David Icke Talks To The NBE Podcast About The Situation In Iran - David Icke Dot-Connector Videoca..
|
Time
Text
C60 olive oil is a popular choice for people wanting to activate their full potential.
Improved sleep, faster recovery and more energy are just a few of the amazing comments received from our customers who take a spoonful a day.
Make C60 oil a part of your daily routine and see what it can do for you.
Activate your potential today at thec60company.com Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Non-Binary Elephant
Podcast.
My name is Gareth Icke. I'm joined by my brother.
Jamie Icke. We're also joined by our dad again, because backed by popular demand, Jay.
Yeah, I like that. Yeah, we did a podcast with dad just after the UK election, and it went down well.
And it's the nicest people I've ever been to me in your news.
Yeah, so we're riding a crest of a wave.
Absolutely. So dad's going to come on and join us to talk about Iran.
Why, what's happened there? Oh, I don't know.
I heard something's gone off. Yeah.
And the fallout from that.
Yeah. So, instead of us chatting, should we get him on?
Yeah, why not. Welcome to the show, Dad.
Just to kick things off, I think it's probably better if we start at the beginning for people that are listening or watching that haven't really followed the Iran thing.
You've been speaking about it for decades now, about that's how long it's been planned.
If we start at the beginning and explain through then what these events of the last week or so, what they actually mean in context to everything else.
Well, that's a good point because you can't understand any event in and of itself without understanding the context.
Because what is happening in the moment tells you what is happening.
What it doesn't tell you is why it's happening.
And it's in the why that the mist clears and we start to see what it's really about.
Now, you can go back to the...
relationship between Iran and the United States.
You go way back.
But you can pick it up in terms of current events in the 1990s.
As I have explained in detail in the trigger, there was pressure all the way through the 1990s coming out of Israel for America To attack a series of countries in the Middle East, not least Iraq.
And eventually, in 1996-97, an organization was created in America, a think tank called the Project for the New American Century.
Now this was an organization founded and peopled by big-time fanatics of Israel, and ultra-Zionism for the benefit of Israel and ultra-Zionism.
And the idea behind it was to manipulate events so that American troops would fight Israel's wars in the Middle East to bring about the outcome that they wanted.
And so the personnel of the Project for the New American Century We're, a few years later, the key personnel at the time of 9-11 and the Bush administration.
So among them were Dick Cheney.
He was the official vice president at the time of Bush in 9-11, but actually the de facto president.
You had Donald Rumsfeld, another member of this think tank, He became head of the Pentagon, defence secretary at the time of 9-11.
His deputy, the real power in the Pentagon at the time, Paul Wolfowitz, was also from the project of the New American Century.
So was the comptroller, Dov Zakheim, of the Pentagon, in control of the entire Pentagon budget.
And so it went on and on and on with...
Project for the New American Century personnel in the Bush administration when it took power in early 2001.
But in the meantime, those same people were responsible for producing a document in September 2000 which called for American troops to be used to fight a series of Wars in the Middle East, what the document called multiple theater wars, to regime change a series of countries that actually Israel wanted regime changed.
The document called for that to happen in Iraq, in Libya, in Syria, in Iran, in North Korea, leading to eventually regime change in China.
So here you had this group calling for those countries to be regime changed, which then came into power a few months later with the Bush administration.
And they said in this document that there was a problem in making this regime change sequence happen.
And that was basically selling it to the American people.
They had to somehow not only justify the regime changes, they had to justify a massive increase in the Pentagon budget to pay for it.
And what they said in this document, seriously significantly, is that this process of transformation, these regime changes, would necessarily be slow, absent some Catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
They said that in the document in September 2000.
One year to the month later, nine months after those who wrote that document came to power with Bush, America had what Bush called at the time the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century, 9-11.
As a result of that, they first of all justified the invasion of Afghanistan to pursue, the official story said, what was a fake villain for 9-11, Osama Bin Laden. And there were Israeli players who were calling Immediately, 9-11 happened for the invasion of Afghanistan.
And very soon afterwards, that's what they got, thanks to Israeli operatives in the Bush administration running the Pentagon.
So, I've been, you know, writing for 30 years that there is a government that you see In the various countries and there is a permanent government in the background that actually runs the show whatever political government is briefly in office.
And you can see this in relation to this story in that we had boy George Bush in the White House and Tony Blair Labour Party in Downing Street And they oversaw the invasion of Afghanistan, and then in 2003, the invasion of Iraq, which of course was based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction.
Now the reason they lied is because invading Iraq was on the list, but they didn't have a reason to do it that was credible.
So they made one up.
That's what it was all about.
So then away goes Republican Bush and Labour Party Blair.
And eventually in comes Democrat Barack Obama and Conservative David Cameron, Prime Minister in Britain.
They then picked Libya off the list.
It's the same list from September 2000 and administrations and personalities come and go and parties come and go.
Same list is being ticked off.
And they also then oversaw Not just the removal of Gaddafi in Libya, which of course created an absolute humanitarian catastrophe in that country, but they also oversaw the manipulated, quote, civil war in Syria aimed at regime changing President Assad, who was also on the list in September 2000.
Only the intervention of Russia Stop that happening.
If that had not happened, if Putin had not intervened in Syria, Assad would have been long gone, just like Gaddafi.
So as this process was unfolding, it was very clear that they were going to go for Iran next.
Of course, we had all the stuff with North Korea and Trump, which went nowhere.
But it was obvious that Iran was going to be next on the list, and you could also watch very carefully Lebanon as well, because that's on the list.
And so away go Cameron and Obama, and then in comes the next chap.
We're back to Republican now, well at least it says so here, Donald Trump.
And as you know, I posted something on the internet immediately after Trump was elected, which said key words of the Trump administration, Iran, which means Russia and China, because they would come in in support of Iran if it all kicked off, which it's getting very close to doing.
And so here's now this maverick, drain the swamper.
He's not like Obama.
He's not like Bush.
But the same list gets ticked off.
But they had a problem because there was an agreement with Iran, what they call the nuclear deal, which also involved countries of Europe, in which all the fears and the demonization of Iran, and I'm no apologist for Iran, quite the opposite, but the demonization of Iran over they're going to get nuclear weapons, forgetting, of course, that Israel has long had them and won't admit it And they won't admit it, and America won't demand that they admit it, because by not admitting it,
they are not subject to nuclear non-proliferation treaties that other countries are that admit, yeah, we've got them.
So, the targeting of Iran was about, oh, they're going to get nuclear weapons, and then this deal calmed that down.
Well, now you've got a problem, because you want a conflict with Iran, and you've got a deal, and it's all calmed down.
So... What did Trump do?
He deleted the deal.
He said, we're not having it. Got to rip it up.
And Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, was caught, though he didn't realize it at the time, in the sense that he was recorded telling some people that actually he took the credit for Trump ripping up the deal.
So the moment that happened, you knew that we're going somewhere here now because it had started to open up to more conflict.
And so you had more and more demonization.
Then you have what we have under Trump with many countries, which is weaponizing sanctions.
And the idea is, and it's been done many times, Is you impose economic sanctions on a country.
You make the people suffer from those sanctions in the hope, with your agent provocateurs on the ground, that that will trigger a, quote, people's revolution to remove whoever you want removed.
In this case, the regime in Iran.
They tried that not so long ago.
And that was unsuccessful.
So the idea is that you keep prodding Iran in various ways because you want a reaction.
Because you want their reaction to be your excuse to do what you wanted to do all along, which was full-blown conflict.
And as the sanctions weren't bringing about the outcome, and they couldn't generate a people's revolution, Well, how more do we poke these people so they'll react?
And what they did was take out this general in Iraq, this Iranian general, in the hope that it would get the response that they wanted.
And they got a response, but clearly, when you look at the evidence, the response from Iran, those missiles targeted at the US air bases or bases, We're not designed to cause casualties.
They weren't designed to cause massive damage because Iran will be well aware of what the game is and if they really react, what gateway that will open For America to do what it's wanted to do all along.
So, obviously, since that response, Trump's obviously changed his tone.
I think we had this conversation on the phone yesterday about the fact it was election suicide, him invading Iran.
So what are the people in the background, do you think?
What are they thinking now? What's Pompeo thinking and...
I know Bolton's not in there anymore, but he obviously was a member of the Project for New American Century, so he had a very big input on Trump's attitude towards Iran until he's not involved anymore.
But what are they thinking now?
Are they thinking, I'll tell you what, we'll bide our time, we'll get re-elected, but what we've done here is we've got our foot in the door.
So as soon as we're re-elected, we don't have to build up again, we can just go.
Well, first of all, Pompeo will do whatever Israel tells him to do.
That's the dynamic. He is an extreme Christian Zionist, just like Mike Pence, the vice president.
And they are basically, well, I've called Pompeo the Secretary of State for Israel, because that's what he is.
And you've got various forces at work.
John Bolton, of course, came out when the military leader, Soleimani, was killed, beaming with joy because he's been trying to get a war with Iran for a long time.
In fact, when he was National Security Advisor, if you remember, a few months ago now, planes were actually in the air heading for Iran when Trump turned him around.
The reason he turned them round is part of this dynamic that's going on.
There is the pressure from what are called the neocons, the Israel-centric network within the Trump administration and was within the Bush administration at 9-11, etc., that are pushing for this conflict with Iran.
But as you mentioned, there's forces pushing the other way within Trump, which is he knows that he was elected in 2016 to not go to war with countries, not least in the Middle East, because part of his support, massive part of his support, was from people who didn't want these neocon Wars for Israel using American troops to continue.
They wanted out of Afghanistan.
It's still there after all these years.
They wanted out of Iraq, out of Syria.
And here was Trump saying, not only won't he do any more countries, he will get the troops out.
So he's aware that he's playing a very dangerous game electorally.
And of course, we're in an election year.
In that if he does unleash a war against Iran, I mean, the war's already happening.
It's happening in sanctions and it's happening in many other ways, but I mean a full-blown, full-out war, then his chances of getting elected this year, re-elected, are going to absolutely plummet.
And so, That's the pressure not to do what the neocons want, while the neocons are pressuring to do it.
And, you know, when you're dealing with someone like Trump, who is extraordinarily narcissistic, but also not very streetwise about so much that's going on, a man who is clearly owned by Israel, this resistance to electoral suicide apart, In that he's given Israel everything that's asked for throughout his administration.
The question is, will Trump succumb to that pressure?
Or will he think that, actually, if I'm going to get re-elected, I can't go there?
And I think that we saw a bit of that in the last 24 hours.
When the belligerent Trump, up to that point in this sequence of events, we're going to do this, we're going to do that, we're going to target there, we're going to target that.
Once the missile attacks that killed nobody from Iran happened, he's pulling back, almost thinking, I've got a chance here of maybe not crossing the line.
Because if he does, there's a very good chance, a very good chance that he won't get re-elected.
When is the election?
It's December, isn't it?
No, it's November. November.
So he's basically got 11 months to stall then.
Because he can't get re-elected for a third time.
So it's almost like Jay's pointed out.
Once he's re-elected, then you can unleash help.
Well, that's the danger of second-term presidencies.
You know, you can have a second-term prime minister in Britain who could get a third term But you can't get a third-term president, at least under the law as it stands.
And so that's the danger, because apart from face, they have nothing to lose.
And so a second Trump term could be very much more extreme than the first one has been, and that's been extreme in many ways.
And it's indicative of where we are now politically that Americans at this year's election are going to have what passes for a choice between a president owned by Israel and being pressured all the time and lied to, you know, oh, Mr.
President, we have the intelligence.
Well, not what I'm seeing, mate.
You don't have the intelligence. But the intelligence you're talking about?
Okay, yeah. Okay, so tell me what the intelligence is.
Well, the intelligence is whatever we think we need to tell you is the intelligence, so you'll do what we say.
And of course, if you're not streetwise, then you can buy into this.
So many things have happened because all the intelligence told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 2003 when anyone looking from afar could see it was nonsense.
So we have this situation now in politics where you have this ludicrous excuse for a choice between someone who's owned by Israel in Trump And the Democratic Party, if it came to power, would unleash wokeness, tyranny in other words, on America, on freedom of speech, on freedom of everything.
And that's the choice Americans have this year.
And it just shows you how far freedom has...
That's the choice they're given.
That's a good point in that just after the attack was unleashed by Trump that killed the general, it was trending on Twitter, I voted for Hillary Clinton, and people were saying it like it was a badge of honour.
And it's like, hang on, mate, she would have blown the living hell out of anyone anywhere.
Well, there's a video that people have responded to that, circulated the one with her saying, if I was president, I'd attack Iran from, like, 2008.
Well, yeah, because she's owned by Israel as well, isn't she?
Of course she is. And of course, you know, the way I'm looking at it, if Clinton had won the last election, war with Iran would probably have already happened.
Oh yeah, closer to Russia, wouldn't we?
Yeah, absolutely. Because, you know, Trump does have this resistance that he has to deal with, which is his electoral base doesn't want any of this stuff.
And he's being pushed into it.
The base is saying, we don't want it.
And by the way, you need our votes this year.
Whereas Clinton would have just gone for it.
And, you know, like you say, Jay, you look at the clips of her comments about Iran over the years when she was Secretary of State in the Obama administration.
And she was incredibly belligerent about Iran because she's a warmonger.
She's just one of the gang.
She was very belligerent about Putin as well in the lead up to the 2016 election.
I think that's probably a big factor in why she lost to a lot of those anti-war votes to Trump.
Because in that election, the difference is I think with this one, is you're almost certainly going to have two people competing, whether it's Sanders, whether it's Biden, whoever wins the Democratic nomination, who are both known quantities.
Whereas I think 2016, Trump was unknown.
Whereas Clinton was known for being a warmonger, she'd been in government her entire life, and the difference was this apparent maverick who was not a politician, who was just doing it because he wanted to do it, and this career politician who'd been involved in all the wars dating back to the 90s.
I think in this election you're not going to have that.
He can't play the anti-war card.
No. I don't think in this election, because he fired missiles at Syria, he's fired missiles, he's taken out this guy, and he's been very belligerent with his comments towards Iran, towards China.
I mean, I don't see how he...
The only way I think he wins again is because the Democrats don't have a clue what's going on.
They're fighting amongst themselves.
Yeah, but also, if they... I mean, could you imagine if Biden won the nomination for the Democrats?
Oh, the amount that... They're not taking it seriously if that's the case.
The amount to come out about him that would ruin that.
Well, he's just creepy.
Yeah. Trump's biggest plus in being re-elected is the Democratic Party.
Yeah, they're awful, apart from Gabbard, and they won't let her get near the nomination.
Well, if Tulsi Gabbard stood against him, she'd win.
I'm sure she would. Yeah, I think she would as well, yeah.
Because not only is she far more determined to pull the troops out than he is...
She's also got this balance in terms of social policy.
She's coming from the old Democratic Party background, where you actually had people of the left That stood for freedom of speech instead of the new woke hijack, which is trying to destroy it.
And Gabbard has also spoken out in favor of freedom of speech.
So that balance would be very, very persuasive for a lot of people who are in this middle ground.
You know, in many ways they are Democrat voters.
But they just look at the woke takeover and think, oh my God, this is madness.
I can't vote for that.
But of course, as you rightly say, the last person, the cabal, the cult, wants in power is someone like Celci Gabbard, who will pull troops out and will also not take the woke.
Well, not all of it, anyway.
No. So, instead, you've got this polarity, this really big division between Trump, what he represents, and says he stands for, and the woke Democratic Party, which is an incredible danger to American freedom because...
All these extremes that the woke mentality demands, they will get most of them with a democratic victory.
And a lot of people know that, are well aware of that.
And for all Trumps, how Trump has let them down, not least in foreign policy, they might still think, well, I'd rather that than this Democratic madness running the country.
So it's all open about who can win the next election.
And it depends to a large extent on events in the most of the remainder of 2020.
People should remember as well that the Democrats like a war.
Well, yeah. Obama was at war every day.
He was in office. Yeah. And, you know, Clinton liked a war.
I mean, they all do, don't they?
Because, like, as Dad points out earlier, they're all following the sheet.
And just a little side note, when you're talking about the project for the new American century, because I've actually seen that quoted quite a lot on social media in the last few days, where people are bringing it up because it is so obvious, obviously, Iran's on the list.
In terms of the Israel link to that project for the New American Century, what a lot of people don't realise is Richard Pearl, who was one of the authors of the New American Century think tank, in 96 co-authored something called Clean Break, where they were demanding that you got rid of Saddam Hussein, so they put him for that war in Iraq, but he co-wrote it with Netanyahu.
So with the Israeli Prime Minister, that's how tight it is with Israel.
Yeah, and that Clean Break...
A document by Richard Pearl in 1996 was basically a mirror of the document produced by the Project of the New American Century in September 2000, a member of which was Richard Pearl.
And another thing that Pearl said in that clean break is that for the benefit of Israel, The more inter-Arab conflict they can generate and manipulate, the better. And if you look at what's happened in the Middle East, it's been inter-Arab conflict.
You look at what ISIS has done, and most of the people they've killed have not been the infidels, they've been other Muslims.
You look at the conflict between the Shia and the Sunni, the Shia being very much centered in Iran, and it's all inter-Arab conflict.
You look at what's happening in Yemen with the grotesque so-called coalition assault On the Yemeni people and the catastrophic consequences that that is causing day after day after day into Arab conflict.
It's exactly what Pearl called for in that document for Netanyahu in 1996.
And another thing that he called for was the removal of Saddam Hussein, which by the personnel that were behind the clean break and behind The Project of the New American Century document, the personnel that were behind them coming to power, America and Britain invaded Iraq.
It's all being driven out of Israel.
And it's not being driven by rank-and-file Israelis, just like what's happening with Trump and the Democrats is not being driven by rank-and-file Americans.
It's being driven by the cult, the global cult, that operates in every country.
To a global agenda.
And a major part of that, segment of that cult, certainly central in these Middle East wars and regime changes and 9-11, etc., is the cult operating out of Israel, which I call Sabbatean Frankism, which is a satanic cult.
And its modus operandi, throughout its history, Has been to infiltrate countries and cultures and religions and outwardly put the face forward that they are of that culture, of that country, of that religion.
While using that infiltration to manipulate events to advance its own agenda.
And this is why, as I show in the trigger very clearly, This Sabatine Frankis cult was the central player in the orchestration of 9-11, which did what?
It was the trigger that started the sequence of events, which is still playing out now in relation to Iran, which Israel, the cult, planned all those decades ago.
And also the Israeli Prime Minister said at the time was good for Israel.
Well, yeah, Netanyahu said on the morning of 9-11 that it was good for Israel.
Obviously, it was a slip of the tongue he would rather now not have said.
But it did state exactly the situation.
And 9-11 was good for Israel in Netanyahu's terms because that which controls Israel, the Sabbatean Frankist cult, was behind 9-11.
And, you know, people like Netanyahu absolutely know who pulled 9-11 off.
And so many other people do.
But, you see, this Sabbatean Frankist cult has, well, a long time ago, moved in on America.
And what they call the deep state in America, which is the intelligence network, the Pentagon, etc., within the American...
That deep state is actually ultimately at its core controlled by Sabbatean Frankism.
And this is where you got the cooperation between the Israeli wing of the cult and the American Pentagon, CIA, etc.
wing of the cult, which combined together to pull off 9-11.
And it's understanding the existence of this cult and its agenda and the outcome it wants for the world is to understand these events that appear to many people to be random but are absolutely anything but.
Where do you see it going now, just personally, just a gut feeling?
Because I look at it, and we've spoken before, how nothing ushers in societal change more than a war.
I was having a conversation with a friend of mine, Benjamin, yesterday, and we were chatting about the fact that you can still usher in societal change with a Cold War, and that maybe this massive war with Iran isn't going to kick off, but the threat of it always being there, and these little pokes at each other going along the line, They could get the end that they want without actually going for it.
Well, that is a very good point.
I would say that what they also want to do is to pull Russia and China into conflict too.
But that's a very good point.
Because we're dealing with a cult which has its tentacles Into all different cultures and religions and countries.
The cult will be at work in Iran as well.
And there will be people in Iran who have a face to the world, that they are of a certain opinion, coming from a certain direction, who will also be cult.
And behind that facade of being Iranian and Shia, We'll actually be advancing and working for the outcome of the cult.
So there'll be things going on between cult levels of America and cult levels of Iran and cult levels of Israel that we don't see in the public arena.
And of course, what this cult wants is the outcome.
How it gets the outcome, it's not too bothered about.
It wants control of what they call Eurasia, which is the massive landmass from Russia down to the Middle East and from Europe across to China.
And you look at Sobigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, who was a major player in this whole network.
Major player. And he wrote a book Back in the late 90s, the Grand Chess Board, in which he said very clearly, and if you want to know what the game is and what the plan is, read Brzezinski's books.
He's dead now, but read Brzezinski's books, because he was telling you.
He wasn't saying, this is the plan, but what he was saying, this should happen, he was describing the plan.
And he said that to control the world, you have to control Eurasia.
Because of the land mass, because of the resources, because of the size of the population.
And if you look at where all these regime change wars and conflicts are going on, whether it be Iran and Syria and Libya or across to North Korea and the to and fro is going on with China and with Russia.
Yeah, and got Ukraine in there as well, yeah.
Ukraine, yeah. They're all in the landmass of Eurasia.
This is an ongoing sequence of events to take control of that area.
Now, if that means a war with Iran that will pull China and Russia in for a much more global kick-off, Then that's where they'll go.
But if it can be done in other ways, then they'll do it that way.
Well, they gained a lot of control of Eurasia through NATO, for a start, after the Second World War.
All those former Soviet countries up in the Balkans, they've got control of without any military involvement, apart from taking over their militaries, as NATO's done.
But yeah, countries like Iran, Russia, China, Iraq, Syria, they're not coming quietly.
So, conflict seems to be their only way to go.
I think conflict would probably be their number one choice because they're psychopaths and they'd quite like the death and destruction and the money that it would bring in terms of arms.
Although a Cold War would bring money in arms because all the countries would stock up anyway even if they never used them.
So they're going to make the money anyway, aren't they?
Yesterday I saw a guy tweeting about how happy he was that Lockheed Martin's stock had gone up 4% after Trump's assassination of him.
Oh well, you know. So you're celebrating the fact a guy's just been killed.
Whatever you think of the guy. And as we said, I watched a show that was on Iconic on Sunday night, America Unplugged.
Billy Ray had a guy on.
And he was saying, even as a political follower, before Sunday, no one knew who the fuck this guy was.
No one knew who he was. And now, all of a sudden, everyone knew who he was and he had the blood of these on his hands, the blood of them on his hands.
Yeah. And it's...
But you're celebrating the fact that someone's been killed because the stock's gone up.
That sums up how messed up it is.
Yeah, because people are mental. Then when you start looking at again from the cult point of view, the cult controls countries and their militaries and their political decisions relating to those militaries and the cult also owns the armament companies that make a fortune from those decisions.
Once you see how it all fits and connects, everything they do is for their benefit.
For instance, what the cult wants is to stop exposure of the cult and exposure of different aspects of its agenda.
And the cult controls Silicon Valley.
Which is censoring people, exposing the cult in its various ways, even if they don't call it a cult.
It's exposing various aspects of its agenda.
So it's understanding how it's all being manipulated and directed from a central point that everything falls into place.
And like I say, and it's a very good point you raise, Gaz, we should never forget, because it's a cult that infiltrates apparent opposites and apparent opponents, Never lose sight of the fact that it can be at work in country A that's in opposition, even conflict, with country B. And they appear to be on different sides, but actually they're on the same side in terms of what the outcome is, which is creating a conflict which, without both of them, would not have naturally occurred.
I think that's quite a nice place to live.
It's gone quite dark.
It feels like we've got a cloud coming over you.
Yeah, well, I'm not going to have a cloud coming over me, but I've got a cloud coming over the sky, a big one.
And, of course, you know, I'm so professional here that I have the sun as my lighting system.
And it's not out today, to say the least.
Well, before we lose you completely, then we'll call it a day.
Yeah. We'll chat again.
I'm enjoying this. Well, you got good comments.
You got good comments when we spoke about the election.
It did. I'm not used to getting good comments.
No, normally me and Gareth get abused.
Yeah, we take a bit of a pound in me and Jay.
You more than me. I'm not bothered, mate.
But it's quite nice, I suppose, to read some nice ones for once.
Yeah, um... Abuse is only effective if you allow it to affect you.
If you don't care, then it might as well not be said for all the impact it has.
Oh, absolutely, yeah. When you've had enough of it as well, you get used to it.