I usually watch new videos released by David Icke, but this morning, I found that his latest release had already been removed by YouTube. I suspect that our access to information is about to be seriously curtailed.
This video contains content from LondonRealTV, who has blocked it on copyright grounds.
David Icke's acclaimed Interview With London Real TV (Part One)
Published on Dec 15, 2017
SUBSCRIBESUBSCRIBE SUBSCRIBED UNSUBSCRIBE
Standard YouTube License
Comments are disabled for this video.
Symbols surrounding us, who is this old dude?
He is very similar to other symbols from various places, my conspiracy sense goes hmmm ...
Last week, you mentioned you were looking for a good book that outlines some of the research we have discussed here,
And it just so happens there's a new one on the market.
Here's a 4 minute description:
AVAILABLE HERE - https://www.davidicke.com/shop/produc...
Anything that might save you 30 years of research is probably worth £14.99.
Solsson wrote: Symbols surrounding us, who is this old dude? He is very similar to other symbols from various places, my conspiracy sense goes hmmm ...
It's a manipulated photo of an old Norwegian dude who was in the Guiness Book of World records for facial hair growth.
It always makes me feel like we might be making progress when very powerful people I have never heard of start getting exposed for their crimes. F.W. Engdahl connects the Turkish Coup to the CIA and the Boston Marathon Bombing. He then goes on to explain the dirty dealings behind Europe extending the Glyphosate license in Europe. Well worth the 23 minutes.
Dear Members of the Jury,
You are charged with an important task. And that task is to decide what percentage of the American citizenry are capable of making informed decisions. Put another way, what is the level of cognitive dissonance among all members of the American public who voted. We are specifically looking at the cognition of Trump supporters and Comey haters today.
Now, you are thinking to yourself. This one is easy. Comey was America's most corrupt cop. Who thinks that? Putting absolutes aside, he almost caused Trump to the loose the election. We can do the exercise of weighing his corruption against other cops later.
I will now make another suggestion to you, if you think that Comey was criminal in the Clinton case, and that's foremost in your mind, you too will miss what Scott Adams is saying.
Scott Adams makes a brief comment. Then he posts an article that supports his conclusion. I've posted the article for your reading convenience. And than 153 Trump supporters try to dig him a new asshole. Take a little stroll over to twitter and read a healthy selection of the comments.
Are you thinking to yourself, well, they all sound right about Comey?? It's immaterial!! Because that wasn't what he was saying. It's apparent none of the posts I read understood what he was saying. That's a problem when you can't interpret English and translate it into English.
Said another way, none of the Trump supporters who read Adams, actually understood his statement and replied to it. Of course, if they did understand what he was saying, there would be nothing to reply other than, AHHH, I see.
This happens so often on Adams blog or twitter. You get an entire conversation that is irrelevant to his point. And I wait patiently for somebody to point it out, and nobody ever does. He must be the worlds most patient guy, or must sit infront of his computer belly laughing all day.
Can ANYBODY restate what Scott Adams is saying?
Now be honest with yourself because you won't do it publicly.
In the privacy of your head, after you look at several of the comments, decide if you agree with them all RELATED to Scott Adams and Desshowitz's comments? Because if you can't, you must think I am a dick. But I do have one recommendation for you, DON'T EVER DEFEND YOURSELF IN A COURT OF LAW. Consider that a recommendation given with compassion.
Scott AdamsVerified account @ScottAdamsSays
Counting me, there are approximately three people in the world who hold this opinion on Comey.
You start with the prefix– "polly" which simply means "many"
Then you define the suffix - "tics" which simply means "blood sucking parasites"
Once a word has been properly defined, things can be put in their proper perspective.
"Many blood sucking parasites" are not required for a civilized society. They only suck the life force out of it.
It's all a matter of perspective!
I clicked the links in that post, but for some reason, I don't seem to be able to find the original Scott Adams statement.
Maybe you could post the statement, or a link to it here.
I did read the Dershowitz statement.
" Comey was America's most corrupt cop. Who thinks that? Putting absolutes aside, he almost caused Trump to the loose the election. We can do the exercise of weighing his corruption against other cops later. "
Comey is a cop like any other cop, no better, and no worse. All cops work for the established authorities, and it is their job to protect and defend the authorities.
Just doing his job, or just following orders, bypasses the use of a conscience, which is the essence of morality.
Since lying, cheating, stealing, and murder are simply the tools they use to perform their duties in their chosen profession,
they are all equally evil, corrupt and are little more than professional scumbags being used to prop up an inherently evil entity: ("The Government"). People with a properly functioning moral compass would never engage in such a profession.
I would very much like to find Adam's original statement that caused the hoopla, and evaluate it.
Maybe you could direct me to it.
Fix, I'll have to post it tonight. Just go to twitter and search Scott Adams.
Becareful,you've already fallen into the word trap.
Clear your mind!!
Ignore my two hypnotic suggestions about what u might be thinking.
Don't bring in any ideas, judgements about cops. He's making a more profound statement about how Come effected the election.
A good lawyer can persuade any jury. Know your rights? Not enough
Scott AdamsVerified account @ScottAdamsSays 12h12 hours ago
I read Dershowitz again:
DERSHOWITZ: Let's look at the big picture. Does anyone want to live under a judicial system where one's freedom depends on whether the conduct was grossly negligent or extremely careless? Those are the vaguest possible terms. If you asked a hundred potential jurors which is worse: being grossly negligent or extremely careless? They'd split 50/50. These rules are absurd the way we criminalize conduct using terms like that that endanger everyone's civil liberties.
Also, let's look at the other big picture. Comey's decision to make this statement, calling her extremely careless, may very well have contributed to her losing the election. Comey was not her friend. Comey was perceived to be somebody who was trying to strike an appropriate balance.
What I think happened here is ultimately Comey, not anybody else, made the decision on balance that she should not be prosecuted. And that's why the words were changed because if he had said that she was grossly negligent, people would say, 'Oh, my God, that's a crime.'
But he had already made the decision based on the fact that nobody had already been prosecuted who was in a position of authority like Hillary Clinton for conduct anyway similar -- that was in his statement. So I do think it was the right decision not to prosecute her criminally and I think the change of the language was designed to simply support that decision. Now look, no decision should ever be made until an investigation is complete.
So, I was in the right place.
Just because only three people on planet earth agree with Scott Adams, doesn't mean I have to.
I stand by my previous statement, and fuck what you think of the mind traps you laid.
If anyone is intellectually consistent in his views, it's me.
This is nothing but a cover story for the fact that there are no laws that apply to the establishment that wrote them, and a law enforcement officer works for the establishment.
In that context, Comey was just doing his job.
Comey is no more or less corrupt than the entire establishment from top to bottom.
The entire thing is a criminal organization, masquerading as a legitimate ruling authority.
This brings us right back to our discussion on whether or not there is any such thing as a legitimate ruling authority.
I have asserted on multiple occasions that there is no such thing in nature, and this is just a man-made construct designed to maintain human enslavement.
I didn't read all the comments, I don't have the time.
Besides, if it's just partisan bickering, I couldn't possibly care less.
Now as for your assertion regarding trials, lawyers, and a jury, I only halfway agree with you.
Yes, persuasion is everything, especially when you're talking to 12 skulls full of mushy stinking bullshit.
But hiring a lawyer (liar for hire) is not necessarily the most prudent course of action. This is particularly true for an innocent man standing up for moral principles.
If an individual is highly trained in both the law, and persuasion, he will innately provide a better defense then the liar for hire who surreptitiously works for the establishment. A lawyers only function is to facilitate theft by the state.
I will concede I am not all that well skilled in the art of persuasion. It's a work in progress.
Lawyers steal money from you, just like politicians, cops, clergy, and all other establishment entities. Of course, for the totally ignorant, it's probably best to hire one. It could somewhat limit your liabilities.
The establishment really doesn't give a shit whether the lawyer robs you, or the government robs you, from their perspective, it's all the same.
The optimal outcome is to have as many establishment entities as possible rob you simultaneously. That's what plea deals are for. A lawyer's job is to convince you it's the best course of action, as he uses the art of coercion to talk you into admitting to crimes that you never committed.
If you're going to stand on principle, a lawyer is not going to be working in your best interests. He works for the establishment also.
Dershowitz is a lawyer, a professional spin meister, and an accomplished liar, well versed in the art of persuasion.
His convoluted explanation is only designed to divert you from the fact that the whole fucking system is nothing but a criminal enterprise by design.
As far as I'm concerned, Scott Adams completely missed that one.
Apparently, it is possible for a government employee to face legal consequences for corruption.
In America, as long as an establishment employee shares his ill-gotten gains with the rest of the establishment, he is immune.
I'm not entirely sure if the same is true in Russia, but Hillary by herself stole hundreds of times as much as this guy, just on her uranium deal, or charity fraud and still walks free.
In Russia, apparently, they take these things more seriously.
Russia's Former Economy Minister Sentenced To 8 Years In Jail
Russia's former economy minister was found guilty on the charge of taking a $2 million bribe and sentenced to eight years in prison. He is now the highest-ranking Russian official to have been convicted on corruption charges
Here in the USSA, this is simply how business is done.
Maybury has speculated that the left/right infighting will self immolate the system.
We could be in an epic Mexican Standoff.
This is how I see it working out. Exactly like this
I'd like to point out it's an American that takes the first shot and get's just about everybody killed.
I would also like to point out that there was no sort of persuasion used to have the Nazi put down his gun.
However, in the next scene Brad Pitt turns on the charm and persuades the Nazi to put down his gun avoiding collateral risk before they slaughter the Nazi.
Quentin Tarrentino. Dark Man. Wouldn't want to be inside his head.
Mr. Fix wrote: Just because only three people on planet earth agree with Scott Adams, doesn't mean I have to.
yes, you don't have to agree with him but you DO have to be able to understand what he is saying if you even want to disagree with him. My point was no one was able to understand what he was saying and thus all commentary was similar to yours on the ethics or morality of Comey, the system etc.... He wasn't trying to trick you either. His comment is straight forward with no persuasion. It's Dershowitz who is pointing out the persuasion. In this case bad persuasion.
Mr. Fix wrote: I stand by my previous statement, and fuck what you think of the mind traps you laid.
If I were here to trick you, I wouldn't be spending my time explaining the whole thing to you.
I didn't say that any of the now 201 people who commented on Adams post were wrong on their views of Comey and the Comey/Clinton scandal. I'm not saying that your comment in itself is wrong. I am saying, nobody see's what either man is saying and they went right into how bad Comey and the system is which is totally unrelated to the purpose of his post. Why???? Because they read something else than what he posted.
Neither man made comments designed to trick you, yet nobody saw what they said and they only saw what was already in their head.
Is it ok, if I say that's FUCKING ASTOUNDING!! Especially by people who read his blog where he teaches this stuff?
As for my trick, I pointed out that there was a problem with the comments. That's straight forward. That gave you an unfair advantage to anybody else who wasn't aware of it. So I stuck two statements in that made you go back into the world is Comey good or bad cop. I even said that it's not relevant, so avoid it, but the brain only picked up on the suggestion, not the part to ignore it. That's totally fair to reassemble the puzzle if I am presenting a puzzle. Anybody can solve a puzzle when somebody already solves it for them.
Mr. Fix wrote: This brings us right back to our discussion on whether or not there is any such thing as a legitimate ruling authority.
Only if you want to ignore the relevant point and bulldoze your way out of it and go back to another conversation that we've already had that everybody knows what you think on the subject.
Mr. Fix wrote: As far as I'm concerned, Scott Adams completely missed that one.
Not from where I sit.
This is a good one. A Trump supporter is now questioning Trump's lawyer and questioning is loyalty. This is bad.
Rhonda Kazmierski @KazmierskiR 15h15 hours ago
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
Careful, @AlanDersh, people may begin to wonder where your allegiance lies. There is no defense for what @Comey did. His actions did not get @realDonaldTrump elected. We, the #American people did that, all by ourselves. Give credit where its due!
Dersh is missing the point? Again, a non-relevant point being made.
Dersh misses the point. Comey is a Cop. Cops evaluate if a person broke a law. If yes, they go before a judge and jury, Comey is done. All of this should have happened WAY before the election.
Is this person trying to say that Comey needs to take a bath?
Comey is dirty as hell. https://www.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/ … Look at his ties to HSBC bank and Clinton Foundation ties to HSBC bank, and then the Lynch slap on the wrist for laundering of trillions... dirty as hell.
I could see somebody coming along in this blog and calling Dersh or Adams a disinformation agent and member of the deep state.
His own party is accusing somebody calling Comey a Schmuck a traitor.
This is infinitely more exciting than human psychology.
FLOODGATES OPEN: Congress ‘To Be Rocked’ In Next 72 Hours; Over A Dozen Resignations Coming, Says Reporter
An investigative reporter with The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) announced on Friday that Congress’ human resources scandal is about to break wide-open and predicted that over a dozen members of the House of Representatives will resign. DCNF reporter Luke Rosiak tweeted on Friday: “Congress' human resources scandal is just getting started. I anticipate we will see the resignation of more than a dozen House members over harassment and secret settlements, and soon.” Rosiak followed that tweet with another, writing: “Mark my words, the House is going to be rocked in the coming 72 hours. Tick Tock.” Last week Rosiak broke the story that Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) had made a settlement with a former congressional aide that he fired after she reported being sexually assaulted at the business of a major campaign donor. The first congressmen to go down in the post-Weinstein era of sexual misconduct was Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers, who eventually resigned after accusations against him snowballed. Other notable politicians on Capitol Hill caught up in sexual misconduct cases:
Democrat Rep. Alee L. Hastings (FL) — The Treasury paid $220,000 to settle allegations against him made by a former congressional staffer that claimed he “touched her, made unwanted sexual advances, and threatened her job.”
Republican Rep. Blake Farenthold (TX) — The congressmen announced on Thursday that he was "retiring" after former staffers accused him of making "sexually graphic jokes" and berating his aides. He previously settled a sexual harassment claim made by an employee in 2014.
Democrat Rep. Ruben Kihuen (NV) — Multiple women have accused the Pelosi-backed congressman of sexual harassment.
Democrat Sen. Al Franken (MN) — Franken announced that he would resign last week after multiple women accused him of sexual assault. Franken has still not resigned despite his promise to do so.
Republican Rep. Trent Franks (AZ) — Resigned after he reportedly made women uncomfortable by asking them to be a surrogate mother.
An investigative reporter with The Daily Caller News Foundation (DCNF) announced on Friday that Congress’ human resources scandal is about to break wide-open and predicted that over a dozen members of the House of Representatives will resign.
DCNF reporter Luke Rosiak tweeted on Friday: “Congress' human resources scandal is just getting started. I anticipate we will see the resignation of more than a dozen House members over harassment and secret settlements, and soon.”
Rosiak followed that tweet with another, writing: “Mark my words, the House is going to be rocked in the coming 72 hours. Tick Tock.”
Last week Rosiak broke the story that Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY) had made a settlement with a former congressional aide that he fired after she reported being sexually assaulted at the business of a major campaign donor.
The first congressmen to go down in the post-Weinstein era of sexual misconduct was Michigan Democrat Rep. John Conyers, who eventually resigned after accusations against him snowballed.
Other notable politicians on Capitol Hill caught up in sexual misconduct cases:
I would guess that the majority of Congress is tainted. Let's just start with a list of those who have dipped into the hush fund over the years to hush dipping into the company inkwell. Those names are known. And then, there are the names of those who didn't access taxpayer money. They will need to be exposed by perpetratees. Oh, and let's not forget the pedos. Probably a shorter list (I hope), but they deserve special recognition. This could get ugly if allowed to run the full course. Going to be a busy Fall '18 election, since interim seat holders will be out of a job in less than a year.
And, then, when the dust settles, perhaps we will see some perp walk photos. That piece seems to be missing so far (waxy lowers head in disappointment).
covfefe (winter is coming)
Do you mean the same Alan Dershowitz that has taken the Lolita Express to pedophile isle with his buddy Bill Clinton? I guess decency all depends on the baseline...
Just another douche bag lawyer in my book.
I was just about to get to a reply to Ruffians assertion regarding the douche bag lawyer.
Thank you for saving me the effort, well done.