Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by BornFreeNowAgain

  1. Some good points. I agree that the 'alternative media' does not help itself at times, and could 'function' a lot better if people had done their own personal/shadow work, and thereby balancing their ego. The 'alternative media' could be so much more than it is; but that is not to say that fantastic work at times is done on a daily basis by many. There does seem to be a lot of insecurity at times in the 'alternative' space, with many vying for the limited numbers of watchers/followers/likes and such, and also perhaps there must also be many 'attacks' from the mainstream or 'normal folk', that cannot be easy at times. But, I can see why some are talking about the Brand stuff with cynicism or even casting a 'critical' glance towards Brand. Some of his past looks as dodgy as a used car salesman, and his 'persona' is quite hard to take at times. For many, perhaps they have always had doubts about Brand, much like Steven Greer, and often for no other reason that the 'intuitive alarms' are ringing. The other thing is, we don't know where this is heading. For all we know, Brand may indeed have 'woken' and is now doing all he can with the platform he has. Or, perhaps he was always on the 'dark side' and his role in this is yet to fully be revealed. I would say having an open mind either way is healthy right now given the state of the World and the ever eroding stripping of basic rights.
  2. A lot of women still love the 'bad boy' type, then wonder why that same guy isn't 'evolved', 'sensitive to their needs', or just treats them in a 'medieval way' . Society certainly played in to that programming in the past, which created a lot of unhappy people. Maybe that is changing with the new 'soy-boy' types, but that creates another whole set of problems, which we find evidence all around us with the lack of 'courage' many don't have these days.
  3. I tend to agree on the part regarding 'controlled opposition', almost everyone in the 'truth movement' gets accused of that at some stage which can be frustrating. On top of that, there is also an underlying mistrust of each other in this same 'movement' rather than working with each other and for humanity as a whole. If only we could all come together and work together with some strategic initiatives then things could be different. The problem is, that there are too few 'followers' to go around, and too many 'ego's' involved, and dare I say it again, not enough of them having done shadow work. I was at the Sydney Freedom Rally on Saturday, and to say it was a shit-show would be an understatement. And one 'prominent', 'alternative media darling' was unwilling to talk to anyone other than the mainstream media, not to mention his ego was palpable which was noted by many. In saying that, there are good reasons to be sceptical about people in the 'truth movement' as there are/have been many infiltrators and controlled opposition over the years. But at some point we all have to give people enough rope, as many in Australia's 'movement' can see over the weekend, they reveal themselves eventually anyway.
  4. That was a great video and mirrors a lot of my own thoughts, not just on Brand but his wider points about 'responsibility' and needing to work on your shadow (not simply seeking 'truth' or 'information'), all stuff I have posted on here. As I watched I couldn't help wondering if Brand has reached his 'ceiling' if indeed he is controlled opposition. Perhaps his 'controllers' are aware that in order to retain his status in the 'truth movement' he would need to go deeper with the content and information he puts out, which is then to expose the 'Cabal' for who is really behind all this stuff, rather than simply 'Governments'. Either that, or as I have said earlier, he will be a martyr seen as having more credibility now he has been 'attacked' by mainstream and the establishment and thus will be moved into position for a 'hero of the revolution'. I never trusted him, but over the last week I was quite happy to have been proven wrong and still am. But videos like the one above and the other posted on the previous page are hard to debunk. Not only that, but if David Icke has found him to reveal himself has dodgy, then that lends more weight too; as David ever got one wrong; it seems he was correct on Trump and Greer, time will tell on Brand I would say.
  5. And this one; Salford City say midfielder Ossama Ashley needs further cardiac checks after he was sent to hospital for tests on his chest during a game. The 23-year-old came off just 19 minutes into Friday's League Two defeat by Notts County. "He will continue to have his cardiacs monitored until the medical department is satisfied it is safe for him to return," a Salford statement said. Ashley has played 10 games for Salford since joining from Colchester in June. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/66872542
  6. 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?
  7. 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'.
  8. 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.
  9. 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?
  10. 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).
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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; https://furnivalchambers.co.uk/barrister/mark-mcdonald/ 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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?
  18. 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?
  19. 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?
  20. 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?
  21. 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';
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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?
  25. 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.
  • Create New...