All Episodes
Previous Next
Oct. 12, 2010 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:05:31
Edition 46 - David Icke

This show features a man youve been asking me to get back on the show for months - DavidIcke. Davids views about politics, the global economy and who manipulates the reins of power are deeplycontroversial but always worth hearing.

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Across the UK, across continental North America, and around the world on the internet, by webcast and by podcast.
My name is Howard Hughes, and this is The Unexplained.
Thank you for coming back to the show.
Thank you for the great response to the shows with Lorna Byrne.
I found her amazing.
And before her, Heather Cooper, the astronomer.
I'm sure we'll talk to both of them again in the fullness of time.
Thank you for the response.
Thank you for the emails and the donations to the show.
Please keep those coming.
WWW.theunexplained.tv is the place to give me feedback and also give donations that will help this show going.
Now, there are two people I keep getting emails about consistently, more than any other guests we've had on this show over the years.
And I'm talking about when it was on the radio and in the years that it's been on the internet.
One, Richard C. Hoagland, who is now a friend and is on this show quite often for obvious reasons because he's always got something interesting but controversial to say.
The other one is David Icke, who I've also known for years.
David Icke is such a busy man these days, very hard to pin down.
He's always in a different part of the world talking.
And you've been asking me a lot over the last year or so, with all the political changes that have happened in this world, with all the economic upheaval there has been, why don't we get David Icke's take on it?
Well, I've been trying to do this for about three months now.
Finally, we have him on this show.
Edition 46, you're about to hear with David Icke.
As I say, thank you very much for all your support for this show.
I couldn't do it without you, and it's just nice to get your email feedback.
Let me know what you think about the show and how I'm doing it.
Okay, said enough now.
Going to get straight to it.
This is a David Icke special.
We're going to cross to the Isle of Wight now and online is David Icke.
David, thank you for coming on The Unexplained.
Pleasure.
How is the Isle of Wight then, David?
It's okay.
I don't see a lot of it, funnily enough, because my workload is now just amazing because of the interest and all the things that I'm being asked to do, which is great.
Well, it is.
Now, the last time we spoke, I think, was probably about two years ago.
And in that time, I think at the very time we spoke, you were about to or had just done a big thing in Brixton.
But now it seems to me that your speaking work has just exploded all over the world.
Well, this year, I did Brixton again in May, and the seats were taken six months in advance.
So we did a second Brixton on September the 11th, funny enough.
It wasn't our choice.
It was when it was available.
And my Brixton events, really, Howard, over the years have been a barometer for what's been going on.
Because when I first spoke there, it was in a much smaller place somewhere in Brixton.
And then I went to Brixton, two and a half thousand people, the O2 Academy, as it's called now.
And I think there was about 1,800, something like that.
The next time it was full, the next time it was full, and now it's been full twice in four months or so.
And you're right, the interest all around the world is just staggering.
I mean, I'm going to countries now that I've never been before.
Like I'm going to the Ukraine, I'm going to Mexico.
And just a few weeks ago, in fact, about a couple of three weeks ago, I had one of the big shocks that I've had at one of these talks because I went to the Czech Republic where I'd never been before.
I spoke in Prague.
Now, of course, as usual, you get no mainstream media coverage.
So you don't get people alerted to the fact that what you're talking about and where you're talking through the mainstream media.
So it's basically the internet and word of mouth.
And the way the venue was set up, I didn't actually see, if you like, out front until I literally walked through a door and walked out on the stage.
And I literally stopped in mid-stride.
I was shocked at how many people were there for an event where my words were being simultaneously translated through earphones.
All the audience were wearing earphones.
It was just extraordinary.
And I thought, you know, this revolution of awakening, this revolution of expanded perception that we're seeing now all around the world is not a myth.
It's happening.
It's not the mainstream yet.
It's not in the mainstream yet.
But it's getting closer.
And it's just such a fantastic encouragement 20 years on to keep going.
Well, that's the truth of it, isn't it?
We always talk about this old stuff and we always get into it.
And now the more we talk, every time you come on here, we talk about it for about a couple of minutes.
And I don't even think we need to talk about it for that now, maybe 30 seconds, but the potty profit label.
Now you seem to be becoming a prophet.
But what I want to tap into, David, is what you think you are tapping into with these people.
What need that they have are you fulfilling for them, do you think?
Well, I don't think it's so much a need.
It is telling people something that they already know and also saying things in public that they'd love to say or are either too reticent or fearful to say or don't have the platform to say.
And that kind of dynamics makes a real big connection between me and what I'm saying and more and more people.
Because what I'm not saying is, here I am, I've got the answers.
You listen to me and everything will be fine.
Or if you don't agree with what I say, then you must by definition be wrong.
I mean, you know, this world is drowning in people standing up and saying, I've got all the answers.
You must listen to me or you're wrong if you don't believe me.
What this dynamics, if you like, between me and the people that look at my stuff is this.
Here's some information.
Make of it what you will.
And I'm completely at peace with whatever you make of it.
If you like, my ambition, what I'm trying to do is not to persuade people to believe something, but to put information before them that they wouldn't normally get through mainstream sources.
And it's The information, Howard, that makes the difference.
Because, you know, I could stand up or write books and all the rest of it.
And if what I was writing did not in any way, if you like, resonate with the people reading or hearing, they'd say, you know, the guy's an idiot.
You know, it's a load of rubbish.
I'm not listening to him anymore.
And the difference between 20 years ago and now is that if they came to that conclusion in Prague or they came to that conclusion in Moscow or San Diego, these days words spread across the internet, so you wouldn't be filling halls like you do.
The internet is a two-edged sword, and we need to use the positive side of it to do exactly what you say, to communicate information to a global audience that without the internet, we wouldn't have any chance of getting there.
Well, there is a whole subculture there, and that's the truth of it.
The message that screams out from your website at the moment, and I do check back at your website every so often, I love to look at it, is this whole thing about the new book, The Human Race, you want us all to stand up and smell the coffee, or wake up and smell the coffee, to be aware.
But what is it we're supposed to be aware of?
What are we supposed to be knowing, and what are we supposed to be doing about whatever knowledge it is?
What the type of the book is, Human Race, Get Off Your Knees.
And if you look through the great passage of what we call history that we've been through of thousands of years, which you might call mainstream history has documented up to the point that it understands, there's far more to know than infinitely more to know about history than we see in the history books.
But even on that level, it's a whole story of the few dictating to the many, manipulating the many to fight other groups of the many who were manipulated by other small groups of people.
And this is what we call wars.
This is what we call conflict.
It's a history of the few hijacking the wealth and the resources and the means of production, which then turns the rest of the people, the vast majority, into slaves of the system run by the few.
It doesn't matter if you're talking at any point in history, virtually, that we know of, that's what you'll find, a tiny few controlling the many.
But is that some kind of global conspiracy, or is that just the operation of democracy?
We cede our right to govern ourselves to other people because we don't want to do it ourselves.
We want to live our lives.
So we vote for these people and we put them in power and then 600 and whatever it is of them in the UK, and I'm not sure how many they have in the US, they call the shots.
That's just democracy, isn't it?
Well, it's not democracy.
It's tyranny.
It's dictatorship.
And what we call democracy is just another form of communism, of fascism, of royal dictatorship, and all the other things that we've had in the past.
What the common theme of all these different names for all these apparently different systems of government and control are is just that, systems of control.
We have made a big, big mistake, I would suggest, in falling for the idea that democracy equates with freedom.
For instance, democracy only even begins to equate with any kind of freedom if democracy involves a choice.
If you go to a ballot box once every four or five years and you cast your vote and you're basically voting for the same thing no matter what party you vote for, that's not freedom.
Even on that basic level, it's not freedom.
It's voting for different masks on the same face.
Let us look, Howard, at what's happened in the last few months in this country.
And I'll tell you a story that I put in my book, And the Truth Shall Set You Free, which the first edition came out in 1995, you know, a long time ago now.
And in that book, long before current events, I told the story of a meeting I had with a lady called Dr. Kitty Little.
She was an Oxford Don and was at Oxford University for a long, long time, going way, way back to the 1940s.
And she wrote documents and reports for government departments and she made submissions to the Nolan Inquiry into standards in public life, etc.
And she told me a story back in the early 90s of something that happened to her in, I think it was 1940, around that time anyway.
She said that for some reason, the Communist Party at Oxford University got the idea that she was one of them.
So what happened is she was invited in 1940 to a closed meeting of what was then the Labour Party, the Oxford University Labour Party, which had been taken over by the communists, she said, as a cover for their real activities.
She said there was a speaker that night.
That was the point of this closed meeting.
And the speaker stood up and he said, 1940, that there was a subversive organization, as she called it, which had two sections.
There was a biological section, which appeared to be headed by a man called Lord Victor Rothschild, who was the infamous manipulator of British intelligence, connected to all the Burgess and Maclean stuff and the fifth man and all this business.
And he said there was a political section of this organization, and he had been chosen to head the political section.
And as a result, he said, he was going to be a future Prime Minister of Britain.
He said that what was going to happen is that this subversive organization, which he said does not have an official name because that's much more difficult to track it down if it doesn't have a name, he said it's going to put its agents, its people, into the Labour Party and into the Conservative Party and what have you,
and they were going to go into the right wing, of course, the left-wing image Labour Party, and they were going to go into the left wing of the right-wing image Conservative Party, because he said in this event that British people instinctively don't like extremists.
He said, what was going to happen is that over a period of time, the parties were going to be pulled into the same ground so that there would be a one-party state in Britain that went under different names.
And the different names, of course, were to maintain this illusion of choice, which without choice at the ballot box, then there is no democracy, let alone freedom.
And what we've seen happen, Howard, through the end of the 1970s and through to now has been exactly that.
Now, who was that speaker in 1940?
Well, that's what I wanted to know.
His name was Harold Wilson.
Really?
Harold Wilson went on to become Prime Minister of Britain.
I think it was from 63, 64, right through to 75, except for four years, 1970 to 74, when the government was headed by a Conservative Prime Minister called Ted Heath, who was connected into this same organisation that Harold Wilson was.
Isn't this interesting, David, because if you followed the Labour Party conference in September, Ed Milliban, the new leader of the Labour Party, stood up, and I was covering the conference.
One of the things that he said was to praise, he didn't name him, but to praise Harold Wilson for the White Heat of Technology speech, which was supposed to be this great event that Harold Wilson pioneered the spirit of the 1960s.
Actually, the content of the speech was nonsense, but it sounded good.
But Ed Miliband had heard about this great speech by Harold Wilson, and he's harking back to that time.
I don't know if there's anything in that, but I found that interesting.
Well, what we've got now, Howard, quite clearly, are three parties standing on the same ground.
So the only way that you can kind of spin them apart is by calling this middle-class guy from classic political background, Ed Miliband, went to the London School of Economics, which is a big production line for left-of-center or alleged left-of-center politicians.
It was created and is still controlled by the Fabian Society, which is a secret society at its heart.
And so you've got Ed Miliband there.
He comes from a political family with David Miliband.
He's now seen life.
He came basically out of school and university straight into the political world.
Then you've got Nick Clegg, who supposedly is head of the Liberal Democrats, now deputy prime minister.
He went to the elite Westminster School and Cambridge University.
Yeah, but what you're talking about here, David, I know exactly what you're saying.
You're talking about the British class system.
This country is riven with the class system.
No, no, it's not about a class system.
It's about taking from a very narrow band of human development the people who end up in the positions of power.
It's a conveyor belt.
It's nothing to do with democracy.
So now you have Nick Clegg, who's from the same basic background as Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister is David Cameron, who went to Eton College, of course, where the royal children go to, and then on to Oxford University.
Clegg went out of school and college, straight into the political world.
Cameron went out of school and college and basically straight into the political world.
And so you have three career politicians here who come from basically the same backgrounds and they have no experience of the life of anyone else has to.
Some of the, you know, many of the old labor politicians, for instance, where did they come from?
They came from working in factories.
They came from down the mines.
Well, not all of them.
I mean, a lot of the labor politicians of the 1930s, 40s, the very early labor politicians were actually people who came from the gentry or certainly from that side.
Of course they were, but you had a hell of a lot more people who did that.
But in the rank and file of labour politics, but now you have this production line of basically middle-class people who end up in the positions of power.
I mean, Blair accelerated that massively during his period in power and the way that the central operation of the Labour Party started dictating to constituencies all around the country on which candidates they were going to have.
What is Cameron and the Conservative Party doing?
Exactly the same.
And what it's doing is developing almost like an administrative mentality to politics where the rank and file of the party in Westminster go along overwhelmingly with what the few at the top do.
And of course, when you do that, you see what happens.
You invade Iraq on the basis of weapons of mass destruction that never existed, and you have at least a million killed and maimed in Iraq as a result.
But Ed Miliband stands up in front of the Labour Party conference and he says, I have to tell you now, we got it wrong.
So he's not going along with that, is he?
Well, listen, what did the current president of the United States, Barack Obama, say for two years?
I stand for change.
What has happened?
Business as usual and more.
I'm going to close Guantanamo Bay within a year.
It's still open.
On and on and on and on and on and on it goes.
But David, I studied politics, you know, not to the highest levels, but I studied politics.
And one of the conclusions that you come to when you study politics is that people make radical promises when they're trying to get into power, like Barack Obama.
And once they get the levers of power under their hot little hands, they realize it's not as easy as all that because you've got all the vested interests and you've got the civil service and all the rest of it.
And you have to work within the system.
As much as you've talked about working without the system when you've been getting elected, once you actually get into that position, life is different.
And that's nothing to do with a conspiracy.
That's just the way government works, isn't it?
No, it's not.
Tell me then.
Are you telling me that people like Ed Miliband and David Cameron and Nick Clegg, who have been in the political system, as in Nick Clegg's and Ed Miliband's case, civil servants.
And in the case of Cameron, he's worked for politicians in high levels of government before he got involved himself, that they don't know how the system works.
And therefore, they say they're going to do this and they're going to do the other.
But when they get in, it's all such a shock to find out that they can't do it.
Please, Ed Miliband, and you've just made the point, actually, in what you've just said.
Ed Miliband's words on it was wrong to go in Iraq are irrelevant because you'll only see whether he means what he's talking about when he's faced with a decision to go to war or not.
And so words are irrelevant.
It's what people do.
And what happens, stands back in amazement, almost every time, is what people do when they get into government is do what is best for this system of incensualization and more and more in control of the people.
Look at what has happened in the last few days.
David Cameron, the Conservative Prime Minister, in all the run-up to the election and immediately afterwards said, we're going to roll back all the nonsense of political correctness and all this business.
And what has he just done?
What has his Home Secretary just done?
He just implemented 90% or announced they're going to implement 90% of an horrific political correctness legislation that was written by the previous Labour government that they were supposed to replace and therefore go in a different direction.
Are you talking about the equality legislation, David?
The equality legislation that was brought in last week or that was implemented recently?
This one?
I'm talking about legislation in which someone in an office can overhear someone saying something to someone else, not even directly to them, and then take a case out against the employer.
A customer can say something to a member of staff and the member of staff can take out action against the employer.
This is ridiculous.
It's ludicrous.
And we are tying ourselves up in legislation and do's and don'ts, cans and can'ts into the fine detail of our lives that is making people now have to go through mental gymnastics before they open their mouths.
It's ridiculous.
It's ludicrous.
And the Labour government of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown took us massively along that road.
And here we have, yeah, our stand for change, David Cameron.
And what happens?
He's just implemented this Labour legislation on the very thing he said he wouldn't do.
Well, David, do you believe that men and women, black and white, every religion, everybody should have a fair shake in the employment market, everybody should be paid fairly?
And that's the bottom line of life.
And we've had to fight for these rights for years.
Are you saying that really the free market rules and we shouldn't have been doing these things, we shouldn't have laws in place that give people a fair crack of the whip?
What's that got to do with what I've just said?
Well, if this is what you, the legislation that we were talking about is partly this equality legislation that was brought in.
Which was implemented, well, it was brought, it was formulated by the previous government.
You've just used the perfect word, right?
Partly.
Now, you see, the world is not black and white.
Its shades are grey.
But the way the political manipulation works is to make it look like black and white.
If you want to put controlling legislation into law, then put it in with the same bills, the same acts that involve and include things that are, you know, good things.
And then people are saying, the very question you've just asked me, so you're saying this?
No, I'm not saying that at all.
My goodness me.
I was brought up in what was then called, probably still is, a working class family in Leicester, where I went around the back of the factory with my mother on a Thursday lunchtime to get me father's wages that day for the week.
So we ate that night.
No one's more passionate about equality.
It's about everything I'm about.
Equality between the sexes, equality between religions, equality between the races, all of that.
But that is very different from creating a situation where people are terrified to open their mouths in case they say something that is deemed politically uncorrect, which means what?
It means, apparently, upsetting someone.
Okay, I'm sitting here now.
How can I not upset anyone by giving my view?
I tell how I can not upset anyone.
I can sit and I can stare at this wall and say nothing.
And then some people will be upset at that and say, what's he wasting his life for staring at that wall?
The idea that people can't be upset and we must create a law for it.
I mean, Cracky, I've had 20 years of, if you like, having reason to be upset with the abuse that's been thrown at me.
But I say they have the right to do that.
Because if they don't have the right to do that, then we're not in a free society.
People must have a right to their view, staggeringly, even if we don't agree with it, because the right to be wrong is a fundamental human right.
Listen, David, I understand entirely what you're saying here.
But aren't there limits?
Someone's deciding what is right.
And then who decides that?
You're in a dictatorship.
But aren't there limits to this?
Now, you know, you're going to tell me this is a ridiculous example, but I'm going to give it anyway.
In the 20s, in the 30s, when Hitler was on his rise to power, people started to say bad things about Jewish people.
Now, because that was untrammeled and unchecked and gathered its own momentum, We then saw the slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust.
That's what happened ultimately.
Now, I'm not saying that what you've just been talking about is in any way analogous to that situation, but when you get situations where people are allowed to say exactly what they want completely unchecked and untrammeled, actually, what you lead to, what that leads to is the reverse of what you're promulgating, and that is freedom.
That ends up in people being curbed and ultimately sometimes people being killed, doesn't it?
Howard, the problem is not people saying what they want.
The problem is some people are being allowed to say what they want and other people not being allowed to say what they want.
What also happened in that period under the Nazis was that the Nazi party in Germany stopped and suppressed all other people that were saying anything but what they were saying.
They were burning books to stop people accessing other forms of information, other views on what was going on in Germany.
The problem, mate, is not people having the right to speak their truth.
It's some having that right and others being denied that right.
That's what brings about the imbalance.
I mean, if what someone's saying is wrong, then in a public debate when all information and views are able to circulate, they will be exposed for being idiots.
They'll be exposed for talking nonsense.
They'll be exposed for being racists.
And the other thing, you know, is once you start suppressing something, it just goes underground and operates in another way.
Why should one person be allowed to speak their truth and someone else not?
Because when that happens, then one view dominates and the other one does not.
But we elect politicians to be the arbiters on our behalf.
Somebody has to decide how far you can go and what you can say and what is reasonable in the circumstances.
We would have mayhem if we all individually decided this.
That's why we elect politicians, isn't it, to make those decisions on our behalf?
Well, we've just gone through that.
We elect politicians.
I don't elect politicians.
I don't vote.
What happens when you vote?
It only encourages them.
The system's corrupts.
What's the point in voting in a rigged system when you're voting for masks on the same face that are standing on the same postage stamp?
So we've gone through that.
I mean, the politicians are unrepresentative of the people.
I mean, even by their very background, those that get to the top in politics.
So it's a pointless exercise.
It's a facade.
It's just a mask.
It's just a veil that masquerades of what it appears to be while being absolutely something else.
But back in May when we elected, well, I know you didn't, but when the British people in general, record numbers turning out, elected this government, they made a choice, didn't they?
They made a choice that they didn't want the extremes of the Conservative Party.
They quite liked the idea of the Liberal Democrats, but they certainly didn't want to put them into government.
The Labour Party, they'd had enough of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
So they decided, very cleverly, don't you think, that what they were going to get was a hybrid government that combined the things that they actually want.
If ever there was an example of democracy in action, wasn't that it?
Or am I a fool?
You tell me.
We've got a prime minister and a deputy prime minister that come from the same background.
We've got a chancellor that comes from the same background.
We've got basically a whole cabinet that comes from the same background.
And by the way, in 1997, people voted for Tony Blair because they didn't want what was perceived as a more extreme Conservative Party.
And Tony Blair, not being an extremist, just center of, you know, he's a regular guy, then took us into two wars and was responsible through his actions and decisions with others for the death and maiming of millions of people.
So extremists don't always have Che Gravara stickers on their lapels, you know.
They don't all have, you know, Communist Party membership or, you know, swastikas on their caps.
It's in the actions, not in the words.
That's what politicians are skilled in.
That's what they go through their training to be.
And that's the ability to present themselves as something when they are something completely different.
That's the whole idea.
Okay, what is the hidden agenda then?
What did Harold Wilson say in that event, Howard?
British people instinctively don't like extremists, and therefore we're going to go to the right wing of the Labour Party and the left wing of the Conservative Party.
And where are we now?
We've got the right wing of the Serbian Party, left wing of the right wing of the Labour Party, the left wing of the Conservative Party, and all the rest of it standing on the same ground.
What's the agenda?
The agenda is to incessantly centralize power in all areas of our lives so fewer and fewer people are making decisions that affect the lives of more and more and more.
This is what globalization is.
It's not some natural thing that's unfolded.
It's been systematically put into place.
The World Trade Organization that was created by the Rockefeller family, who are subordinates to the House of Rothschild, both big banking families, of course, they were behind the creation of the World Trade Organization, which is to do one thing.
It's to stop countries defending their own economies and their own industries and their own people from the merciless world trading system.
And they have so manipulated the debate that everyone is supposed to be in favor of free trade.
You can't be against free trade, but we don't have free trade.
We have the freedom to exploit trade.
Whereas tariff barriers come down through the World Trade Organization, etc., people or companies, corporations can now exploit the poorest people in the world to make their products for cents on a dollar and then ship them over to other countries And sell them there for as much as they can get.
So both ends are being overwhelmingly exploited.
And we call this free trade.
Free trade when vast numbers, billions of people on this planet are living on a dollar a day or less.
Freedom to exploit, freedom to centralize power.
That's what it's about.
And that's what we're moving towards.
And it's a simple equation, Howard.
The more you centralize power, the fewer people are at the center dictating to everybody else.
And there's another thing that connects to this.
The more you centralize power, the more power you have centralized to then centralize even quicker.
And so the whole thing goes on.
And what we've done in Europe, for instance, in this process that I've just described, is we've really, really crossed the Rubicon here with the Lisbon Treaty.
Because the Lisbon Treaty now has given the bureaucrats in Europe the ability to move on this centralization of bureaucratic power in Europe like never before.
When the Irish voted on the second time for the Lisbon Treaty, they were Turkeys voting for Christmas.
Not only that, they were Turkeys voting for everyone else's Christmas in Europe in terms of freedom and the ability for countries and communities to decide their own destiny and what happens there.
Well, let me just put this to you, David.
We've had this global economic crunch.
Who knows whether it's going to be a double-dip recession, whatever it's going to be, but it's been hell for a lot of people.
There's a massive crash coming and it's totally controlled and manipulated.
I said in September 2008, this is stage one.
Stage one is to crash the world economy and to make it clear there's a massive problem.
I said then stage two is to get governments to send a tidal wave of money in the direction of the banks, which will make no bloody difference.
Because the idea of stage two is to empty the coffers, empty the gun barrels, if you like, of governments in terms of reacting to an economic crash.
And stage three, I said it at the time, is to crash it again when governments can't react.
And then all you're left with is the banking cartel to come forward and say the only way to sort this problem out is A, B, C, and D. And that will be, that solution they will offer will be based around a world central bank, which I've been writing about for the best part of 20 years that this was coming.
Because a world central bank, what is that?
That is a bank, a few bankers around one table who are dictating finance in every country on the planet.
That's what's coming.
It's not if it's going to be a double dip.
It's planned to be.
So you're saying this is going to be a triple whammy and it's being done for a reason to get more control over people.
But what happens if you look at it the other way?
You know, we had this bad loan situation in the U.S. that had ramifications and repercussions for the lot of us.
The banks had serious, serious problems.
Economies were teetering on the brink.
And the only answer to a situation like that that developed randomly and organically, I know you won't agree with that, is for concerted action by all the nations, which is exactly what we had.
It wasn't Gordon Brown in London acting alone or Obama or Bush acting alone in the United States.
That was so serious, that situation, that nations had to get together.
It was nothing to do with a global conspiracy.
It was just something that happened in the run of capitalism, and it had to be bailed out on a grand scale.
And the only way to do it was to get nations together.
You would call that globalization and a bad thing.
But didn't that save our asses?
How do you know that it happened randomly?
Well, I don't.
But, you know, one interpretation of it is that's what happened.
There were not properly regulated banks.
They were making bad loans to people who shouldn't have been given money.
People's regulators' attention was turned elsewhere.
And something bad happened.
Just like if an accident happens, you know, somebody's not doing their job.
It was accidental.
Okay, okay, let's just look at the accidental version of this.
1979, a lady comes to power in Britain called Margaret Thatcher, and she implements an economic system, an economic change called Thatcherism, which involves selling off state assets to private corporations and all the things that went with Thatcherism.
1980, one year later, Ronald Reagan and Father George Bush come to power in America, and they implement exactly the same policies to the detail called Reaganomics.
So there's an accident for you.
Then we have a situation, and that changed the face of global economics, that Reagan-Bush Thatcher period.
Then we have a situation where the American government and Treasury and people like Alan Greenspan, who was the head of the Federal Reserve, a privately owned Central Bank of America, who was the head of the Federal Reserve through Reagan Bush, through Clinton, through most of Boy Bush.
He spends that period, as do the U.S. Treasury under Reagan Bush, under Clinton, who's very different to them, of course, because he's a Democrat, and then again under Bush, taking away all the checks and balances on the banks.
Over in Britain, now this is an accident, of course.
The coincidences are amazing.
You've got a guy in the Treasury, Gordon Brown, who's doing exactly the same in this country.
It's happening the same in the countries of Europe.
And then they go, oh, what's happened?
What's happened is you've taken the checks and balances away and allowed the basic instinct of greed, which is what is the engine room of Wall Street and the City of London and all the rest of it, to run wild.
And that's why.
And, you know, the major mortgage lenders in America, Fannie Mac and the other one, they were actually basically owned by the government and they were doing all this stuff.
And then you've got a bank, Goldman Sachs, the infamous Goldman Sachs, a front for the House of Rothschild, just like J.P. Morgan, just like the Bank of America and so on, were fundamentally implicated, even by the mainstream media, in the crash of 2008 and the mortgage debacle.
They're also massively implicated in the crash of the Greek economy, which of course made trouble for the rest of Europe and cost the European taxpayers even more money bailing out Greece.
And yet, Goldman Sachs come up smelling of bloody roses.
Why?
Because the very taxpayers who have been so appallingly affected by the actions of Goldman Sachs, who have lost their jobs as a result of the actions of Goldman Sachs, are now having to bail out Goldman Sachs because, oh, they're too big to fail.
One of the greatest things that could happen to planet Earth is if Goldman Sachs failed.
Goldman Sachs is not allowed to fail, Howard, because the people that control Goldman Sachs control the Bush and Obama administrations.
That's how it works.
And if people want to go through the idea that all these connections, all these amazing coincidences where all different people around the world actually do the same thing in the Thames time scale, et cetera, leading to the same outcome, that that's all an accident.
Well, you know, I've got some seafront property in Birmingham they might like to look at.
But listen.
Buy unseen.
The economy, though, you must agree, works in cycles.
It always has.
Ever since we've had an industrialized economy, there are cycles.
There are ups and downs.
So simply you have politicians reacting to the cycles of the economy.
And if the cycles of the economy are the same the world over, which they are because of this trend towards globalization, then politicians will have to react to those economic cycles in the same way.
That's just the way the market works.
It's not some great conspiracy.
It's simply the way the market works.
Now, all right, these people got it wrong.
They didn't regulate the banks properly.
They allowed them to do whatever they liked.
Now we're in this situation.
Another coincidence.
Accident.
So you're saying that we're heading for something really bad, a third dip in this thing, which will leave a lot of us in subjugation.
And is that, you say, the real agenda, that they want to make sure the economy is trashed so that we know our place, we ordinary people and the elite have more control than ever?
Yeah, Howard, don't let's lose one thing that you've brought up, which is very, very important.
And that's the idea that there are cycles in the markets.
When you are moving, as these major players are, trillions and trillions of dollars around the world markets of various kinds every day, what you do with that money, whether you put it in or pull it out, decides if the market goes up or it goes down.
And so the major players in the markets are rigging the markets to go up or down.
And people say, well, why would people in the markets want it to go down?
Well, if you get out before it goes down, because you know it's going down, because you're going to make it so, then you can take your money out, let it crash, then go back in, and you can buy vast amounts of more power and assets for a few cents on the dollar, and then push the market up again.
And the amount of your power is massively, massively increased in one day.
I'll give you an example.
This is from official Rothschild biographies that mention this story.
At the time of the Battle of Waterloo between Napoleon and Wellington, Nathan Rothschild, who ran the Rothschild operation in London, the Rothschilds had acknowledged a far better communication system than the governments.
They got news of things before governments did.
So they were waiting for the result, if you like, of the Battle of Waterloo to come down, and Nathan Rothschild went into the London stock market.
And the obvious outcome was going to be Napoleon wins, stock market crash, Wellington wins, stock market boom.
So they're all watching Nathan Rothschild because they know he's got a better communication system to get the news of the battle back to London than the governments.
At a certain point, Rothschild gives the nod to start selling stocks.
He starts selling loads and loads of Rothschild stocks.
Now, immediately, the onlookers in the markets thought, my God, he knows Napoleon's won.
And there was a massive frenzy of selling, and the stock market crashed.
As this frenzy unfolded and reached its peak, unbeknown to the people doing it, Nathan Rothschild had a load of agents there, which no one knew about.
And at a certain signal, they started buying up stocks as much as they could at nothing prices.
At which point, when he completed that, the official news came through that actually Wellington had won.
And Rothschild said, Nathan Rothschild, I think this was the figure, but this was certainly the quote, that the Rothschild wealth was increased 20 times on that one day because of that.
But doesn't that just prove that information is power and this guy had the information?
So if you've got the information, you get it first, you win.
So if you control the markets and you've got information every day about whether it's going to go up or not, because you've got the financial clout to push it up or down, then you run the markets.
And you said to me earlier that politicians have to react to what happens in the markets.
To a large extent, that is correct, because I'm not suggesting that politicians are the top of this pyramid of power and manipulation to a centralized communist fascist state.
I'm saying that they are players in it, they are pawns in it, and some of them, the likes of the Blairs and the Bushes, Father George Bush particularly, and the Cheneys and people like that, the corporations and the banks run planet Earth, not governments.
They're just pawns in the game, and the people are turned into smaller pawns of the game.
Well, the economy is weak at the moment.
A lot of people, let me tell you that I know, are having to work for less money, work under not so great conditions, and are just grateful to have a job these days.
I'm sure the same.
Hold on, if this stuff is happening, what on earth would we do?
In your scenario, the whole thing is fixed and it's the economy that drives it.
And if somebody's controlling the economy, politicians mostly have to react to it, but you'll get the reaction that you expect.
So, these people have the ultimate control.
They really are pulling the strings.
What about the rest of us then, the poor huddled masses?
What are we to do?
Because most of us are in a weaker situation than we've been for many, many years.
How can we react to this?
Are you saying that people should get up and go into the streets?
Insurrection?
What should we do?
Just very quickly, the point I just made was very, very relevant, though.
Do you think Lloyd Blankfein, the head of Goldman Sachs, is doing all the things you've just said, working for less money and working more hours?
No, no, no, no, no, no.
And why isn't he?
Because these banks should have gone down just like many others should have done.
Because of the people now working longer hours and losing their homes.
That's why they are still doing what they do, because of that.
Now, we're looking at an arrogance, Howard, an arrogance that has reached the point where people controlling the banks can literally say, we're going to put it in their faces now, and still they're going to do nothing.
And it's a simple thing that goes on.
We are pushed along a certain road.
And if we don't resist, then they push some more.
And if we don't resist, they push some more.
And now we've reached the point with our acquiescence.
And I'm just Joe Public.
What can I do?
Well, you've reached a point where the global banking system can crash the economy, throw millions and millions out of work, make people work for less, make them lose their homes.
And the people who are going through all that then pay, pay to shore up the very structure that's just done it.
I mean, how much more in our face can it be, for goodness sake?
What we need to do, and I'm not saying this is going to be easy because this system's got to come down and there's going to be a real, real big transition period, which is going to be very, very challenging.
No one's actually said this more than I have in the last 15 years.
And in fairness to you, you know, you are not the only person.
All right, you come at it from a slightly different standpoint, but you're not the only person saying that this stuff is coming down the track.
Sorry, David, go on, but I just wanted to get that in.
You're right, Howard, you know, because when you look at some of these economic commentators around who have a very, very good record, some of them, for predicting things in the past, including the crash of 2008, et cetera, they're all saying the same.
You're absolutely right.
Because the way the global economic system has been manipulated into the situation it is now, it's basically, you know, when you see a cartoon and there's a chase and someone's chasing someone and they run and run and run and run.
And eventually they run off the edge of the cliff.
Now, when they immediately run off the edge of the cliff, they still run, you know, in a straight line.
And then one of them just looks down and realizes what the situation is.
And at that point, bang, they've gone and they're all over the place.
You're talking about the roadrunner, David.
Yeah, all that stuff.
Yeah, I remember that.
Are you old enough to remember that?
I'm afraid so, David.
I'm afraid so.
I used to like that.
I love one where the roadrunner's standing next to this cliff and the guy, you know, that guy he used to chase?
The roadrunner, the guy's just about to get him, and he paints a railway tunnel in the side of the cliff.
I remember this.
And then a train comes out of it and hits the fella.
If you haven't seen it, you have to be there.
It's one of those.
But the end of that scenario in all those cartoons that you and I both loved is that if we're carrying the metaphor forward here, the roadrunner, the ordinary guy here, keeps on running, running, running till it's realized there's a great big drop down there and then ends in a tiny little poof of smoke down at the bottom of the, you know, this great cavernous drop, and that's it.
So we're all heading for this drop and there's nothing we can do about it.
What if the guy being chased stopped, turned around and looked the guy chasing them in the eye?
You know, the power of the few over the many is one thing.
It's the perception that by the many that the few have power over them.
And we're brought up in this hierarchical mentality.
And, you know, so much so that when people look for power in a pyramid, where do they look?
They look at the top, the capstone of the pyramid.
But then let's look at this in another way.
Why is the capstone up there?
Because the rest of the pyramid is holding it up there.
And that's what we're doing.
And it's not protests in the streets so much that this power structure is concerned about, because in some ways they can use that as an excuse for further militarization of the police and further suppression with laws and more militarization of law enforcement.
Well, if you were some of the people I went to university in Liverpool with, David, you would say you would use all the mechanisms of the state, and that's the police, and that's the army and all the rest of it, to quash that, you know, knock it straight on the head.
What they can't cope with, mate, is us ceasing to cooperate, ceasing to acquiesce.
That's what they can't connect with.
But when we've got to feed ourselves, and we all have to, when we've got to pay for the gas and electricity and all the boring things that we have to do in our lives, we have no option but to cooperate, do we?
Really?
As ordinary people, what option have we got?
Well, let me give you an example.
I'll give you a big example and I'll give you a small example.
When someone puts their wheelie bin out on the wrong day or in the wrong place and gets fined 200 quid or something, What people do is they say, what's the world coming to?
It's big brother.
And usually then the next thing is something like, what's on the telly tonight?
Are you going down the match?
And so you've had your moan, but you've changed nothing.
Now, what if instead of moaning and saying, I've got no power, instead of that, thousands of people in that area put their wheelie bins out on the wrong day, day after day, week after week, month after month.
The system couldn't cope.
It can only pick off the few to frighten the rest into acquiescence.
Yeah, but David, assuming that you're right for a moment, you know and I know that people are people.
They want to get on with their lives.
They want to watch America's Got Talent or X Factor in the UK and do whatever they do and have a nice time at the weekend.
That's their lives.
You know, they're not all going to get together and say, okay, 200 of us on this estate, we're all going to put our wheelie bins out on a Wednesday instead of a Thursday.
That ain't going to happen.
Okay, I'll come back to that in a second.
Just let me give you the other example.
When I was in America, I'm just going there again to speak soon.
Last time I was there, hundreds of thousands of people were having their houses foreclosed and they were being thrown out.
Hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them.
And now in America, it's an epidemic of people being foreclosed.
Now, let's follow this circle round, shall we?
Okay.
You're being foreclosed.
You've lost your home.
You've lost your home.
Yeah, why is that?
Well, my husband lost a job and I lost mine.
Okay.
So why did you lose your job?
Because of the economy crash.
Why did the economy crash?
Because of the banks and their greed and their actions.
Now, who's throwing you out of your house?
The banks, right, that caused the problem.
And my response to that is, and you're leaving?
Now, if one or two people make a stand and say, I'm not leaving because you who are trying to get me out of my home are the reason that I can't pay you the mortgage.
And incidentally, why weren't those trillions of bailouts aimed at people so that they had the money to pay their mortgage, therefore affecting the banks because they didn't have the mortgage non-payments instead of going direct to the banks?
So we're now throwing the people out of their homes and taking the home as well.
Why?
Why did the money go to the banks?
Why didn't the money go?
And it would have cost less.
People have worked this out.
Why didn't it go to the people that couldn't pay their mortgages?
So, David, you're talking about...
Why did it all go to the banks?
Because the banks control governments.
But let me come back to what you've just said.
And it's a very good point.
If people in vast, vast numbers, I mean, when I say non-cooperation, I'm not talking everyone.
I'm not even talking 50%.
I'm talking a vast number of people, but not even that, that would bring this to an end.
But if people are not prepared to stop acquiescing with this system, if they're not prepared to get together and say we are going to have a Gandhi-type mass campaign of non-cooperation and non-violent non-cooperation with this system of enslavement,
then what they should do now, just to save them the time and the anticipation and all the rest of it, is to put their hands out and let the handcuffs go on now.
And, you know, let's throw a ball and chain around the ankle.
That will go well as well.
That's where we're going if people won't do that.
And this is why I use the image in my talk so much of the fork in the road.
That's where we are.
But Gandhi and many people like him through history ended up getting shot.
Well, just if you if you if you believe in something, if you believe that something is right, well, believe in it then and stand up for it.
And if that involves getting shot, well, get shot.
So just somebody's trying to ring me.
No worries.
But listen, I mean, we're getting to the crux here, and I'm glad we are because we're coming to the end of this now.
But the point is it's good.
It's very important, mate.
You know, either we stand up for what we believe in and we go all the way, or we don't.
And if we don't, then this is going to come in and we're just going to go down this, further and further down this road to tyranny.
And people need to understand this and face it, because if they don't face it now and come to that conclusion, well, we're going to pass the point of no return eventually.
And we're not far away from that if we're not very, very careful.
I am sure that in the talks that you give in America and the ones you give here and wherever you go, you get loads of applause for saying that because there is no doubt that there is a sentiment among a lot of people that I talk to, certainly, but just generally out there, that people are a bit cheesed off one way or the other, as we say here in the UK.
Problem is that you are a voice in the wilderness, aren't you?
You're just one guy.
You're trying to get people to wake up to what you say is the truth.
But without 1,000 David Ices, without 100,000 David Icke's all over the world, none of this stuff is ever going to happen, assuming that it should.
It's not about David Icke, it's about the information.
And it's amazing what one person, not just me, but others, how far this information can now travel.
It's not that long ago, Howard, that I couldn't fill a phone box.
Now I'm getting thousands of thousands of people at events on the other side of the world.
And when you've got people like the Ukraine and Mexico now getting interested in my information, it's not interested in me, it's interested in the information.
If what I was saying was a load of rubbish, then it wouldn't go anywhere.
But the reason that so many people are turning to my work now is because of what I said 15 years ago.
I wrote in books 15 years ago, which is now not in my books, it's on the daily news.
I mean, you know, we're not talking about somewhere over the rainbow, sometime never, this is going to happen.
We're living it.
It's not a case of, are we going to go into Orwell's 1984?
We're already in it.
The question is, how much more Extremely are we going to go in it?
That's the question.
And that's why we're at the fork in the road.
But people are going to be amazed what happens in the next five to ten years.
But you're saying then that there is a great opportunity for people, if we follow your logic, to finally do something about Ininvertic Commas, the system.
Now is a time for them using the internet and all the tools that we have these days to stand up and do something about it.
But I wonder, once, just let's just assume a little flight of fantasy here, that this happens and people do globally get together and say, you know, I'm madder than hell and I'm not going to take this anymore, like Peter Finch did in that movie Network.
Say they all do that.
Say they all lean out of the window.
It's absolutely true.
Well, say they all lean out.
I mean, I love that movie, David.
I do.
But say they all lean out of the window right now.
You know, I've got a window here, it's overlooking a big park in London.
And I say, I'm madder than hell, I'm not going to take this anymore.
And then a thousand people living up and down the road here do the same thing.
And finally, we have some critical mass, and perhaps we get the politicians who are in power out, or we make people think.
What happens then?
We've got to have government.
Somebody's got to be in control.
Otherwise, what you get is chaos, isn't it?
You don't have to have anyone in control.
What you need is organization.
And there are many, many different ways to organize.
And that will come through a change in consciousness, a change in attitude.
As Einstein said, you cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them.
And that's what we've been doing for thousands of years.
That's what we do at every election.
We replace a group of people with a certain perception and consciousness with people with a different color and a different name that have the same perception of consciousness.
Therefore, nothing changes.
You cannot solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them.
We need a totally different level of awareness.
And that is coming.
That's the underlying engine of this awakening of people to what's going on.
People are seeing what they couldn't see before because their minds are opening to see what they couldn't see before.
I'm seeing people now, Howard, come and look at this information and ask what they can do to help, who would have laughed in its face 24 months ago.
Maybe so.
I had a guy, mate, last time I was in America, I was speaking in Santa Fe, and I boomed into this guy in the corridor who'd come to my event.
He'd flown in from Austin, Texas, and he said, three months ago, mate, I would have laughed at you.
In fact, he said, I did.
And now he said, I'm flying across America to see you talk.
Why?
Because something had happened in that guy's perception that he could suddenly see what he couldn't see before.
Now, this is going on all over the world.
And it's like a dam, Howard.
You know, it can take for ages and ages and ages before cracks appear in a dam.
But from the cracks appearing to the dam coming down can be very, very short.
And I'm starting to see cracks appearing.
And the next 10 years are going to be amazing.
Amazing because of the immense challenges that we're going to have as this system tries to hold on to its power, but amazing in the way people are going to awaken to a new perception of self and the world.
And that perception will manifest itself as a changing world.
Changing perceptions mean changing worlds.
We have the world we have today because of the perceptions that underpin it.
When those perceptions change, the world must change.
But don't you think that the fact that people are aware more of things outside just what they can see is down to increasing prosperity?
You know, it's not people in Africa who are thinking about these things because they're too busy making a living getting some rice for themselves, don't you think?
Really?
I've just come back from there, mate.
I was in South Africa for two weeks in August, and the same awakenings going on there.
Is it the majority?
No.
For the majority still, in many areas, the vast majority, what you've just said is correct.
But I have been on this journey for 20 years.
I've been to 51 countries now talking about this and researching it.
And therefore, I've seen it.
I've seen it.
This is a global phenomenon and it's an exponential curve.
And are you telling me that the people who are struggling to make a living in India and the people who are living in mud huts in the Drakensberg mountains in South Africa, you know, some of those people that I've seen, lovely people, that they too are coming to the same realization?
Or is it not just something that is a middle-class phenomenon, that when you give people the time and the space and the money to think about things, they think about things?
I tell you what, if people just go on the internet, go onto my website and look at some of the videos of my talks at the Brixton Academy where people have gone with cameras and spoken to the great line of people waiting to come inside.
And then tell me this is a middle-class phenomenon.
No way.
It's the phenomenon of young people, of middle-aged people, of older people.
It's a phenomenon of the middle classes, as we call them, the working classes.
And increasingly, I can tell you from my own experience and people that have come to me, the upper classes and people on the inside of this system who've suddenly seen, my God, I can see it now.
I can see what I'm part of.
It's breaking down.
But of course, because it's not on Newsnight and it's not on ITN or BBC or CNN, people don't recognize that it's happening.
But it is happening and eventually it's going to break the surface.
And then the mainstream media is going to be, where'd it just come from?
Well, if they look now, they'd see where it's coming from.
So you think there's a quiet revolution happening?
Yeah, and eventually it won't be quiet at all.
Always controversial, always good.
David Icke, certain to give you something to think about.
What do you think about what he said?
Do you think that there is some grand conspiracy there that we may be able to change by our own actions?
Or do you think that the things we see happening around us, the economic problems, the political changes, they are to do simply with the organics of life?
That the economy works in cycles and politics responds to it and new generations of leaders come up and it simply is just part of the process?
Or do you believe that there is a grand conspiracy, as David Icke implies, and also says that we can do something collectively as people if we wake up and smell the coffee about it?
I am not sure what to believe, but I'm certainly going to keep talking to David Icke because I think the questions that he raises are questions we should be asking.
Whether or not we agree with what he says, that's another matter.
Thank you very much For your feedback, your support, and your response to this show.
Please keep the donations coming.
Go to www.theunexplained.tv and you can donate through the PayPal link there.
And also send me an email about the show.
Please visit the website.
Vital that you put a hit on the website.
Thank you to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for getting this show out to you and for his hard work developing the website.
Couldn't do it without Adam.
Thank you to Martin for the theme tune.
And above all, as ever, thank you to you for supporting me, for caring about this show and for listening to The Unexplained.
Please take care.
▲
Export Selection