All Episodes
Previous Next
Sept. 28, 2023 - David Icke
55:02
Banned With A Law That No Longer Exists - David Icke Dot-Connector Videocast
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
There's a lot of things that I've said over the years, which were perceived to be crazy.
and then suddenly they start to move mainstream.
I'm waiting for someone to convince me that we don't live in a simulation.
What is real?
How do you define real?
If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
What if all you ever knew was a lie?
So welcome everyone on the 27th of September.
It's eight o'clock Dutch time and we are having this special meeting because yesterday we had the verdict with the case of David Icke.
We were supposed to get the verdict at the end of July but they postponed it because the judge decided to reopen the investigation of the case.
So then we had to wait much longer and they actually took all the time they had.
I think they took the max Which took about 10 weeks.
So yesterday we went to Haarlem and we had the verdict and the judge agrees with the IND.
Well, what a surprise!
So we have David Icke here in England.
David, can you give us your response on the verdict?
Well, we're moving to the position now, kind of described by someone A few months ago that yesterday's conspiracy is today's breaking news.
Today's conspiracy theory is today's breaking news.
And that's what this is because the verdict is so ludicrous.
It's so against the facts and it's so blatantly designed to protect those in power from legitimate investigation and debate.
To have a Dutch judge pronounce that me pointing out that Rutte is working not for the people of the Netherlands but for a cabal network not least involving the World Economic Forum.
To say I have to be banned from the country because I'm saying that Well, I mean, give me another definition of fascism, certainly at the extreme of censorship.
Why can't we have an open debate on whether that's true or not?
See, this is what I'm hearing all the time.
It's a conspiracy theory.
OK, then, well, let's have a debate and you put your evidence forward and I'll put mine and we'll see what people think makes most sense.
So you can have somebody who tells 3,000 Dutch farmers, I'm taking your land, basically, and that's fine.
That's democratic.
That's defending democracy or an expression of democracy.
But someone saying actually he's doing that because of a much wider plan, which involves the control of food and the suppression of its supply, Then you can't come into the country to say that.
What we're seeing yet again, and this judge should be ashamed, I suppose it's possible she might be, or it's possible she has not, but To make a judgment that is so at odds with the most basic foundations of freedom, which is an insult to any democratic society, is just extraordinary.
And like I say, once again, we are seeing That censorship is not coming from a place of strength.
It's coming from a place of weakness.
Censorship always does.
Because censors say, I don't want you to have access to this information because if you do, you might take a different perception of a situation than you currently have or we want you to have.
That's what censorship is about.
It's perception manipulation.
And so we are in a situation where, especially after COVID, the COVID hoax, you had this network I call the global cult, of which the network in the Netherlands is an expression, same with everywhere, that it entered the room, it walked into the room.
In other words, It put itself on public display, and there comes a point where you can manipulate under the radar for so long, and that's okay.
But if you want to transform society into the fascistic, communistic, tyranny society that you plan, Then there comes a point where that has to become obvious to the people you're targeting.
And we're there, of course.
And that became more and more obvious to people who were paying attention anyway during COVID.
The numbers of people worldwide are now starting to go, whoa, the world's not like I thought it was.
The only response has to be censorship.
This is why we've just had this online safety bill, nothing to do with safety at all, except the safety of the state.
The online safety bill in Britain, which is beyond fascistic in terms of its attempts to censor what's posted on the internet.
And this is happening, and this verdict has happened, because they know that they have a period of time, basically started big time with Covid, until they can, this is the plan, they're openly talking about it now, They connect the human brain to artificial intelligence.
And at that point, they won't have to manipulate perception through censorship or emphasizing their narrative.
We'll get our perceptions direct.
And there's a period between when they put themselves on public display and that, that they have to get across.
And they're desperately trying to do that with censorship.
And this is just another expression of it.
Okay, thank you.
Well, we had Jeroen, we were there together yesterday and also in the case.
What do you want to say, Jeroen?
Yes, well, I totally agree with this atrocity, this verdict.
Important is the things which aren't in the verdict, and that is the heart of our petition was the freedom of speech, because that is what this whole case is about.
And we were expecting an assessment on that, but that's lacking totally because the freedom of speech, according to the European Court of Human Rights, is very wide, especially when it is against politicians.
You are allowed to distribute information which offends, shocks, disrupts.
You are even allowed to promote political views, to change the existing order, as long as you want to do it with peaceful, advocated by peaceful means.
Even things which are from considerable controversy, It's the same.
So you are allowed to insult them as long as you don't advocate violence.
That's the only... and we haven't heard a judge about that at all.
Another thing which is really shocking is that she said because the criteria have been changed for the registration of this kind of signaling to stop people from entering the country or the Schengen The Schengen countries.
It has been changed, but she says the change only went into power, I think it was the 1st or 7th of March 2023.
And she said, well, we are talking here about a decision which was from February and we apply the criteria which were in power then.
But that's, of course, ridiculous because now we have registration which is, which doesn't comply with the criteria which are in power right now.
So, At this moment, the verdict says implicitly that the registration is unlawful.
So this is a positive thing, which gives us also the opportunity to file a petition at the court to remove this on the basis of the Schengen Treaty.
These are just a few main things which, I mean, we can fill the whole evening with things which are, which doesn't fit.
And I'm sure Willem, after me, will go deeper on them.
But these are the two main points, I think.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, Willem, you have been diving into the details of the case and also making some comparisons to what they brought up.
Can you, can you specify?
Yes, I've been looking at the cases that are mentioned in this verdict but also looking at similar cases for the Article 17 of the European Convention of Human Rights and I want to share my screen because it's really laughable if you see how they constructed this verdict probably by an internet search and looking at which verdicts mention Article 17 but not looking at The verdict itself.
And for that, I want to... One second.
Yes.
I first want to take you to the original verdict that was sentenced against Mr. Ike.
And it says here, and I translated it to English, so that one of the legitimate goals of the measure is to protect prominent individuals And with this, I want to congratulate Ike, because in a sort of photo negative way, they actually conceded that you are right, because you said there is an elite that is threatened by the 99%.
And now they state that although it's not covered by law, that they have to protect this elite.
We just talked about Rutte and definitely he is one of those people.
But then we go to another verdict that was passed last year, and it very specifically mentions the distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Now, in the verdict against David Icke, it mentions that anti-Semitism was not the reason to take the measure, but it goes on to slander Icke anyway with anti-Semitism.
But even that is wrong, because Even if they would take the theories and state that it would be anti-Zionistic because it has a political aspect to it, that you say, well, the state of Israel has similarities with the totalitarian states that we know from the fascist era in Europe.
So this is also a Dutch case.
And then we go to Article 17.
Because the idea of Article 17 is that you cannot misuse one right to cancel the other rights of the treaty.
And in this verdict, and this is about people who advocate of going to Syria to establish the Islamic State.
And the defense said, well, we claim Article 9, the freedom of religion, and Article 10, the freedom of speech.
But then it was a verdict against it on the basis of Article 17 because they reasoned that because advocating for the Islamic State is advocating against this Treaty of Human Rights and therefore you do not fall under the protection of this.
But that was not your case.
Your case is much more similar to this one.
And this one is actually the opposite of it.
Now, this is a case that has gone all the way to the highest court, and a person who was distributing the book of Hitler, Mein Kampf, and this is not what you did, so this is on another level, but even here, the judges sentenced or reasoned that there is no imperative need, so there's no necessity to take His freedom of speech or his freedom of expression or to limit that, because in a democracy, even views that are not coherent or that are not aligned with the mainstream political view should be allowed.
And specifically that necessity.
So the weighing of his right against the rights of society was actually the game changer here.
And this is based also on this Article 17.
And then the last verdict I want to show, and I cannot translate it, but it is also the verdict that they mentioned in the, this is a case that they mentioned in the verdict.
And it says, when there is no conviction, the competent national authorities can only base the alleged threat against the public order on concrete, objective, And specific elements of that ground.
And this is, of course, completely lagging, lacking.
So what this actually says is exactly what Jeroen is constantly advocating for.
If there is no measurable or no objective criteria, it is impossible to know in advance whether your point of view or whether your expression would qualify as a threat to public security or public safety.
And this is also another subversion.
They take the sixth verdict that I don't have here on screen to say, well, we could say that if a person is able to confiscate secrets about technology, cyber crimes or nuclear technologies, that The person cannot be allowed in the country because that might be a national security threat.
And this is of course ludicrous because we're talking about a demonstration and we should not forget that all this just happened because we invited you to give a single speech at an event at a very specific place in Amsterdam, the Dam, which is symbolic for peace and The rally was about stopping the war in Ukraine, so that makes this so absolutely absurd.
There's many more things that I could mention, but I think these were the funniest ones.
Thank you so much.
I mean, the more we get into it, the crazier it becomes.
Now, Jeroen, a lot of people are asking some questions in the chat, and one of the questions is, what can we do after this?
What are still the legal possibilities in this case?
Yeah, well, of course, we can appeal to the highest courts, the Raad van State, Which we will do.
We have six weeks for that.
But beside that, I just mentioned it already.
And this is this.
It's a very special power citizens have.
You can go to court in every member state of the Schengen Treaty.
And that court can decide that the other country removes you out of the system.
This was implemented because, of course, if you get registered and you have to go to court in another country, it would be a lack of possibilities to go against it.
I was actually the first one in 2007, I think, or 2006 to use this procedure.
Nobody ever heard of it and I had to show the court actually that it existed.
So we will use this petition because it's a very clean assessment because you just have to look at the criteria fulfilled and they are not.
Because as I said before, it was an open criteria, now it's closed.
It's either a criminal conviction for at least one year, Or you must be a suspect in a very concrete crime.
If this is not the case, you are not allowed to be banned on this grounds.
So I think this is a very feasible step and we'll see what the court will do with that.
Okay, thank you.
There are some questions coming in.
There is Paul.
He has a question for David.
He says, well, here in Holland, there is no constitutional court in Holland, and therefore it's difficult to control the judges.
How is that in England?
I can see Willem is saying no.
What is Willem saying?
Yeah, Willem, can you explain why?
The absence or presence of a constitutional court does nothing for the rule of law.
Judges that are corrupt or that are just determine whether there is a rule of law.
Nothing else.
Okay, thank you.
Now the question for you, David, is how do you compare it to England?
Is it the same situation there where those kind of verdicts are being spoken?
Well, they're doing it more Through the changes in the law, like what we've just had go through Parliament, is this online safety bill, which is absolutely extraordinary.
I mean, if you read it, It would be like reading the judgment from this judge.
I mean, it's just so out there.
And most people in Britain have no idea.
Oh, online safety bill, that's to protect children, isn't it?
Yeah.
Well, no, it's not actually.
They were going to protect children.
There'll be a lot of pedophiles, very famous ones, who currently be in jail, but aren't.
The online safety bill will give an organization called Ofcom, The Office of Communications.
The ability to police the law, which says basically, if Ofcom says it could harm, or Ofcom says it's not in the public interest for this to be out there, then you would have to take it down.
If you don't take it down, well, there are massive fines in the bill, in the law now, to impose upon those that won't do what Ofcom tells them.
Now, I'll tell you how bad Ofcom is.
It was created by Tony Blair when he was Prime Minister.
And what you have is organisations put into place That on the face of it, seem to be doing one thing, like Ofcom is just making sure that there's fairness in broadcasting.
Yes, fairness.
It was Ofcom that went to the British broadcast media in the spring of 2020 and said, you're not having ICOM.
Basically, that's what they said.
That's why I've never been on the mainstream media in Britain since.
And I'm hardly even Mentioned at all.
Very, very rarely now.
They don't even ridicule me or abuse me.
They just ignore me.
And a lot of that, not all of it, but a lot of that comes from the Ofcom Dictat.
Now, that organization now has the ability to, in effect, decide what people see on the internet and what they don't.
And they're saying now that Rumble could come under their, well, could, what they mean is will, come under their control and other similar platforms in the sense that if they put content on, which they don't put on of course, other people do, that is in breach of this online safety bill, which is very wide,
Then if they don't take it down, there's consequences for rumble financially, etc.
So we are looking at this circling of the wagons and fewer and fewer wagons all the time
to dictate what people can and cannot say.
And the thing with the Schengen, it's another example of the linking process
that they do as well.
For instance, I just mentioned they'll bring in Ofcom during Tony Blair's reign.
We appear to be doing one thing.
But the plan is that eventually, as the stepping stones go and the dominoes fall, it will be used for a very different means.
And that's what it's being used for now.
And the linking and the linkage, you can be seen in the European Union, it can be seen in the Schengen system, whereby if you have to impose your will, On every country individually, it's a real problem because you've got to go to every country and you've got to get through their parliament, you've got to impose their laws, you've got to control their legal systems.
Now, of course, that does go on, but it's much more difficult to coordinate when you've got to do it in every country.
So what you do is you create this linking Whereby, I mean, the Schengen is a classic.
If one does it, if one does it, then they all do it.
If you're banned from one, you're banned from them all.
So now you've got the countries of Europe in the EU, that when there's a central decision made, it affects every single country.
They don't have to go to each individual one and impose that law on them.
It's centrally done.
And this is where The whole thing is meant to go to a world government, a world government that would then dictate, as the bureaucracy of the European Union imposes upon the entirety of the EU countries, so the world government would impose on the entirety of every country.
And what we're seeing now is yet another colossal example of this linking whereby the World Health Organization, another front for this global cult I talk about, is seeking to enact a treaty or to secure a treaty in which what it says must happen.
First of all, what it says is a pandemic because of what?
Oh, because we decide.
Once that's done, then any other country that's a part of this treaty would have to do lockdown, social distancing, masks, fake vaccinations.
What this central World Health Organization says that they must do, and this is where we're going, this linking of of countries and authorities so that one decides and they all must do it.
And the Schengen's a classic.
How can you possibly be deleted or banned from all these countries, 20-odd countries, on the basis of one corrupt system in the Netherlands?
It's insane!
But there's method in the madness because it serves the interest of the dystopia and therefore it happens.
Okay, and another question.
Can I first show a very specific clip?
Do you know who this person is?
So apparently Klaus Schwab is actually visiting The Hague today to meet with the Trilateral Commission and then doing that on the day after the verdict where they say, well, it is really absurd and unacceptable that David Icke says that Rutte works for Klaus Schwab and then invite him the next day.
I think they did it on purpose just to spite David Icke.
Yeah well that that's the way that that's the way it works but you know to an extent then they're putting it in our face now and like I said earlier part of that is they they can't not do that because the way that society is changing I mean, I was born in 1952, so I can see how it's changed.
But even people born more recently are now seeing their world, their society, blatantly changing in an extreme way as we move towards this digital concentration camp and 15-minute cities and permanent lockdowns and all the rest of it.
And so, really, they can't hide it anymore.
And so they are arrogantly saying we don't really care what you think, we're doing it anyway.
But like all arrogance and like all psychopaths and all narcissists, they also have a fear that their world will come tumbling down and they know that that house of cards that they are holding up, in fact we are holding up as a population, is incredibly fragile and subject to deletion once enough people stop cooperating with it.
And, you know, there are some great people in the Netherlands.
I've met them.
I've been to speak in the Netherlands so many times over the years who are awake and who get it.
But, you know, what the Netherlands population as a whole need to bloody grasp and grasp bloody fast Is they don't live in a free society.
All this stuff about freedom.
You know, remember the days, and I guess it's still going on, are they not credible anymore?
But I remember the days when all the time I was hearing, America, freest country in the world!
And you were going, but it's not.
And by the way, if it was, you wouldn't have to keep telling me it is, because it would be obvious.
And so when you have what is happening in the Netherlands, which connects into the Dutch royal family, connects into people like Rutter and all the rest of them, you're looking at a tyranny, a tyranny imposing upon you and your family.
What are you doing saying you live in a free society?
It's anything but free.
I mean, if Go into 3,000 Dutch farmers and say we're taking your bloody land.
If that doesn't open the mind of the coma state that so much of the Netherlands population is in, and so much of the world population still, then what the hell is going to open their minds to get them to see?
And I would say to them, have some bloody courage, because a lot of it is you don't want to face what's actually happening.
And as a result of that, you are saying, Don't want to hear it.
And what am I?
What am I doing?
I'm just describing the verdict in the court.
Don't want to hear it.
Shut up.
Change the subject.
Well, the subject, ladies and gentlemen of the Netherlands, who's still in a coma state, and I say this to everyone else around the world.
The The tyranny is not going away.
It's going to get progressively more severe and extreme and progressively faster because the more you centralize power, the more power you have at the center to centralize and dictate even quicker, which is why these tyrannies get faster and faster.
And it's it's wakey wakey time.
It really is.
Find yourself a mirror, or find yourself the eyes of your children and grandchildren, and tell them that you live in a free society and you're going to ignore the fact that you don't.
Tell them what you were doing when the tyranny came in full-blown, when their future is a future under that tyranny for the rest of their bloody lives.
Because this is not meant to be a phase, this is meant to be permanent.
Come on people, for goodness sake, wake up while you still can, because a few in the Netherlands or globally cannot control the many, the vastly greater many, unless the many acquiesce to their own enslavement.
And that's what is happening now.
And I have another question which built a bridge from what you just said.
What is there to do now for us?
And how are you going to continue spreading your words?
That's the question that comes in through the chat.
What can we do?
Well, you know, when something's thrown at you, you deal with it.
What's that phrase?
Necessity is the mother of invention.
And so I've had so much thrown at me in the last 34 years.
And you deal with it, whether it's historic levels of ridicule or followed by demonization or whatever, followed by stuff like this.
You deal with it because not dealing with it is not an option.
You are faced with something and you say, OK, how do we get around this?
How do we still communicate?
In another way.
You know, when I look at the way that I was banned by... I mean, I do have to laugh, you know, given what we're talking about here.
That someone who is demonetized by YouTube and there's this great furore In the not least in the alternative media and all these so-called big names come out.
Oh, it's terrible.
It's a destruction of freedom.
Okay, it shouldn't have happened, but I was demonetized by YouTube.
In 2018.
I was thrown off it in 2020.
I mean, let's have some bloody perspective here.
I'm prevented from entering 26 European countries.
Hello, how does that compare with being demonetized from YouTube?
Where's the furore about this in the alternative media and elsewhere?
But the point being that I was thrown off, well a lot really, in the April of 2020 when I started calling out the Covid hoax and why it was a hoax.
And I was off YouTube, I was off Facebook, I was off Spotify, all of them came out.
But I'm still here.
And I'm still communicating.
And people are still getting the information.
And I'm currently on a speaking tour of Britain.
It's the only place I could have a speaking tour at the moment.
And even then, we can't reveal the venue until 90 minutes before because the venues will get targeted over the weeks if we did it at the start.
I'm meeting people right across the spectrum of society, right across the age span of society, with more and more younger people in the audience than I've seen before by ratio.
And they are getting it anyway.
They are seeing it.
And, you know, We don't necessarily only have mainstream sources to communicate through.
We have to be inventive.
But more than anything, we have to be completely and utterly immovable.
What we're looking at is the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.
And awakening people who are prepared not just to see it, but to stop cooperating with it, they are the irresistible force.
And this tyranny thinks it's the immovable object, but it's not.
And when enough people stop saying yes and start saying no, that immovable object will be seen for what it is, an illusion.
Authority has no power.
The power authority recycles against us is the power we give to it in the form of acquiescence.
It has to stop.
And when people say, yeah, but what are the consequences of doing that?
Well, I can tell you the consequences of not doing that now urgently in numbers is far more sinister and far more extreme down the road.
Than ever any consequences now.
I mean, you know, I've been doing this for 34 years.
I'm still here and I'm going to be here until this house of cards comes down.
Beautiful.
I think we went through the main, main questions that people had.
I know that some people were putting up some hands.
I'm going to save the chat so we can even answer you after this meeting.
Jeroen, what do you want to add to everything that has been said until now?
Well, I couldn't agree more with Dave.
This is what I've been Shouting out the last couple of years, but you know the term Dutch courage, right?
Which applies, which I've seen applies really well.
So what we see is that the justice system is broken and so it means all the cases we did, we have done them all and We have to do these cases, we have to do them.
But the problem is if the justice system doesn't work, you're powerless.
State of law is just vibrating air and nothing else.
So it makes it very difficult to do something on the legal side.
But what people have to do is not comply.
And we have been telling that for the last couple of years.
And the system stops.
But I see the chances very slim at the moment that people have the courage to do that.
What I find extraordinary is when people are writing about this in the Netherlands, and it's the same in other countries, but the Netherlands seems to be quite an extreme example, to be honest.
And they're saying reasonable things.
And they're saying they want to protect freedom.
And the abuse that comes their way is extraordinary.
I mean, I know the abuse you guys have had.
It's absolutely extraordinary.
You're trying to secure the freedom of them and their families ongoing.
And all they can do is hurl abuse at you.
Now, that for me is a form of mental illness.
And I do think that there are tracks of now of the human population.
That is going into a psychological state in which they have no ability to process information into a rational conclusion.
Like I say, if you've not concluded from the farmers case in the Netherlands that there's a tyranny going on, then I mean, what's going to awaken you to it?
And you know, There's three types of people.
The first two groups are responsible for every tyranny in history.
Group number one, they just do what they're told without question.
Group number two, they don't want to do it, but they fear the consequences of doing it.
And so they do it anyway.
And every tyranny in history has been brought in by those two mentalities, because tyrants don't impose tyranny.
There's never enough of them.
What imposes tyranny is the population's acquiescence to tyrants.
And the third group, which is well represented here, and it's getting bigger, by the way, it is getting bigger.
We are making progress.
The third group says, I can see it and I'm not cooperating.
And that group needs to get bigger and bigger and bigger and massively so.
And we have to start moving people from this, or people have to start moving themselves, more like, from this, I can see it now, I'll tell you what they're going to do next, to, okay, so what are we going to do to stop that happening?
And in the end, you know, people keep saying, what do we do?
Well, get yourself a pocket calculator.
Put in 8 billion and then take away those that are actually ultimately running this show and driving this dystopia.
And most of the 8 billion are still going to be sitting there.
They're still going to be there because that's how few are actually driving this.
And it's embarrassing and it is embarrassing to see because the thing that the first two groups concede, otherwise they wouldn't be who they are, is self-respect.
Self-respect, that's what's missing.
Two things, self-respect and respect for others to have a different opinion to you.
Those two things would transform human society if they were preeminent.
So, group number one concedes its self-respect by saying, yes, sir, no, sir, whatever you say, sir, I'll believe, sir.
Group number two concedes its self-respect by saying, well, I don't want to do it, but I'm a bit frightened of not doing it, so I'll do it.
And a third group will not concede its self-respect.
It's self-respect that ends tyranny and it's lack of self-respect that creates them.
Wow, beautiful words.
Willem, anything to add?
What I can add to that is I completely agree with the assessments of the previous speakers.
But I'm the optimist, the ever optimist.
I think when we look at the The civil servants and their eagerness to follow orders, it is going down, that eagerness.
So we have to keep pushing specifically at that group that carries out the rules of tyranny, because they are in doubt.
And yes, the one group that just follows orders because they're told to, we cannot reach, that's a lost cause.
But the second group David is talking about, I reckon there are a lot of those working for the government.
And what we see with the freedom of information requests, with the broadcasts we do, with the demonstrations, the actions, the court cases, it erodes their aura of invincibility.
And then I mean the elite.
And it also erodes the trust people have in corrupt institutions.
And I think we have to keep pushing through because there is no other way.
The alternative is that everybody will be locked in their digital prison.
And what I feel now is that the traditional right-wing conservative group is the first non-resistance group that is being targeted.
Nigel Farage is a great example.
And that actually changes something in the power dynamic.
Now there are people that are in the power sharing I absolutely agree.
that say, hey, wait a minute, if we carry on this line, I will be eliminated too.
Let's stop this madness.
And I think that's why we have to keep pushing in that direction.
I absolutely agree.
The civil service, the administrations of government, the inner core of this cult, which is driving the agenda,
it cannot implement it without those people.
I mean, when you look at it, honestly, sometimes I just shake my head.
You probably get the inner core of this global cult in a single room.
And from then, of course, you've got people connected to that that also are driving it and want it and seek it.
But then you very quickly, as you come down the pyramid, you're hitting people who are just doing what they're told.
I mean, you can recruit psychopathic mentalities into the Dutch police and the British police so that they'll love bashing protesters for freedom.
But then there's other people in uniform too that really are looking on and thinking this is not right.
And say we're not doing it anymore because they have to recruit from the target population
in massive numbers globally to impose their will upon the target population.
Just stop doing it.
Let's have a, you know, I love that line from this judge.
I mean, how she sleeps at night, like a baby possibly.
That I'm kind of challenging the democratic order.
As I said in one of the court hearings, it's not that I'm against freedom and what people call democracy, which is not always freedom by the way, but let's take that word democracy.
It's not that I want to stop it, it's that I bloody want some.
That's the point.
And what they do is they invert everything.
So if you are wanting freedom, you're wanting the free flow of information and debate, you're wanting to respect everyone to have the right to their opinion, whatever it is.
We don't agree with it.
Well, let's let's knock it around and see where it goes.
So people who are doing that, you invert that and you say they are trying to destroy freedom and democracy.
You take someone like me, who's been staying for 34 years now, that we're all one consciousness, having different experiences and, you know, the divisions of race and what have you are illusions to divide and rule us.
I mean, very easy to do that.
And what you do with someone like that is you call them a racist.
When actually, I very rarely met a fierce anti-racist that wasn't a bloody racist.
But what you do is you take what someone's saying, okay, I can't demonize that.
So what I'll do is say he's saying the opposite, then I can.
And this is how it works.
And this is why the media is so important.
And the fact that the Dutch media Who really, I mean, the shame on them is extraordinary.
But then again, it's the same around the world.
But the Dutch media seems to be, you know, and then some.
For them to go three weeks or so demonising me on the scale they did, and not once ask me for a comment or to give my opinion or response, shows that they're not journalists.
They never were.
They're just facilitators of fascism.
That's what they are.
And ironically, AI is going to take over from then.
More and more stories, especially in local newspapers, have been written by AI around the world.
And their families will be targeted too.
Mummy, Daddy, what were you doing when the tyranny came in that's controlling every aspect of my life?
Oh, I was facilitating it, dear, because I was saying the people that were challenging it were all bad people and ought to be stopped.
Honestly, that's the conversation you journalists are going to have to have one day, and I wish you well with it.
Thank you.
We're going to close off.
There was one more question that keeps coming back.
How do you see the future, David?
I see the future as the population sees the future, because that's what it comes down to.
If we go on not ceasing to cooperate with this system, then we'll go down the road of AI, and then there won't be a human mind as we know it, ultimately.
to assess that this is a tyranny.
You'll believe what AI tells you to believe.
This system's already being created with the so-called cloud, the 5G cloud and the 6G, 7G they've got in the pipeline.
And so this so-called smart grid is actually a psychological prison cell.
That's what they're building.
So that's the scenario if we go on as we are.
But if we grow a backbone, like I say, and stop cooperating with it, if we start to realize that the power has never been with authority and it's always been with us.
I mean, just a quick example, historic example.
Someone at the front of an army, a vast army, far as you can see, says, Charge!
And some guy at the front of the other army, as far as you can see, says, Charge!
And they all frickin' charge!
Now, if you put those people, those armies, around the table with a beer, they'd probably get on fine.
But they're Kicking the what's-it out of each other.
Killing each other.
Because two people in authority said, bloody charge!
And we are in that situation now.
The tail is not wagging the dog, the tail is wagging the frickin' elephant.
That's where we are.
And that's why self-respect has to be kicked in.
So people look themselves in the mirror, look themselves in the eye and say, How can I have respect for myself when I allow this to happen, when I go along with this?
You know, we need a massive re-evaluation in the human psyche of where we are.
First of all, an understanding of where we are, and then, followed on, a refusal to accept where we are, and we start rolling it back.
These people have no power.
They have your power, which you gave them.
Thank you so much.
There was one person that had his, I think it was his, hand up.
I just asked him to type in the chat.
I'm not seeing it back, but I promise the person that when you send me a message, I will pass it through to David.
And if the question was for David, okay.
Just to finish that point, Mordecai, to finish off, where could it go?
We could live in a world of absolute freedom and respect for everyone to have an opinion.
I have a simple philosophy on life.
Do what you like, so long as you don't impose it on anyone else.
It's when the imposition comes, that's the problem.
If everyone's agreed, well, you do what you like, mate.
You're all agreed?
Yeah, okay.
Just, you know, you shut the door.
That's fine.
But it's when the imposition comes that I get interested.
And we could have the free flow of information of society, and look at what we would learn from each other.
There is no one, no one in existence that doesn't have something valid to say that other people can learn from.
And yet that is not being allowed to flow because the psyche would change and thus the house of cards would come down.
So suppress it.
And those suppressing Thank you so much, David.
Thank you, Jeroen.
of weakness, not strength.
Those that have confidence in what they're saying, they don't wanna censor anybody.
They don't wanna ban anybody.
They just want the free flow of debate.
And if these people don't, because they know they can't win it.
Thank you so much, David.
Thank you, Jeroen.
Thank you, Willem.
And we keep you all up to date with our newsletters.
Thank you so much.
See you all next time.
All you guys do is amazing what you do in Holland.
There's a lot of things that I've said over the years which were perceived to be crazy
and then suddenly they start to move mainstream.
I'm waiting for someone to convince me that we don't live in a simulation.
What is real?
How do you define real?
If you're talking about what you can feel, what you can smell, taste and see, then real is simply electrical signals interpreted by your brain.
▲
Export Selection