'Conspiracy Author' David Icke Banned From EU, Labeled A "Terrorist"

a reply to: Maxmars

See my previous post.

a reply to: Maxmars

That's true.

It looks like they used the lazy approach: instead of punishing the violent people after they make their violence noticed, they prevented the trigger of that possible violent unknown people from appearing in person, while allowing a virtual appearance, which, to me, would be as effective as a physical presence if the problem is what is said.

originally posted by: sarahvital
i thought he was just some ancient alien guy.


level 3 terrorist?

what the hell? sounds bad.

It's not bad because it isn't true, he wasn't deemed a terrorist.

a reply to: ArMaP

it looks like they used the lazy approach: instead of punishing the violent people after they make their violence noticed, they prevented the trigger of that possible violent unknown people from appearing in person, while allowing a virtual appearance, which, to me, would be as effective as a physical presence if the problem is what is said.

Even though I've never shied away from posting my personal opinion on Icke, I do agree with your statement here on his "banning". It was the easy way out to fix a perceived threat.


Why my dislike for Icke...
I was a spiritualist at the time of Ickes venture into this world and many people saw him as a con-man who was only interested in making money from the "new-age" movement, it was also not long after that I started lurking on ATS. I found Icke and his books seem to change with what ever was popular within conspiracy circles, which didn't appear honest to me, and of course his belief in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." which has only ever been used for propaganda and anti semitism purposes.

I want to take a moment to thank everyone for embarking on this conversation, and despite our differences, committed ourselves to making clear what we each think and feel about the topic.

Thank you for understanding that any objections or comments they encounter are not - in the final analysis, a stab at their sensibilities, a personal attack on what they purport to believe.

We can and should work together, not to convince, not to sway, not to gain digital ego strokes.

I offer a challenge to those who can't shake their impulses to degrade, denigrate, belittle, and otherwise diminish anyone who presents something they cannot or will not accept. Find an opponent and offer to genuinely collaborate on the topic. You will be guaranteed a result that will surprise and satisfy you, as long as you can cast aside that impulse... Who knows? You might cultivate an unlikely friendship - sometimes those can be the best kind.

Here at ATS at least, we can make a place to examine and understand what we are interested in. Here at least, we have an opportunity to shed the programming of 'group think' and the common devolution we see exploited in the 'fad-based' participation in the worlds of "facepage," "twit-world," and the many iterations of the 'chat-world' of "social" engineering platforms in which algorithms and 'ideological' doctrine provide the moderation of the discussion.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: ArMaP

it looks like they used the lazy approach: instead of punishing the violent people after they make their violence noticed, they prevented the trigger of that possible violent unknown people from appearing in person, while allowing a virtual appearance, which, to me, would be as effective as a physical presence if the problem is what is said.

Even though I've never shied away from posting my personal opinion on Icke, I do agree with your statement here on his "banning". It was the easy way out to fix a perceived threat.


Why my dislike for Icke...
I was a spiritualist at the time of Ickes venture into this world and many people saw him as a con-man who was only interested in making money from the "new-age" movement, it was also not long after that I started lurking on ATS. I found Icke and his books seem to change with what ever was popular within conspiracy circles, which didn't appear honest to me, and of course his belief in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." which has only ever been used for propaganda and anti semitism purposes.

Yes... Keep claiming that Icke is anti-semitic and a holocaust denier. We all see that you have so much evidence...

May I remind you the libel & defamation laws in your country, the UK, as Icke is also British.

www.carruthers-law.co.uk...#:~:text=It%20is%20presumed%20that%20the,more%20probably%20occurred%20tha n%20not.

It is presumed that the defamatory statement is false, so the burden of proof is placed on the defendant to prove it is not. The defendant will have to prove this on the balance of probabilities i.e. that the fact in issue more probably occurred than not.

The 'defendant' in this case is the one who makes these defamatory claims.

I wonder if you were in court how will you prove your claims.

Your arguments have been repeatedly refuted and you have placed yourself in an impossible position. It will be great if Icke was here in these threads so you can 'debate' him.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Yes I am aware of the report.

Then don't say that Kurokage has "nothing apart from your personal opinion as to why he isn't allowed in Holland."

The last part of the text doesn't prove or even show in the slightest that Icke is a holocaust denier or anti-semitic as it has been claimed earlier in this thread. There is nothing that proves these allegations.

They do not need to prove any thing about Icke, they just need to show that there is the possibility of civil unrest because of the perception people have of his ideas.

As you know, these days you (generic "you") don't have to prove a thing, you just say it on social media and most people act as if it's the truth.

There is a difference between what people say online on social media and what is happening in reality.

For example if one accuses another one on social media of being a holocaust denier repeatedly or a range of accusations then the same laws apply despite the fact that these accusations were made on social media.

Social media and what said in the given platforms are not excempt from these laws.

Unsubstantiated allegations have no weight in any debate and can put anyone in a difficult position of these allegations are repeated

From my link above

A defendant who repeats a rumour cannot rely upon truth just because there was a rumour, the defendant would have to show that the rumour was true

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: sarahvital
i thought he was just some ancient alien guy.


level 3 terrorist?

what the hell? sounds bad.

It's not bad because it isn't true, he wasn't deemed a terrorist.

For now the technocrats are stopping just short of using the term terrorist for those who oppose the UN's Agenda 2030 and beyond, but their goal to discredit and destroy any opposition BAMN is clear. Here's an example of a WEF hit piece against detractors:
www.theglobeandmail.com...

I went through and pulled some of the more descriptive words used to smear opponents (you'll recognize some from this thread, too)
antisemitic extremists
conservative fringe state-sponsored actors
anonymous dark web Russian propaganda campaign disinformation
far-right outrage
domestic extremism
bots
far-right, Holocaust-denying cohort
warped imagination of conspiracy and fringe groups
antisemitic and far-right origins
trolling
misinformation
threaten the foundations of democracy
malicious or manipulative demonstrable and significant public harm

Here's another hit piece targeting "far right Dutch farmers" Notice the anti-semitism accusations leveled here as well.
www.salon.com...

a reply to: Asmodeus3

Again, who is this we??
You've asked for evidence and I supplied it. You even asked me to supply the name of the book and page numbers, I obliged.
Myself and other members have shown that the document "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." is and was used for antisemitism and you still haven't commented on it.

You seem fixated on pushing you belief and opinions onto others. I've stated my opinion and shown why I believe that and you still keep claiming "i've been refuted", this is a forum for discussion, nothing more. Also because this is a forum, all I am stating is my opinion of Icke so your legal arguement is incorrect. The defence of honest opinion is contained in section 3 of the Defamation Act 2013, and In slander cases it's up to Icke to prove slander and libel cases, the court to "hear" both arguements.

a reply to: zosimov

The words you list are the bread and butter of propagandists.

Repetition is the hammering action of social engineering. It relies upon such frequently 'hammered' adages as; "people are stupid" and "most people are sheep" which is a destructive and base misrepresentation of reality (I'm calling it lies.)

If we were one-tenth to tools those "influencers" proclaim us to be we wouldn't be here after the first time someone uses the eye-roll emoji to cast social shame at us.

A true tragedy is that 'thought-form' overlords are given 'protected' voices and empowered to silence others. Their self-referential support is transparently discernable - but not spoken of by them - nor can we speak of it without them turning the topic towards maligning the speaker.

originally posted by: zosimov

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: sarahvital
i thought he was just some ancient alien guy.


level 3 terrorist?

what the hell? sounds bad.

It's not bad because it isn't true, he wasn't deemed a terrorist.

For now the technocrats are stopping just short of using the term terrorist for those who oppose the UN's Agenda 2030 and beyond, but their goal to discredit and destroy any opposition BAMN is clear. Here's an example of a WEF hit piece against detractors:
www.theglobeandmail.com...

I went through and pulled some of the more descriptive words used to smear opponents (you'll recognize some from this thread, too)
antisemitic extremists
conservative fringe state-sponsored actors
anonymous dark web Russian propaganda campaign disinformation
far-right outrage
domestic extremism
bots
far-right, Holocaust-denying cohort
warped imagination of conspiracy and fringe groups
antisemitic and far-right origins
trolling
misinformation
threaten the foundations of democracy
malicious or manipulative demonstrable and significant public harm

Here's another hit piece targeting "far right Dutch farmers" Notice the anti-semitism accusations leveled here as well.
www.salon.com...

Yep! The common denominator is sensationalism, false accusations, and libel & defamation. They always need to be called out and refuted.

David Icke is by no means a holocaust denier or a far right extremist or anti-semitic. Anyone who makes such claims must prove them.

They are lucky that Icke among others aren't using the laws of libel & defamation to their benefit. They would have had a great success after the first few successful cases and anyone else would have thought several times before repeating them.

Icke isn't allowed in the country as the Dutch country wanted to please some deranged left wing activists instead of allowing free speech to go ahead.

originally posted by: Maxmars
a reply to: zosimov

The words you list are the bread and butter of propagandists.

Repetition is the hammering action of social engineering. It relies upon such frequently 'hammered' adages as; "people are stupid" and "most people are sheep" which is a destructive and base misrepresentation of reality (I'm calling it lies.)

If we were one-tenth to tools those "influencers" proclaim us to be we wouldn't be here after the first time someone uses the eye-roll emoji to cast social shame at us.

A true tragedy is that 'thought-form' overlords are given 'protected' voices and empowered to silence others. Their self-referential support is transparently discernable - but not spoken of by them - nor can we speak of it without them turning the topic towards maligning the speaker.

That's why whenever they repeat these false claims the reasonably good people must repeat that their views are derailed, are of no significance, potentially constitute libel & defamation and due to the absence of evidence are hence refuted. In a few words when someone chats bs they must be called out (at least).

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
There is a difference between what people say online on social media and what is happening in reality.

Sure there is, but when person A reads something about person B (that they do not know personally) on social media, who do they believe, the person they do not know personally or all their social media "friends"?
That's what I was talking about.

For example if one accuses another one on social media of being a holocaust denier repeatedly or a range of accusations then the same laws apply despite the fact that these accusations were made on social media.

I wasn't talking about laws, I was talking about the perception people reading social media gets.

Social media and what said in the given platforms are not excempt from these laws.

True, but I wasn't talking about that.

From my link above

Your link is irrelevant to what I was talking about.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Icke isn't allowed in the country as the Dutch country wanted to please some deranged left wing activists instead of allowing free speech to go ahead.

In case you haven't noticed, you are doing the same thing, you are calling people that you do not know "deranged".

And free speech was allowed, Icke wasn't banned from appearing through electronic means and spread his words.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
That's why whenever they repeat these false claims the reasonably good people must repeat that their views are derailed, are of no significance, potentially constitute libel & defamation and due to the absence of evidence are hence refuted. In a few words when someone chats bs they must be called out (at least).

The "reasonably good people" should not take sides, they should ask for evidence and accept what is presented as it is.

a reply to: ArMaP

Any protestors who would violently protest words they don't like should aptly be called deranged. They ruin everything for the rest of us.

As a matter of fact, the etymology of the word shows its meaning as "to move from orderly rows." Even more appropriate a term than I'd imagined.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

"That's why whenever they repeat these false claims the reasonably good people must repeat that their views are derailed, are of no significance, potentially constitute libel & defamation and due to the absence of evidence are hence refuted. In a few words when someone chats bs they must be called out (at least)."

Strange comment coming from a supposed champion of free speech?

Just so long as you happen to agree with it?

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
Icke isn't allowed in the country as the Dutch country wanted to please some deranged left wing activists instead of allowing free speech to go ahead.

In case you haven't noticed, you are doing the same thing, you are calling people that you do not know "deranged".

And free speech was allowed, Icke wasn't banned from appearing through electronic means and spread his words.

If free speech was allowed then why Icke cannot go in person and has to give the speech online?

Of course someone is deranged when they use the same rhetoric in the absence of any evidence with the same accusations circulated.

Anti-semitism
Far right extremist
Holocaust denier

Only deranged individuals can make such claims without any evidence.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

"That's why whenever they repeat these false claims the reasonably good people must repeat that their views are derailed, are of no significance, potentially constitute libel & defamation and due to the absence of evidence are hence refuted. In a few words when someone chats bs they must be called out (at least)."

Strange comment coming from a supposed champion of free speech?

Just so long as you happen to agree with it?

Not at all.

An action requires an opposite and equal reaction.

It will be unthinkable not to answer these claims and not to call out these propagandists who want to censor Icke or anyone else.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
That's why whenever they repeat these false claims the reasonably good people must repeat that their views are derailed, are of no significance, potentially constitute libel & defamation and due to the absence of evidence are hence refuted. In a few words when someone chats bs they must be called out (at least).

The "reasonably good people" should not take sides, they should ask for evidence and accept what is presented as it is.

Taking sides?

Far from being a Icke supporter. I do support though his right to speak his mind and I do see that all accusations against him are unsubstantiated.
Anyone can see this.