Firstly, I did not realize that it was standard practice for a Guest to remain anonymous. On that point I am happy to stand corrected, and to unresevedly retract my statements regarding that person hiding behind anonymity.

In answer to Winter, I am totally responsible for everything I write, and everything I write is sincere. If you do not believe this and still see me as an agent of some sort that is a matter for your conscience, as I know in my heart that everything I write is genuine and can be traced back to me. I write ideas and feelings which I have made my own and not with the agenda of anyone else in mind. My posts are written by my hand alone and I expect to be held accountable for them.

Esclarmonde, do you belive that I have attacked you, as some seem to believe? Because I will happily apologise if you feel I have, because that was never my intention (and to be honest I don't believe I did). This was what I meant when I said do not confuse me with Rixon, as his posts may be construed as attacking Esclarmonde, but I don't believe that mine can - not that I don't share his outlook on many things, because I do.

Guest, is not writing "Personally, I think Novaliz is a mealymouth wimp hiding behind faked innocence. Or maybe he's hiding in the grass, waiting to strike anyone who comes close." a personal attack on me? I do not believe that I was responsible for turning my original post into a 'flame war'.

My first and second posts on David Icke did not solicite such a bitter response as the third one, therefore, I did not anticipate such a disproportionate reaction to my latest post. The third post represents my position now and I am happy to withdraw any insinuations in the first post that David Icke was consciously working for the Security Services or circles associated with them. However, I stand by my assertion that he is a victim of manipulation - he is not alone in this, and in my latest post I used his case as an example. A further post, in the context of the hidden history of humanity, should make this clear.

There has been a tendency, in some quarters, to focus on my first post, I would like to respond to that. Firstly, the third post contains my position now regarding David and the comments in the first post which may be construed as suggesting David that is consciously deceiving people I have corrected in the Preface to the third post. It has been pointed out to me that David did not design the portal page. That is irrelevant to my case, the point is that the page is a parody of the archetypal symbol of the seventh angel of the apocalypse - which means that this is the form in which this being manifests itself in the spiritual world; its Image reflects its Nature. The very fact that David does not believe in angelic beings is also irrelevant. The underlying point is that stands as a parody of an Angelic being, and thus it is part of the anti-religious imagery of the age. It was not intended consciously to be so by its creators, and, in the sense, it is part of what has been termed the 'ahrimanic deception'. It is my belief that it is part of the deception of Satanic beings, which have insinuated the idea in to that of its creators, without them being aware of this influence. A major point of this first post was to argue that David sets himself up as an exposer of hidden symbolism and, yet, the symbolism of his own site suggested that he was not aware of how the symbolism of his own portal page could be interpreted in such a negative light. And, no, I still do not like the symbolism of the pills.

The third post contains a detailed analysis of how a channelled being can structure its words in such a way that behind them lies all manner of temptations and suggestions, which appeal to the subsconcious of the man, with the intention of winning a human being to its cause, without them being fully aware of its intent for man. It was to show that demonic beings indulge in attempts at mind control, as well as corrupt men. It was intended to demonstrate how demonic beings can manipulate people wen their consciousness is dimmed and their freedom to make a subjective judgement on the subject is annulled. Only if we are aware of this can we avoid it, and we can only be free if we can doubt the existence of the spiritual world and the existence of Christ. Channelled beings seem to oblige men to believe in the spiritual world by telling men the future, so that when the things thus predicted come true, we are encouraged to belief that the spirit's words could not have been the invention of the psychic/medium but must have come from the 'other world'. As Banquo said "What, can the Devil speak true?". That is not to say that men cannot experience angelic beings, but these must be consciously sought, as they will not attempt to jepordise the freedom of man - including the freedom of man to doubt their existence. This third post and the second post are more important, in my opinion, than the first one which I made.

I hope that this is the end of the matter as far as the cycle of abusive posts is concerned and we can all indulge in more constructive debates. The 'David Icke Saga' which I unintentionally triggered is distracting us from debating more formidable powers in the world, both human and 'supersensible' (and my third post was written with this intent and not the intent of targetting David Icke). Having said that I reserve the right to post further thoughts on David Icke's teachings, should they occur to me. I refuse to bow to censorship and threats from whatever quarter they may come. I do not believe that I said anything remotely libellous and this post hopefully corrects anything negative regarding David Icke which could have been insinuated from my first post. I will defend anyone's right to free speech and I have never discouraged anyone from visiting David Icke's site, all I have said is that I believe that there are other sites from which people can learn more and sites where people do not have to struggle so hard to distinguish truth from fiction.

I have nothing to hide and the only reason I maintain a pseudonymn is that I recall the case of Arlis Perry in 1974, who was murdered by a member of a Satanic community and about whose death was written in a book on satanism "Arlis Perry: Hunted, Stalked and Slain. Followed to California". Her 'crime' was to visit a Satanic community and to attempt to spread Christianity to them. We cannot hide from the greater powers, such as the Security Services, but I prefer to hide from the 'lone nuts'. 'Novaliz', as I have explained before, is simply the internet friendly version (ie. thanks becomes thanx, cheers becomes cheerz) of Novalis - which I believe means New Man.

This forum allows people to post freely, let us keep it that way.