I think this could have been a campaign commercial [Archive]

lightgiver

03-07-2009, 07:49 PM

Except V was a man of action rather than words. V was also a man living in real danger while fighting the system rather than a guy whos freedom has not been taken away, who travels the world giving talks and who makes a fortune from books. Where is the similarity?

Do they not say the pen is mightier than the sword?

True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!

Maybe Icke has been exposed to danger while airing this information.

marpat

03-07-2009, 09:56 PM

Do they not say the pen is mightier than the sword?

True, This! —
Beneath the rule of men entirely great,
The pen is mightier than the sword. Behold
The arch-enchanters wand! — itself a nothing! —
But taking sorcery from the master-hand
To paralyse the Cæsars, and to strike
The loud earth breathless! — Take away the sword —
States can be saved without it!

Maybe Icke has been exposed to danger while airing this information.

Quotes change nothing. The pen is safer than the sword. Only a person who writes words and expects others to make the sacrifices makes such comments.

Exposed to what danger? are you telling me that the establishment is incapable of removing him if it really wanted to? it is our establishment that actually allows him the freedom of speech and expression which safeguards the stuff he talks and writes about. In a number of countries he would have been tortured and killed had he made such accusations.

lightgiver

03-07-2009, 11:49 PM

Quotes change nothing. The pen is safer than the sword. Only a person who writes words and expects others to make the sacrifices makes such comments.

Exposed to what danger? are you telling me that the establishment is incapable of removing him if it really wanted to? it is our establishment that actually allows him the freedom of speech and expression which safeguards the stuff he talks and writes about. In a number of countries he would have been tortured and killed had he made such accusations.

In plain veiw marpat.

The establishment are very cunning,come off it,you work for military intelligence,you should know the game.

marpat

04-07-2009, 05:52 PM

In plain veiw marpat.

The establishment are very cunning,come off it,you work for military intelligence,you should know the game.

Making presumptions again? this is why I dont trust the work of conspiracy theorists. They hide when proof is required and make presumptions about many things to fit their own emotional requirements. Sad really.

During WWII many plans were hatched to kill Hitler but in the end they were shelved. The reason was that Hitlers obsessive interference in military matters was causing him to lose the war and the fear was that if he was killed a far more efficient person may have stepped in and created problems. So we can see why the establishment may want to leave people alone if they are fucking things up for themselves and pose no threat, which may well be the case with Icke. He certainly seems to avoid exposing himself to retribution. Perhaps he is one of their agents, his mission to keep curious minds away from the real secrets by getting them to chase all sort of crap. Who knows for sure?

lightgiver

04-07-2009, 06:53 PM

Making presumptions again? this is why I dont trust the work of conspiracy theorists. They hide when proof is required and make presumptions about many things to fit their own emotional requirements. Sad really.

During WWII many plans were hatched to kill Hitler but in the end they were shelved. The reason was that Hitlers obsessive interference in military matters was causing him to lose the war and the fear was that if he was killed a far more efficient person may have stepped in and created problems. So we can see why the establishment may want to leave people alone if they are fucking things up for themselves and pose no threat, which may well be the case with Icke. He certainly seems to avoid exposing himself to retribution. Perhaps he is one of their agents, his mission to keep curious minds away from the real secrets by getting them to chase all sort of crap. Who knows for sure?

I am not making presumptions,hiding proof,thats a good one.

If you do not believe what CTs say,then why are you never off this forum.

For a person who as so much distaste for Icke and his kind,it baffles me why you are here.

marpat

04-07-2009, 07:07 PM

I am not making presumptions,hiding proof,thats a good one.

If you do not believe what CTs say,then why are you never off this forum.

For a person who as so much distaste for Icke and his kind,it baffles me why you are here.

I used to find aspects of his work interesting but now I have seen the pros and cons as well as other aspects I am not so sure about his conclusions.

You are making presumptions about my work. Why you feel the need to lie about my job is beyond me. Perhaps it makes people feel important if they think the intelligence services are engaging them on the forum. Sad

lightgiver

04-07-2009, 07:22 PM

I used to find aspects of his work interesting but now I have seen the pros and cons as well as other aspects I am not so sure about his conclusions.

You are making presumptions about my work. Why you feel the need to lie about my job is beyond me. Perhaps it makes people feel important if they think the intelligence services are engaging them on the forum. Sad

There are Pros and cons in everything,and everyone appears to have different conclusions.
I am not making presumptions,I watch and perceive,as I have been doing for a while with you.
If you state you are in something and yet bring no proof,that to me is questionable,yet you expect credibility,then tell everyone what military service you work in,if its not intelligence than it cannot be that secret,after all thousands of military personnel parade on the TV.

I can bet you are not going to answer honestly.

marpat

04-07-2009, 07:37 PM

There are Pros and cons in everything,and everyone appears to have different conclusions.
I am not making presumptions,I watch and perceive,as I have been doing for a while with you.
If you state you are in something and yet bring no proof,that to me is questionable,yet you expect credibility,then tell everyone what military service you work in,if its not intelligence than it cannot be that secret,after all thousands of military personnel parade on the TV.

I can bet you are not going to answer honestly.

Why should I need to give proof? I could as easily give a convincing lie. I have been on TV myself!!! your knowledge seems a bit questionable but I am not going to highlight why.

You are making presumptions. All I have ever said is that I am in the forces and my job involves electronics. I have never specified what service or what unit and I am not going to as there is no real point.

When you were in the ordinance corps did you ever feel guilty that the munitions you were working with were responsible for mass destruction? I wonder if anything you handled was used to kill people. Would that mean you are also guilty through handling such things?

lightgiver

04-07-2009, 07:41 PM

Why should I need to give proof? I could as easily give a convincing lie. I have been on TV myself!!! your knowledge seems a bit questionable but I am not going to highlight why.

You are making presumptions. All I have ever said is that I am in the forces and my job involves electronics. I have never specified what service or what unit and I am not going to as there is no real point.

When you were in the ordinance corps did you ever feel guilty that the munitions you were working with were responsible for mass destruction? I wonder if anything you handled was used to kill people. Would that mean you are also guilty through handling such things?

Thought so:rolleyes: Electronics IE warfare. Blitzing babies from afar.

I was not in the ordinance corp.:rolleyes:

marpat

04-07-2009, 10:48 PM

Thought so:rolleyes: Electronics IE warfare. Blitzing babies from afar.

I was not in the ordinance corp.:rolleyes:

Wrong again!!! bit of a habit for you. Can you explain how electronic warfare relates to killing babies at a distance? the fact that you mention killing babies with no context suggests you have a very sick mind. Maybe its all the depleted uranium in your system. Also, I said electronics not electronic warfare. Distortion, distortion, distortion!!!!!

lightgiver

05-07-2009, 01:11 AM

Wrong again!!! bit of a habit for you. Can you explain how electronic warfare relates to killing babies at a distance? the fact that you mention killing babies with no context suggests you have a very sick mind. Maybe its all the depleted uranium in your system. Also, I said electronics not electronic warfare. Distortion, distortion, distortion!!!!!

Yes you are good at that one,distortion of the facts,keep trying ,it is amusing.

BTW do try and keep on thread.

David Icke Exposes The Matrix 2008 - YouTube

1 of many tactics for truth suppression,

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

marpat

05-07-2009, 10:27 AM

Yes you are good at that one,distortion of the facts,keep trying ,it is amusing.

BTW do try and keep on thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqBrVBUGhFQ

1 of many tactics for truth suppression,

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

You are ridiculous, do you know that? you are quite happy to divert threads from subjects and you always get involved with name calling and accusations. Not only that but you have often threatened people with violence. Didnt you know that threats of violence are tactics for suppressing the truth? maybe you dont like it when people are exposing your errors and then you get angry and start pucnching walls, etc, etc.

lightgiver

05-07-2009, 06:41 PM

You are ridiculous, do you know that? you are quite happy to divert threads from subjects and you always get involved with name calling and accusations. Not only that but you have often threatened people with violence. Didnt you know that threats of violence are tactics for suppressing the truth? maybe you dont like it when people are exposing your errors and then you get angry and start pucnching walls, etc, etc.

Not as ridiculous as you,I see the insults still go on with you.

You are a truly pathetic shallow crowley ass licking sycophant,and you make shite up,because your pea brain cannot cope with the truth and the facts.

1 of many tactics for truth suppression,

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Keep trying shill.

marpat

05-07-2009, 07:56 PM

Not as ridiculous as you,I see the insults still go on with you.

You are a truly pathetic shallow crowley ass licking sycophant,and you make shite up,because your pea brain cannot cope with the truth and the facts.

1 of many tactics for truth suppression,

Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing", "terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

Keep trying shill.

Whos trying? Im just wondering when it will get to the point where you start using violent threats. You are a joke, I offered you a truce before and things went well until I disagreed with something that you posted in a thread, after which you got really annoyed. Is that the sort of person you are, cant tolerate peopel disagreeing with you?

I could think of some good labels for yo but you might not appreciate them. Talking of labels, look who has just stuck a label on me!!!!! fucking hypocrite.

lightgiver

05-07-2009, 08:44 PM

Whos trying? Im just wondering when it will get to the point where you start using violent threats. You are a joke, I offered you a truce before and things went well until I disagreed with something that you posted in a thread, after which you got really annoyed. Is that the sort of person you are, cant tolerate peopel disagreeing with you?

I could think of some good labels for yo but you might not appreciate them. Talking of labels, look who has just stuck a label on me!!!!! fucking hypocrite.

Still here,swearing is a form of anger,agent.

Another tactic of truth suppression,

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

If you cannot take labels then do not give them out to others.

What as a truce got to do with replying to the thread? The truce was about stopping insults,which does not appear to have taken place.

pendulum

05-07-2009, 10:16 PM

Except V was a man of action rather than words. V was also a man living in real danger while fighting the system rather than a guy whos freedom has not been taken away, who travels the world giving talks and who makes a fortune from books. Where is the similarity?

V was a fiction character; Icke is a real man.
You will never stop doubting Icke and ridiculing "conspiracy theorist" until you expand your own mind. Go beyond what the system and your parents have taught you.

It's very easy to ridicule judge, and criticize others, but it takes balls to face your own daemons and see beyond stereotypes, culture, and other people's opinions.

noewhan

06-07-2009, 09:05 AM

V was a fiction character;

Well, yes but he's based on a real character, Guy Fawkes. Alan Watt suggested in one of his interviews, that the saying 'fall guy' derived from the name 'Guy Fawkes'.

http://www.archive.org/details/AW_RIR_Jan282007

I'm sure you have herd of the 'gun powder plot'?

In all, there were 13 conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot.

http://www.bonfirenight.net/gunpowder.php

http://www.edenbridgetown.com/assets_2006/satelite_sites/bonfire_society/images/guy_20fawkes.gif

http://www.edenbridgetown.com/bonfire_night/bonfire_society/history1.shtml

And the funny thing is... Some gunpowder got wet, and they tried to dry it in front of a fire. Yeh real smart.
* Although, in one of the links it says this:
It seems that the “gun powder” was corn powder...

The real plot was royally successful: to invent a pretext for war with Spain. This fraud was the foundation of the British Empire.

So this could have been an old false flag event. :0 (Which practically means this bloodline has been doing this crap since 1603! Or even further back, as some have suggested.)

Dig a bit further, and the writer of V for Vandetta, apparently had a relationship with A. Crowley at one point, in France.
http://thefreemanperspective.blogspot.com/2007/02/state-sponsored-terrorism.html

Pauline Pierce was friends with Aleister Crowley, maybe more than friends. Pauline had a reputation of being a bit on the wild-side in the 20’s. It’s been reported that she and Aleister were in France together around September/October of 1924. Upon return to America and her boyfriend here, Pauline gave birth to Barbara Pierce.

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2878/1353/1600/CrowleyBarbara1.jpg

And Barbra, married a Bush.

It seems a bit weird, that the great (or great great) grandmother of George Bush, wrote a story about how screwed up the Government is... (But with various subliminal messages, of course).

anonymous01201

06-07-2009, 11:25 PM

And here I thought it was just a neat video....huh.

lightgiver

07-07-2009, 08:28 PM

Well, yes but he's based on a real character, Guy Fawkes. Alan Watt suggested in one of his interviews, that the saying 'fall guy' derived from the name 'Guy Fawkes'.

http://www.archive.org/details/AW_RIR_Jan282007

I'm sure you have herd of the 'gun powder plot'?

In all, there were 13 conspirators in the Gunpowder Plot.

http://www.bonfirenight.net/gunpowder.php

http://www.edenbridgetown.com/assets_2006/satelite_sites/bonfire_society/images/guy_20fawkes.gif

http://www.edenbridgetown.com/bonfire_night/bonfire_society/history1.shtml

And the funny thing is... Some gunpowder got wet, and they tried to dry it in front of a fire. Yeh real smart.
* Although, in one of the links it says this:

So this could have been an old false flag event. :0 (Which practically means this bloodline has been doing this crap since 1603! Or even further back, as some have suggested.)

Dig a bit further, and the writer of V for Vandetta, apparently had a relationship with A. Crowley at one point, in France.
http://thefreemanperspective.blogspot.com/2007/02/state-sponsored-terrorism.html

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2878/1353/1600/CrowleyBarbara1.jpg

And Barbra, married a Bush.

It seems a bit weird, that the great (or great great) grandmother of George Bush, wrote a story about how screwed up the Government is... (But with various subliminal messages, of course).

Good post.I imagine you are correct.;)

marpat

07-07-2009, 10:55 PM

Still here,swearing is a form of anger,agent.

Another tactic of truth suppression,

Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

If you cannot take labels then do not give them out to others.

What as a truce got to do with replying to the thread? The truce was about stopping insults,which does not appear to have taken place.

But you swear at people in here and use threats of violence. What does that make you? unbalanced? a thug? a man who pummels people when they beat him in debate?

marpat

07-07-2009, 10:58 PM

V was a fiction character; Icke is a real man.
You will never stop doubting Icke and ridiculing "conspiracy theorist" until you expand your own mind. Go beyond what the system and your parents have taught you.

It's very easy to ridicule judge, and criticize others, but it takes balls to face your own daemons and see beyond stereotypes, culture, and other people's opinions.

But is Icke a real man? doesnt he believe the universe is a hologram so if that is true how real is he?

I think there is a lot more to expansion of the mind than what Icke offers. He positively restricts it in many cases with his false assumptions.

As for paragraph 2, I am fully aware of such things.

lightgiver

07-07-2009, 11:20 PM

But you swear at people in here and use threats of violence. What does that make you? unbalanced? a thug? a man who pummels people when they beat him in debate?

My Goodness you are getting childishly desperate,things not going to plan.

One thing about Icke he is a bigger man than you,that's if you are a fella.

Marpat you are drifting in a world of your own.