Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Nov. 18, 2019 - David Icke

32:53

The Shrinking Range Of Acceptable Debate - David Icke

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	T-60 Olive Oil is a popular choice for people wanting to activate their full potential.
	Improved sleep, faster recovery and more energy are just a few of the amazing comments received from our customers who take a spoonful a day.
	Make C60 oil a part of your daily routine and see what it can do for you.
	Activate your potential today at thec60company.com In the light of the latest revelations, which came from a leaked tape of an ABC newspaper, Anchor presenter in the United States, who was talking about the fact that three years ago she had the story on Jeffrey Epstein,
	including the connections to Clinton, to the Zionist lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and to Prince Andrew, and she was describing how The ABC bosses, if you like, killed the story, wouldn't let it go to air.
	And part of this was through multiple threats of various kind from the British royal family under the heading Buckingham Palace.
	We've also had of course for people that follow this stuff the revelations that the NBC network in America also sat on the Harvey Weinstein story And the MSNBC and CNN networks this week have refused to cover this big story, which was broken by this organization, Project Veritas, with this ABC tape, which was the anchor, the presenter, describing In a tape that wasn't for air,
	how ABC trashed and stopped and blocked the Epstein story three years ago when she said the whole thing, which has now come out.
	And, you know, there is a theme here and, you know, people don't like it.
	Well, they'll have to do the other thing because it is the theme that...
	NBC was responsible quite clearly now for blocking the airing of the revelations about Harvey Weinstein.
	Which later came out through the same reporter through another source.
	Weinstein, of course, is a Zionist and so was the people at NBC who made the decision to block the story.
	We have the Zionist Jeffrey Epstein.
	Who was running, in fact, a Mossad-CIA blackmailing operation to secure the, shall we say, support and agreement for the Zionist agenda of major influential people, including politicians. And so you look at the media, which is...
	So dominated, especially in America, by Zionist ownership and you start to see a theme.
	And of course, this whole thing about you're an anti-Semite has been created as a defense mechanism to stop the elephant in the room being called the elephant in the room.
	And we have this theme, as I was saying this week, about the destruction of free speech.
	And I'm going to start with a story, an opinion piece in the New York Times, which is a mega-Zionist-owned newspaper operation in America.
	And the headline is New York Times op-ed.
	Opinion piece for people that have come across that.
	I'm sure most people will have done now.
	claims that free speech is killing us.
	And the story goes like this.
	At the end of each opinion piece, the New York Times makes the following statement.
	The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor.
	Essentially, the pretext of this statement is that the New York Times does not censor or reject opinion simply because it's not aligned with the opinions of the editorial staff.
	Brackets... Align with the opinions of the Israeli hierarchy and will print what does and does not resonate with the newspaper's editors in equal measure.
	In other words, the New York Times reports to be strong advocates and facilitators of free speech and dissenting views, which, of course, is the last thing it is.
	The irony, the story says, is not lost on any of us, that the New York Times opted to publish an opinion advocating for the restriction of free speech online.
	Unlike the New York Times, which has control over exactly what gets published under their moniker, the internet as a whole was not designed with such limits in place and therefore quickly became the real place where people were free to publish their views uncensored.
	Well, this was the This was the fishing line going out, where you give people freedom of speech to get them hooked on the internet.
	And then you start, because the internet has much bigger implications for human control, as I talk about in the books.
	And then once you've got people hooked on the internet, then you start censoring and censoring what you don't want people to circulate and leave only the information in the end that you want people to believe anyway.
	The story goes on. And this, according to the published opinion of a staff writer for The New Yorker named Andrew Marantz, has become a dangerous problem.
	Now, the theme continues because Andrew Marantz is a Zionist.
	And there seems to be this connection between supporters of Zionism and the desire to destroy freedom of speech.
	Not just in America, either.
	In his article entitled Free Speech is Killing Us, I mean, what?
	Noxious language online is causing real-world violence.
	What can we do about it? Well, I tell you what, Mr Marantz, why don't we censor everything that you don't want people to hear?
	And then only what you believe will be circulating.
	That's the story, isn't it, mate?
	He goes on to presume that everyone agrees.
	Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.
	No one believes that anymore.
	It's actually a vehicle for mass control, but you won't mention that, mate, will you?
	Morantz apparently thinks that no one believes we can allow people to speak freely and without limits on the internet anymore.
	That's funny. I still do, says the writer, and so do I. And so do many of the people I speak to, he says.
	But let's not let that get in the way of a good, crafted narrative.
	The writer says, I endeavored to see what kind of proof Marantz provided to justify his notion that online speech actually caused real-world violence.
	All I could find, he says, was a continuation of his point that no one believes it, causes violence, anymore.
	And he says, no one believes that anymore.
	This is a quote from Marantz.
	Not after the social media fuel campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Derte and Donald Trump.
	Not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville.
	Not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch New Zealand and a Walmart in a majority Hispanic part of El Paso.
	The Christchurch gunman, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power, but these posts eventually decided were not enough.
	Now it was time to make a real effort post, a real life effort post.
	He murdered 51 people.
	So the writer says...
	So let's take his big claim, the Christchurch gunman, who we can presume has long been an angry and disturbed individual, spent years on social media with his grievances.
	It's because he was able to express himself online that he killed people.
	Where is the causal connection?
	Wouldn't it be more reasonable to point out to the fact that being an angry and disturbed individual is the reason he killed people?
	No causal connection has been established because there is none.
	Mainstream media speculation, repeated over and over, is what is taken as evidence.
	And by the way, what about all the stuff in the mainstream media that demonizes people and gets them as targets of abuse?
	Oh, that's mainstream.
	I work for the mainstream.
	They're all right. And yet Marantz thinks it is compelling enough to use the phrase eight Chan inspired massacres with authority, as though any website whose only crime is that it does not censor free speech could ever be responsible for real world human massacres.
	I wonder if he thinks that the Internet is responsible for the massacres that have happened over and over again to Palestinians in Gaza.
	I wonder if he ever considered that.
	I doubt it. And of course it's not to do with supporting an argument that free speech leads to killing.
	Tell the Nazis or tell the victims of the Nazis in Germany who were slaughtered by the Nazis and silenced by the Nazis Before they were slaughtered so that their stories couldn't be told and what they knew and believed about the Nazis couldn't be heard.
	Tell them that free speech kills people and that suppressing free speech does not.
	Every single tyranny when it comes to power, no matter what label it may have, they all target freedom of speech and the circulation of information.
	Why? For the very reason that it's being targeted now on a global scale.
	Now, here's another story.
	Like I say, there's been one after the other this week on this theme.
	Without free speech, all speech becomes government speech.
	And this is a writer called Barry Brownstein at the Activist Post website.
	And he's talking about a video which would be very instructive in where we're heading when I come to it.
	Anyway, he says, when I viewed this video, I wondered if it was a hoax.
	I thought it must be a group of actors trying to make a point about how far restrictions of speech have gone.
	Unfortunately, the video captures reality in Scotland in 2019 and in so many other countries.
	The video picks up an exchange between a Scottish high school teacher and a student.
	The class was asked to sign up for the website and according to the student, the teacher commented on how old-fashioned the website was for listing only two sexes.
	The student, Murray, remarked, but sir, there are only two genders.
	And the teacher insisted they continue the discussion outside the classroom.
	Murray recorded the encounter on his phone.
	And here are some of the lowlights, it says, of the recorded dialogue.
	Murray, the student, why did you kick me out of class?
	It's not very inclusive of you.
	Teacher. I'm sorry, but what you were saying is not very inclusive and this is an inclusive school.
	Murray, referring to the teacher's viewpoint that there are more than two genders.
	That's your opinion, teacher.
	That is my opinion and it is the opinion which is acceptable in this school.
	Teacher, will you please keep that opinion, referring to Murray's view that there are two genders, to your own house, not in this room, Murray, so you got to put your opinion out in class, but my opinion has to stay inside my house.
	Teacher, I'm not putting my opinion out.
	I am stating what the national school authority policy is.
	I know what you think, and I know what the authority thinks.
	So this is how the...
	Minds of young people all over the world are being moulded to an agenda known as WOKE. And this is why, as this process produces adults More and more woke, programmed people are now moving into positions of power and politics and influence.
	It's all been systematic.
	And this is just a small smear example of what is happening every day in the schools, universities and colleges across the world.
	The story goes on. Following the UK National School Authority policy on the number of genders, children are taught there are 100 gender identities.
	But give them time, they won't stop there.
	Because this is all part of the destruction of the sense of what is human and humanity.
	That's been going on.
	For reasons I explain in the books, it's all to do with pushing us along the road to the synthetic no-gender human.
	Murray wasn't sent to a re-education camp, but the school suspended him for several weeks.
	As for the teacher, he's trying to be a proper government functionary.
	Perhaps he's dreaming of retirement, or at least the day when students like Murray will no longer dare challenge him.
	We're pretty much there.
	Good on this kid. If you're sure this sort of thing can't happen in America, well, think again, says the writer.
	A new survey conducted in the United States by the Campaign for Free Speech found 51% of Americans agreed with this statement.
	The First Amendment, which guarantees free speech in America, goes too far in allowing hate speech in modern America and should be updated to reflect the cultural norms of today.
	48% thought and a majority of millennials agreed they're the ones that have been really taken through this process of programming through their education years or what passes for education.
	48% So this is where it's going.
	This is where it's always been planned to go and this is why I keep banging on about this woke agenda because the woke agenda is the program being imposed on young people through the system in all its forms and not least through carrot and stick and punishments if you have a different opinion as we saw with Murray here.
	This is what is being done to our young people day after day after day.
	Then we have this story.
	Police state escalates war on freedom of speech.
	According to MAGA nationalists, Trump supporters, in other words, the deep state only persecutes conservatives while liberals get a free pass.
	Well, first of all, they're not liberals.
	They're woke and thus not liberal.
	Liberal and woke are not the same thing.
	I wish people would stop referring to the woke mentality as liberal.
	It is not anything but.
	I come from the liberal direction, non-political liberal direction, of maximum freedom for everybody.
	My philosophy is simple.
	Do what you like, just don't impose on anyone else.
	And that's what woke is doing, of course, is posing on everyone else.
	But it's not about censoring conservatives It's censoring anyone who has an opinion that is outside or has information that is outside what the system, the cabal, want people to believe.
	So in the same way that so-called conservatives are censored by the Silicon Valley mafia, so genuine liberals...
	As opposed to fake woke liberals, they are censored as well when they have things to say that are outside the official narrative.
	But they put labels on things, oh, it's only against conservatives because they want to hide the fact that it's an agenda and it's the agenda that's being protected from information.
	And the people who are challenging that agenda, although many won't know there is an agenda, Are the ones that are being targeted.
	So this week, to show that, we have had the Gestapo-style raid, as this story describes it, of liberal journalist Max Blumenthal.
	Now, Max Blumenthal has done some great work, not only exposing the extremes of And the injustices imposed by the Israeli government on Palestinians, but also the exposing the lies that have been the propaganda that's been circulated to demonize places like Venezuela as a country.
	And so The system kicks back.
	The story goes, the Gestapo-style raid of liberal journalist Max Blumenthal earlier this week demonstrates quite vividly that the state does indeed attack leftist or left-leaning activists and journalists and not only MAGA supporters and new right nationalists.
	Like I say, the common denominator is who's challenging the official narrative.
	MAGA, the article says, has deluded itself into the false belief the deep state is primarily comprised of Democrats on the war path against conservative Republicans and new right types.
	In fact, the state is apolitical in regard to national parties and politics.
	It favours Democrats and Republicans only if they tote the neoliberal and corporate line.
	absolutely spot on. If they deviate, they may suffer the fate recently experienced by Max
	Blumenthal. For now, this fate is reserved for those with high visibility, such as Blumenthal.
	For really serious violations of the neoliberal code and the
	establishment's pre-arranged political construct, The state prefers torture and slow death.
	It is currently doing this to Julian Assange for the National Security State.
	It is a cardinal sin and high crime to expose the...
	Dirty and murderous secrets of the state.
	And again, we come back to the media.
	The media are helping to demonize Assange because they're not journalists, as a point I'm going to make in this public videocast this week.
	Assange will not be killed overnight or outright like journalists Michael Hastings and Gary Webb.
	Both Hastings and Webb exposed the crimes of the national security state and paid for it with their lives.
	Assange, on the other hand, will be slowly and sadistically tortured to death, thus revealing how the state responds when national security secrets are exposed and disseminated to millions of people.
	And that's the big point about Assange.
	What they're doing to him is saying to anyone else who will challenge the official narrative, This is what happens if you do it.
	Well, I've got a finger in the air as I speak to the state if they think that that's going to affect people like me.
	It's not. It's just going to make us more determined to do what the state does not want to happen.
	As should be expected, the story says, zero corporate media propaganda conduits have thus far reported on the Blumenthal raid, which is supposedly connected to his behavior at the Venezuelan embassy in Washington.
	At least one establishment-connected organisation that claims to protect journalists from government persecution has refused to defend Blumenthal.
	Quote, We are aware of Blumenthal's arrest, and based on the information available, it does not meet the threshold for characterisation on our site because he was not in the course of reporting when it happened.
	This, of course, is a technicality.
	Blumenthal is a journalist.
	He was reporting on the effort by Juan Guado's Thugs.
	This is the person that...
	America is trying to, American government is trying to impose upon the Venezuelan people without any elections.
	On the effort by Juan Guado's thugs to starve out and intimidate activists defending the Venezuelan embassy with the permission of the elected Venezuelan government, although at the time of the purported incident he wasn't writing or reporting.
	So this is The hypocrisy of what happens when journalists have the opportunity to stand up for fellow journalists because, of course, The fellow journalists are journalists, the people who don't stand up are not journalists at all.
	The story goes on.
	The US Freedom Tracker has partnered with Poynter, an organisation working to circumvent the alternative media.
	It is funded by George Soros' Open Society and the Omidar Network.
	Together, both organizations pledged nearly a million and a half dollars to fund a supposed fact-checking network.
	That is to say, identify and eradicate media that strays from permissible parameters established by the state.
	Poynter has a long-standing history as an anchor in the journalism business.
	Its board of directors include execs from the New York Times, ESPN, Harvard, Vox, CBS, ABC and the Washington Post, all of which are owned by the cabal.
	Poynter is currently working with Facebook and Google for its fact-checking programs.
	So what we are looking at is...
	People that challenge the agenda, no matter what their political background or views, being targeted for censorship.
	And the journalists in the mainstream refusing to stand up for fellow real journalists when they face the wrath and the reaction of the state.
	And of course, you would expect...
	Palestine opinion to be censored.
	Here's another story this week.
	Like I said, there's just been one after the other, like machine gun fire this week.
	Twitter censors news from Palestine.
	Twitter has provided no explanation for why it shut down the accounts of the Quds News Network, a major Palestinian news service, over the weekend.
	This alarming act of censorship is another indication of the complicity of major social media firms in Israel's efforts.
	See the common theme again.
	to suppress news and information about its abuses of Palestinian rights.
	QNN said on Monday that its four main accounts were suspended without warning or explanation early on Saturday.
	QNN said it has pursued efforts to appeal the suspensions through Twitter's website but received no response.
	Twitter typically notifies users of alleged violations of its terms of service and provides them an opportunity to remove violating content or to appeal a decision.
	The electorate Fada also wrote to Twitter's press team on Saturday seeking comment on the company's actions against QNN but has received no response.
	QNN said it rejects responding to Israeli pressure, fighting Palestinian content under the pretext of fighting violence and terrorism.
	Such practices are complete bias towards the Israeli occupation against the Palestinian people.
	but then you think well who owns Silicon Valley? And then we've got the United
	States government blaming Palestinians for Israeli state terror against them.
	And the media will just report that, of course, as if it's true.
	Interesting article on DavidIke.com this week by Kathleen Johnson, the incredible shrinking Overton window.
	This Overton window is like, you know, the area in effect, the area of acceptable thought and opinion.
	And the article starts with a quote from Noam Chomsky.
	The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but to allow very lively debate within that spectrum even encourage the more critical and dissident views.
	That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on while all the time the presuppositions Of the system of being reinforced by the limits put on the range of debate.
	Now, that's exactly what you see when you see political debate and you see interviews on the BBC and what have you.
	And you have interviewers like a guy on the BBC called Andrew Neil, who, in the area that he works, he's a good interviewer.
	And... It puts people on the spot.
	Politicians and such.
	But it's within this spectrum of acceptable opinion that Chomsky's talking about.
	And it seems, oh, they're having a good set two here, but the actual range of perceptual possibility that is being debated vigorously is so tiny.
	Oh, see, there is freedom of speech.
	Look, he's having a go at her and she's coming back.
	It's all a facade.
	Then you ask, how many times does Andrew Neil, I'm not just picking on him, it's just an example that's come up in this, but how many times does he have people on that in any way question anything outside of that norm?
	That spectrum of acceptable opinion.
	Almost never. Sometimes, I've been on once, when they were doing an item about conspiracy theories, when they thought, I guess I was going to go on and get destroyed.
	Well, it actually didn't happen, so bad luck there.
	But that's what Chomsky's talking about.
	Anyway, Kathleen Johnson says, the pluricrat-owned narrative managers of the political media class work constantly to shrink the Overton window the spectrum of debate that is considered socially acceptable they do this by framing more and more debates in terms of how the oligarch empire should be sustained and supported steering them away from debates about whether that empire Should be permitted to exist at all.
	They get people debating whether there should be some moderate changes made or no meaningful changes at all, rather than the massive sweeping changes we know need to be made to the entire system.
	They get people debating whether they should elect a crook in a red hat or a crook in a blue hat, rather than whether or not they should be forced to elect crooks.
	They get people debating violations of government secrecy laws, not whether the government has any business keeping those secrets from its citizenry in the first place.
	They get people debating how internet censorship should take place and whom should be censored rather than whether any internet censorship should occur.
	It's a very good piece which you can find on davidike.com.

▲