All Episodes
Previous Next
April 19, 2019 - David Icke
01:06:45
David Icke - Live Q&A (April 19th 2019)
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Outro Music People say I talk about some weird stuff, some far out
stuff.
But how about that chair that you're sitting in isn't solid?
How weird is that?
This reality.
It's nothing like we think it is.
When I saw what Ike is doing, I was a bit jealous of him.
I was like, wow, look at what this guy is doing.
I don't know if anybody else could do it but him, actually.
We are in a period now where speaking your truth is not just important.
It's utterly crucial to where humanity goes from here.
The world needs renegades.
And it needs them now.
Hello, everybody. I'm new to all this.
I think I'm live on Facebook now, Jack.
You are, mate. I am. Well, I'd like to thank everybody for watching, and I'd particularly like to thank Mark Zuckerberg in California, who's sitting there with his notebook and his AI algorithmic sensor.
Might be a few things you won't be happy with.
I do hope so. And we're going to take some questions on...
Well, anything you like.
And where can people speak?
Okay, so right. I'm going to sit next to David throughout this.
I've got Twitter, Facebook and emails open front of me.
So if you want to tweet in at David Icke, comment on the live stream or email in at questiontime at davidic.com and I'll fire questions to him.
So we'll go first.
This is a question from Claire.
Let's see where she's from. The question is, in the light of the current climate change protests, if you could give a single message to Greta Thunberg, David Attenborough, Emma Thompson and the Extinction Rebellion, what would it be?
Well, a nice non-controversial one to start with, which is nice.
Well, anyone who's been looking at what I've been saying for 30 years, well, they'll know that I haven't bought the climate change official story.
And, you know, there are so many elements to this.
And one of them is this whole phenomena whereby so-called progressives who often think they are, mostly think they are challenging the system, are challenging the establishment, actually are doing what the establishment wants.
You will have so many people around the world who will rail against the 1% and then go down this human-caused climate change road where they're doing precisely what the 1% want them to do.
And It's kind of interesting for me that as the years pass, you see more and more of the things that I wrote about years ago coming to pass.
Because there is an agenda for the world.
There is a script, if you like.
And this hidden hand is following it and driving it.
And what it does on the road to doing that is scam a large number of often genuine people to support its agenda, to support where it's taking the world, while thinking they're opposing the 1% that ultimately is behind it.
So I'll tell you what I mean by that, for instance.
People ask why Why would they scam this whole human-caused climate change?
And my answer over the years has been simple.
Because if you want to change society, then you basically need excuses for it.
Excuses might not be very good ones, but you need excuses that you can sell to people to justify what you want.
And so with this whole climate change arena, we have to go back to the 1960s, for instance, and the creation of an organization called the Club of Rome, which was part of this and is part of this whole network around a secret society in Britain called the Round Table.
It includes these satellites around that secret society.
The Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations in America, and the Club of Rome, which was created in 1968.
And each of these satellite organizations has a particular area of specialization.
So, for instance, the Council on Foreign Relations in America, its role is driving in the considered right direction American foreign policy.
It's been doing it since 1921.
Still doing it. And in terms of the Club of Rome, it was to use the environment as an excuse to change human society.
And you then, as time moves on, you see the whole human climate change, we're all going to die hoax played on people.
And as the Nazis said, if you keep repeating the same thing often enough, people will believe it.
One of the greatest form of my control, repetition.
And then as this was driven on, you started to see the solutions starting to appear.
Create the problem or the perception of one, and then start offering the solutions.
So we suddenly had this United Nations literally agenda, Gender 21, Followed more recently by an updated version of that called Agenda 2030.
And then you look at the solutions.
And, you know, I have this phrase, know the outcome that's desired and you'll see the journey.
You know, if you don't know what the outcome is supposed to be, then events can seem random and uncoordinated and there is no pattern.
But if you know where the agenda is meant to go, then now these apparently random events in daily life do take on a pattern because you can see they're stepping stones to that outcome, that goal.
So when you look at these Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 being played out across the world, out in the United Nations, they are proposing Dramatic centralization of power to save the world from climate change.
Now, it just so happens that the centralization of global power is exactly what this cabal wants.
And of course, it's what the 1% want.
What is the 1% except the centralization of global power in terms of phenomenal centralization of wealth?
And if you want to create a structure whereby the few can dictate to the many, to everyone else, you need a structure where power is fiercely centralized so decisions made basically in one place affect everybody.
The more diversity of decision-making you have, the less control any central cabal is going to have because there's just too many points to control.
So, centralization of power, the incessant centralization of power, which we've seen with the European Union and globalization and all of the rest of it, is designed to create this ability of the few to dictate to the world from the center.
Now, you look at Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, that is what it's proposing.
Basically, we must centrally control everything to save the planet from climate change and to save the planet from environmental disaster.
So they want to control the water.
They want to control everything from a central point.
Well, we have to.
I mean, I know you've got to give your freedom up, but we have to.
Well, we're all going to die. And then you see the latest expression of this solution to this, I say, manufactured problem.
And that's this Green New Deal that's now being widely talked about in America, coming out through this New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
And what this Green New Deal is proposing is basically Agenda 21, Agenda 2030 under another name.
So what I would say to those people...
Who are involved in these protests in London at the moment and around the world, stop being scammed.
Stop believing what you're being told without question and just repeating it.
Check it out.
See if what you are being told stands up.
And, you know, this...
You look at the world.
You look at what's going on in the world.
And people are shutting London down, or parts of London, because of climate change and this, what I would say is a hoax.
Well, why were they doing that for the kids that are going to bed hungry every night?
What about all those almost daily grotesque casualties going on in Yemen?
There's so many things going on in the world that genuine protest is extremely justified about, and yet you're having this focus of attention on human-caused climate change.
On the basis of it is true and should not be questioned, because you're a denier if you do.
Well, some of us actually think for ourselves and say, well, hold on a minute.
Not now, but at the start.
I'm not saying this is not true.
I hear what they're saying, but I'm going to check it out.
I'm going to see if it stands up.
And when you do that, you realize that actually it doesn't.
Because this whole human-caused climate change, what I would say is scam, to create the problem that In the public mind to offer the solutions.
It's basically repetition of platitudes, repetition of mantras.
One of the mantras is 97% of climate scientists say that the climate is changing due to human activity.
And then it's repeated and repeated and repeated.
How can you not say that this is true?
Look, 97% of scientists.
Well, even the Wall Street Journal trashed that one.
Follow it back.
Follow it back to where that 97% figure came from.
And you realize that it's not how it is at all.
And in fact, more and more people within the scientific community Are now coming out, not least because what he said was going to happen has not happened, and say, well, hold on a minute.
Maybe it's not right.
Maybe it's not true. And the other way that it's being pushed, it's a very simple technique.
Basically, you label things In a different way to how you would have labeled them before.
So you have a weather extreme event in the 1950s when I was a kid or earlier, and it's a weather extreme event.
They happen. They come and go.
They've always happened. But what you do now is when you have an extreme event of any kind, you say, that's climate change.
Well, why was it climate change when it happened in 1950 or 1940?
And funnily enough, interestingly, with this question, I've been reading a book recently.
It's called The Climate Chronicles by a guy called Joe Bastardi.
And he is a weather expert, meteorologist.
And he describes in the book how from the time he was a kid...
He was obsessed with weather.
He just loved the weather. And it's kept with him all his life, and it's now his profession and his career.
And he was looking at this whole climate change story.
And being a bit of a nerd on the weather, he did some serious research on patterns and cycles.
And what he's done in this book, he's basically looked at...
Weather patterns, droughts, hurricanes, whatever, that today are being labelled, climate change, we're all going to die!
And he's charted them back.
And he's found that the same patterns happened in the 50s and the 30s.
They weren't called climate change then.
They were called weather patterns that have always changed.
And So he's, for instance, taken a pattern whereby something happens, say a drought, when the Atlantic Ocean cools and the Pacific Ocean warms or vice versa.
And he's looked at the patterns of weather events that came from the Atlantic cooling or Pacific cooling or warming, whichever it is.
And he's followed the pattern of weather outcomes that happened at that time, decades and decades and decades ago.
And then he's looked at the same patterns now, where the outcomes are called, it's climate change, we're all going to die.
And he's found that it's just the same pattern, recurring.
When this happens, that's the consequence.
When that happens, that's the consequence.
And out there, away from the public arena, are so many people, highly qualified in climate science, who are telling a very different story.
But where do they get their platform from?
The BBC, of course it's a balanced fair and organization that just is neutral.
It hasn't got any agendas.
And it decided, actually said openly some years ago, that the The science is settled.
It isn't even beginning to be settled, but the silence is settled on climate change.
So really, there's no reason to have anybody else on with a different opinion because it's settled.
Everyone knows what is happening.
And therefore, you've got so many people who, if you look for them, are there who don't get a platform.
They don't get an opportunity.
To put a different side of the story.
And it's very simple, and this all comes into what's happening now with all the massive censorship, is that if people only hear one side of the story, which in terms of climate change in mainstream media, it's one side of the story, then people tend to believe it, because that's all they've ever heard.
And I've been, just to finish on this question, I've been quite encouraged by talking to people, you know, the population that doesn't get near a microphone, and how many, despite the one-sided propaganda about this, who have not bought it?
And I suggest neither should they.
But the point is that we need to get our opinions and our perceptions From all information available.
Once you skew what information people see and what they don't see, then you have a situation where you're manipulating perception.
And that's exactly what's happening with Human Corps' climate change, I would suggest.
So I think it's sad.
I think it's sad that so much focus is being put on this when there's so many other things going on in the world that deserve people's focus and protest.
Not least, if you want to talk about damage to the environment, 5G. Because 5G is not just about damaging human health.
And bewildering and scrambling the human mind is going to have devastating effects for the natural environment and the natural world, animals, insects, the natural world in general.
Because in the end, everything is an electromagnetic field, electromagnetic radiation field, everything in this reality.
And that applies to the life force of an insect, of an animal, of a tree.
That's what it does for humans.
And if you are pounding out, not just from boxes down the street, which is what 5G will demand, but also from satellite, which is what they're putting up there to beam it everywhere, then that 5G frequency is going to scramble, distort, Electromagnetic fields, life force fields, not just of humans, but of the whole natural world.
Now that is something worth protesting about, because that's going to start happening long before people perceive climate change on the scale they talk about is going to happen.
Because climate's always changed.
The reason is, or the question is, why?
I challenge the why of the official story.
Cool. Well, there's over 500 people watching at the moment from all over the world.
Mexico, Australia, America, Canada, Sweden, UK, Ireland, amazing.
Australia. Australia.
Band from Australia. Oh dear, it's terrible.
There are quite a few questions in on this subject, so I'll just ask a generic one.
Go on then. Do you think what we're being told about the Notre Dame fire being an accident, is there more to know?
Notre Dame. Interesting.
First of all, one massive red flag is when they announce that something wasn't the cause before they could possibly have investigated if it was or not.
And what we've had is the dismissal that arson was involved.
What, that quickly?
Have you seen the place? But it was dismissed.
Oh, it was this, it was that, it was the other.
And there's an interesting interview on davidite.com today, which I sent to be posted this morning, about four o'clock actually, been a long day, where a former chief architect at Notre Dame, he's being interviewed, I think, at French television, And he's saying, actually, you know, basically this stuff, which has come out immediately, oh, because all the wood, it was 800 years old, and it was dry, and so it went up.
He's saying that's not true.
He said that stuff doesn't burn easy at all, wood of that age.
He's also pointed out that there was a very relatively recent upgrade in all the wiring a few years ago, and that...
There was a very good fire response system.
But out of nowhere, boom, it's gone.
And so I think we need to keep a very open mind about this and absolutely not just accept that it wasn't purposely done on the basis of the authorities saying it wasn't purposely done.
You know, I mean, they do not tend to tell the truth.
With great consistency.
So, then you look at the fact that hundreds of churches in France have been vandalized.
I mean hundreds!
Very, very large numbers.
So, what is this all about?
Well, what could it be all about?
Just keep it at that level.
There is An agenda, which I've been writing about for a long time now.
It just unfolds day after day.
To transform the societies of Europe.
And, you know, George Orwell was very, very accurate when he wrote about the importance of history.
Because where we are now and where we perceive ourselves to be is very much influenced by where we've come from.
You know, we may not, like me, be Christian or any other religion.
But the Christian history within Europe has, to a very large extent, created the society, the culture of Europe as it's unfolded over these centuries.
And if you want to take up a society in a completely different direction, one of the things that you...
Crucially target are its history, perception of history, and symbols of history.
And this is something that's a very common theme if you think about it.
You know this whole thing in America where they want to pull down statues of historical figures they don't like and all that stuff.
Well, you know, if we're going to talk about And look at this in terms of maturity as opposed to barely one-dimensional, you know, childlike ways of looking at it.
Then history is history.
The bits we didn't like and the bits we did like all together have formed where we are now.
So it's not that you're celebrating someone.
Or you have to celebrate someone because there's a statue of them.
But it's a symbol of an historical time.
It's part of the fabric of history that got us where we are now.
But they want to pull it down.
They want to wipe that away.
Then you look at what happened when the American military invaded Iraq in 2003.
They couldn't get into the museums of Iraq with all that fantastic history going back to Sumer and Babylon.
They couldn't get in there quick enough, either whipping away the stuff that was worth a fortune so it disappeared, smashing up other stuff.
And then you look at what ISIS did, of course, which is a...
Basically a proxy army for America and the West.
But what did they do when they went into Iraq, into Syria?
When they went to Mosul in Iraq and the incredible ancient artifacts in Syria smashed them up!
You look at other organizations of this type, like the Taliban, when they target the The historical and religious symbols of target people.
Because, as Orwell rightly said, if you can control history or change history or wipe history away down the memory hole, then you change the perception of the present.
And I was looking at those people in Paris, many of which would not be Christians, Who were in tears looking at that cathedral burning down.
And it wasn't because they were Christian.
It's because many of them wouldn't have been.
It was because it meant something.
Something in the fabric of their history, their identity, was being destroyed.
And so this targeting of history and historical monuments and Things that have passed through what we call time is a very old technique of changing a society in the present by destroying its history or in the same way basically demonizing its history.
And it's another interesting thing We're having this whole thing now of white supremacy and white this, white that. White privilege.
Which is again, basically an attack on history.
In the sense that in many countries white people have been in charge and thus they will have done things that were deeply deeply unpleasant as well as some very very good things.
But it's the demonization now that everything to do with white people is bad And it's like just a wave of the hand.
No shades of grey.
No, well, this was good.
Ooh, that was bad.
Like that. But no, it's all bad.
And that, again, is basically demonizing a historical process that's led us to where we are now.
And if we...
Want to create a fair and just society, then instead of just saying everything in the past was bad, and because white people were in control, then it was bad because of them, and say instead, well, let's learn from history.
Let's see what was wrong and why it was wrong.
While slavery was wrong and all these other things were wrong, but then look at the good things that happened as well and not throw babies out with bathwater everywhere.
But what we're looking at everywhere is this demonization and destruction of what we call the past to basically clear a blank sheet of paper On which a new world, a new world order, can be created.
And people who kind of at the moment are supporting that, what people call progressives, are going to have a big wake-up call eventually.
Because this is not being done in their interest.
They're being used as the foot soldiers of it, yes.
It's not being done in their interest.
When there's, you know, zero point...
Society has reached and the new one based on AI and 5G and all this stuff emerges, then it's going to be a perceptual prison camp for everybody, including those that are the moment, think that they are fighting the establishment.
They're not. Whether it's climate change, whether it's all these things that I'm talking about here regarding history and what have you.
What they're doing is driving an agenda that the 1% in the background have set out a long time ago to create.
And that is why we now have this Bizarre alliance, from my point of view, between people who call themselves progressives and billionaire members of the 1%.
Do they ever ask why George Soros, who said, I don't think about the consequences of what I do because my job is just to make money, How that sits with him funding all these left-of-center progressive groups, climate change groups, groups that want to pull statues down, want to centralize power,
save the world. Why would he be supporting them?
Because their perception of themselves is we want to...
We want to have a fair society.
He doesn't. That's why he's so rich.
He's been able to pay so far or hand over $32 billion to these open society groups around the world, about 100 odd countries coming from this progressive standpoint that are pushing this whole policy.
The reason that you've got this alliance between billionaires and people opposing the 1% is because the people opposing the 1% have been absolutely scammed into believing these billionaires are genuine.
So we have a situation now where people on the internet are censored for saying things that this progressive mindset doesn't like, censored by multi-billionaire companies like Zuckerberg's Facebook, And they cheer when a multi-billionaire censors the right to free speech of another fellow human being.
This whole scamming of this whole inversion where they've manipulated people who think they're opposing the establishment to actually promote the very agenda the establishment wants and has worked for for so long is very, very important because if those people don't wake up, They're going to bring about the society they think is just and fair, and they're going to realise to their shock that in the end, that's exactly what it's not meant to be and never was.
Cool. PJ Tansley says, 60 minutes Q&A, we'll get through five questions at this rate.
I know. Look, I've said it before.
I've had the hands-on healing, and I've had the...
I've had the, you know, crystal therapy and I've still got verbal diarrhea.
I can't touch it. I can't shift it.
I think I've stuck with it for life now.
Oh, this should be quite as short.
Go on then. Dale Clark says, what is your favourite book?
Mmm. Can't think of one off end.
Any, any, I tell you what, any book and, you know, increasingly because of the current climate, we're seeing fewer of them.
Any book where the author speaks his or her truth and doesn't censor themselves on the basis of what will people think about this?
What will people think about me if I write this?
What will the consequences for me be if I write this?
Because they're the kind of books that are desperately needed now.
Because we are being manipulated into self-censorship Which is the worst kind of censorship because there's no debate about why something is not allowed or not allowed.
People just don't say it, don't write it.
And we need to bring an end to this chill.
People need to stiffen the backbone and say, look, I'm going to speak my truth.
I'm going to write my truth.
And consequences...
Consequences don't matter.
Because you can look at consequences in the short term.
If I write this book and publish it, what's going to happen?
To me. Or you can look in the longer term and say, well, what's going to happen to the world and human society if I don't write it?
And people don't say these things.
Which I can tell you is going to be far more nightmarish than any consequences in the short term.
And by the way, you know, he's having a bit of a smile here because I'm just very close to finishing a book.
It's going to come out in the autumn, the fall, as they say in America.
And let's just say it's going to be controversial is, I don't know, like saying it's sometimes a bit chilly at the Antarctic.
It's going to be massively controversial.
It shouldn't be.
But in the current climate, it will be.
So watch for that.
Because I will not...
Allow myself to be intimidated into not saying what I believe to be true.
Doesn't mean people have to believe it.
Doesn't mean people have to like it.
But once we start saying you can say that and you can't say that, then we're in a tyranny.
Okay, Carl Simpson on Facebook has messaged in saying, are you worried about being deplatformed like Alex James?
Well, that's a very interesting question and it basically goes on from the last one.
You know, There's two ways of approaching this.
Because obviously we are in a period of extraordinary levels of systematic censorship.
I mentioned earlier that they need excuses to justify or try to justify their actions.
So if they want to transform society and centralize society's power, then human-caused climate change is a way of doing it.
And so in terms of free speech deletion, we've had...
What have we had? I mean, when's the list going to end?
We've had... We've had hate speech.
We've had fake news.
And now we've got this word they're using called harm.
Anything that might harm.
Well, anything that might harm.
Well, I mean, how big is that in terms of criteria that you can pick and choose and make a case for anything causing harm to somebody?
Which is what it's about, of course.
So... We are in this very systematic period of censorship.
And, you know, people who dismiss the conspiracy or any idea of conspiracy, conspiracy just means two or more people conspiring together to bring about a particular end, which means we're drowning in conspiracies.
But people dismiss it.
But it's happening.
This is a funny thing.
You look at people, they say, oh no, that's a load of rubbish.
It's a conspiracy theory.
Yeah, but is it true?
Is it happening? Look, yes it is.
And this is what you have with this censorship.
Why do you think they're finding more and more excuses to stop people having an opinion that's outside the accepted, imposed norm?
Because that's all they want people to hear.
So, this is why we've got censorship.
So, there's two ways of dealing with it.
Like I said, we can say, okay, How do I censor myself so I don't get deplatformed in the parlance of the day?
Censored by a tyranny.
That's what it means.
No matter if it's at a university, you must be deplatformed.
Or it's Mark Zuckerberg.
It's tyranny. Not deplatforming.
An Orwellian name that is.
So you can take that route.
Okay, what do I have to not say now so that I won't get deplatformed?
Or you can take another route, which is mine, which is, I'm going to say what I believe to be right.
And I'm not going to be gratuitously offensive.
I'm not going to attack people for the sake of attacking them, but I'm going to say what I believe to be right, and I'm going to produce the evidence to support it.
It's called mature human discourse.
And like I said in the previous answer, you then say, well, the consequences will be the consequences.
But I'm going to speak my truth.
I'm going to write my truth.
And the consequences will take care of themselves because the alternative is not to speak the truth because you're trying to not be deplatformed.
Now, what does that mean? You speak less and less of the truth, less and less of your truth, as the censorship gets more and more and more and more severe, which is the idea, until the only thing left is what they wanted to see and hear and nothing more.
And for me, I'm going to go on doing...
What I've always done, saying what I believe to be right, and the consequences take care of themselves.
I'm certainly not going to censor myself.
Because if I do that, I'm basically playing their game, which is to silence information they don't want people to hear.
I will not do it. Jason Bland says it wouldn't be David Icke if it wasn't controversial.
But that's a great point, because...
I've said that this book that I've just finished, well, virtually finished, very close to finishing, is, well, I mean, controversial doesn't even begin to cut it, to be honest.
But it's not really, but it is in the present climate.
And if you notice what's happening, as this imposition of censorship and what you can say and can't say, so they tell us, It gets more and more severe.
Things become more and more and more controversial.
Why? Because the more they censor more and more things, the more those things they're censoring more and more become controversial if you say them.
So a lot of what I say is not controversial at all in a mature discourse, but it becomes controversial in the present context.
For instance, I mean, we've seen this week a lady in Australia, Western Australia, I think, who made comments about Israel in terms of the treatment of Palestinians and then felt it necessary after the consequences to step down from standing for an election.
She was a candidate. Then we've had a lady in Hove, near Brighton, I think it is, who was standing at an election for the Labour Party.
And she said, very, very controversial, that she felt that this hysteria, anti-Semitic hysteria against the Labour Party was actually orchestrated from Israel.
Well, frankly, I agree.
Oh, that's controversial. You can't say that, Dave.
I just have. But even if it's not, it's an opinion.
And that's what free society is based on, an opinion.
But she, let's say, is no longer standing for the Labour Party in Brighton Hove because she's had the audacity to have an opinion that actually maybe this anti-Semitic exterior with the Labour Party is not all that it seems and maybe Israel's behind it.
This is the world we're in.
And so we can...
We can accept that and zip it, but we cannot accept it and keep saying it and let the consequences take care of themselves.
And I would say this.
Why do people keep apologizing for having an opinion?
Why do people keep apologizing for stating the bloody obvious?
But they do. They state the obvious.
Things like men and women are biologically different.
I mean, it is stating the bloody obvious.
You know, next time you have a bath, look in the mirror.
But then people apologise for saying that.
Why? Because they're affected by the consequences.
And they don't like the consequences, so they try to get down on their knees, put their sackcloth on and apologise.
We have to stop apologising for having an opinion and stop apologising for speaking the bloody obvious, because that's a very, very dangerous road and we're going down it real fast.
How are we doing, mate? We're good.
We've got plenty of questions coming in.
Eddie West on Facebook says, do you think Brexit could cause a domino effect across Europe?
Well, don't start me on Brexit.
Brexit has many, many implications.
Some of them symbolic, some of them literal.
I sat here in this chair, pointing at this screen here, within an hour after sitting here in the early morning and watching the Brexit referendum result being announced.
And I punch the air to celebrate.
But then, of course, reality kicks in.
And I wrote on the internet in the first hour after the referendum, this is just the start.
Because they ain't going to go quietly.
And they haven't. So what we've had with Brexit is, on public display, how the political class Across all the parties, and the political class, it's never seen a ballot box in its life in Brussels, have classically conspired, can you say conspiracy?
To mean that Brexit, that people that voted for Brexit, that Brexit has gone.
And once you had Parliament...
In on the decision-making about Brexit, and not just the referendum, then it was doomed.
And it was doomed for a simple reason.
There's a massive majority in Parliament, in the political class, that doesn't want Brexit.
So it was doomed from then on.
And it's just a case of how Near to a real Brexit you could get.
And what's happening now is it's getting further and further away all the time.
And one of the other things I said on that same morning is watch for the pressure for a second referendum.
Now that's not being, you know, some profits.
I mean, all you've got to do again is look at history.
Whenever the European Union has had a referendum, because it has to, or countries within the European Union have had a referendum about further centralization of power in Europe, Then when it's gone against what the bureaucrats in Brussels want, i.e.
that those are the shadows that control the bureaucrats, then they've manipulated another referendum and poured the money in and all that else is necessary and they've overturned it.
They've done it in Ireland and done it in other places.
And then when France and the Netherlands, I think it was, had a referendum that voted against what was proposed, which was a new European constitution.
They obviously made a decision that if we go back and have another referendum, we're probably going to lose that.
So what they did was say, well, we're dropping the constitution and we're going to have a treaty called the Lisbon Treaty.
And because it's a treaty and not the Not the Constitution.
Those referendums in France and the Netherlands no longer apply because that was about the Constitution.
We're ditching that. But what they didn't tell you is something like 96-98% of what was in the Constitution to centralize power in Europe was in the Lisbon Treaty, which was then signed and is now dictating our lives.
So that tells you something.
When people in power will not take no for an answer from those they're supposed to be serving, then there's obviously an agenda.
And in Europe, that's been crystal clear all along.
And that's why it was no prophecy to say on the morning of the referendum result, They're not going to go quietly.
This is just the start, because they want more and more countries of Europe pulled into the spider's web of centralization of power.
They don't want anyone leaving, at least of all countries like Britain.
And so they've scuppered it.
But what that has done, too, first of all, there's an opportunity, it seems, that the The upcoming European elections for people to make a statement.
But what it has done is shown people that this stuff about a few dictating to the many and the will and the interests of the many being ignored by the political class It's not just some statement, some trite, bloody cliche and mantra.
It's actually true.
You know, when people say you don't believe what you read in the newspapers, then they go and do it.
But actually, you don't really believe what you read in the newspapers until you've checked it out.
And it is true. You don't do that.
It is true that the political class that represents itself and represents that which controls from the shadows of the political class could not care less.
About the people it's supposed to represent.
There's the great unwashed to give it power through the ballot box.
And this has been brought to people's attention as a result of what's happened after Brexit.
That actually this whole thing about democracy and representation of the people, load of old rubbish.
It's representation of the system.
And if you are among the people and you support representation of the system, in other words, you do and think and say what is required, then you're fine.
But you challenge that and you realize, actually, freedom of speech and Even freedom to make a decision in a so-called democratic referendum is only freedom if you make the choice the political class wants.
And the people of Britain didn't.
And that's why they've copied it.
Anything that ushers through the mouth of Tony Blair is the system speaking.
And when he comes out and says, we...
We should have another referendum.
We shouldn't leave the European Union.
Well, you know that that's exactly what the system, the cabal, wants.
And who else has been pouring money into organisations trying to stop Brexit?
George Soros. Not even British.
Because the system doesn't want it.
And that's why it's been scuppered.
Slightly interesting one.
Eric Fritz says, do you still believe that the colours we wear...
Can have a positive or negative effect on us.
Oh, absolutely. Why?
Because everything's a frequency.
I'm getting a bit dark.
I've got two lights here.
I'm going to turn another light on.
You might be able to see me better.
Not that that would necessarily be a good thing, man.
What do you reckon? How's that?
Oh, is that a bit light? A bit light?
What's the bit light? I don't know. I'll get my sunglasses out.
All right, okay. No, we don't want sunglasses.
There you go. Turn it down a bit.
Yeah. Okay, that looks all right.
That'll do, yeah. I'm fine with all right.
I don't have to look good. Yeah, colours.
Everything's a frequency. Literally everything.
Every emotion is frequency.
Every type of thought is frequency, and they're different frequencies.
And they've worked these out.
They worked these out a long time ago.
They worked these out in the 50s at least, or many of them.
Because when...
When the brain is processing information, it's basically processing frequencies.
That's what it's doing. And it processes them electrically.
This is why this 5G and all this Wi-Fi and stuff that people live in now is affecting people psychologically as well as physically because it's impacting upon the frequency balance and the frequencies that are passing through the human brain are being processed as perception.
Um... Because of what these technological frequencies are putting out.
And so if, say, rage is a frequency, which it is, then if you want to make a community full of rage, then you fire across that community the frequency.
Of that rage.
And what you're going to do is you're going to wind people up.
Because they're going to be decoding this stuff.
It's going to feel like it's coming from them, but they're going to get into a state of rage.
And if you want to have a riot or something, a problem, reaction, solution, like a big kind of riot, then if you can fire over the target community these frequencies of rage and anger and fury, then when you produce something like an incident, Designed to trigger that rage, you're going to get a reaction that is far more intense than it would otherwise have been.
And in terms of colors, it's exactly the same thing.
I'm wearing blue and therefore the frequency of blue is impacting upon my energetic field because beyond the realm of the five sense world of decoded reality, this This blue is a field of energy with a certain frequency.
And if I was wearing red, then it would be a different frequency and it would have a different effect.
And you see it with people because, you know, we all have different energetic fields which are based on our perceptual states and our emotional states and our, you know, even genetic states, which is all, in the end, waveform information fields.
So someone will put a colour on, and people will say, oh, God, you look so drained.
All the colour's gone from your face.
Because that's at a negative impact.
And then someone will put on another colour, and people will say, God, you look so radiant.
That's your colour.
That suits you, that does. And this is happening all the time.
We're living in a realm of frequency, and there's frequencies that sync with us, and there's frequencies that don't sync with us.
And we see that and experience it as this color.
I like this color. I don't like that color.
I feel good in this color.
I don't feel good in that color, and so on.
And basically, what people are saying is, I feel good in this frequency.
I don't feel good in that frequency.
I kind of get drained in the face when I wear red, bright red.
So I basically stick away from that stuff.
And other people will look like fantastic in red because we're all different.
But yeah, I do absolutely say that.
And you know, you see football clubs.
I remember Liverpool, I think it was Liverpool Football Club in the days of Bill Shankly.
They do it now, I don't know.
Who would have the away dressing room Painted in a passive color and the home dressing room in a vibrant kind of color.
So it would have the effect, even subconsciously, of not making people drowsy, but putting people into a much more passive state because the color is a frequency.
And in the home dressing room, that color is, ooh, I'm up for it, mate.
So this has been known about and used about a long time.
And when you look at advertisements and stuff like that, the ones that are really manipulative, they're not using the colors or the symbols in those advertisements by random chance.
They're doing it because they know what effect it has on the psyche and how it can benefit them in getting you to be attracted or attracted.
Or manipulated to buy what they're selling.
Advertising uses all this stuff all the time.
Okay, right. We've got one more question.
This is quite a good one to end on.
I'd love this. We have to do this more often, mate.
I'll remind you of that tomorrow.
Oh, honestly. It's lovely.
This email in from Tanya Bork.
Just wondering, in your books and talks, you speak of humanity waking up.
And in one of your books, you said that some will fall further into the archontic waves and others will connect to upper aeons.
I already see this now, as I'm sure most of us do.
Do you think in our lifetime we will see a better world?
Well, that depends on us, really.
I think you can see this, not parting of the ways, but you can see this very distinct difference that's happening.
I see it all the time.
You've got people who are going deeper and deeper into the coma, becoming more and more mesmerized by the system, having their perceptions more and more dictated to and molded by all this perceptual manipulation that hits us from so many different directions, not least, again, frequency, Wi-Fi, all that stuff now.
But on the other hand, I've never seen so many people, quote, awakening and questioning the world than I do see now.
And the reason it doesn't seem to be that large numbers of people are looking at the world and reassessing the world, reassessing their self-identity, Because they're not the people who get access to the microphones.
It's the shrill voices that get control of the microphones.
And therefore that's all you hear.
They're the people who overwhelmingly get on the radio shows and on the television shows around the world.
And so basically the system voices, the coma voices, the myopic voices, They are the ones you hear, and it seems to be that, well, that's how people think and nothing's changing.
But away from that, among the general population, I've never seen the scale of what's happening
now in terms of people looking at the world differently, looking at everything differently.
When I started out on this road 30 years ago, I know what reaction I got on the street.
I know what reaction I got almost everywhere.
But it's not like that now.
So many people stop you and want to talk to you about the information.
And you go on the internet and you see people who are Who once were mesmerized by the program, who are now seeing through it.
It's happening. But because they're not the ones, overwhelmingly, that are on public display, it seems like it's a one-way traffic.
It's a one-way situation.
Or it's getting worse and worse.
Well, on what level it is?
But the reason they want to censor is because they're frightened of this awakening.
That's why. So they're trying to shut it down by suppressing the information that would get people to look at the world and themselves in a different way.
So it's not just being done out of sheer arrogance.
It's being done out of necessity.
Because they know that there's a wake-up going on.
It is big time. You know, when I started going around on this speaking tour, I started about 2016.
I've never seen anything like it.
All over the world, this is happening.
But it's not happening on TV news, and it's not happening on mainstream everything.
But it's happening.
And so you will see people talking about this subject or that subject in the public arena of the mainstream media, And you'll see politicians talking about it, you'll see these progressive activists talking about it, and what have you. But you talk to people who, among the general population, and you'll get often a very different opinion of the same thing.
How many people I meet Who say all this censorship, all this political correctness.
What a load of rubbish.
It's insane. What do you mean?
Transgender gingerbread people.
It's a biscuit.
But that's what they've just done.
The co-op in Britain, they're bringing out a transgender gingerbread person.
Well, who cares what...
Gender the bloody biscuit is!
Right? Crazy!
But the co-op? Oh, yes.
We want to be inclusive, so we're having a transgender biscuit.
General population?
What a load of bloody rubbish!
What's going on? This is the difference.
So we shouldn't judge this...
The awakening by what we hear in the mainstream, because there's very, very few people awake there.
Otherwise, they wouldn't be there.
Cool. Well, that's all good.
So, I think that's not bad for a first attempt.
15,000 people have seen this.
Whoa! Over 1,600 people have either commented or emailed in with questions and so on.
So, we've not got round to that many questions.
Well, it's me, isn't it?
Yeah. I'm pretty gobshy.
I loved it.
We'll have to do this more often. But just a quick ad.
I'm leaving in a few days.
When is it? Tuesday? Yeah.
Because the Renegade movie's coming out.
It's going to be available on June the 4th.
Yeah. But we're doing premieres.
Sounds grand, doesn't it?
And so there's one in Manchester.
Yeah, Wednesday, next Wednesday.
That's next Wednesday. One in London, two days later, Friday.
It's Friday. Then we go into Los Angeles, going to do one there.
And then going to New York, do one there.
And then I come back. And the book comes out.
There's a tin hat with every one of them.
So yeah, that's great.
And again, you know, I hope the film, because of the way it's been put together, I have nothing to do with the editing.
Yeah. And it was edited by people who are new to the information, which is good.
I hope it will introduce a lot of new people in the months ahead to the fact that the world's not like we're told it is, although more and more are realising that every day.
Good? Cool. Right.
Okay. Thanks for listening.
It's been a real pleasure, and we must do it again.
▲
Export Selection