Go Back   David Icke's Official Forums > Main Forums > Today's News > Other News

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 25-02-2013, 05:36 PM   #41
rapunzel
Senior Member
 
rapunzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: neath the starred and leafy sky
Posts: 5,748
Likes: 372 (250 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tink123 View Post
Bobski...Have you bothered to listen to Greg Hallets 6 reports???? because i suggest you do before you make sweeping statements.....because if you listened you would care!!!! Thats how damning his finds are!!
You mention "sweeping statements". Isn't that what Hallett's report are? He makes some amazing allegations but has no proof whatsoever to back them up. Anyone who swallows his words is extremely gullible but perhaps that's what he wants. His books cost £35 each so although he's not making a great deal of money, since his audience will be so small, it's not to be sniffed at.

I've read all his articles and was greatly amused as they are hysterically funny.
__________________
"What have you done to the cat, Erwin? He looks half dead."
- Mrs. Schrödinger.


Is it a bit solipsistic in here or is it just me?

"Bother," said Pooh, as Cthulhu rose up and ate him. "
rapunzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2013, 05:51 PM   #42
rapunzel
Senior Member
 
rapunzel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: neath the starred and leafy sky
Posts: 5,748
Likes: 372 (250 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blackyblue View Post
Well the fact that the Stuarts where overthrown was illegal. The fact that the Vatican themeselves never recognised the takeover as lawful also kind of invalidates it. By rights and the house of Stuart could lawfully take back the throne at any given moment, it is to this day still legally theirs
James II abandoned his throne when he fled and threw the Great Seal into the Thames. England did not want a Catholic king. Nuts to the Vatican! Whether they approved the take over is irrelevant. The throne belongs to whoever is crowned and anointed and whoever is supported by the People.

George I had Stuart blood as he was the grandson of Elizabeth Stuart, the sister of Charles I. Although there were nearer claimants, such as the descendents of Charles II's sister Minette, they were all Catholic and as such ineligible for the crown. So the House of Stuart is technically still on the throne.
__________________
"What have you done to the cat, Erwin? He looks half dead."
- Mrs. Schrödinger.


Is it a bit solipsistic in here or is it just me?

"Bother," said Pooh, as Cthulhu rose up and ate him. "
rapunzel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2013, 06:19 PM   #43
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,987 (2,092 Posts)
Default

A short history of how we were made true slaves.

Then along came Oliver and cooked up the British Commonwealth/rump parliament in 1649 and since that day, funded by the Rothschilds, who have ruled the roosters in us all since.

There are two more seals that were not thrown into the Thames.

Wilson in 1975 joining the commom market.

1969 the decimalisation of our pound wiping 3/4 of its value to the public purse over night, leaving the real wealth in the COE unscathed.

Marstricht in 1992 which made the ammendments for the current paradigm, under the guise of the UN.

Basically the new money and religious order is already here,because the new leaders are all unellected, and anyone working in the houses are all enemies of freedom, UKIP included.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2013, 07:15 PM   #44
gary29
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In your cellar, with an axe.
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by super glue View Post
A short history of how we were made true slaves.

Then along came Oliver and cooked up the British Commonwealth/rump parliament in 1649 and since that day, funded by the Rothschilds, who have ruled the roosters in us all since.

There are two more seals that were not thrown into the Thames.

Wilson in 1975 joining the commom market.

1969 the decimalisation of our pound wiping 3/4 of its value to the public purse over night, leaving the real wealth in the COE unscathed.

Marstricht in 1992 which made the ammendments for the current paradigm, under the guise of the UN.

Basically the new money and religious order is already here,because the new leaders are all unellected, and anyone working in the houses are all enemies of freedom, UKIP included.
The Rothschilds didn't set up their banking business in Britain until 1798.

Edward Heath took the UK into the Common Market in 1973.

Decimalisation was in 1971.

I'm going to assume that the rest of your post was wrong as well.

On the positive side. I do like the quote from Duke Leto Atreides.

Last edited by gary29; 25-02-2013 at 07:17 PM.
gary29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2013, 08:11 PM   #45
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,987 (2,092 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gary29 View Post
The Rothschilds didn't set up their banking business in Britain until 1798.

Edward Heath took the UK into the Common Market in 1973.

Decimalisation was in 1971.

I'm going to assume that the rest of your post was wrong as well.

On the positive side. I do like the quote from Duke Leto Atreides.
Heath did make it apear as if we were in the CM by 73 and then wilson tried the referendumn aproach in 75 to make it look like we wanted out, and it wasn't until the Queen signed the Maastricht treaty and after all the avenues were in place that the final ammending paper took place in 1992 to secure the entire.

This idea of making Sterling a decimal came as early as 1824 with Lord Wrottesley.

The 5p and 10p coins were introduced in April 1968 and were the same size, composition, and value as the shillings and florins in circulation with them. In October 1969 the 50p coin was introduced, with the 10s note withdrawn on 20 November 1970. This reduced the number of new coins that had to be introduced on Decimal Day and meant that the public was already familiar with three of the six new coins. Small booklets were made available containing some or all of the new denominations.

Decimal day 71 was the final start up date but not the beggining.


It was Patterson who had already instigated the BOE back in 1691, the colony he retired to after his job was done belonged to the Rothschilds, remember who gets to write the history and what things may appear to be.

Last edited by the apprentice; 25-02-2013 at 08:22 PM.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2013, 08:24 PM   #46
gary29
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: In your cellar, with an axe.
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 2 (2 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by super glue View Post
Heath did make it apear as if we were in the CM by 73 and then wilson tried the referendumn aproach in 75 to make it look like we wanted out, and it wasn't until the Queen signed the Maastricht treaty and after all the avenues were in place that the final ammending paper took place in 1992 to secure the entire.

This idea of making Sterling a decimal came as early as 1824 with Lord Wrottesley.

The 5p and 10p coins were introduced in April 1968 and were the same size, composition, and value as the shillings and florins in circulation with them. In October 1969 the 50p coin was introduced, with the 10s note withdrawn on 20 November 1970. This reduced the number of new coins that had to be introduced on Decimal Day and meant that the public was already familiar with three of the six new coins. Small booklets were made available containing some or all of the new denominations.

Decimal day 71 was the final start up date but not the beggining.

Decimal Day - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It was Patterson who had already instigated the BOE back in 1691, the colony he retired to after his job was done belonged to the Rothschilds, remember who gets to write the history and what things may appear to be.
So, in a roundabout way you've just agreed with my post.
gary29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-02-2013, 08:29 PM   #47
the apprentice
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,637
Likes: 2,987 (2,092 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gary29 View Post
So, in a roundabout way you've just agreed with my post.
And you with my original post, thanks are we are both awake now.


Last edited by the apprentice; 25-02-2013 at 08:55 PM.
the apprentice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 04:26 PM   #48
joiningthedots
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 500
Likes: 0 (0 Posts)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobski View Post
Why does everyone hate the Royal Family is it because there incharge? Ermmmm no one likes there boss do they.

joiningthedots is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
fake, gangsters, monarchy, pirates, queen

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:05 AM.


Shoutbox provided by vBShout (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.