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

originally posted by: CyberBuddha

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Maxmars

What makes "words" terror?

This is what I wonder about when I see people on Twitter saying that the site won’t be ‘safe’ if Elon doesn’t ban people for saying certain things.

“Let’s shoot all people with blue eyes…”
You ok with those words appearing on Twitter? Free speech has its limits.

I don't see the relevance to David Icke's speech or views.

@Oldcarpy2

Your Guardian article is about a dangerous right wing nut-job who fire bombed an immigration centre. So? What's your point about that?

Who gets to define what 'right-wing' is? The media and the establishment. Have you not seen the media labels 'Anti-Vaxxers' as 'right-wing'? Anyone questioning government narratives and edicts will be labelled 'right-wing', so the masses will distrust them and shun them as they associate 'right-wing' with events like this. Even if what they are saying is true and they're right (e.g. "vaccines cause injury and death"), the label will damage their credibility and help them be silenced. Random thought - what if refusing the mark of the beast from Book Of Revelation is portayed by the media an 'extreme right-wing' dangerous ideology? More societal pressure and brainwashing to influence the masses to sign-up for it.

Please don't think I support that mans disgusting actions. How the powers are using and reporting the news is the hidden danger from the fallout of this.

@Asmodeus3
Yeah I'm aware. But it's going to get a whole lot worse soon unfortunately. They're turning up the dial.

a reply to: ArMaP

well i guess being banned from 26 countries isn't being considered a terrorist just a threat the way they see it.

Dutch Justice Minister Dilan Yeṣilgöz-Zegerius told reporters on Friday that the fundamental rights to freedom of speech and the right to protest were "not limitless". A letter from immigration authorities said, "there are concrete indications that [Icke's] arrival in the Netherlands poses a threat to public order." The Netherlands order also bans Icke from 26 countries in the EU's passport-free Schengen travel zone.

David Icke: UK conspiracy theorist banned from dozens of European countries

[ex

Icke, a former footballer and sports broadcaster who is one of the world’s most high-profile conspiracy theorists, had been scheduled to speak at a “peace” rally by a conspiracist movement in Amsterdam on Sunday protesting the Ukraine war, the Dutch government and energy prices. Dutch news service RTL Nieuws reported that the decision had been made following consultations between the Dutch immigration service, police and the National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism.

]Icke confirmed the ban, posting a scan of a 5-page letter from the Dutch immigration service to his website. The letter stated the entry ban extended to the entire Schengen visa-free area of 26 European countries, for two years. The letter stated that the ban was due to concerns his presence at an Amsterdam rally planned for Sunday could lead to “a disturbance of public order.”

‘Lizard Elite’ Conspiracy Theorist Banned from 26 European Countries

so let me think about it, seeing how they didn't come right out and call him a terrorist, but sent him a letter that describes speech he uses, fits as a level 3 terror advisory, and is effectively banned from 26 of 27 countries.

Quack Quack.

also found out he's banned from austrialia in 2019. seems to me he's on someones sh@@ list.

Lots of talk in here, and i do love conspiracy theories, but i also love the truth and understand that the process is to wade through a pile of bs to find the nuggets of truth concealed inside.

If david icke received said letter then why go through all the effort to transcribe that letter to english but fail to publish images of the actual letter?

This fact alone is enough to raise my suspicions/bs filters and qualifies this anecdotal story by icke and his family member as potentially dumpster worthy.

How come nobody ever calls him out on this stuff, and if some do, is there ever any response or is it always politicking away from actually answering the question with further factual evidence?

Th conspiracy celebritie are all rife with conmen and grifters, and i think that is by design.

What this leads me to think is that it is likely a publicity stunt to keep his followers hooked in and to bait new followers with sensational anecdotal news which could lead people to believe that this actually happened and for the reasons insinuated in their own musings about unverifiable and alleged facts.

originally posted by: Xtofury
Lots of talk in here, and i do love conspiracy theories, but i also love the truth and understand that the process is to wade through a pile of bs to find the nuggets of truth concealed inside.

If david icke received said letter then why go through all the effort to transcribe that letter to english but fail to publish images of the actual letter?

This fact alone is enough to raise my suspicions/bs filters and qualifies this anecdotal story by icke and his family member as potentially dumpster worthy.

How come nobody ever calls him out on this stuff, and if some do, is there ever any response or is it always politicking away from actually answering the question with further factual evidence?

Th conspiracy celebritie are all rife with conmen and grifters, and i think that is by design.

What this leads me to think is that it is likely a publicity stunt to keep his followers hooked in and to bait new followers with sensational anecdotal news which could lead people to believe that this actually happened and for the reasons insinuated in their own musings about unverifiable and alleged facts.

A simple search reveals this

www.france24.com...

Netherlands bans UK conspiracy theorist David Icke from EU for 2 years

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".

So your attempt to claim that David Icke somehow fabricated this story to enhance his publicity has been demonstrably refuted





Other sources

www.euronews.com...

abcnews.go.com...

a reply to: Xtofury

If david icke received said letter then why go through all the effort to transcribe that letter to english but fail to publish images of the actual letter?

here you go, from ickes website, a translation to english, and right above it it says view the PDF of the letter that was sent to him.

English Translation

and you really think that the dutch wouldn't call him on it if it was fake?

originally posted by: BernnieJGato
well i guess being banned from 26 countries isn't being considered a terrorist just a threat the way they see it.

It isn't, and one of the reasons is that he can present his reasons against it and, if they are considered valid, the ban is lifted.

so let me think about it, seeing how they didn't come right out and call him a terrorist, but sent him a letter that describes speech he uses, fits as a level 3 terror advisory, and is effectively banned from 26 of 27 countries.

The letter doesn't say that, it says, among other things, this:

The 56th Terrorism Threat Assessment Netherlands of 21 April 2022 describes a movement in the Netherlands that is fed by uncompromising conspiracy theories in which prominent persons, administrators and officials are dehumanized and democratic principles are rejected. For example online, through descriptions such as 'reptiles', 'blood-drinking pedophiles', 'enemies of freedom' and 'defenders of the dictatorship'. This movement states that in the Netherlands there is a elite in power who carry through an oppressive agenda, which is at war and against which resistance is needed. The movement is characterized by deep hostility, fanaticism and fantasies of violent vigilance; the elite would ultimately have to answer to tribunals.

And it adds:

By granting you access to the Netherlands, you are given a platform to publicize your theories in person, which means that it can lead to a disturbance of public order or the commission of violence in the Netherlands, even if you do not explicitly call for this yourself.

In summary, it is considered that the information message from the Amsterdam Police shows that your participation in the demonstration has led to indignation among various organisations, including Jewish organizations and left-wing groups, and that several counter-demonstrations have been announced, whereby it is not inconceivable that your lead to a disturbance of public order. Reference is made to the tense relations between the demonstrators and the counter-protesters and the risk of a confrontation. Your physical presence may trigger stronger responses from the counter-demonstration. In the run-up to the demonstration, a hardened relationship is visible online through your announced participation, including even a call for gun violence against you.

If you look at the bolded (added by me) you can see that they are not considering his possible actions (or words) as the main problem but the fact that his presence may increase the possibility of a violent confrontation between two opposing sides, with one part of the side that opposes his views even calling for gun violence against him.

And no, he isn't banned in "26 out of 27 countries", he is banned in the 26 countries in the Schengen area because when anyone enters the Schengen area they can travel to any other country in that area without control.

If the Netherlands wasn't in the Schengen area he would have been banned from entering the Netherlands only.

a reply to: Maxmars

Its interesting really that a Government would be Dumb enough to even acknowledge a Conspiracy Theorist ' Theories ' much less act upon them by banning the man and labeling him a Terrorist .

They have all but Confirmed his Theories by labeling him a Terrorist

I don't imagine the FBI goes knocking on doors every time a Conspiracy buff gets one right ? That would be down right stupid the only real course of action for a Government in such cases is to just ignore ignore ignore.

anyways brave new world

a reply to: Xtofury

You can read the original letter as a PDF file on David Icke's site, here.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Its interesting really that a Government would be Dumb enough to even acknowledge a Conspiracy Theorist ' Theories ' much less act upon them by banning the man and labeling him a Terrorist .

They didn't.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
Its interesting really that a Government would be Dumb enough to even acknowledge a Conspiracy Theorist ' Theories ' much less act upon them by banning the man and labeling him a Terrorist .

They didn't.

So the article I'm reading is wrong then ?

Dave Icke makes Kanye seem like Mr. invitation
I think he’s been banned from everything

The Dutch Ministry of Justice confirmed the ban to local media - saying the letter had been leaked - but made no further comment.
Last month, Amsterdam's mayor, police and prosecutor's office asked demonstration organisers to uninvite Mr Icke for his "anti-Semitic and hurtful statements".

He's got an antisemitic label, and anti-vaccine too, something very topical in the news lately.
Wasn’t he banned from Canada once, I recall?

www.bbc.com...

So Kanye, Kyrie Irving, and now Icke all stand in the public square corner with dunce hats on!

Who's next?

Earlier, I used a word ... "litigious"

And in my appreciation of all the dialogue offered herein, it seems somehow appropriate to invoke this word again.

In order to avoid any offense (as I unfortunately caused, the first time I used that word) allow me to preamble this post with an illustration of my intentions:

I offer a framework of the following 'determinations' taken from within our dialogue:

The assertion that Mr. Icke was designated a "terrorist" by the regional government is false, at worst or, simply literally incorrect, at best.

The source (Mr. Icke's son) either conveyed the message innocently allowing his emotions to 'color' his expressions, or thoughtlessly sensationalized the facts (shades of MSM,) or basely intended to convey a story that was untrue (an illogical supposition - since even we here can assess its validity directly.)

The 'litigious' in us all compels us to make utterances in reaction to the information and sometimes, if we are not 'purposeful' in our application of the utterances, we can 'lose the thread' (to coin an apt phrase) of the conversation.

Example:

1- In a casual reply to slatesteam, BernnieJGato playfully reprised a phrase "the only good terrorist is a dead terrorist or a jailed terrorist." The litigious approach might lead me to point out that hundreds of years ago the revolutionary 'heroes' of the American colonies were the British Empire's 'terrorists,' and any such declarations are contextually subjective (anchored within the context of those assigning the label.) That's the kind of argumentative approach to which I am referring. Word mincing, the separation of what is said, from what is meant... litigiousness.

2 - AaarghZombies added that "Europe isn't like the US. People there are a lot more sensitive when it comes to antisemitism." This is acceptable, insofar as a description of motivations that may speak to the "ban" of his movements. But there is a litigious remark which could follow; namely that antisemitism is a 'sentiment' and no one yet has identified anything he says that is undeniably "antisemitic." Simply identifying that most Jewish Bankers are successful and powerful only speaks to their potential participation in what, I believe, he sees as a global or globalist scheme. His description does not speak of the Jewish people, or the Jewish faith, or even its' culture. And Jews are not the only Semites, are they all offended - has Israel banned him? The whole "antisemitic" accusatory angle lacks consistency and speaks more to 'sensitivities" than to facts... again litigious.

AaarghZombies adds, "Ike has spent years claiming that Jewish bankers are behind everything..." But is that really "Icke's message?" It can be argued that it is simply an element of Icke's message that has been repeated publicly until it characterizes everything he says. Can we presume that had he said "bankers," and not "Jewish Bankers," everything would be alright? Another litigious possible response.

AaarghZombies also notes "...they're saying that terrorism is one of the problems facing Holand at this time. That's what the "level Three" thing means, it refers to the current alert level." Which leads to the potential response of "Can they - being fearful of terrorism - justify attributing to an individual's movements and speech, without pointing specifically to why so? One might argue that any 'official' reason for such actions needs more than a vague allusion to an ongoing situation that has no demonstrable connection to the targeted individual.

3 - F2d5thCavv2 neatly proposes that "... guys like Icke get banned because, frankly, he is NOT a terrorist and won't harm anyone for being banned from the EU. True or otherwise, that he is a 'safe' celebrity to abuse publicly, it is unlikely to be admitted at any time from any 'source.' So such a statement must be considered as speculative.

4 - surfer_soul replies at one point "...No he hasn’t, he’s said there is a cabal of globalists behind everything. Just because some of them happen to be Jewish bankers doesn’t mean he is blaming the Jews in general. However, the litigious answer to that is that the designation "Jewish bankers" is problematically specific. Doesn't such an utterance imply that non-Jew bankers are innocent of complicity? Isn't it reasonable to be concerned that the specificity of the utterance is just as precariously an implication as the one embedded with the message "You specifically can't travel here because: terrorism."

5 - ArMap Is correct in that "If he was really considered a terrorist the Netherlands authorities would have issued an Interpol request for his arrest or something like that, and he wouldn't have been allowed to share his views online... However that doesn't address the overarching sentiment that Icke is being specifically sanctioned. Presumably, freedom of movement is a prerequisite of public speaking (a large part of his livelihood,) and that activity is being abridged for reasons excused by little more than "terrorism." I cannot disagree that it can be said his "free speech" is not explicitly being taken away; but I can argue that such freedoms as we enjoy are not so easily separable from each other.

6 - Xtofury champions cautionary suspicion - which I support - for all we know this is a huge PR campaign to 'excite' audiences... although I'm not saying that's overwhelmingly likely. Xtofury notes "...conspiracy celebrities are all rife with conmen and grifters... No doubt... But we are not talking about the group of such personalities, we are talking specifically about Icke and his current circumstance. I would offer that with as much "open disdain" as exists towards the man and his message, if he were guilty of anti-social behavior - the enhanced scrutiny he suffers would have already landed him jail by now. Perhaps not, but I am being 'litigious' here.

Due to the courtesy of Armap's research we have this excerpt from the actual communication...

The 56th Terrorism Threat Assessment Netherlands of 21 April 2022 describes a movement in the Netherlands that is fed by uncompromising conspiracy theories in which prominent persons, administrators and officials are dehumanized and democratic principles are rejected...The movement is characterized by deep hostility, fanaticism and fantasies of violent vigilance; the elite would ultimately have to answer to tribunals.

But if this "movement" is so dangerous, why is it unnamed, undefined? And there is a dangerous component of this text also...,

By granting you access to the Netherlands, you are given a platform to publicize your theories in person, which means that...

[emphasis mine]

... it can lead to a disturbance of public order or the commission of violence in the Netherlands, even if you do not explicitly call for this yourself.

Acknowledging openly that Icke will be blamed for whatever happens? Excuse me, by that logic heated-soccer matches should be banned as well.

Please NOTE: Nothing herein is a criticism or judgment - just an exercise I undertook. I truly appreciate all your comments and I thought a response in this experimental format might prove interesting and valuable (at least to me) in the final analysis.

When you're over the target you catch the most fire. David has been over the target for quite some time.

a reply to: Maxmars

It's BS.

The whole principle of free speech is meant to be the right to preach - anyone else has the choice to feel offended and the right to speak against it if they wish.

Saw him as a child on the tv...

Saw him as a teenager on the internet...

Saw him as a man and I say - alright do well at least you do youre thing and wtf - at times.

Saw him as a whatever I am now - Finish the job son - take a bow anyways regardless and be yourself - even if a man is a piece of sh*t as some say at least he kept it up - takes a lot of work within reason of course and I don't see piles of dead bodies anywhere?



I have changed quite a lot - as a person that is deaf (but can hear a little - for now) during lockdowns and with certain stuff that happens in life as it does on the weird wacky ride of life.

Even at the very least - take away the madmen? Where is the sphere to touch outward into the realms of sanity? How can we say what is sane and not sane if we are not allowed to push it? Whilst giving respect to each other?

Anyways, this is sad - all of it is quite sad to see. I always took comfort when I was trapped in a cycle with the knowledge that sometimes if shieet got too real - there was an outlet another possiblity out there that maybe it meant something.

Said with respect and just my actual own thoughts on it all without reading what anyone else said - trying to be more real in a fake world and I don't really care (I don't want you to care about it either on a personal level) what my view offends because my intention is only about free speech and why it matters.

a reply to: XXXN3O

It is sad, isn't it? And I hope I am understanding what you mean. If not, please excuse the presumption when I say that it has long appeared true to me that "He who increases knowledge, increases sorrow."

But it is our nature to examine that knowledge despite the sorrow that it engenders. Perhaps ultimately even because of it.

Our role in this may seem merely as observers. Observers have the opportunity, at least, to gain knowledge. Knowledge almost always bears fruit. It's the fruit I'm after.

a reply to: Maxmars



Attachment, isn't it

originally posted by: F2d5thCavv2
a reply to: Maxmars

Bizarre. How is he a 'terrorist' ?

Cheers

Since when was a non violent lunatic, violent? I do not think they are wrong to say he is a bit of a loon.

However, there is no reason to say he is wrong in his opinion. Who knows he might be right? The scientist logic says his stuff may sound crazy, but it simply isn't impossible. Have I seen anything to corroborate his story 100%? No! Have I seen reasons to say 100% it cannot be true? Again, no!

What is the truth about who we humans are, and where did we come from, could be anything? Icke seems to think there is a reptilian class of humans among us. Satan is called "that old dragon" in the bible. Dragons are reptiles. Maybe the man is on the top of an iceberg of this story with a whole lot of data just below the waterline?

BUT that doesn't remotely matter to his threat to peoples lives that is non existent. The EU protests too much I think.

I don't think he's a terrorist, just a lame clown.