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

a reply to: Asmodeus3

He can still say whatever he likes.

Just not in person in the Netherlands.

No one is censoring him.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Asmodeus3

He can still say whatever he likes.

Just not in person in the Netherlands.

No one is censoring him.

www.france24.com...

The Dutch government has banned British conspiracy theorist David Icke from the Netherlands and the entire Schengen area of the European Union for two years over fears his presence could "disturb public order".

Not only Icke is censored but he is banned from Netherlands and how many other countries in the Schengen area (26 in total).

Is not just censorship but part of the cancelling culture sponsored by the state.

As for giving lecturer and speeches online that's not the same being physically present in crowds hundreds or even thousands of people. He has every right to do so.

Furthermore the internet isn't his friend lately and he is censored on major platforms and his accounts have been blocked as far as I know pretty much everywhere.

Key words: Cancel culture, woke ideology, left wing activisi

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

Respectfully, they are censoring him. It is only in the vacuum of legal rhetoric that the technicality arises.

By the reasoning you offer he could be shackled in jail - given a web-capable device - and thus could be said to be 'free to speak.'

Freedom of speech, in my opinion, is not separable from the freedom to move about speaking to whomever wishes to hear you. By making it a 'technicality' issue (i.e., he still can say whatever, just not in these 26 countries) you reject the idea that free speech implicitly includes the unhindered ability to communicate with whomever is willing to hear - without a third party to officially 'decide' if it is OK.

People had paid to hear him (commerce.) People had made the required preparations to host his speech. It was the insertion of someone's angst into the equation that derailed a simple gathering of "fans" and delegitimized a perfectly legal public speaking event. Beyond that, they went "all-in" to vilify the speaker, who never called for violence, unmistakably implying that regardless of everything - he was the 'cause' that had to be silenced for the good of all.

When the authorities chose to give weight to the 'threats' of violence by unnamed activists; instead of applying their "force of law" on those threatening to break it, they chose to make the violent protesters not need to protest - because they "got their way." Can such threats now carry enough political weight to move nations?

I'm sorry if some people's distaste for the man and his theories is so intense that they feel him unworthy of the same protections we all expect to enjoy. But single-sided opinions and 'feelings' have no place in the elimination of rights.

It must never be simply 'acceptable' to squelch the rights of people to engage and undertake peaceful non-violent discourse. I understand that in the real world (as opposed to political theater) reasons may be deemed sufficient - but I would think that without full accountability of the cited cause for doing so, we invite what we see here.

There should be some degree of shame in the idea that "no one could stop them from being violent if he speaks" while designating the person speaking - not the "notional" "future" "violent" protesters - as the problem requiring legal action.
But boasting of modern 'tolerance' of 'feelings,' while trotting on free speech is not harmonious with reality. It is an expression which can only be said to be leaning towards the tyrannical. It sends the message "tolerance is what we tell you it is."

I know Europe and the communities there are all distinct and different - one from another - and from my country. I leave the final analysis to those who can rightly claim ownership of the issue. I respect whatever they decide... should all the people actually be allowed to decide - as opposed to those who simply hate him.

a reply to: Maxmars

David Icke is indeed a dangerous man.

His voice, and his ideas, represent what has been deemed unacceptable from Subjects™, in this Brave-New-World™.

The Press-Release™ originates from the PR™ department, of the Enforcement™ branch, of the multi-headed hydra that rules over us.

Out of sight, and not seen by the vast majority, because it cannot be directly pointed-out.

After the Swine-Flu™ fiasco, a few years ago : a post-mortem was held, to figure out what went wrong with the Plan™ to get everybody Vaccinated™.

It was decided that one of the main problems, aside from not drumming--up enough Fear™, was that prominent voices were " allowed " to engage in public-debates, about the severity of the threat, and whether or not, everybody did need to get Vaccinated™.

They decided that when they launch their next Scheme™ : there should be no credible opposition voices to be heard, anywhere, and no public-debates of any substantiality.

This is of the same mindset as Google™, who have publicly stated that they believe that there is only one right answer to any search query. Every other answer is a "bug", a mistake. That is their goal.

Since the beginning of The Technocratic™ Global™ Flu D'État™ of 2020, some observers may have noticed that there have been zero public debates, on a large scale, on any of the measures that were being enforced.

Unfortunately : the masses took this as meaning that the Authorities™ were absolutely correct, in all of the whacky things they pushed on the public. Just as was intended, it seems.

Nobody noticed that none of the MSM™ outlets, had any form of discussion with opposing voices represented.
No Government™ town halls, no Election-Debates™, no supposedly Opposition-Politicians™ anywhere, no nothing.

Well-known and previously respected Doctors who spoke-out, were publicly shamed, de-platformed, and silenced.

Especially sad was the total radar silence from Unions™, Human-Rights-Organizations™, and even Anonymous™.

Sad because it made me realize who is really behind all of them as well.
Invisible, but controlling them, somehow, from out-of the shadows.

How many noticed that ?

That is the voice that David-Icke represents, and that is why he is relegated to the Leper-Colony™, with the rest of us whom espouse Unacceptable™ ideas.

In the last few months, some MSM™ reports have started poking at some of it with sticks though.

The Agendas™ and Narratives™ are publicly stated, but silently implemented.

The gears are churning in the back-store.

Everything else is window dressing, in the storefront.




ETA : sorry, forgot to add : the above is nether truth, fact, nor my beliefs.
They are my temporary ideas, interpretations, and perceptions.

Nothin
a reply to: Nothin

You clearly understand the nature of the beast.

Our collective quandary is multi-dimensional and insidious - but not perfect.

I contend that the 'deciders' have passed their zenith. And knowing the nature of the beast means you might enjoy what is to come for them more than others might...

To this day, I maintain the very old saying "You are your own worst enemy," will become the poison that will topple their agenda. And although I strive not to be petty, it's hard not to enjoy the inbound schadenfreude more than I should. I said as much elsewhere but I will risk a repeat...

Two things surprise me about this:

1) They have been warned of their folly, and designated themselves "too elite" to listen; and
2) Knowing themselves for who they are, they actually believe they can trust one another.

My forecast: They will fall upon each other like enemies, and throw each other off the lifeboat... We need do nothing - this will happen with or without us.

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am afraid to are wing again.

I think your translator or something is broke my friend...

You claimed that Icke is a holocaust denier.
You claimed that he is anti-semitic.

You need proof for these statements & claims. It is you who needs to provide the evidence and prove that he is what you are accusing him to be.

Still you don't understand where the burden of proof is. He doesn't have to prove that he is not guilty . He doesn't even have to answer any of these accusations. He can simply ignore them and I suppose he has been doing so for a long period of time.

It is you who has to provide the evidence and prove your claims.

By ignoring the fact that Icke stated in his own book "And the Truth Shall Set you Free" "Why do we play a part in suppressing alternative information to the official line of the Second World War?" is all the proof needed then there's also his comments about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" .

I simply don't see what you see in this line of his. Many issues during the world wars are not allowed to be unearthed to the point they replace the official story. An example is addressing the extent to which people were funding and profiting off both sides. Or the initial abuse displaced germans faced prior to the first world war that set their political path in motion. That isn't made part of the official story but it's not anti semitic either.

When he asks why we play a part, is he not alluding to the vast amount of propaganda used to keep the story in line, the shame dished out on those who stray from that narrow story. The book after all, like most of his material, is about how we have been brainwashed into powerlessness. None of this in itself is anti semitic about the war. At least I can't see it.

The anti semitic label is attached far too quick to many issues and has become an enormous juggernaut of an impediment to free speech. Intentional, to my mind, as I think those responsible for most of the nasty in our world are guilty of hiding behind a persecuted group (jews) and have cultivated the narrative into a state where we cannot separate the truly persecuted from the abusers and even trying to explain this gets labelled anti semitic. It's very clever.

I can't question "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because I haven't read it but Icke is so well known that I think he would have been sued into the poor house already if what he is claiming was truly anti semitic.

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

That assumes that those that asked for the ban were the same that would have the violent reactions, and we do not know that.

In fact, knowing that those that have violent reactions do it because, among other things, they like it, I don't think they would ask the authorities to remove an opportunity for another violent action from them.

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

You are free to feel that way. But I urge caution.

Protesting is something people should be allowed to do. I believe it balances the "power" that government has at its' disposal; namely, to bring force into any situation at the behest of a reigning socio-political cabal. In most countries we have a voice we can exercise only once every so-many years (some still have none,) ostensibly to rearrange the positioning of which ever cabal. Populations lack the structural constructs to engage their governments without the participation of long-slow processes. (Is that by design? - another topic entirely)

That violence is purely a political tool would be a mischaracterization of what is at play in this aspect of the human condition. There will always be protests. Always. The day these end, is the day we evolve from human into something else.

a reply to: Maxmars

Appreciate the support.

Am not really seeing any cracks yet, nor reading about it from a few alternative journalists.

One small chink may be the ongoing Emergencies-Act-Inquiry here, which is looking into the Trucker-Convoy protests from earlier this year.

So far every Police™ interview has repeated that there was no violence, no public danger, and no major incidents at all reported, which is contrary to what the MSM™ was reporting.

As expected : Canadian MSM™ is no longer reporting on the ongoing Inquiry™.

It has unfortunately also been way under-reported here on ATS™ as well, and am not up to the task myself.

David Icke would be shaking his head ... ( See : on topic !! LoL )

originally posted by: igloo

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: Asmodeus3

I am afraid to are wing again.

I think your translator or something is broke my friend...

You claimed that Icke is a holocaust denier.
You claimed that he is anti-semitic.

You need proof for these statements & claims. It is you who needs to provide the evidence and prove that he is what you are accusing him to be.

Still you don't understand where the burden of proof is. He doesn't have to prove that he is not guilty . He doesn't even have to answer any of these accusations. He can simply ignore them and I suppose he has been doing so for a long period of time.

It is you who has to provide the evidence and prove your claims.

By ignoring the fact that Icke stated in his own book "And the Truth Shall Set you Free" "Why do we play a part in suppressing alternative information to the official line of the Second World War?" is all the proof needed then there's also his comments about "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" .

I simply don't see what you see in this line of his. Many issues during the world wars are not allowed to be unearthed to the point they replace the official story. An example is addressing the extent to which people were funding and profiting off both sides. Or the initial abuse displaced germans faced prior to the first world war that set their political path in motion. That isn't made part of the official story but it's not anti semitic either.

When he asks why we play a part, is he not alluding to the vast amount of propaganda used to keep the story in line, the shame dished out on those who stray from that narrow story. The book after all, like most of his material, is about how we have been brainwashed into powerlessness. None of this in itself is anti semitic about the war. At least I can't see it.

The anti semitic label is attached far too quick to many issues and has become an enormous juggernaut of an impediment to free speech. Intentional, to my mind, as I think those responsible for most of the nasty in our world are guilty of hiding behind a persecuted group (jews) and have cultivated the narrative into a state where we cannot separate the truly persecuted from the abusers and even trying to explain this gets labelled anti semitic. It's very clever.

I can't question "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because I haven't read it but Icke is so well known that I think he would have been sued into the poor house already if what he is claiming was truly anti semitic.

The member believe he has 'strong evidence' for Icke being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier by making the above references.

None of these imply or even show in the slightest that he is indeed what they have accused him to be. Easily labelled as it's a common tactic in our days.

originally posted by: Maxmars

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

You are free to feel that way. But I urge caution.

Protesting is something people should be allowed to do. I believe it balances the "power" that government has at its' disposal; namely, to bring force into any situation at the behest of a reigning socio-political cabal. In most countries we have a voice we can exercise only once every so-many years (some still have none,) ostensibly to rearrange the positioning of which ever cabal. Populations lack the structural constructs to engage their governments without the participation of long-slow processes. (Is that by design? - another topic entirely)

That violence is purely a political tool would be a mischaracterization of what is at play in this aspect of the human condition. There will always be protests. Always. The day these end, is the day we evolve from human into something else.

Protesting is fine and nobody has argued against it.

It's the protesters who have threaten unrest and disorder in an attempt to censor and silence Icke.
From the information so far this includes left wing activists who are well known for their tactics and views.

They are deranged and it's a fair description of them.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
If free speech was allowed then why Icke cannot go in person and has to give the speech online?

The right to speak freely is not the same thing as the right to move to wherever they want.
Do you consider a free speech problem the fact that some countries ask for a visa to people from other countries?

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

You are assuming they do not have any evidence.

Anti-semitism
Far right extremist
Holocaust denier

He wasn't accused of being a far right extremist.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
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.

I'm not saying you are a Icke supporter, I'm saying you are taking his side by saying that the accusations from those people in the Netherlands are unsubstantiated.

Unless you have analysed all of Icke's interventions and opinions and compared them with the accusations you cannot really take his side anymore than anyone else can take the accuser's side without enough information.

There's only three possibilities in situations like this: we either take the side of the accusers, the side of the accuser or we remain neutral.

To me, the "reasonably good people" do not choose to support one side without enough supporting information, and I haven't seen none that supports the "he his not anti-Semitic" or "he is not a holocaust denier".

PS: the doesn't mean that the information that presents him as "anti-Semitic" or "a holocaust denier" is correct or up to date (people do change), I haven't seen any confirmation of that information's correctness for the present day.

originally posted by: Asmodeus3

The Dutch government has banned British conspiracy theorist David Icke from the Netherlands and the entire Schengen area of the European Union for two years over fears his presence could "disturb public order".

That piece of news is wrong, the Dutch government didn't ban Icke from the Schengen area, it was the authority that controls the Schengen area that accept the concerns of the Dutch police and applied the ban that can be appealed. Individual countries cannot apply a ban for the Schengen area.

Not only Icke is censored but he is banned from Netherlands and how many other countries in the Schengen area (26 in total).

Is not just censorship but part of the cancelling culture sponsored by the state.

If he was censored he wouldn't be allowed to made his speech online and his books would be banned from being on sale.
That's what real censorship is like, I lived under one during the first years of my life.

As for giving lecturer and speeches online that's not the same being physically present in crowds hundreds or even thousands of people. He has every right to do so.

Not in a foreign country, countries have a right to limit who enters them.

Furthermore the internet isn't his friend lately and he is censored on major platforms and his accounts have been blocked as far as I know pretty much everywhere.

That's a slightly different (but related) problem, as those blocks do not come from governments but from private companies.

originally posted by: Maxmars
Freedom of speech, in my opinion, is not separable from the freedom to move about speaking to whomever wishes to hear you.

Freedom of speech is separable from freedom of movement, that's how several countries were able to apply movement restrictions (based on their own constitution and laws) but could not apply speech restrictions.

One example: in Portugal, during the fascist dictatorship, people did not have freedom of speech and they did not have full freedom of movement. The national identity card we all had to carry to be able to present to any police officer that asked for it stated our place of residence, and if we weren't close to it we would be asked why we were away from it.

People had paid to hear him (commerce.)

He was paid to do the speech?

I'm sorry if some people's distaste for the man and his theories is so intense that they feel him unworthy of the same protections we all expect to enjoy. But single-sided opinions and 'feelings' have no place in the elimination of rights.

One possible problem was that the demonstration was supposed to happen on a square where there is a national monument in honour of those that died during World War II. The municipality later moved the demonstration to another place and the organisation, two days before the event, cancelled it, stating the ban of David Icke as the main reason.

a reply to: Asmodeus3

The member believe he has 'strong evidence' for Icke being anti-semitic and a holocaust denier by making the above references.

you may disagree but I see you still haven't even touched upon the issue of "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and have ignored my post showing the proof you asked for with book name, comments and page numbers etc. Do you not agree that Icke made those comments in his book? Do you not believe Icke thinks "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" is a real document?
The only reason to reference this document is for anti-Jewish/anti-semitism propaganda.

www.britannica.com...

Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, fraudulent document that served as a pretext and rationale for anti-Semitism mainly in the early 20th century. The document purported to be a report of a series of 24 (in other versions, 27) meetings held at Basel, Switzerland, in 1897, at the time of the first Zionist congress. There Jews and Freemasons were said to have made plans to disrupt Christian civilization and erect a world state under their joint rule. Liberalism and socialism were to be the means of subverting Christendom; if subversion failed, all the capitals of Europe were to be sabotaged...

Russian historian Vladimir Burtsev, revealed that the Protocols were forgeries compounded by officials of the Russian secret police out of the satire of Joly, a fantastic novel (Biarritz) by Hermann Goedsche (1868), and other sources.

From the Jewish Daily Bulletin September 30 1932
www.jta.org...

Nazis Revive Spurious Protocols of Elders of Zion for Election Purposes

The revival of the use of the spurious protocols of the Elders of Zion has been ordered by Adolph Hitler himself, it was revealed today.

The Elders of Zion legends are now to be broadcast at every Nazi meeting and in the Nazi press, particularly by the “Voelkischer Beobachter.”

The Nazi leader, Julius Streicher, speaking at a Nazi meeting in Munich last night asserted that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the resolutions adopted by the Geneva Jewish conference have now been materialized as the Jews rule the government of Chancellor Franz van Papen.

“Carry out God’s wish! Free Germany from the Jewish poison!” Streicher exclaimed as 10,000 Nazis, including Hitler’s high command, applauded.

research.calvin.edu...

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is one of the most astonishing documents in history. Although proven repeatedly to be forged it is still widely available today, and many (particularly in the Arab world) believe in it completely. It is supposedly the record of a meeting of Jewish leaders late in the nineteenth century to review their progress in gaining world domination. The Wikipedia article on the Protocols provides a good summary (at least it does as I write...).

Although there was sufficient evidence that the Protocols were forged by the early 1920’s, Hitler took them seriously, as did Goebbels and the Nazi propaganda system.

You seem to support the concept of freedom of speech, yet here on ATS in this thread, it appears that if someone disagrees with you, you try to shut them down and use very poor misinformed threats of "court".
Just because you claim Icke isn't as described doesn't make it so and no claims of "refuted" shows this.

You also missed the fact that I posted about his "banning" but because of your Cognitive bias you seemed to have missed this.

originally posted by: Maxmars
Populations lack the structural constructs to engage their governments without the participation of long-slow processes.

That depends..

In Portugal, any person can present an official petition to any official authority (unless it's a legal problem, in which case it should follow a different process), and those presented to the Parliament must be analysed by the corresponding committee. If the petitions are signed by more than 1000 people they must be published on the Parliament's Diary and the petitioners must be heard by the committee.

If the petition is signed by more than 7500 signatures (or if the committee thinks the petition has enough merit), the petition must be discussed in the Parliament.

If approved, the petition may result, among other actions, in an official parliament communication to the corresponding minister to act, the presenting of the situation to the General Attorney or the Judiciary Police (the branch of the police that does the investigations), the creation of an official parliament inquest or the presentation by any party or parliament member of a law draft about it.

originally posted by: Maxmars

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

You are free to feel that way. But I urge caution.

Protesting is something people should be allowed to do. I believe it balances the "power" that government has at its' disposal; namely, to bring force into any situation at the behest of a reigning socio-political cabal. In most countries we have a voice we can exercise only once every so-many years (some still have none,) ostensibly to rearrange the positioning of which ever cabal. Populations lack the structural constructs to engage their governments without the participation of long-slow processes. (Is that by design? - another topic entirely)

That violence is purely a political tool would be a mischaracterization of what is at play in this aspect of the human condition. There will always be protests. Always. The day these end, is the day we evolve from human into something else.

I am a strong proponent of the right of the people to peaceably assemble. When I wrote that comment, the word violent was crucial to the overall meaning. Violent people who don't like what others are saying are the problem (on multiple fronts--threatening the right to a peaceful protest and also the right to speak freely), not protestors.

Great thread and excellent contributions to the topic, by the way

originally posted by: Asmodeus3
It's the protesters who have threaten unrest and disorder in an attempt to censor and silence Icke.

A correction: it's the counter-protesters, as they are protesting against the original demonstration in which Icke was supposed to speak.

From the information so far this includes left wing activists who are well known for their tactics and views.

Don't forget the CIDI – Center for Information and Documentation Israel. On the letter it says that the Amsterdam Jewish police network was told by the CIDI that they were receiving "negative comments" about their own counter-demonstration.

a reply to: ArMaP

How many counter-counter-counter protesters do you think could attend this protest?!?!