All Episodes
May 10, 2019 - David Icke
52:27
David Icke In Vehement Defence Of Freedom Of Speech For Everyone - The Dot Connector Videocast
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started.
Hi, I'm Matt. I'm a freelance photographer. I'm here to show you how to create a 3D effect.
I'm going to show you how to create a 3D effect.
Thank you for hanging out with me this evening.
This is the best in anomalous talk radio.
This is midnight in the desert on my one-year anniversary of taking over the reins of the program.
Thank you for spending the evening here with us.
Joining us for the next two hours, David Icke, who's a former professional soccer player and sports broadcaster.
He's an English writer and public speaker.
Best known... For his views on what he calls who and what is really controlling the world.
Self described as the most controversial speaker in the world.
He's the author of over 20 books and numerous DVDs.
His new documentary is out called Renegade.
David Icke, welcome to the show.
Thank you for being here, sir. Pleasure.
Let's start from the beginning, if you wouldn't mind, to educate listeners that are newer and have just found This kind of programming and just learning a little bit about you.
How do you go from a footballer and sportscaster down the well that you've gone and into this sense of needing to educate people regarding something you see as a fact that's coming our way, this kind of Orwellian future?
Well, first of all, look around you, ladies and gentlemen.
Look at events in recent days.
Look at what's on the news.
Look at what Facebook is doing.
Look at what Google is doing and Twitter is doing.
This is not coming anymore.
This is here.
I was a professional footballer.
My career finished when I was 21 with arthritis.
Rheumatoid arthritis, they diagnosed it as.
And as a kid, I always wanted to be, if I wasn't a footballer, I wanted to be a journalist.
So I became a journalist, worked my way up through newspapers, radio, and became a national presenter for the BBC, first of all in news and current affairs, and then in sport.
And then I I was seeing how the environment was being dismantled, and I started getting active in the British Green Party.
And in an extraordinary series of amazing, bizarre coincidences, I ended up about two months, not much more, after joining the party as a member, being a national spokesman for it.
But once I got into politics and the whole green arena, I saw that it was just the same as all other politics, and I pulled out of that.
And I was a national presenter for the BBC when I started to have very, very strange experiences.
What would it be? Through 1989 into 1990.
If I was in a room alone, it seemed like I wasn't alone.
There seemed to be a presence there.
And this... It just got more and more tangible as the months passed.
Now, when you say that you felt a presence there, can you expand upon that a little bit more?
What exactly do you mean?
Was it like a being was there, a human, something different?
What can you relate to us on that?
All I can say is that it was like something else was in the room.
It's like I wasn't alone.
There was a feeling that something else was there.
And this continued.
You know, this wasn't an ad hoc here and now experience.
This was getting more and more powerful.
And there came a point when I was working for the BBC in early 1990, the first few months of 1990, When I was in a hotel room in London, just down from the BBC headquarters, and this presence got so powerful in the room, I said into the room, look, if there's something there, would you please contact me, because you'd drive me up the wall.
And within days, I was in a newspaper shop, sold a few books, and I was standing at the entrance waiting for my son to come over.
When the atmosphere around me changed, this is March 1990, the atmosphere around me changed quite demonstrably, and in those days I hadn't got a clue what was going on.
And all I heard, it wasn't a voice, it was like a very strong thought form, said, go and look at the books on the far side.
And in a days, a long story, in a days I walked across to these books, they only sold a few books in the shop, the shop's still there.
And they were romantic novels, basically.
And I walked over in this daze, what the hell is going on?
And I saw one book in the middle of the romantic novels that was different to the rest.
It was a book called Mind to Mind.
And so I picked it up and I read the blurb.
And it was by a psychic lady, a professional psychic.
So I bought the book because my thought was, I wonder if this lady would be able to pick up or I don't have any insight into what I've been feeling around me for the last year.
So I went to see her and went a couple of times because the reason she thought I went, and in one way I suppose I was interested in it, was that I had arthritis and nothing was improving it, so maybe her hands-on healing, which she did, might have some help.
That's why she thought I was going.
I didn't tell her anything about what had been happening to me.
And on the third visit, after a while, I'm sitting there on a kind of medical-type bench in her room.
She's doing the hands-on healing.
And suddenly she launches her head back and said, my God, this is powerful.
I've got to close my eyes for this one.
So I'm sitting there.
I have no idea what's going on.
I've never met a psychic in my life.
And she starts telling me that this presence that she's connecting with, she says, I was telling her to tell me that I was going to go out on a world stage and reveal great secrets, that there was a massive story that needed to be told in terms of humanity understanding what they were actually involved in, what was actually going on.
And a load of other things came out, all of which had turned out to be true all these years later.
And one of the things that was said was that I was going to be led to knowledge And at other times, knowledge would be put in my mind and I would not know where it came from.
And from the moment I left her house that day, that happened.
And it's got more and more in terms of volume ever since.
I've been on a journey for the last 30 years of coincidence, quote, following coincidence,
which has led me to information on multiple levels that has allowed me to basically put
a jigsaw puzzle together.
What's been- David, did she have a concept on what it was that was
communicating and what was telling her this?
Well, first, just let me finish that point.
What's been happening ever since is that...
Information has been dropping into my life in an extraordinary way, and it's gone on right up to present day.
Her concept was that she was connecting with another, if you like, dimension of reality, which was communicating with her.
I mean, you know, people don't realize, because it's not in the media or taught in the schools, that what we're actually experiencing as what we call reality, as what we call the world, It's actually just a tiny band of frequency.
That's all it is. The totality of existence lies beyond that frequency.
I mean, we only perceive a world visually within the tiny, ludicrous frequency band of what science calls visible light.
Everything else beyond it is denied us visually.
And what psychics have the ability to do, and of course there are psychics and there are psychics, There are those that claim to be, that are not at all, and there's some, the creme de la creme, if you like, that have the ability to expand their frequency range to the point where they can interact with bands of frequency, bands of reality, that are beyond the normal human interaction with reality.
And so it's somewhere out there beyond the human sense of the world that she was connecting with.
And when she was tapping into this sense and you're, I mean, hearing this, feeling the sense that there's something around you and then starting to hear it, was this something that you just readily accepted or did it take a while for you to start to Really kind of adopt this philosophy and this truth, as you would come to know it, as reality.
Well, I go with A, my intuition, and B, I look at evidence and I look at the way things play out.
And when, for instance, you are told that you're going to be led to information, and information will be put into your mind, and pretty much immediately after you leave her house, it starts, where you keep coming across people, books, personal experiences, etc., etc., that have a very clear theme in them.
And then when things that you were told were going to happen start blatantly to happen, I mean, you know, I've not had a life for the last 30 years of revealing great secrets, have I? So, you know, it's a dual thing, really. How do I feel intuitively about this?
Does this feel right?
And it did. And does it play out?
In the realm of, if you like, the five senses and that level of experience, does it actually play out?
Both, in my experience, turned out to be credible.
In trying to come forward with this information, how much pushback did you get in the beginning?
Reading online and reading through some of these stories, There seems to be kind of a mix of people dismissing you readily and others that started to hear what you were saying and follow it.
What did you feel was stronger in the beginning for you?
Well, being dismissed, I went through historic levels of ridicule.
When I first started, because I had a public presence, if you like, as a national presenter with the BBC, When I started talking about this stuff and what was happening to me, I wrote a book called Truth Vibrations in that period, describing what was happening.
Then, obviously, A, it got a lot of coverage, and B, the media absolutely just ridiculed me.
Like I say, it was historic levels.
I was walking down streets anywhere, anywhere.
I'm being laughed at by people, sometimes to my face, and often at a distance.
If I went into a pub, there was uproar.
A comedian only had to say my name on a TV comedy show, and he got a laugh, no joke necessary.
So, no, it was massive dismissal.
And I went on the biggest talk show in Britain at the time, In 1991, a thing called The Wogan Show, when I was in a complete daze about basically what was happening to me and how my life was just changing so fast.
After that, the level of ridicule just went through the stratosphere.
I have this saying, life tends to give you your greatest gifts brilliantly disguised as your worst nightmare.
And something happened to me as a result of that mass ridicule, which set me free and allowed me to go down the road that I've gone.
And that is it cleared me out of the fear of what other people think.
That's the prison that most people live in.
They censor themselves constantly on the basis of how will others perceive me if I say this, if I do this.
When you experience the level of ridicule that I did, One of two things happen.
Either you go under, and you disappear from the world, or you come out honed in the fire.
I chose the latter.
As a result of that, as this sequence of information dropping into my life, almost in an order that made it easier to understand, I did not have a problem in communicating it, even though some of it to mainstream perception would have been perceived as bizarre, because I didn't care what they thought.
I don't care what they think now.
I care what the truth is.
I care about pursuing what's actually happening, no matter what it is.
I have no preconceived attachment to what's happening.
I just want to know what's happening.
And that mass ridicule was utterly vital in what has happened since, which allows me to talk about things that others didn't, because what will people think?
I don't care. I understand that you don't care, but I've got to guess that had to wear on you at the beginning, especially when what you're doing is trying to come forward with what you believe is the truth.
In this task, kind of a Herculean task, of trying to enlighten humanity to messages you're being given.
Well, they're not messages I'm being given.
Let's put that right.
You said that information would come to your mind and you don't necessarily know where it came from.
What I'm saying is I'm not sitting in a trance getting this information from the ether.
It's been a...
A tapestry of different sources, most of them very much in the five senses.
And, you know, I'm not just pulling this out of the ether.
I mean, my books are absolutely awash with five sense names, dates, places, people, information as well.
But yes, I'd gone from being a respected television presenter Stopped in the street.
Oh, you're that David Icke off the telly, aren't you?
To being ridiculed by men, women, children, everybody.
But like I say, it was vital.
To what I subsequently did.
Because if you have an attachment to how people think of you, and when I say I don't care what people think, it's not that I just dismiss what everyone says.
When I'm not talking, which is most of the time, I'm listening, because that's how you gain information.
So I listen to people.
But if I have an opinion, I have a view, I have a way of seeing things, and If people ridicule me for that or dismiss me or abuse me for that, which is what it's more like these days, then I don't let that affect what I say.
That's vital, especially now when alternative opinions are being systematically targeted in what is nothing less than a war on freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
There's been quite a few people that have stepped out over the last decade here that have tried to bring forth this enlightenment, and many of them have similar messages, but it seems that there's a lot of strange infighting as well among those that are sharing these messages.
Has that been something that you have to deal with as regular as well?
Well, no, because I don't work with anyone else.
You see, I have a simple philosophy.
People should have the right to express their view, their opinion, and have it part of the discourse.
So if people want to hurl abuse at me or ridicule at me, then feel free, because I don't care.
I care about what I'm uncovering and what I'm communicating and how people receive it is irrelevant to me.
It really is, and it has to be.
Once you're in a situation where you give a way of how people see you as dictating what you say, Or how people see you affects you in terms of how you feel because of what they say, then you're allowing them to impact upon your life.
What's the sense in that?
So, you know, people have a right to say what they like, and they should have that, because once that's breached, we are in real trouble, like we're in real trouble now.
But it doesn't mean you have to be affected by it.
So I just get on with my life.
But what I do is observe the infighting.
I observe the sometimes, although I don't see it very much because I don't go into those areas of the internet, I observe abuse of me.
And I just wonder where they're really coming from in terms of a commitment to freedom and truth.
See, I disagree with what lots of people say, but I absolutely agree with their right to say it.
And what I see so much in what's called the alternative media is the same reaction to information and opinions that they don't agree with that I see in the mainstream.
So people talk about the alternative media as if it's one entity.
It's not. It's a vast spectrum from almost imperceptually not different from the mainstream to where I'm coming from, which is questioning absolutely everything that we've been told to believe is real.
So it's not just one entity.
Look at the way people like me are seen by that part of the alternative media, which is barely different from the mainstream in its reactions and its responses and its ways of working.
Then you're seeing the same responses that I get from the mainstream media.
And, you know, the more you go down the rabbit hole, the more you push forward into areas that others will not go, the more people who are in their own mind, open-minded, but actually are not, are going to ridicule and dismiss you.
And the other thing that I see and observe is the way So many in the alternative media say to people in general, you don't believe what you read in the papers, basically.
Don't believe what the mainstream media tells you.
Just check things out.
Don't just take things on face value.
And yet, that's what they do with people like me.
They just repeat what they have been told about me.
So I would say to one or two of them here and there, have you read my books?
No. So how can you think you have a valid opinion of what I'm saying?
All you're doing is responding to what you've heard in the media.
And it's quite extraordinary that so many people think they're awake when they're solid gold asleep.
And what I'm finding is it's the members of the public that are really starting to awaken, which is why the vast increase in people looking at my work has unfolded in recent years, because What I'm seeing is people in greater numbers, not the majority yet, of course, but in greater and greater numbers are willing to go into those areas and pursue those areas that before they would have dismissed with a wave of the hand.
And so it's very encouraging on one level while very discouraging on another in terms of the way our ability to communicate alternative information is being targeted in a way that perhaps we've never seen before.
Well, definitely we've never seen before.
Just to go back to the infighting of people that are sharing the same knowledge or trying to share the same knowledge, Where is this kind of derision coming from?
I mean, if you've got the same information, you're all trying to do the same thing, why is there this combative nature?
Is it everybody wants to be the first to tell the story?
How do you understand that?
Well, I think there's many reasons for it.
That's kind of one.
It's this arrogance.
I know more than you.
And, you know, this is another...
That is not just prevalent in much of the alternative media.
By the way, I have enormous respect for great swathes of the alternative media and people in it.
There's some extraordinarily brilliant people and courageous people in the alternative media.
I'm just talking about this area that you brought up.
But you also see the same phenomenon in what is called now progressive, this Hijacking of the traditional liberal left, which is where I came from in my background, whereby it goes like this.
I am right, and therefore anyone who has a different opinion to me must by definition be wrong.
Thus, what does it matter if they have freedom of speech or not?
Because they're wrong. And you see the same...
A kind of mental process in parts of the alternative media, where they say again, this guy is saying something different to me, but I have the answers, therefore what he's saying has got to be wrong.
And because I go into, as well as the names, dates, places, everyday five-cents world of manipulation, I also go into Levels beyond that, into the levels of the nature of reality, of the esoteric levels of perception as well as the five sense levels, when I go into the interaction between this world and non-human phenomena, it's too much for Much of the alternative media,
which still comes from the can I see it, touch it, taste it, hear it, okay, it exists then mentality.
They might see the five sense world in a slightly different way, i.e.
there is some force manipulating it.
But they are still in their responses and their perceptions stuck only in the level of the five senses.
So anyone who goes beyond that has got to be crazy.
And I do have to smile sometimes and shake my head when I see Some members of the alternative media who are coming from the, shall we say, Christian direction.
Now, I'm not a Christian. I don't believe in any religion, but I absolutely support the right of people to do that.
My philosophy on life is very simple.
It's do what you like so long as you don't impose it on anyone else.
And people here do what you like.
Well, do what you like. So long as you don't impose on anyone else.
And if you play that through, it's basically saying, live your life as you choose, but don't impose what you choose on other people.
And what we're seeing, for instance, as an example of that now, is this war on freedom of speech.
People saying, I have a right to my opinion, but your opinion is different to mine, so you must be censored.
We have now whole internet giants who work on that whole philosophy, or if you can call it philosophy, that way of censorship.
So we're in a world that's going further and further from that point.
I say trust people.
And let them hear all the information available and let them make their mind up what they make of that information.
And that's where you develop individual reality rather than impose collective reality, which we're seeing more and more in an extreme.
And let's just have all the information available.
And let's... Let people be at peace with having a different opinion.
In other words, just because their opinion is different doesn't mean you have to abuse them and ridicule them because of that.
Okay, you don't agree with their opinion.
Okay, well, don't agree with it then.
Live your life according to your opinion.
But once we make it an unpleasant experience, indeed an extraordinarily unpleasant experience for some people, Who are much more influenced by what other people think of them.
You are basically censoring, because the most insidious part of censorship, the most destructive censorship, is self-censorship.
And if you're making life unpleasant for someone to have their opinion, their view, their perception of the world communicated, then you are a censor.
Because you are encouraging and pressuring people not to have that view, therefore for that opinion not to circulate.
And when you look through history, you see many opinions that were challenging the norms of the time, that were ridiculed, even people burned at the stake for them, that have turned out to be true.
We're in a period now where this pressure not to have a different opinion is greater than I've ever known it.
In many ways, possibly in known human history because of all the technological ways they do it now.
It's a very, very dangerous world.
I say to people, if you care about freedom, if you care about freedom of speech on which the whole of freedom is founded, then If you don't agree with people, then say why you don't agree with them.
Fine. Let's have a reasonable adult human discourse and even beg to differ, beg to disagree.
That's fair enough. Nothing wrong with that.
How boring if everyone was the same.
But you make it unpleasant for people to have a different opinion to you, and you are pushing the world down a very dangerous road.
So when I see People in the alternative media banned by Facebook.
I wouldn't agree with many of the things that they say, but it doesn't matter.
Their right to say them is our right to have our opinion.
Because freedom of speech is the freedom to speak, and if you have people banned for their freedom of speech, no freedom of speech exists, only the freedom to conform to what is said to be acceptable.
And the walls of that acceptability are being squeezed all the time, as we are allowed to say and have an opinion on less and less and less.
So when you have people banned and then you see people on social media and in the mainstream media cheering at the fact that they're banned, you realize that you are in a lunatic asylum, basically.
There have been some of these fringe media sources that share things that aren't helpful.
They instead incite violence and going on I guess the word I'm looking for, going on their speculation of the true story, not having had boots on the ground.
Part of the problem you mentioned is that most people don't do the full research into David Icke and what you do.
They go off of what they've read, what they've been told, the videos that they see online that mock you and belittle what you do and your belief systems.
It's easier for them to jump on that.
that there are a lot of these fringe elements out there that have been banned because what their
claims are they get from whatever version of a source they they get them from
and then they in times and and I'll talk about the Sandy Hook massacre as
one of them that not only do they deny that that took place which there are
there are families that lost children but then they incite people into actions
against the fathers and mothers that lost their children the first responders
who claim to have been there even the bus driver that did his best to try to help
some of the kids and And some of these fringe media never went there, didn't actually examine it.
They didn't go put boots on the ground.
They grabbed something and ran with it.
And just because that's their truth, If it becomes dangerous and inciting, if I go out and I start telling everybody, it's time to go back to the 50s.
Hold on a second.
This is the point, and I'll come to a big point about this as well.
First of all, there are laws against inciting violence.
It's not that I'm saying say what you like and have no consequences.
But there are laws against inciting violence.
But that's why some of these fringe media sources get shut down.
It isn't just because they're speaking the truth.
It's because they don't just do that.
they start speaking hate speak which then begins to incite violence and trigger different
responses that aren't needed, especially in a situation that's already dire or sad.
To try to inflame it further makes it worse.
There is another point.
By the way, lots of what you just said is purely subjective.
Lots of things that have been said about things in the past, which have been denounced in the way you've just denounced them turned out actually to be true.
Like many things in my books in the 90s, that's crazy, that's ridiculous, that's a conspiracy theory, have turned out to be true.
But this is the key point.
It's where you act on speech.
Is it before the point of delivery or is it after?
Once you start acting on what people can say before the point of delivery, you cross a very, very dangerous line, which is you are giving authority, in whatever form it takes, the right to decide what people see and hear.
And what the history of authority is, and my god, are we seeing it or not with the internet giants, That authority will be abused.
And therefore, if you allow people to speak and then deal with it then, then you're in a situation where no authority has the right to dictate what people see and hear.
Once you do that and give that authority that ability, it will abuse it.
And what we're seeing now, again and again, you start off, for instance, by saying, We must ban calls for jihad or whatever.
And most people will say, OK, that's fair enough.
But it don't end there. The next thing is, OK, fake news.
We must ban people because of fake news.
Well, if fake news was banned from the Internet, no mainstream media outlet would be on the Internet.
Agreed. Well, you agree.
Well, there's a wonderful example.
Those mainstream media sources putting out information that's clearly not true, often knowingly not true for political reasons, are not banned from the internet.
Others that put out information that are challenging that are banned.
So, therefore, you're seeing very clearly in that example The consequences of giving power to authority to decide what people see and hear.
Deal with speech after it's delivered.
Because, hey, do you want to know what people are saying and doing, or do you not?
Let me address that for one second, though.
It's happening and being orchestrated in areas you don't know about.
The only challenge with that is...
...the freedom of speech, that road never stops as we're now seeing.
And I understand that.
The problem is that in today's environment, people absorb information in newer ways than they ever have.
Everything is in short bites and everybody believes or is more apt to believe it if it's a quick bit they saw on their social media.
So saying it and then trying to put the fire out afterward...
I understand that there is a problem on both sides of this.
Who decides whether it's a fire and whether it should be put out?
Who decides that? That's the point, though.
Going back to some of these other tragedies that have taken place, the media is so quick to try to be the first to report something that they'll take I'm asking you a question then.
What do you do?
Ban what you've just described?
I think what needs to be done is that media has to be held to higher standards again, that they can't be in such a rush to get on with any news that they will distort the truth or take anything and broadcast it as fact before it has been proven fact.
So why are mainstream sources that do that not banned?
I don't know. Well, alternative sources that maybe do that are banned.
That's the question.
But like I said, the difference in some of these cases is that the mainstream media may glom onto
little tidbits in order to try to call a story out, but some of the fringe elements will then
pounce on the tidbits that once media has realized, oh, what we got was wrong and they move
on to something, these fringe elements and oftentimes will jump on those tidbits that
have been forgotten and they talk about, see, they went away from that because the man doesn't want
us to know about this and they shut that down. And then that's when they start to incite and
create an undercurrent of tension and aggression, sometimes calling out for the heads of the people
that were originally noted in the story. I mean, that's happened time and time again. Whereas if
media, and I agree with you, if media had taken the time to get the story right the first time,
then that wouldn't have incited the fringe media to do what they did.
what you call media.
I mean, I was a mainstream journalist for years.
I worked in newspaper newsrooms, radio newsrooms, BBC national newsrooms.
I have experienced mainstream media and mainstream journalists and I wouldn't trust most of them to tell me the time in a room full of clocks.
Some of the people working in the mainstream media are some of the most inept Unresearched people you'll ever meet in your life, they think that research is reading the morning papers and watching the newsroom telly.
So we can't have credibility judged by whether you are on the payroll of CNN or Fox News or MSNBC. What we must do is judge by the credibility of what people say.
And instead of censoring information, the emphasis should surely be on encouraging people to be questioning of everything so that they are deciding with an increasingly sensitive perception what they believe and what they don't believe.
I'll give you another example of this.
Instead of attacking people and silencing people for saying things that upset others, then why don't we focus on why people are upset and give them the tools to be so sure of themselves, so secure in themselves, that they don't care.
What people say.
And they don't get upset by it.
You know, because if you go down the road of, oh, that upsets people, we must silence it.
In the end, there's nothing left.
There's no opinion. And that's not what I'm getting at.
Obviously, things that upset us.
That's the same principle. Not exactly.
No, not at all.
It's the same principle. Well, we can agree to disagree.
That's good. That's what discourse is about.
But what if now we're having this conversation and someone says, I don't like what that David Icke is saying.
I agree with the presenter.
Therefore, we must silence David Icke.
That's the road we're going down.
And it's very dangerous.
We've been there before with the Nazis, with the Stalinists, with the Marxists.
Where that ends, well, it ain't pleasant.
Right. And I'm not saying that then banning comes from it.
It's in having a Congenial discussion and having adult conversation where people are able to express thoughts and ideas or try to get to the truth together is what needs to be done.
I think we would both agree on something like that.
The problem is people don't learn that way anymore.
Everything is in short bits and bytes.
It's fed to them on the social media and I agree.
And we know this for a fact that the Media and the social media platforms have worked in concert with one another in order to push agendas and get responses from people to see how it works.
So you're right, in the Orwellian concept, we are there.
I agree with you on that.
But there are things that we need to be cautious about what is allowed to just be said and Because the court of public opinion, as you know, more than anyone, is devastating and can be destructive to people.
And all it takes is a question posed, an allegation thrown without any kind of principle or standing behind it.
Whereas if I came on tonight and I said, but David, David Icke, why should we trust you?
Rumor has it you're a pedophile.
You could say, well, where the hell did that come from?
But all it had to do was be said.
Now people could take that and start to build off of that.
And, you know, I heard on Midnight in the Desert, David Icke is a pedophile.
There's no truth to it.
There's no substantiation.
But the problem is trying to put the fire out afterwards is where the problem lies.
Whereas if we're more critical of the words that are said before they're said, Then we don't have to worry about trying to salvage somebody's life and career because one person spoke out of turn incorrectly.
Oh, did I say David Icke?
I'm sorry. I meant David Icke from Australia who is not an old footballer but was actually a fisherman.
And that simple twist of a word or twist of a deal can upset an apple cart and destroy lives.
Well, first of all, I've experienced abuse and ridicule for 30 years.
Well, I'm still here, aren't I? And why is it that I've experienced abuse and ridicule for 30 years around the world and I still support their right to abuse and ridicule me rather than have censorship which leads to a very dark and dangerous road?
Why? Because I care about freedom.
So here's the question, who decides what is allowed to be heard and not heard?
That's part of the conundrum, that is the issue. But you're trying to share the truth and what you
see and having people, and I understand giving them the rights to say what they want to say
and feel how they want to feel, but when it is distracting from a message that could help
humanity or help people and they're undermining that, there does have to be a line.
There is no clear-cut answer, but then who do we call in to be the thought police?
Who do we allow to do this? Obviously, you can't, but there has to be higher standards.
How about nobody? Do you think authority has higher standards?
History shows it doesn't.
What authority does is it abuses power when it gets it.
And what you're saying when you say, well, I don't know who would be the thought police.
Well, the authorities would be the thought police.
Of course they are, as they are now.
And they would therefore police and censor on the basis of their own agenda.
You know, we have to grow up.
And say, hold on a minute, if we allow anyone to censor what people say, we're going down a road and we see where that ends.
So what we have to do is grow up and deal with what people say on the basis of When they've said it, if someone comes out with something that's not true, then if it's not true, it can be with evidence and information shown to be not true.
And people will then invariably say, well, I can see now it's not credible, so I won't believe it anymore.
This is what open public freedom of information discourse does.
And this is why they're trying to shut it down.
Very simple process.
Right, but don't you agree, though, that the way the news is delivered, or any news, and I don't mean just mainstream, but the way things are delivered now, or in such a way that I may notice today this story, and I don't notice the follow-up when they say, oh, we were wrong, or that didn't happen, or it was proven incorrect.
That's always been the case. It seems worse now than ever.
Throughout the history of the mainstream media, things that are wrong have been blazed on front pages, and when it's proved to be not true, and legally they've had to respond, the apology has been on page seven at the bottom.
So this is not something new.
It's just been made More apparent by social media and stuff like that.
But the key to overcoming it is not censorship, which hands all the aces to authority.
It's encouraging people to become streetwise.
And people are becoming more and more streetwise.
They're becoming streetwise with the mainstream media.
That's why their audiences are dropping so dramatically with what they have been in the past.
Streetwise in the sense of not accepting anything on face value.
Like just because a politician says it, it must be true.
Just because the head of the FBI says it, it must be true.
We're seeing more and more evidence that that's not correct.
And you know, if we go on the basis that authority must decide everything, what people see and hear, you are creating a tyranny.
And what's happened, which is kind of mind-blowing, Is that the old liberal left that used to go on marches demanding freedom of speech when I was growing up in the 60s, now goes on protest to have it taken away.
And they don't realize that in the end, freedom of speech deletion doesn't stop.
It goes on until there's none left.
And it will be them eventually.
The mainstream media that celebrates the banning of people in the alternative media will eventually, as this progresses, be subject to that same censorship if they step beyond the parameters of what authority deems acceptable.
You know, we're either going to be adult and mature and start judging information on the basis of our own research, if you like, or put it on the back burner and not react to it until You've had more information to confirm it one way or the other.
That's the way forward.
If we go down the censorship road as we are, you know, people like me are at the cutting edge of this.
We're at the coalface.
If you go through your life not breaching the parameters of what is deemed acceptable, then you'll think you live in a free world.
When you're someone like me, Who is challenging so many official narratives, then you realize how far down the road to censorship we've gone.
You've mentioned that I've got a film out called Renegade, which is basically a feature film about my life.
And we were going around in recent days having premieres in Britain and in America.
And when I was in Los Angeles just a few days ago, The producer of the film has nothing to do with me.
He's not a supporter of what I do.
He's just someone who thought my story was a story worth telling, was an interesting story.
And he had a contract with a theatre in Santa Monica called Aero, run by a company called American Cinematique, that we would have a premiere there last week.
And we were in a car Five minutes from the venue at 5 to 4 in the afternoon to have an agreed, arranged run through of the technical side of it.
And the phone rang in the back of the car, the producer's phone, and some guy, screaming down the phone so loud I could hear every word in the front, Said that we're not showing this film.
The premiere's off.
Even though people by that time had left to come.
Don't care about them.
And this was the conversation from the other end.
Is this a film about David Icke?
Well, yeah. Does he come out of the film in a good light?
Well, says the producer, he comes across very well.
Yeah. Well, we're not in the film then.
Now, if that film had demonized me, Then that premier would have gone ahead.
So now we've had a situation with these people that have been banned by Facebook, whereby what they say is banned, what they post is banned, unless you post what they do or post what they say, and then condemn it.
And attack it. Then you're not banned.
Now, just please, people listening to this show who don't like Alex Jones, who don't like Farrakhan, irrelevant.
We are back, suffering some technical difficulties, not quite sure what's going on with the system.
Mr. Reich, are you with us?
Oh, I can hear you aloud and clear now.
Great. All right, let's get back to this.
We were talking before the break regarding the fact that they're trying to censor your documentary, the story of your life, and trying to shut that down.
How can people see this movie and documentary?
Where can they find it? Well, it's available through davidite.com on June the 4th.
It's been made by an American company, and I think it's about an hour and 40 minutes long, something like that.
And there's a heck of a lot of information in it in terms of what I've been saying over these years and continue to say.
And it's also a look at, if you like, the real me, the one that's not portrayed amid the abuse and the ridicule.
I've been very pleased with the way the audiences have loved it in the three that we've had.
Of those three, one was banned and the other one in London, we had to change the venue at the last minute when the previous venue owners, a trade union organization called the TUC, the Trade Union Congress, who owned the venue, they pulled it very late because they said, we believe in inclusivity.
And that came in an email in which they were excluding me.
And this is the schizophrenia now that we are seeing where it's okay to exclude someone on the grounds of inclusivity.
No one's more in favor of inclusivity than me.
I don't want to exclude anyone, as I've quite vehemently argued in the last hour.
Export Selection