All Episodes
Previous Next
July 15, 2020 - David Icke
29:18
Facemasks, Psychology & What's To Come - David Icke
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So, let's get started. Let's get started.
So, So,
So, So,
So, Ian Davis on Off Guardian who says face masks are must be
worn in the UK on public transport.
As he rightly says, to begin with, by order of the state, we will explore the reasons why people might comply or resist this diktat.
Well, I'm absolutely resisting it.
I will not put a mask on for any reason whatsoever.
And if I can't go on public transport without wearing one, I won't go on public transport.
We will explore the reasons why people might comply with or resist this diktat.
What reasons are there to wear a face mask?
Do they make sense?
And what does our compliance or resistance say about us?
The state is a belief system.
It is faith, rather like a religion.
And we keep coming back to this.
The world is being taken over by a new religion.
I have been predicting this for decades.
Because you pull in the coronavirus religion, you pull in the human-caused climate change religion, you pull in the woke religion, which is all connected to that, and you're looking at a new religion.
and a religion is based on faith not facts.
It is a faith rather like a religion.
He says there's nothing intrinsically wrong with faith.
It doesn't necessarily mean the belief itself is wrong.
Faith can be a powerful force for good.
It all depends on what the belief is.
If your faith dictates that you treat all with love, compassion and respect, then your belief is quote right.
If you live in accordance with your faith, then you are living in the truth, regardless of which deity you follow.
However, if your faith teaches you that you are better than non-believers, that yours is the only true way and that those who don't follow your beliefs or your deity deserve to be punished, you are, quote, wrong.
you are not living in harmony with the truth. People who believe in the state
are called statists. Those that don't broadly come on the umbrella
term of anarchists. For statists, the anarchist is despised. Life without the state is unimaginable,
therefore those who wish to live without it must be
evil. The anarchist has long been reviled by statists as the dangerous subversive.
Despite the perceptual truth that anarchy is synonymous with chaos, that is not what
anarchy means.
Anarchy encompasses a broad range of political, economic, and sociological perspectives with one commonality.
The state is considered both harmful and unnecessary.
For status, an absence of the state must mean chaos, a free-for-all with no law, no social security, no health care, no infrastructure and mob rule.
This is the opposite of anarchy.
Anarchy is not society without rules.
It is society without rulers.
All religions have their representatives.
There are cardinals, bishops, imams and rabbis etc.
They are perhaps the leading voices but they aren't the only representatives.
There are envoys, missionaries, tv evangelists, religious correspondents and so on.
The state is no different.
We have politicians and governmental advisors as the leading voices but there are also NGOs, spokespersons, Union officials, the academic and scientific orthodoxy, lords and ladies, multinational CEOs, central bankers, business leaders and more.
Of those, the most powerful in terms of their ability to shape public opinion are the mainstream media or MSM. The core tenet of the state's faith is that a small group of people are best placed to tell all the other people what to do.
This is a belief in absolute hierarchical authority.
There's nothing wrong with hierarchical authority.
He says it is difficult to see how we could organize anything more than a barbecue without it.
It is over the issue of how we authorize it.
Where the status and the anarchists diverge.
Where you need to see a doctor, you temporarily cede your authority to them.
You trust that they know more about medical science than you do, so you allow them to make decisions about your health and follow their advice.
However, outside of your health care, you don't permanently give your authority away to your doctor.
When you buy a car, you don't phone your GP and ask their permission.
Generally in life, we cede our authority to others on a case-by-case basis.
Our authority in all other decisions remains otherwise intact.
We retain our individual sovereignty.
Most people understand this.
We can become defensive, even aggressive, if we feel someone else is telling us what to do when we haven't given them our specific authority to do so.
Yet, for some reason, When it comes to the state, statists give this group of people absolute authority over every aspect of, not only of their own, but everyone else's life.
Just as religion is often based on our belief in supreme beings who have power to influence or influence over the devotee's life, so statism accepts that special selected people have power and influence over every aspect of the status life.
In most religions, you offer prayers to your deity, acknowledging your faith.
Statists offer votes to cede their individual sovereignty and autonomy to the state.
This isn't a temporary arrangement.
Whoever you vote for, you get a permanent state.
The state's authority becomes entirely from the statist without their belief.
It would be nothing. Regardless of any other competing ideologies status may follow, a trust in the legitimacy of absolute hierarchical authority is universal.
This trust is not shared by the anarchist.
Power corrupts absolutely in the anarchist view and history demonstrates it.
Much better to retain your own sovereignty and temporarily devolve authority depending upon your need at the time, just as we do nearly every day.
And he includes a quote here from Pierre Joseph Proudhon.
Laws, we know what they are and what they are worth.
They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government.
Exactly what they are.
And he goes on to show how people concede complete control over every area of their lives to a small group of people called government, irrespective of their expertise, which is usually zero in most of what they're talking about.
So the question is asked, why are you really wearing a face mask?
And so we come, he says, to the state's decree that we should all wear face masks on public transport initially, ostensibly both to protect others from our own transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and to stop us catching the deadly virus.
It is perhaps worth noting, according to official statistics, despite the UK lockdown regime producing one of the worst infection mortality rates in the world.
Why? Because in Britain, the The frenzy of death certificate manipulation to make it look like COVID-19 is a rampant causer of death and the designation of symptoms and the test as proof that people are infected with COVID-19 is one of the Most rampant in the world and therefore the figures in Britain are higher than most of the world.
Simple as that.
We are talking a disease that has supposedly affected 0.45%.
And led to the deaths of 0.06% of the UK population.
If there are health risks associated with wearing face masks, and there are, the article says, this notion of protection rapidly becomes a nonsense.
Of course it does. However, people must have their reasons to wear a face mask.
So what are they? The first could be that you are a statist.
You believe that the state representatives, government officials, know more about reality than you do.
You trust them to tell you what to do.
You accept their claim that they have special knowledge and have your best interests and those of your fellow citizens at heart.
You gave them your authority to control your life and the lives of everyone else when you participated in the ordination ritual.
You did this by putting a cross on a piece of paper some time ago.
In all likelihood, you didn't actually vote for your nominal rulers.
The 2019 UK general election turnout was 67% of the eligible vote.
Boris Johnson's Conservatives received 43.6% of that total.
Just over 29% of the British electorate voted for their, quote, representative government.
Nearly 71% didn't.
70% of the British people do not want Boris Johnson or the Conservatives to force them to obey their rules.
However, all conform because we think we live in a democracy.
For status, this is how it should be.
It doesn't matter that by using the supposed democratic system, less than a third of the population determine what more than two thirds can do and say.
It's the principle that matters.
The principle appears to be mob rule.
The second reason, one shared by many statists and anarchists alike, is that you are forced to do as you are told.
With a monopoly on the use of force, the state is the only body in society that can initiate force and get away with it.
While nearly everyone in the UK would say it is morally indefensible to use physical force to make someone do whatever you tell them, it is surprising how many think it's okay for a tiny group of people in Westminster, Olly Rood, etc., to use physical force or the threat of it to control millions.
Cognitive dissonance exemplified.
Nonetheless, it is what it is.
If you need to take the bus or the train to work, you are now forced to wear a face mask.
Not because you believe there's any point in it, but because you won't be able to get to work and feed your family otherwise.
So if we are honest with ourselves, unless convinced by the science, we will wear a face mask on public transport for two reasons.
We are either happy to accept that special people we've never met have sole authority to tell us what to do, as a slave only would command a willing slave, or we are scared that they will use force to punish or harm us if we don't comply.
We call this a free and open democratic state.
The final reason you might elect to wear a face mask is that you are convinced by the scientific evidence.
You believe that donning a cheap or homemade face mask will protect you and others from a disease which you have a 0.45% chance of contracting and a 99.94% chance of surviving.
That's even if you accept that it exists.
Why would you imagine that the science shows that wearing a crappy face mask will stave off the minuscule threat of infection?
It's difficult to say.
For many, perhaps, it is because that is what the mainstream media, an organ of the state, told them.
However, the state has said other things at other times.
On the 4th of March, the state's chief medical officer, the very Bill Gates-connected Chris Whitty, said, In terms of wearing a mask, our advice is clear that wearing a mask, if you don't have an infection, really reduces the risk almost none at all.
Or not at all, to be specifically accurate.
On the 23rd of April, the state's chief scientific advisor, the GlaxoSmithKine stroke Gates connected Patrick Vallance said, the evidence on face masks has always been quite variable, quite weak.
It is quite difficult to know exactly.
There's no real trials on it.
On the 24th of April, the state's health secretary, Matt Hancock, clueless, The evidence around the use of masks by the general public, especially outdoors, is extremely weak.
On the 28th of April, the state's Ministry of Defence Chief Scientific Advisor, Dame Angela McLean, representing the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, known as SAGE, I'd say they should get stuffed, send them some onions, said The recommendation from SAGE is completely clear, which is there is weak evidence of a small effect in which a face mask can prevent a source of infection going from somebody who is infected to the people around them.
An unusually clear and consistent message from the state.
On the 4th of June, the UK state's Secretary of Transport, Grant Shapps, told us that we did have to wear face masks on public transport.
Shapp said, that doesn't mean surgical masks, which we must keep at clinical settings.
It means the kind of face covering you can easily make at home.
Wearing a face covering offers some, albeit limited, protection against the spread of the virus.
All that was happening is they were moving to another stage of their mind game, where they were going to impose masks on people.
So they changed their tune.
As I've said again and again, does it support the agenda?
Does it challenge the agenda?
That is the criteria for whether the state will push something or oppose something.
Wearing a clinical N95 mask is frowned upon by the state.
Better to wrap a scarf around your head, a bandana, old handkerchief, or one of those paper faces masks you use to be able to buy from the market before the state put all the stallholders out of business.
Begging the question, what new scientific breakthrough emerged between 29th of April and 4th of June to convince the state that wearing a torn t-shirt on your face will save you and others From COVID-19, albeit limited.
Obviously, N95 standard face masks are better suited to the task than a bit of rag.
So what is the scientific evidence of N95 masks to protect you or someone else from a viral respiratory infection?
And he quotes a study which says N95 mask health care workers HCWs were significantly more likely to experience headaches.
Face mask use in healthcare workers was not demonstrated to provide benefits in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds.
Another study. None of the studies reviewed showed a benefit from wearing a mask in either healthcare workers or community members in households.
Another. There were 17 eligible studies.
None of the studies established a conclusive relationship between mask respirator use and protection against influenza infection.
Another. We identified six.
In the meta-analysis of the clinical studies, we found no significant difference between N95 respirators and surgical masks in associated risk of a laboratory-confirmed respiratory infection, influenza-like illness, or reported workplace absenteeism.
And the studies just go on.
So, the reason That people are wearing face masks.
Is the reason that a few control the world.
They either A. Believe what they're told without question.
The great majority.
Or they fear the consequences of not conforming to what they have perceived as a waste of time, a complete nonsense.
Or even gone as far as to perceive it for what it is as a psychological operation against the human psyche.
There's a It's a video on david.com this week, if you haven't seen it, which is about a phone call that a member of the public made to a coroner's office asking why or asking for confirmation of a Death diagnosis for a patient.
And he recorded the conversation with the person at the coroner's office.
He was very nice. And what was said is that the person had died and they had tested the patient, the dead patient, for COVID-19 and she said the test did not come back yet to confirm if the test was positive the test that's not testing for COVID-19 and then she said something phenomenally significant if the test came back as positive then COVID-19 would go on the death certificate And if it came back as negative, they would have a post-mortem to see what the cause of
death was.
This is how it's being done.
And she seemed to be a very nice person, just being, you know, very open with the guy who called her.
And she won't be trying to manipulate anybody.
She probably thinks it's nonsense, but She acquiesces to the imposition of the people above her, who acquiesces to the imposition of people above them.
So it goes on. Bill Gates has made another prediction this week, and it's very important to listen to Gates' predictions because he's telling you what's planned.
He's not telling you what he predicts.
He's telling you what's planned, as he has again and again and again.
And the media say, oh, that Bill Gates got another prediction right.
No, no. He told you what was coming and that which he represents made it happen.
So he's now saying that COVID-19 will be back in big numbers in October and November.
Now, if you listen to the London Real interviews and the davidike.com.connected videocasts, you'll see But I've been saying that for months.
But of course it's going to come back in the winter.
If they're still locking down cities like Leicester, my hometown, in the middle of the summer for this stuff, what the heck are they going to do when people start getting colds and flu and sneezes and pneumonia in the winter?
They're going to go hysterical.
And that's why it's so important to get out in the next two or three months.
.
The nature of the scam.
So more and more people refuse to acquiesce to it.
It's becoming clearer and clearer, one of the great fundamental reasons for the coronavirus lockdown scan, that the economic consequences are going to be catastrophic, beyond catastrophic, like unprecedentedly catastrophic, which is actually what was planned.
And here's another interesting story.
They... They want to clear the countryside.
They also want to create food shortages, but they want to clear the countryside.
And this is all laid out in various documents that I quote in the books over the years.
Agenda 2030, out of the UN, Agenda 21 as it was before it was updated to Agenda 2030.
There's also documents, again, UN connected.
That talk about basically just getting people out of the countryside into cities.
And here's an article by Sandy Adams, who I actually met.
Very nice lady, she seemed to be.
And the headline is, could a zoonotic COVID-19 outbreak be used to evacuate our countryside?
And this is what she said.
I keep hearing the word zoonotic being branded about in the press in the last few days.
Could this be a form of preparation for what's coming?
Well, if it's in the media, then that's almost taken as read.
I've been wondering how the next phase of the Global UN Agenda 2030 could be played out.
After all, the endgame plan is to rewild the countryside and herd us all into their smart, controlled cities and habitation zones.
I found what could be the answer on the United Nations Environment Programme's website yesterday.
Here is the UNEP's fact sheet for zoonotic diseases.
This is what they say. COVID-19 is a zoonotic disease, meaning that it jumps between animals and people and is therefore closely connected to lands they inhabit.
Human and economic activity is eroding wild spaces, forests and other important ecosystems, bringing closer to reservoir hosts, animals and plants that can harbour diseases.
COVID-19 underscores the relationship between human health and nature and reveals a fundamental problem.
Humans have unlimited needs, but the planet has limited capacity to satisfy them.
Often, land degradation is caused by unsustainable human consumption and needs.
Scientists and specialists working at the UN Environment Programme have been pulling together the latest scientific facts about the coronavirus, what we do know about the virus and what we don't know.
While the origin of the outbreak and its transmission pathways have yet to be discovered, well, yes, because there is no discovery to be made.
It's a scam. Here are six important points worth knowing.
And if the UN is saying this, you know the cult is saying this because the cult created the UN and owns it.
The interaction of humans or livestock with wildlife exposes them to the risk of spillover of potential pathogens.
For many zoonoses, livestock serve as an epidemiological bridge Between wildlife and human infections.
The drivers of zoonotic disease emergence are changes in the environment, usually the result of human activities ranging from land use change to change in climate, changes in animals or human hosts, and changes in pathogens which always evolve to exploit new hosts.
And so this list goes on.
And basically what they're saying is that COVID-19 can jump from animals to humans and therefore there's a big problem to face.
And the author of this article, Sandy Adams, says that not so long ago, There was something called science.
It included the discovery of truth about nature, the universe, the elements, etc.
It was practiced by honest and accountable practitioners called scientists and engineers, but generally they had no primal urge to use their knowledge to dominate others by the use of hidden agendas.
Things are different now.
The pseudoscience being peddled today has been skewed.
It is now a system of theories and assumptions being touted as scientific truth to dominate and control people, society, and the whole planet.
Pseudoscience is the domain of technocrats, and the technocratic society is what this Orwellian society is supposed to be.
Real science is an inconvenience to their social engineering goals of leading the world towards being ruled by an Orwellian technocracy, a future where smart 5G AI cities and habitation zones exist to protect the human race from what's out there.
There is absolutely no evidence at all, as stated by the UN, that COVID-19 was caused by animals.
It wasn't caused by anybody.
We are all now living with misinformation, disinformation and deliberate fake news by those holding positions of trust.
As the human race starts to wake up to the common sense truth about what's really happening, the secretive, unelected and unaccountable cabal that makes up corporate and central banking deep state are speeding up their final progress.
Global push to entrap and imprison humanity into a future of all-out tyranny.
Jane Goodall, the primatologist honored by the UN as a messenger of peace, stated a direct and chilling remark in a very recent interview with the World Economic Forum, the Davos Billionaires Club.
She said bluntly, if we don't do things differently, we're finished.
She essentially believes that the world should preferably eat no meat at all, as due to zoonotic disease it is dangerous to do so.
So, from all of this, she says, it is my strong belief that a zoonotic disease introduced into livestock Will be the driver of the next wave of the virus and will require a phased and deliberate legal evacuation of the countryside, the destruction of traditional farming and farming communities, not to mention a vegan diet of factory farmed fruit and vegetables for all.
I believe we've been given a chance to get this realistic scenario out to people.
Let's seize upon it.
Now, the detail, well, That's all for debate and consideration.
▲
Export Selection