All Episodes
May 30, 2018 - David Icke
15:11
David Icke tells it like it is - Interview with Lancashire Post
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Oh yeah, it was fantastic.
Because... Not just the numbers, but the range of people and the number of people who come because of the reason you did, which is, look, the world's not like I thought it was, or I don't like what's going on in the world, what's happening.
And if you can keep individual people, organizations, happenings, world events apart, so they all are reported as they are in isolation, then they look a certain way.
But if you connect them and show that they're not a part, they're actually part of one tapestry, then the world looks very different.
And people look at that and think, well, crikey, alas, the world is making sense, and what's happening is making sense.
It was a real joy for me to see so many people have the light switched on purely by connecting dots that didn't appear on the surface to connect.
And I've found this, you see, I've been doing this now for nearly 30 years, and What gave you the strength to carry on?
You were speaking in people's front rooms and being ridiculed probably more than any man ever in this country, thanks to that Terry Wogan interview, which I suppose in some ways launched your career.
But what gave you the inner strength to carry on and try and get that message out there?
Increasing awareness as the 1990s unfolded of what actually was happening in the world.
Away from the public eye and what its agenda and planned outcome was.
Once you realize that, and you have children, you have grandchildren, you see children in the street, and you know the world they're gonna live in, unless this is headed off, and it can only be headed off by being exposed to the public eye, then what are you gonna do?
Walk away? You know, that's an interesting point, actually, mate, because over the years, I've seen people come into this arena and become flavor of the month for a while and then disappear.
And they say, oh, it's too tough, you know, they're having a go at me.
Or the usual, I need to spend more time with my family stuff.
In other words, you want out.
And I could never understood that.
Because once you have any grasp of where this is planned to go, and people are now starting to see it more and more, then there's no walking away.
It's not a case of, do I keep going or don't I? It's simply, how can I more effectively keep going?
And that's driven me on.
I've never once thought, I can't do this anymore.
So people are coming to my work now in greater and greater numbers.
For a large extent, it's because of what I said years ago, at a time when I was just being laughed at, but which has actually turned out to be true.
Everything that I'm saying, whether it's political pedophilia or the nature of reality, Statements and information that on first hearing people would say, that's impossible, that can't be true.
And put them all together and you realize the scale of misrepresentation of everything that we receive as a human population.
It's extraordinary. I mean, we experience what appears to be a solid world when it provably isn't.
I'm finding it both fascinating and encouraging To see that people who once would have waved away the mildest questioning of the perceived norm are now opening their minds to concepts that are way outside of the norm they once believed in.
There is a transformation of human perception going on that without question I've seen it.
I can include myself in that.
I used to listen to Radio 5 Live all the time, and Nicky Campbell would have his morning phone-ins, and occasionally he would get someone who would phone up saying, 9-11, I think that was an inside job, and Nicky Campbell would immediately shut him down.
And then after hearing a bit about you, I looked into some of the 9-11 evidence and
you know the official 9-11 story. There's quite a good documentary about it called
9-11 the myth and the facts I think something of that nature and just gobsmacked that there
was all this evidence out there that I'd never even heard of in the mainstream arena.
So you know I'm now starting to think that on the balance of probabilities if it was
in the court of law that 9-11 was an inside job and yet when I've been talking about
it to colleagues and friends suddenly they're worried for my mental health so it's quite
an interesting world.
There are a few things to that.
First of all, there's a great question that opens up a great vista of possibility, and it's quite simply, who benefits?
Because it's an ancient saying, he who most benefits from the crime is the one most likely to have committed it.
And just look at who's benefited from 9-11.
Anyone that wanted this A series of regime changes and catastrophic wars and upheaval in the Middle East.
Because without 9-11, if you wind back, that would never have started.
But in terms of the way journalism looks at the world and reports the world, having been a mainstream journalist for a long time in newspapers, radio and television, seen it from the inside and then seen it from the other side, It is frankly rather pathetic because, you know, I say in the talks and the books all the time that the world is an inversion.
Human society is an inversion.
Everything's on its head. And the reaction to you just questioning anything from journalistic colleagues is a classic example of this inversion.
Because all you're doing is what a journalist should do.
What journalists should do is ask questions of official versions of everything, especially statements by authority, to see if they stand up.
That's the job of a journalist.
There's no point in journalism otherwise.
But instead of that, the statements by the authority become the accepted norm of how things are.
This is the very opposite of what journalism should be.
And you've got a guy in America, I mean, you know, on Fox News called Tucker Carlson.
And it's not often you can put Fox News and good journalism in the same sentence, but you can with Tucker Carlson for one simple reason.
He just asks questions that need to be asked of authority.
And he gets attacked by his own profession because of it.
Because we've now reached an extreme level of journalistic irrelevance To truth, that the journalistic profession, instead of holding authority to account so that authority has to justify its statements and its claims and its actions, journalism now justifies those claims and actions.
And there's no better or two better examples than what has happened recently.
You had a government claim that Russia was responsible for the alleged nerve agent attack in Salisbury.
They produce absolutely no evidence whatsoever except the old Nazi adage of keep repeating the lie and people will believe it.
And yet journalists who call themselves journalists just accepted it.
And worse than that, and this is the other extension of this journalistic lack of integrity, is that they then attack people who were doing what they should be doing, which is questioning where the evidence is.
And you saw this in the House of Commons with Corbyn.
When even many in his own side were jeering when he stood up and asked Theresa May for evidence for the claim that Russia was behind the Salisbury attack.
We are in a post-truth.
Post-evidence society, where neither matter.
What happens is authority makes a statement, and then the journalistic profession, not with honorable exceptions, but in general, it becomes the mouthpiece and protector of that version of everything.
And, of course, the other one is the chemical attack alleged by Assad in Syria.
When the overwhelming evidence is that it was set up by these white helmets, which are funded by the West, funded by America, funded by Britain, funded by European countries, and therefore are a propaganda arm of those countries and the agenda of those countries, particularly America. And there was no questioning of it.
There was no, where's the evidence?
There was no... Reporting of the doctors and people actually on the alleged film of the attack saying there was no chemical attack.
And so this is very, very dangerous world we're in now.
Thanks to a spineless, gutless, journalistic profession, it is quite happy to take the cheque to pay the mortgage by not questioning what it should be questioning and not doing the job In regards to the honourable exceptions, there's Robert Fisk from the Independent.
I think he did a report where he couldn't find any evidence.
That's right, yeah. Before we started recording, I mentioned to you how I'd attended an NUJ delegate conference at Southport, funnily enough, the same venue where you spoke.
It was mentioned in the Robert Fisk article.
One of the delegates, one of the ones against a motion to have the NUJ... Call for a fairer quizzing of the government on Syria in terms of not accepting everything they say.
So this bloke got up and said, well, it's all very well believing Robert Fisk, but that's not what the majority of people are saying.
And then a BBC delegate got up and said, well, it's a case of believing us, the BBC, or do you want to believe the Russians?
Making it a completely binary choice.
There's no room for grey in that in terms of there might be Exactly, but you see, that The story of the National Union of Journalists event is classically where journalism is.
I saw an interview on the BBC with a guy called Lord Weston.
He was a very, very high guy in the British Navy.
And he was saying at the time of the alleged chemical attack, where's the evidence?
And by the way, Why would Assad do it?
It was the last thing that he would benefit from.
And the interviewer on the BBC said, We're in an information war.
We, we are in an information war.
Aren't you basically helping the Russians by asking these questions?
And it was a shocking confirmation of the bias of the media and not least the BBC. There should be no we.
It should be what is the evidence?
What is the truth?
That should be the only criteria for a proper journalist.
The communication of information is being funneled into the hands of shockingly few people.
If you break it down, you can name five people That have the power to control what people see and don't see on an absolutely vast global scale.
They are the people that run Google, the people that run Google and YouTube, and the people that run Facebook.
And in that tiny part of the world, Silicon Valley, that I call the Devil's Playground, they now have the ability Not only to censor, and they're using it, what people see and don't see on an increasingly extreme scale.
They also have the ability for mass global surveillance on the population.
And proper journalists would be saying, how did this concentration of power happen?
I think I have to agree with you on the, a lot of journalists just simply aren't aware of what's happening here.
Going back to the NUJ delegate conference I went to in April, you know, there was about 300 journalists there, all representing unions from across the country.
And a motion that seemed straightforward to me was put forward to have the National Union of Journalists investigate Google, see how they're controlling news, how they're using their algorithms to Reduce the coverage of certain stories while boosting others that might suit their own agendas.
That seemed to me straightforward, and yet it was voted down by one vote.
All these reps of journalists didn't think it was worthwhile for the National Union as a journalist to do that, which is quite sad.
But just one question in regards to your own YouTube channel.
I notice you've just done a UK tour.
You're growing in popularity, maybe becoming more mainstream, and yet your YouTube channel...
You know, the amount of people who subscribe to you is more or less stagnated.
Do you think that might be to do with the algorithms?
Oh yes, I would say with Facebook...
My Facebook page numbers were flying up to about three or four years ago, maybe three years ago.
They got up to about 780,000 or something like that, and they were going up in leaps every week.
And interest in my work has increased dramatically since then, but the numbers haven't because of algorithms.
This is how it works. And this is an important point.
The vote you've just described at the National Union of Journalists' conference about Google was Turkey's voting for Christmas.
Because of this reason, anyone in newspapers and in even many areas of television news now are looking at the demise of their own profession because what they want is control of all news and information from a central point through the Googles and the Facebook.
Export Selection