I AM ALL I AM wrote:
Hmmm www.ihcenter.org/07-990/07-990-16.html

The link seems OK, correct URL, the problems with the ihcenter site.
That said you're right he's listed but this ihcenter looks really amateur and of no significance tbh.

web.archive.org/web/20080531052401/http:...eedomfoundation.html

web.archive.org/web/20080531052401/http:...thefreedomfoundation
tinyurl.com/7lh6kxq
page was down well server ? anyhoo heres previous page years
tinyurl.com/7lh6kxq
any good ?

andyh wrote:

conspiracy theorists might say its been taken down .

As I say, the front page is here:

web.archive.org/web/20080830012016/http:...thefreedomfoundation
No big secret, really.

wake_up_bomb wrote:

let me get this straight david icke is registered as a charity in the us ?
a non profitable org to help one man work 12 hours a day to expose those behind a global slavery conspiracy ??? lol
yer shittin me

mushy wrote:
Why wouldnt he take a few quid off the people who he is attemting to expose. You know what tax deductable means dont you? it means money goes to someone else, as opposed to bombing brown people in oil rich countries. It never translates to fewer roads and schools for the tax payer.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
G'day Wake Up Bomb.

How do you know what I do with my life to judge it as not being "constructive" ?

Is this simply an ad hominem , a personal attack, in a vain attempt to somehow discredit me ?

It appears that you are projecting your own issues onto me.

It also appears that you are being hypocritical considering what you have stated about ad hominem attacks about DI.

By the way, I had already posted the link to the Freedom Foundation in a prior response to Andyh. But hey, knock yourself out in your attempts to denigrate me in whatever manner that you choose to

Also, I had first looked into the IHC in relationship to the donations button on the website that David had set up with Pamela, David Icke Was Right dot com, back in December of 2007 (on the free forum IL started on). It was a website set up to sell preexisting products with this logo on it ...



... which wouldn't surprise me in the least if the products were manufactured in the same manner that Haiti-gate exposed ... sweatshop labour. Great use of the eye in the pyramid eh.

For the record, in relationship to when you stated, "I strongly believe DI has noth­ing to do with" the forum, here is part of the Icke vs Adams court transcript (DI in his own words) ...

Case 4:06-cv-00685-ERW Document 49 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 131 of 182

Q Okay. So you basically remember that statement. You just don't remember that it was on there as recent as 6-15-06.

A I go through my website endless times. I'm the one that runs it. I have not seen that on my website in anything like recent times.

I AM ALL I AM wrote: I'm not remotely interested in you as a person. Good luck to you in life, I wish you all the best. I don't attack people personally. The only reason I am here is because numerous people requested it.

I do think it is completely inappropriate for you to use this site to spread anti-Icke material, cruddy material at that, when we have already been accused by the DIF of being an anti-Icke site, an accusation that the owners of the site, who have put their own time and money into setting it up both strongly deny and wish to avoid. They are too polite and too committed to the fundamental free speech values of the site to tell you this themselves, but if you take the time to seek any of them out, I am 100% certain they will corroborate this.

I've seen the stuff that was posted on your site over and over again about David Icke being a Tennents quaffing, deluded tit. Don't think that I haven't. This would discredit you far more than anything I could say, although people here will generally respect my opinion above yours, I assure you. I realise you will pay absolutely no attention to anything I've said whatsoever, but if you are insistent on pushing your own agenda while you are here, owing to the fact that your own site has died on its arse, maybe you should at least make a financial contribution to the owners. I assume you've done this already.

Enjoy your stay here. I will offer you the same friendly advice again; you would be well advised to let go of the issues you have related to the David Icke forum which date back to over two years ago. Nothing good ever comes of personal vendettas, they simply become unhealthy obsessions.

@ I AM ALL I AM

All this rockerfeller/GE stuff is more than a little weak. Most organisations can be traced back to someone dodgey. Up until now, Devon and Cornwall police was owned by 'South West One' which is a subsidiary of microsoft. So does that mean all police officers in devon and cornwall want to vaccinate African children? The obvious answer is NO, most of them do not have an obsession with eugenics, (well actually maybe not the best example, but you get my point) It is very difficult to do business and not somehow associate yourself with someone you would rather not.

wake_up_bomb wrote:

domathy wrote:
G'day Domathy.

DI specifically warns people about non-profit organisations set up through the Rockefeller Foundation, yet he goes ahead and sets up a charity for donations through them. That's a HUGE difference from the police officer example that you present.

It is through the support of ourselves that the system is kept in place. If we really would love to see a change take place, then removing our support of the system is paramount. The choices that we make in who and what we support determines what is co-created as our societal structure. If together we remove our support (our holding up of) the societal structure, then it will collapse and what we do support will thrive.

I AM ALL I AM wrote: G'day to you
Actually I think icke highlights how corrupt people use charities as vehicles for tax avoidance, and that they give money under the guise of philanthropy to the 'charity' without ever losing control of how the money is spent.

To give another analogy of what we've been talking about, I am a nutritionist and believe a vegan diet is best, but at various points in my career, I have eaten milk chocolate, which is 'the enemy' right? So I am now a diseased couch potato? Of course not, I am very healthy, especially compared to most. What Im getting at is I agree with wub's baby and bathwater comment, and to latch onto the slightest inconsistency as if it is condemning evidence of something sinister is the same mindset of people who look for conspiracies in everything and is very black/white and limited. Rules can be bent, and basically it depends what your overall intentions are. If I were Icke, i would get a kick from the irony of using something set up by Rockerfeller, to undermine the Rockerfellers. Im sure he enjoys the sense of Irony, and the fact that his fans will have a good laugh at it too. If you are going to sake such a strong stand, you need to at least look at all angles, for your own sake if you want to be taken seriously - instead of just jumping to conclusions.

Whilst I applaud your intentions to save people from being sucked in by hucksters - but you will need to go higher up the food chain to make a difference. And as for the people who look to Icke as the messiah or something, you may get through to them (after vast expenditure of energy and effort) but idiots will always find something new and they will just go elsewhere and find new ways to express their stupidity - either way its a losing battle

I AM ALL I AM wrote: I will assume that this means you have taken my sincere post on board, have contacted the owners of the site, and made a financial contribution, considering you will know how hard it is to run a successful forum, considering there has been precisely one post on your blatantly anti-Icke forum in the last three days:

www.infinite-love-forum.com/

domathy wrote:
G'day Domathy.

Congrats on the vegan lifestyle.

I originally changed the way in which I ate for health reasons (no meat, dairy, preservatives, chemicals, artificial flavours, colourings, etc). Looking into it further though showed how destructive the factory farming of animals by the meat industry is to the environment. You may already know about it, though in case you don't, The China Study highlights how cancer cells can be turned on by providing them with meat protein, and turned off by withdrawing meat protein.

www.thechinastudy.com/

I actually put together a cook book with some friends because I was continually being asked what I ate if I didn't eat meat, dairy, etc. Here's a poem I wrote for the book ...

Eating simply to simply live,
To my body I do give,
Nature’s bounty, a loving gift,
A source of nourishment to uplift.

For a truth that I have found,
Is that food grown in the ground,
Gives everything the body does need,
To perform each and every deed.


I comprehend your position in relationship to DI. If it was merely one or two inconsistencies there wouldn't be any issue ... but there are a lot of inconsistencies.

I have never been into "just jumping to conclusions". My perspective on DI has been formed from examining copious amounts of information and coming to an informed opinion based upon an examination of ALL of the information.

wake_up_bomb wrote:
G'day Wake Up Bomb.

It's great to see that you are admitting to making assumptions. The admitting of something that you do is the first step in being able to change it.

You appear to be confusing a forum as having characteristics. Or are you claiming that I am the forum and that I am "anti-Icke" ?

Reli­gion always leads to rhetor­i­cal despo­tism. This leads to self-​fulfilling prophecy and jus­ti­fi­ca­tions for all man­ner of obscen­i­ties. It shields evil behind walls of self-​righteousness which are proof against all argu­ments against the evil. It feeds on delib­er­ately twisted mean­ings to dis­credit oppo­si­tion. It leads directly to hypocrisy which is always betrayed by the gap between actions and expla­na­tions. They never agree. Ulti­mately, it rules by guilt because hypocrisy brings on the witch hunt and the demand for scape­goats.

Leto II God Emporer

God Emperor of Dune
Frank Herbert

You appear to be on some sort of crusade in labeling me in a specific manner. Who are you attempting to convince ?

If it is that important to you that you require to cast me as the villain so that you can play at being the good guy, feel free, carry on casting aspersions and making inferences. After all you did state, "I could respond to your ques­tions. I can’t be arsed", and which clearly shows that you are not interacting with me on this thread with an honourable and respectful intention.

You also stated, "I really don’t want a long debate on the sub­ject", and it shows. You aren't debating the subject at all.

I have supported my stance in relationship to what I think about DI. I clearly stated ...

"Any­way, what IS cir­cum­stan­tial is whether DI is ‘on the inside’, so to speak, or sim­ply some­one cash­ing in on the ‘scene’. The above, along with quotes from DI inter­views with Nicky Camp­bell, the Fern Brit­ton show and on the Repub­lic of Ire­land chat show, along with all of the quotes directly from DI’s books ARE NOT cir­cum­stan­tial … they are FACTS.

Unlike DI, you will not see me claim­ing that some­one is def­i­nitely ‘in on it’ unless I have direct fac­tual infor­ma­tion show­ing that they are. With­out such infor­ma­tion, all that can be claimed is that there is CIR­CUM­STAN­TIAL evi­dence show­ing that it is pos­si­ble, or that it is a high prob­a­bil­ity.

At no point have I claimed that it is a FACT that DI is ‘in on it’. What is a FACT is that I don’t really care if he is or if he isn’t, because either way, DI does not ‘walk his talk’, his claims on the most part are not proven and quite often ridicu­lous to the point of absur­dity (4th dimen­sional, shape-​shifting, human-​sacrificing, blood-​drinking, rep­til­ians beam­ing a ‘matrix’ down to the earth from the moon being one).

Con­sid­er­ing the infor­ma­tion pro­vided at the link I posted (which also includes quotes from the court tran­script of the DI vs Adams case … again, doc­u­mented facts), the FACTS pre­sented pro­vide a strong CIR­CUM­STAN­TIAL case for DI being a set-​up (some­one put in place as a leader to ‘lead peo­ple astray’).

If you have infor­ma­tion to present that shows oth­er­wise, please present it for perusal and con­sid­er­a­tion."

... and asked would you please present any information that shows otherwise to what I state.

On the other hand, you haven't even presented any FACTS to support your labeling of me, let alone your stance on DI. Maybe it's not that you "can't be arsed", it's that you have nothing to support your stance and it is based upon 'faith'. After all, look at all of the posts and time you have put into something after having stated, "There won’t be any fur­ther response from me. I have given this mat­ter more of my time than it deserves". Considering your continued responses, it's a statement that speak volumes about two things.

One, there have been further responses from you. This is a failure to 'walk your talk'.

Two, if it didn't deserve more of your time, then you giving it more of your time makes either the statement false, you to be nonsensical continuing to post responses, an emotional dramatised outburst, or a combination of them all.

Thank you for sharing your self-expression of Who You Are choosing to Be.

David Icke is just some bloke. That's all. He's a guy, not the saviour of humanity I used to like watching his videos and talks. Now I've moved on.

I'm glad I was a part of his forum though. I met some great people on there

I AM ALL I AM wrote: I will let other people judge which one of us is guilty of an "emotional dramatised outburst"!

I will repeat:

(a) There is a sincere desire from the people who own, set-up and run this site for it not, let me repeat that for you, not to be an anti-DI site. We have been accused of this by the 'hierarchy' of the DIF, and it is a sincere desire of the people who have given their time and money to set up this site to avoid this. I will repeat again...they are too polite and too committed to the principle of free speech to tell you this themselves, but if you seek their opinion, I am 100% certain that they will corroborate it. I assume you have done this now, considering I've suggested it three times.

(b) Considering you have blatantly come here with an anti-Icke agenda, and considering point (a), and considering the flagrantly anti-Icke content of your posts on your own site, which anyone can look up for themselves, assuming they can be arsed to do so, it would be a nice gesture to make a financial contribution to the running of this site. I assume you've done this too. I would think the fact that your own forum is struggling woefully to attract any posts at all ought to bring this matter into focus for you.

Don't have anything against you personally, I just wish to make this 100% clear to you, as you don't appear to have responded to it yet, or even read it. You may have a low opinion of me, that's fine, that's your right. Many other people who are here, who know me quite well, do not. I would tend to value their opinion more highly, sorry about that.

I'm really not interested in some ding-dong, back and forth, I say / you say debate. If you're looking for that you might want to sign up for the DIF again! I've said my piece on what you've posted and you evidently disagree with me, as is your right.

Did someone say "emotional dramatised outburst"?

wake_up_bomb wrote:
Court transcript of Icke vs Adams
The Court = the judge
The Witness = David Icke

THE COURT: Wait; wait. You know, here, please. You're not helping yourself by doing this.

THE WITNESS: Okay, sorry.

THE COURT: You're going over the same thing over and over. I understand all that. Just listen carefully to his question; answer his question. Otherwise, here's the problem. You're going to be stuck here in St. Louis for the next week.

THE WITNESS: Okay. I understand.

THE COURT: I'm trying to give you the time so we can get this over by tomorrow. But the way you answer the questions, it's over and over and over. I got it -- I got it all a long time ago.

THE WITNESS: Okay.

THE COURT: Just answer his question



Propaganda is a form of communication that is aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

irrepressible wrote:
couldnt have put it better meself...