they seem to do it a lot but you would think its not going to help the jury potentially seeing headlines of someone else's opinion or interpretation.  So that's another unfair element of the case perhaps. 


    Most of the public aren't the brightest (as we know) and are easily persuaded and influenced. Such as an undecided split jury turning unto a unanimous jury a day or 2 later. They deliberated for hours ( understandably to an extent) I bet some of them now are having doubts. Wonder if there was a copper on the jury as well as they always dominate everyone into the accused being guilty.  


    The barrister interview above is really good @BornFreeNowAgain


    It seems like some kind of cover up, protecting of NHS management. Who knows. I agree it certainly shows how it's not that hard to set someone up like this. 


    Yeah Reddit is best avoided, I only use if it comes up in search results, although it does have some good stories on things like Glitches in the Matrix stuff. 


    Too true, most are easily swayed and adopt the passive position of 'well there must be truth to it, if she has been found guilty, or no smoke without fire', which a lot of us know is untrue. I cannot help wondering if things likes these stories are a way for the 'cabal' to 'check the pulse' so to speak of the population? The internet is now such a powerful tool to check just how many are 'awake' and how many 'are asleep'. Could stories like these be 'barometers' perhaps? The optimist in me also wonders if 'events' like these are ways that those 'tuned in' can hone their intuitive abilities, in a just World without 'evil and deceit' intuition would perhaps not be a skill much needed, but in this 'realm' with the 'rules of the game', it is a core skill for those of us tuned in. Hopefully that part is not derailing the thread. 


    It is interesting because after reading your post, I looked up Mark McDonald the barrister in the interview I posted and he comes with a good pedigree in law and both defence and prosecution. More than that he seems a decent humanitarian so no wonder the two presenters didn't seem to appreciate his stance;




    You also make a great point about the 'make-up' of juries. You only need one narcissist or 'plant' to derail the whole thing really. Probably still the fairest way to have a trial but still possibly flawed. 


    • Like 3
  11. 2 hours ago, Malbec said:

    Yeah I can't see any reason as to why they couldn't instruct an appropriate expert in the same (alleged) "field" as Dewi Evans.  Therefore they have chosen not to? A barrister would normally advise the solicitor to instruct a certain type of expert if they haven't already.  


    However, If they have sourced an expert who has produced a report which isn't helpful, or agrees with the prosecution in some ways then I understand they would maybe not rely on it. But given what the science on trial have said on their website, I don't see how they haven't found an appropriate expert.  Even an expert looking at the wider statistics of death on the unit (where she wasn't present or after she left) would put more context on the situation.  And if the coroner found that all deaths were natural causes you would just call that coroner at the very least? 


    Strange that the daily mail story above doesn't allow any further comments as well... 


    Yeah it would be good to get a barrister or KC's opinion on how the case was handled from a defence perspective. 


    I also don't know if they published whether it was majority or unanimous decision in the end after the judge allowed a majority verdict, bearing in mind it was only 11 not 12 of them left as well. 


    Agenda wise, is it designed to protect the NHS so that people blame her as a rogue nurse rather than institutionalised corruption and negligence in the whole baby / maternal services in the UK? 

    I admit I have not followed the trial, as being in Australia I am not sure how much has even been covered, so I may have missed crucial things or not be as clued up as some of you are. But, like many it seems, something stinks about this case. I even came across people on Reddit who were sceptical as I was searching for anything on the Letby case, and if people on Reddit are sceptical, then that is quite alarming from my limited experience (3rd party) of Reddit users in general. Why does it appear that the defence were so incompetent and failing to rebut the prosecution arguments? The least you would expect from a competent defence is to draw into question the validity of the prosecution arguments, that is if you cannot totally disprove them. And there appears to be many possible arguments to at least put in the jury's minds the doubts over the 'evidence'. 


    The other 'smoking gun' as you allude to, is things like the Daily Mail comments as you suggest and was suggested earlier. Why would the 'media' be so averse to the 'truth' about this case. Why are they deliberately steering the narrative and censoring comments to sway the public? The video I posted earlier where the experienced barrister was being interviewed was revealing too; both presenters appeared flustered and incredulous that someone was questioning the verdict, let alone an expert in the field. So on top of a dodgy trial, the media also happen to be steering the narrative, that adds weight to this stinking to high heaven. 


    It could be mate, a way to cover up the NHS failings. But, are they not trying to totally destroy the NHS anyway? I am not sure what to think here; perhaps time will tell on where this is heading. I notice a lot of the search results coming up for 'is Lucy Letby innocent', have mainstream headlines such as 'internet sleuths trying to prove Letby is innocent', and 'true crime obsessives are convinced Letby is innocent'. I do wonder if this is some sort of 'unconscious programming'; we don't know how far we are into the COVID scam, we could be 1/2 way, or a 10th of the way through the whole agenda. Perhaps this is some unconscious imprint on the masses that medical malpractice and rogues are always being investigated. Over the last week I have seen two products being highlighted as unsafe or being more restricted (Bonjella being one here in Australia) and I cannot help thinking this is yet another attempt to 'plant' the idea of there being a 'protective agency' looking out for people. Right at the time that ne of the biggest depopulation agendas is taking place. 


    I suppose it could be many things. But certainly, the rule of law in this case appears to be another erosion of the 'system' that many believe affords some protection. It might be a 'nod' to the fact that they can basically pin anything on anyone. So many possibilities and I hope for Letby's sake, that an appeal is applied for and she gets much better representation this time. Even if she is indeed guilty, she deserves decent legal representation, which she certainly appears not to have received here. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 1
  12. 9 hours ago, Malbec said:

    Good points, there are obviously certain rules so the defence team don't necessarily have to believe your innocence, but work with your instructions and cross examination is usually based on the clients instructions.


    All cases such as this should have experts, all covered by legal aid. Examples such as baby shaking cases, RTAs a lot of drug and assault cases, dna cases usually have experts for the defence where you are disputing expert evidence for the Crown. Eg. If you admit presence and admit its you on CCTV you wouldn't need an expert in that field, but say your DNA is on an item and you have an explanation for that you may want a DNA expert to see if any other people's DNA is on it. If the defendant isn't accepting the experts findings then obviously you would instruct an expert on basis of what the defendants case is.  


    Often prosecuting and defending is an advantage, as the defence counsel will know how the prosecutor would be running their case so that can also give an advantage. 


    Im at a complete loss as to there not being any expert evidence in the case for the defence apart from a plumber. 


    Jurors are not medical experts so they are dependant on explanations by experts at the trial for scientific/ medical / peadiatric / neonatal anatomy including illnesses and tendencies that babies at such a low gestation have and risks/ statistics etc.


    A recent example is that woman kicking a horse case, one prosecution expert said it was cruel and animal I distress, defence expert disagreed. Both were horse equestrian experts. She was weirdly acquitted. Another jury full of animal lovers may have convicted her. Assuming she would have paid privately for her barrister as she was part of a fox hunting group so I'm assuming that's an upper class sort of sport? Although the barrister's should give the best service to their clients all of the time   



    Great post! It is strange if true that the defence cannot call in their own experts, very strange indeed. In this particular case, the prosecutions main 'expert' was appointed by the Police after 'whoring' himself to them. How can that be classed as an impartial expert? When you look at the calibre of some of those already raising serious questions and listen to some of those concerns, you can see clearly how badly defended Letby was in this case.  A top statistician would have been able to tear holes in a lot of the hypotheses presented as facts and evidence. Given that a lot of the prosecution case was based on numbers, why did the defence not put forward a decent argument outlining the confirmation bias used to draw these numbers used by the prosecution? 


    Even with the restrictions that others have cited regarding the way experts are called in UK trials; it still doesn't explain how or why the defence did not tear the 'expert' to bits. If experts can highlight so quickly serious flaws that should have been targeted by the defence, then why didn't the 'defence' team do at least some of that? This is looking like the whole trial was already a foregone conclusion; a guilty verdict was inevitable it seems. It would be interesting to hear from a top defence barrister on what they think of the representation Letby received. If Letby is a 'patsy', then what is the wider agenda here?, a simple cover-up, new laws or solutions coming in, or is there another agenda here? 

    • Like 4
  13. It is looking more and more like the 'defence' team did not wish to do much defending in this trial. When medical professionals, legal experts and scientists come out within days raising red flags, then you know you have a problem. The fact that the defence team did not raise any counter arguments or bring in any experts to counter what amounted to speculation and hypotheses by the prosecution says it all. Was the defence team 'pressured' to not help LL, or were they just 'inconveniently incompetent', which happens so much in Politics? 


    Even guilty people deserve proper legal defence, so why was LL not afforded this?

    • Like 3
  14. Just now, Talorgan said:

    Yes and the numbers were bad after she left ,it looks like a possible cover up there?

    It sure does. It seems a little too strange for it to simply be just a cover up though, so perhaps they are preparing for new laws to be brought in, or the final nail in the NHS coffin? Or maybe what Dr McLachlan says has merit, in that there were serious flaws in the plumbing that were causing infections in the babies, which could carry a huge cost in being sued by parents? I don't know if the parents can sue for a staff member killing their child or what the pay-out differences may be between the two scenarios? Maybe Lucy Letby is a convenient scapegoat? 

    • Thanks 1
  15. 22 hours ago, dirtydog said:

    These links may be of interest, from experts who have looked at the case in detail and believe Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial. 












    18 hours ago, Malbec said:

    This is interesting.... apols if already posted 




    17 hours ago, Talorgan said:




    definitely raises many  questions with the case and the wider ramifications 

    It is hard to understand looking at all the links and videos posted, how the defence counsel got it so badly wrong. It doesn't seem that the right experts were sought in this case to highlight all the lack of actual evidence and the the counter arguments to what the prosecution team put forward, which were basically hypothesis. That in itself should raise red flags, because these are the things that even us mere mortals would have considered semi-obvious. 


    Regardless of if she is guilty, she didn't seem to get a fair trial or fair representation by the defence team. Strange case. I wasn't old enough/awake enough for some of the previous miscarriages of justice, but were so many experts coming out as quick as this case to highlight all the inconsistency? 

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  16. I thought this was an interesting watch too. Mark McDonald a criminal barista who raises some good questions and points about this case. I don't know what to make of it personally, but it is good that some well qualified people are questioning it, at least on the terms of conviction and lack of actual evidence, which is healthy in a 'normal society';



    • Like 1
    • Sad 1
  17. 9 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

    I've always maintained that NOTHING is worth having the "vaccine" injected into you. If they want to fire you, let them fire you. Work is possible to find again. Your health, and even your life, is not. That is the thing....yes, everyone was threatened with various sanctions if they didn't get the jab, but there was always the option of saying no. The risk was too great, whatever the experts were insisting. More people needed to not only trust their instinct but think beyond the immediate future of jobs, travel, etc. The vaccine is a matter of life and death.


    Hopefully more people will now realise that, and also be less susceptible to the threats...and stay unjabbed.

    Yes, I think when this 'decision' or more accurately 'choice' needed to be made; it woke a lot up, almost as if this was the beginning of 'their Soul awakening'. For those of us fortunate to have already been awake, it was a no brainer of course. But I know a few people who were adamant that they would not take the jab, who went on to take it when threatened with losing their jobs; some of them 'Spiritual' too, who you would 'hope' may have had better 'intuition'. 


    But for those who were not awake prior to this, then I think some compassion should be afforded them. It is lazy when some (not you BTW) lump all those vaxxed together and generalise about some of the treatment dished out by those most vehement and expressive. Those who were 'asleep' prior come in all ages; are we expecting those 18-25 for example to have been already awake having only just exited the institutional brainwashing of the 'education system' as one example. For many of us, 911 was our defining moment, but you had to be at a certain age to experience that and to be old enough to even have the ability to question it. I have said it before, but I count myself lucky/fortunate, not superior to those who were not 'awake'. Let us not forget that those of us who woke up for example around 911, have been immune from the fear and propaganda that is now 24/7 so it never touched us, but I cannot even imagine being a younger person who has been the target of the institutions, social media and 24/7 media like never before, just as it must be hell if you are at school and being bullied these days, the same applies to the non-stop propaganda. We are all different, but I choose to have some compassion for these people. Some are just butt hurt (and maybe justifiably if they have endured judgement, ridicule and rejection personally from all this), but it is time to deal with your hurt if you haven't because we all need to put our ego aside and try to help those now waking up and seeking sanctuary in finding the truth and a supportive environment. We were all 'asleep' at some point.  

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  18. 16 minutes ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

    ‘Seasoned’ is the right word.


    The info has been near enough the same for the last twenty or thirty years, but in the last five or ten years it has morphed and evolved with the expansion of technology.


    For example, some conspiracy guys predicted yrs ago that ‘they’ would force a vaccine on the world. No one thought it would happen so soon but it could only be implemented when the population and technology levels were at a fairly high level. 

    The themes ebb and flow and change subtly but the basics are always constant, if we all take notice of these constants then we’ll be prepared for the impending future, just like we were for the vaccination-


    If I hadn’t been forewarned yrs ago by DI and others about this stuff, I may have been duped into getting the vaccine three yrs ago. 
    This may be true for many people, although not knowing about conspiracies, but then separately researching mRNA tech would’ve brought me to the same conclusion-


    run for your life! 


    Very true. I was saying to a friend recently that for many, the speed of the agenda is really making it harder to cope. I honestly don't know if I would have been able to cope if I had come to all this in the last few years (like many have). Having had time to digest the plans and the direction, it has made it easier to cope during this time, even though the speed is hard for all of us. From going from 'at some point in the future' with regards to the core plans the 'elite' have, it is all 'right here, right now' as the agenda is coming on thick and fast. 


    I know a lot of those new to this, that are struggling to cope with the speed. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  19. 13 hours ago, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

    Agreed, anders lindman was excellent.


    Degradation comes with time and not bothering with stuff, in my case trying to limit myself using this device as much, as the radiation that it gives off is clearly harmful, I can feel it going through my hand and building up in body, couple that with shedded spike/graphene and you’ve got a recipe for inflammation and ill health with a mild pre frontal electronic lobotomy thrown in for good measure

    Yes, he was a legend of 'the community' as was Rik Clay for his very brief and tragically short time. 


    I think the other thing that is likely part of the 'challenge' we all face in the way we might be feeling, is that we are all quite 'seasoned' now. It is probably a bit like being a student; back in the days of Anders time, many of us likely had so much to still learn and research. 10+ years later, many of us have gone around the information 'merry-go-round' many times. Like a student learning a new subject you have much to learn and many directions to go. Over time as you learn more and more, you start to reach a point where there isn't much new stuff to learn, and because of the way this 'realm' is structured and the way the conspiracy rolls on, it all works in patterns and cycles so it is all very familiar, even if the 'topics' of focus slightly change. I think this is why many welcomed the work of Jason Breshears as it is to a degree very fresh information and a new perspective for many. 


    Maybe it is like the 'therapy circles' where new clients ask 'where are all the success stories'? And the answer is often 'they are out there living their lives', maybe we have to take a leaf out of their books and stop gathering more and more 'information', and put those years of research and growth to good use? 

    • Thanks 1
  20. Just now, LastOneLeftInTheCounty said:

    Was that Anders lindman? 
    Do you remember a poster from the original David Icke site called Ciggy, he had a monkey avatar smoking a fag if I remember correctly? 
    He was quality! 

    Yes I think so mate. Ahh yes, I do remember Ciggy now you mention the name. There were some really top quality people on here back in the day; top contributors. That is not to say that there are not great people now, perhaps it is simply the levels those of us that have been around for some time were at then, and are at now. 

    • Like 1
  21. 13 hours ago, webtrekker said:


    I've got to admit, I am becoming a bit disheartened with the forum myself.


    Although I realise it was originally formed as a platform for alternative views that were being ridiculed or ignored by the MSM, I now find many topics far to esoteric in their nature. There seem to be far fewer topics concentrating on hard facts rather than occult, religious, or downright weird posts that are incomprehensible to most (including myself).


    I soon lose enthusiasm now when reading through the list of Recent Activity and just give up, as either I don't find anything there worth replying to, or anything that make sense in order to enable me to compose a reply.


    No doubt others have a different view, and maybe I'm just too thick to understand all the freaky, tripped-out stuff, but my gut feeling is that there is a lot of 77th Brigade stuff going on here starting meaningless, occult-ridden, secret-society topics that are swamping the true, meaningful topics.


    I'll keep looking in, but I can't see much changing unfortunately.






    10 hours ago, TheConsultant said:

    Agreed, although overlooking bollocks becomes part of the job does it not? Not sure its an intelligence thing, more a discernment thing of where to put your time or not. But hey, we cannot all be right all of the time. No fixed opinions just learning like everyone else.

    Arguably occult societies are the shadow Government so discussing those topics is paramount in my humble opinion. 

    I didn't think it through, that would make anyone sick.


    Some great points on both sides. I agree that this forum has changed a lot over the years, from the halcyon days of the likes of Anders and Rik Clay etc. Perhaps at some point though, going over and over seeking and digesting 'information' becomes a bit 'old hat', and you come to a point where there is very little 'new information' to come across and you find yourself very much within information cycles like an orbiting 'planet' which comes around again and again. Perhaps the content changes, but the process (the reasons, the agenda, the why of right now) remains pretty fixed. On top of that, there is obviously (and thankfully) a lot of newer people who come across the agenda and quite understandably ask the questions already asked, or talk about topics already discussed many times over many years. Speaking for myself, I have not come across any 'new information' for some years (aside from say the Archaix stuff by Jason Breshears, which is still up for debate to a large extent). 


    Another aspect, is that at some point I feel you need to do more than 'seek information', you have to take some personal responsibility in some ways; perhaps create the content you crave, or at least get living life in ways that encompass all the knowledge gained and perhaps some are doing just that and have left behind the 'information phase' of the 'journey'? At some point, it becomes a bit like 'well what are you going to do with it all', all that information is useful, perhaps even powerful, but as David Icke says so often, 'it is not knowledge that is power, it is the use of knowledge that is power'. At some point perhaps all of us have to stop seeking it, and do something with the vast knowledge we have accrued. I know I have a bias here as I have felt this way for a year or more now, but I include myself here in the above. It is not just an Icke forum thing either, the Crowhouse became very quiet too. 

    • Like 3
    • Thanks 2
  22. Great thread. There is no doubt indeed that sexual energy is powerful and thus is exactly the reason that the 'cabal' have built a system so totally obsessed with sex, or at least lust. Similar to the 'Can You Love Another' thread; true sexual energy is an expression of pure love (or can be); it is life-enhancing, a cosmic expression and expansion, it is an expression of divine energy, and when done in a loving and conscious relationship can be Spiritually powerful. 


    The problem is that those that 'steer reality' have built a reality in which sex is God, but not just any sex, casual sex has become the God, the way to express your freedom, personality, to express yourself. In reality, this caters for those who have done little shadow work, who have become 'addicted to the drug of sex'. On top of this, many people use sex as a way to attempt to get their unmet needs met (often stemming back to childhood), just the same as others do with food, drugs, alcohol and many other ways. 


    The promulgation of porn has fed into this of course; easily accessible and free, and has helped to shape the 'desires' of many and the types of sex they crave; which also happen to be the types of sex that foster 'dark energies'. 

    • Like 3
  23. 15 hours ago, k_j_evans said:

    I think Ed Sheeran can easily trigger depression and self-harm

    Too true! I was arguing with a friend a couple or more years ago about how bad Sheeran's lyrics were (I decided to go down the breaking the shitness into sections 😀) and the friend was adamant that his lyrics were OK. Then not long after there was one of those breakfast radio 'games' on the radio (I listen sometimes when I am driving as my car is really old it doesn't have a good system) and it was song lyrics. They were tearing the lyrics to bits and some of the presenters themselves were shocked they were Ed Sheeran lyrics. Shows how easily it is to fool people with 'he's a genius, who produces all his own music'. I mean it's great that the 'less attractive' looking people are being given a go now instead of the talentless 'boy or girl bands' we were subjected to for so long. Different faces/agenda, same old shit though. 

    • Like 1
  24. 2 hours ago, RobinJ said:

    I just watched a really interesting tarot reading from a well known psychic re this situation. If she is right, and she usually is, this will rumble on for months with more accusations in a "me too" type scenario. Many skittles will fall over this one as he has been accused previously.

    His career is over, as is Schofield.

    The old world is collapsing before our eyes, if we choose to see it.

    It certainly is collapsing, the only thing up for debate, is this a 'controlled demolition', an inevitable cycle of the ages, part of the in-built program/simulation, or something else? I am not invested in any of those theories, but when you consider some of the current 'World events' or recent events: depopulation bio-weapon, total economic collapse, possible Great Reset and all that will bring, it is hard to think this is just part of some astrological age. Or perhaps the 'Elite' just carry on in their plans regardless of the other stuff going on, much like a computer virus working in the background with a fixed aim. 

    • Thanks 1
  25. 7 hours ago, Anti Facts Sir said:

    2 mins in and they haven't said a thing - waffled, padding, hoping everyone is looking forward to the weekend....blahblah...FFS....


    That's why I stick to the written word. I'll read things, but these videos are always the same.


    They ought to: put the info out there, be concise, and not keep promoting themselves.

    Yeah I agree, some are frustrating going at times with all the intros and stringing it out. Sadly YouTube content creators seem to have become 'consistent' in how they think their videos should play out. I suppose to be fair, a lot of them gain followings based on their personalities so bring some of that to the table in their videos. I watch a lot of videos on 1:25 or 1:5 speed these days. 

    • Like 1
  • Create New...