David Icke KICKED OFF FACEBOOK

originally posted by: pigsy2400
One of my pet peeves about certain individuals and topics that they promote, such as the ones that Icke puts forward is that; when they discuss a topic that probably deserves unbiased/liminal investigation; because of its source or the main promoter of the ideas put forward and all the other "junk" that becomes associated with it, the baggage around that individual historically doesnt help either; that original topic, that still deserves investigation; becomes labelled junk along with the other orbiting junk.

It's a shame...people like Icke do more damage to certain topics than good in many respects...

Does not matter what you think, or me. It's about free speech, and that it is slowly being taken away from us.

I believe that Icke had a psychotic break, and a perceptual shift. I don't think he should be discounted on that basis though. It might be a good reason to listen to him, but you might need the mind to do it.
When he talks of reptiles, I hear him talk of a group among us who are fundamentally different. They are cold hearted to the rest of us.
Mr. Epstein, Mr Weinstein... do not represent all Jews, but they were powerful and they were Jewish, and they were predators. They were also protected.
I have never heard Icke say all Jews were bad. Some of the 'reptiles' he names are Christian.

a reply to: Jay-morris

I wasn't commenting on Free Speech....although I do agree with you on that topic.

My point was that there are some "topics" that get Circulated in conspiracy circles that should warrant a greater public interest and ultimately investigation. Sometimes those topics get promoted in a such a way and ultimately rolled into whatever else the promoter believes (and has the right to state ) that the value in the original inquiry is lost on most people.

a reply to: PandaPrincess

He has a right to say what he wants to and should not have been banned, that being said i have the right to call Icke batcrap crazy.

I like Star Wars but i don't call it a documentary series, go home Icke your drunk.

If no more videos appear on david icke's site soon, we'll know what's happened and the media spin will be that he died of coronavirus!

a reply to: PandaPrincess

Like many others I disagree too. And I do not disagree because of Icke's his theories but because of silencing him. Same thing with that anti holocoast writer... whats his name...David Irving.

The other day I had a discussion about this exact matter with a friend. His argument is that "stupid" people should be protected from being exposed to false information. There was a deadly silence when I reminded him how the voice of intelectuals were silenced in the second world war and all there was to believe was government propaganda. And we all know what happened next with the jews and a lot of other "lying" people.




For as long as it will not hurt someone it is so very wrong to silence someones voice...

originally posted by: zatara
And I do not disagree because of Icke's his theories but because of silencing him. Same thing with that anti holocost writer... whats his name...David Irving.

Facebook's not the be-all and end-all of self-promotion, and he’s not being silenced. He’s just been kicked off one platform who are free to kick him off if they want. Icke can use his own web presence and other medium to spread his ridiculous narrative around.

The racist anti-Semite David Irving was totally discredited at a professional level. He's no doubt living in quiet luxury away from the limelight, goose-stepping around and occasionally barking “Herr Hitler, Sie sind meine Liebe, ich grüße Sie und Ihren schönen Körper“, or words to that effect.

a reply to: zatara

We can't keep protecting people from themselves and by we I mean various Governments and agencies. We would become a nanny state and possibly authoritarian. This kind of thinking doesn't lead to a good place and at the moment we've enough going on with the surveillance snitch society we are creating and/or agreeing to

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: pigsy2400
One of my pet peeves about certain individuals and topics that they promote, such as the ones that Icke puts forward is that; when they discuss a topic that probably deserves unbiased/liminal investigation; because of its source or the main promoter of the ideas put forward and all the other "junk" that becomes associated with it, the baggage around that individual historically doesnt help either; that original topic, that still deserves investigation; becomes labelled junk along with the other orbiting junk.

It's a shame...people like Icke do more damage to certain topics than good in many respects...

Does not matter what you think, or me. It's about free speech, and that it is slowly being taken away from us.

Icke can go out and stand on a soapbox. But on a private site where someone else pays the bills; he is bound by the T&C just like on ATS or FB.

Do the people that build the site, pay the fees, and do the maintenance have rights? If Icke doesn't like it...GTFO.

I'm sure David Icke gives a $# about facebook. Facebook is being run like most other sites, eg. youtube. Stealing the rights of others via their nazi power gavels.

Your rights as a American do not extent into your monitor.

a reply to: Athetos

well maybe you are right about that, but I do believe that people when communicating should have some basic or natural rights when communicating online.

Bull#. Would you sacrifice your life so scum like Adolf Hitler could enjoy freedom of speech? Would you?
I doubt it.

You can be innovative and progressive without being an effin bigot.

BTW. This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. Facebook is a private company. David can still sphew his crap on other platforms.

a reply to: XCrycek

Yeah I would, You remember the tiki torch people? they have a right to do what they did to say what they did. they have a right to do that.

yeah Until David is banned on other platforms. again I get facebook is a private company but still people treat facebook as a public square. As the post events for the general public to attend.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: pigsy2400
One of my pet peeves about certain individuals and topics that they promote, such as the ones that Icke puts forward is that; when they discuss a topic that probably deserves unbiased/liminal investigation; because of its source or the main promoter of the ideas put forward and all the other "junk" that becomes associated with it, the baggage around that individual historically doesnt help either; that original topic, that still deserves investigation; becomes labelled junk along with the other orbiting junk.

It's a shame...people like Icke do more damage to certain topics than good in many respects...

Does not matter what you think, or me. It's about free speech, and that it is slowly being taken away from us.

Icke can go out and stand on a soapbox. But on a private site where someone else pays the bills; he is bound by the T&C just like on ATS or FB.

Do the people that build the site, pay the fees, and do the maintenance have rights? If Icke doesn't like it...GTFO.

Wow! People trying to find excuses, just because they do not like him. So please answer me this. Why have they removed him on Facebook, and his youtube channel, when we have millions of people doing the same thing, with no problems whatsoever. Why him?

Also, just to add. Are you saying that Facebook were not pressured by an outside source? We know this was the case with YouTube regarding his London real interviews.

It always amazes me when people go on about free speech, but when it concerns someone they do not like, then it's ok to silence them

a reply to: Jay-morris

It always amazes me when people go on about free speech, but when it concerns someone they do not like, then it's ok to silence them

But.....


He's not silenced there are plenty of platforms he can access to spread his message. I'll wager he would be welcomed on ATS as long as he kept the T&C.

They even let that moron Tom deLong on ATS to essentially say Nothing.

a reply to: olaru12

But.....


He's not silenced there are plenty of platforms he can access to spread his message. I'll wager he would be welcomed on ATS as long as he kept the T&C.

They even let that moron Tom deLong on ATS to essentially say Nothing.

Going back a year or so ago, no one would have said he would have been banned from Facebook or his page deleted on YouTube, but it has happend.

If he had his website deleted, what are the chances people like you will say it is justified because we do not own the internet.

Are you saying there was no pressure from certain powers to delete him from these platforms? Are you saying they could not take his site down? Course they can!

This all comes down to the fact that you do not lime him, or do not care about what he says.

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: olaru12

But.....


He's not silenced there are plenty of platforms he can access to spread his message. I'll wager he would be welcomed on ATS as long as he kept the T&C.

They even let that moron Tom deLong on ATS to essentially say Nothing.

This all comes down to the fact that you do not lime him, or do not care about what he says.

BS, I own all his books and have read them all. I find some of his theories interesting and some just crazy BS he uses for shock value to keep his fans interested. Just like Alex Jones. If Icke wants to flavor his theories with Lime, that's his choice. I don't want to silence him. I find him entertaining. Perhaps he needs to move on to some "gay frogs" scenario's like the master of all things CT...AJ. I don't want Alex silenced either.

a reply to: Jay-morris

Forgive me, but you seem to either be illiterate on what private ownership means or willingly ignoring that the social media sites are privately owned.

Is it private ownership you are opposed to? Is that your point?

This is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. No free speech rights are being infringed upon in any way.

Censorship is what's happening in Russia when those who speak out suddenly jump off buildings, or in China when if you speak out you disappear.

Seems to me you're a huge Icke fan and you're pissed others don't believe him or like him like you do, because there is no censorship happening. That's more than OK, its your right to be a fan or believe whatever you wish. It's the right of the privately owned social media sites to decide who can or can't post on them.

Censorship of the sort you're mistakenly ascribing to this case is a very dangerous thing. If the government used legal mechanisms to silence Icke, then I'd be on your side. Now that may be happening in some countries, but here in the US it's not happening yet. Does the UK government censor people or punish speech?

Im still trying to figure out why people think Facebook is so important and is some great platform to spread information.

It started as a hook up site, then turned into some vanity contest and now somehow is viewed as the great information suppository, the youth use other platforms now anyways, Facebook is for us aging folk.

To say ike is being silenced because he is booted from Facebook is like saying he's being starved because he's been banned from MacDonalds.

a reply to: Blaine91555

Forgive me, but you seem to either be illiterate on what private ownership means or willingly ignoring that the social media sites are privately owned.

And you seem to not know, or ignore the fact that chances are, they were pressured by outside. A good example is the fact that David Ickes video in London real was banned, all because of the pressure from outside. If what you are saying is true, then why not ignore these outside influences?

Is it private ownership you are opposed to? Is that your point?

My point is clear. Why does a "private company" give in to outside sources to ban him? This is a weak excuse to try and justify freedom of speech being shut down.

This is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. No free speech rights are being infringed upon in any way.

Again, please explain to me then that these outside sources have influenced the decision? And please explain to me why all the thousands of other conspiracy pages and channels are still on there. It's quite obvious they want to shut him up.

Censorship is what's happening in Russia when those who speak out suddenly jump off buildings, or in China when if you speak out you disappear.

Are you being serious? Are you actually trying to justify this by bringing censorship up regarding China and Russia?

Let me ask you this. Is it a coincidence that everyone on this thread so far who are trying to justify this absolutly hate Icke? Is that really a coincidence?

Seems to me you're a huge Icke fan and you're pissed others don't believe him or like him like you do, because there is no censorship happening.

Oh there it is! Because I do not agree with you, then I am a huge Icke fan! Seriously, I would stop now before you dig yourself a deeper hole here.

That's more than OK, its your right to be a fan or believe whatever you wish.

Are you some sort of master psychic? Or are you so arragont you think you know everyone's mind, what they like and how they are thinking?

Please stop

It's the right of the privately owned social media sites to decide who can or can't post on them.

And yet you ignore the fact that pressure has been put on them, as was proven in the icke interview on London real. You think because they are private companies, then they cannot get any pressure from the powers that be to shut them down? Are you that gullible?

Censorship of the sort you're mistakenly ascribing to this case is a very dangerous thing. If the government used legal mechanisms to silence Icke,

BBC put pressure on Google to ban the London real interview. It was not Google decision to ban it. So, why is that?

Now that may be happening in some countries, but here in the US it's not happening yet. Does the UK government censor people or punish speech?

Icke is having his freedom of speech taken away from him. Facebook and goodie had pressure from the likes of the BBC (state owned) So what does that tell you?

I guarantee if they took his website down, people like you would say it was fair because we do not own the internet.

Let's be honest here. The only reason why you think his freedom of speech is not being taken away is because you do not like him, and think he talks crap.

Yes, he does talk a lot of crap, but it's his right to do so.

Like I said before. Is it a coincidence that the people saying the same rubbish as you are the people who dispose him?

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Im still trying to figure out why people think Facebook is so important and is some great platform to spread information.

It started as a hook up site, then turned into some vanity contest and now somehow is viewed as the great information suppository, the youth use other platforms now anyways, Facebook is for us aging folk.

To say ike is being silenced because he is booted from Facebook is like saying he's being starved because he's been banned from MacDonalds.

It's not just facebook. His page was deleted on YouTube, and chances are, he will be deleted on Twitter. Why is this important? Because billions of people use these platforms. So they are trying to cut him off. Over two billion people use facebook alone!

That is why it's so important.