All Episodes
Previous Next
Aug. 11, 2013 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
01:11:12
Edition 120 - David Icke

With just months to go to the launch of “The People’s Voice” media-venture David Ickereturns to The Unexplained…

| 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.
Good to know that you're there.
Thank you for the emails that you've been sending in recently.
I'm going to go through a lot of your emails, give you some shout-outs, and also respond to things that you said in a future edition.
But we've been really busy these last couple of weeks.
Got some very good shows coming soon.
David Icke on this show.
We've had to wait about a year for this, but I'm sure it's going to be worth the wait.
So David is going to catch up with us here in just a moment.
The next show will be with a fascinating woman.
She is a woman called Tricia Roberts, and she's written a book called Things You Can Do When You're Dead.
This is the most amazing collection of true life stories, most of which she's been directly involved in and has contacted and spoken with the people, involving things like poltergeists and life after death, survival stories, the whole nine yards.
But most of these stories, and some of them are really hair-curling and amazing and inexplicable, unexplainable stories, most of them you will never have heard anything about before.
So I recommend the next show with Tricia Robertson on things you can do when you're dead.
A strong possibility now that Paul Hellier will be on this show very soon.
Look him up, former Defense Minister of Canada and a man who believes that there is more going on in space than perhaps we've been told.
I've talked to Paul before.
And thank you very much to the listener who sent me, you know who you are, my talk sport radio interview with Paul Hellier from a few years ago, which he found and I actually had lost here, lost in my own archive.
So he sent me a copy of that off air.
But this will be a completely new 2013 interview for this show.
Okay, if you want to get in touch with the show, you know how to do that.
www.theunexplained.tv.
That's our website designed by Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
He is my web meister.
And you can there send me email or you can make a donation to the show.
Donations utterly vital.
Right now, these are hard times.
The show is self-supporting and we don't and never have charged for it in terms of a fee.
But the donations are the lifeblood of what we do here.
So if you are able to make a donation and you'd like to, that'd be great.
Go to the website www.theunexplained.tv and there's a little yellow button there for PayPal donations.
Of course, if you can't make a donation, and a lot of people tell me they'd like to and can't, that's perfectly fine.
Just enjoy the show.
That's what it's there for.
And I'm only too happy to serve you with this.
It is a marvelous thing that we can make this thing happen between us, this show happen between us.
There's no production department here.
There are no executives.
There's only myself and Adam Cornwell, my webmaster, and you.
Triangle, three people involved in this venture.
And this modern world allows us to do these things.
And David Icke is somebody who said for a very long time that we need to empower ourselves.
We need to get a sense of what is going on in this world and we need to do something about it.
Well, in a very small way, this show is part of that process.
Now, some of you recently, this seems to be a bit of a theme with emails that I had recently, have been asking me to express my views more, which I know is what they do on American radio.
I guess I'm a victim of my British broadcasting training because it all stems from the BBC heritage where you're supposed to be impartial and exploring.
And I want to stay that way.
But yes, I do have views about things.
And yes, I'm not happy with the way that the world is going in many, many ways.
Our obsession with reality TV, it's all bread and circuses, it seems to me, and we seem to be taking our eye off the ball.
I am also deeply unimpressed with some of our current crop of politicians here, and it has to be said in certain parts of the world as well, who seem to me to be very lightweight and are not addressing real issues.
Like the fact that whether you like it or not, in countries like this one, report after report says, or rather it comes out and says, that the poor are getting poorer and the rich are getting richer.
Now, at the same time, a lot of utility companies, the water company for the London area, is the latest to want to raise its prices, even though it said it would guarantee them until 2015.
Everything's going up in price.
Food is getting more scarce and more expensive.
And yet wages, for most people, are static or falling.
But bonuses for directors and bosses of organizations, well, they seem in some cases to be going up.
There is an enormous problem here that I do think politicians need to address.
And this is not a political thing that I'm saying here.
This is a human thing.
This is all about the world that we live in and how cohesive, if that's the right word, it's going to be in future.
So there.
For the first time, I've told you what I think about things.
And I will express more opinions about the world and about the subjects that we have on here.
But I do want to try and keep it as neutral as possible, because I think a lot of shows that come out of the States online, they do take a view and they buy into a lot of the things that every guest says.
And once you start to do that, then I think you cease to be credible.
And that is one thing that I hope that we can be.
That's what I strive to be.
I don't claim to be God's gift of broadcasting.
I never will be.
And I'm always learning and developing with your help and your suggestions.
But I'm trying to keep this on the straight and narrow and on a good path.
Okay, very excited now.
We've waited more than a year for this.
Let's cross now live by digital hookup to the Isle of Wight and the home of a very busy man, David Icke.
David, good to have you on again.
Thank you, Howard.
Nice to talk to you, David.
How is the Isle of Wight as we head towards the dog days of summer?
Well, it's lovely.
It's obviously like most of Britain.
We've had a fabulous summer.
The countryside's a bit burned out because, you know, all the sun and not much rain.
But even so, it's beautiful.
It's a lovely place.
One of my favourite places, I used to work down there, and I love Freshwater Bay.
That's my place.
That's way down.
If you've never been there, it's the south of the Isle of Wight.
And it looks like, if you've ever been to Devon or Cornwall, it looks like they've sort of uprooted a bit of Devon or Cornwall and planted on the end of the Isle of Wight, doesn't it?
Yeah, it's like that.
The Isle of Wight is like a diamond, and freshwater is very close to the left-hand point.
And it's, you know, most of the population of the island is concentrated on the north coast and the east coast and a newport in the little bit in the, you know, just north of Middle.
But the rest of it's very uninhabited, really, in ratio of people to land.
So it's a lovely place to go if you don't want to, you know, you don't want to be around people.
And there are times when we all don't.
Oh, what?
That's appealing to me.
I'll tell you something.
I refer to your appearances on this show as the Ike effect, because whenever I have you on, I get emails immediately as soon as the show's put out online.
You know how it is.
And usually the emails start with, thank you for having David on, Howard.
I'm glad you were able to talk to him.
When's he coming on again?
So that's the way we usually work.
So we've had to wait a year for this one, but it's worth the wait, David.
I know you've been very, very busy.
My listeners also, David, have been telling me recently.
And I wonder if you agree with this, because we've both got a broadcasting background.
The more people start to feel that they know you through the broadcast that you do for them or however you reach them, the more they want to know more about you.
So my listeners have now been asking me more for my opinions on things.
And I've tried to do this over the years.
I've tried to be fairly neutral about things, but I do have opinions.
And I've had so many requests for people to say what I think.
I think I'm going to start doing it.
I think I'm going to actually start to say what I feel about this world because I get the impression from you, from listening to the things that you've said, you'd agree with this.
There are so many things wrong with the way this country and this world is working at the moment.
Somebody's got to stand up and speak up.
Well, yes, they have.
But, you know, I've been on this road for nearly a quarter of a century now.
And I just, you know, watch the television news rarely when I want to find out what they're trying to tell us to believe.
And I follow, you know, current events very closely on the internet and in other ways.
And, you know, what's happening all the time now is I'm just shaking my head all day.
And because it's all happening and unfolding as I understood it was going to a long, long time ago.
And what I think people need to understand, and more and more people are, is that we're not looking at random events here, Howard.
We're looking at events unfolding to a blueprint, a blueprint that was in my books in the 1990s, like And the True Shall Set You Free, which I wrote first in 1994.
And this is not sitting in a darkened room, you know, coming to conclusions.
This is actually hard journalistic research over the years, uncovering what this blueprint is.
And do all of the actors in this process, and we're talking about the politicians and the public figures and the other people who have a hand in it, and the ones that we don't necessarily see, do they all know that they're actors in this process?
Well, no, they don't.
It's another point that I've been making all these years in response to a very understandable reaction from lots of people.
When I talk about a tiny few people controlling world events, how can a few people control 7 billion?
Well, they do it bottom line by manipulating the perceptions of those 7 billion.
Because if you can control someone's perception of reality, you dictate their perception of what needs to happen, their perception of self and their own power or lack of it.
And you are dictating their actions.
I mean, why do we take certain actions and other people take other actions in the same situation?
It is because they have different perceptions of that situation.
It all comes down to perception.
And I've spent the last nearly two years now, it's just at the printers now, writing the biggest book I've ever written.
I think it's the best I've written, called The Perception Deception.
And I took that title because that's what it is.
It is a deception of perception globally, locally, nationally, and all these different levels.
And for the few to control the many, what people say, and I do completely understand this when they haven't done the research, is how can a few control the many?
Or how can there be this global conspiracy?
Because so many people would know about it.
But that's the point, coming back to your question, is it's fiercely compartmentalized.
If you look at any organization today, it's structured as a pyramid.
You can also structure it as a spider's web symbolically, but also as a pyramid.
You've got the few people at the top of the corporations, at the top of the political parties, the top of the governments, the top of the banks, and they have a knowledge of what the real reason that that bank is in existence for or that organization is in existence for, what the goal is, what the agenda is, and where it wants to take the world and indeed its own corporation or government action or whatever.
How did the real people factor into this, David?
I'm asking this for a reason.
Yesterday, there was some research in the news that you will have seen that once again said, now, admittedly, these were figures obtained by the Labour Party, so it was released with a political bent.
Effectively said, surprise, surprise, once again, we're being told that everything's getting more expensive, wages are staying static or falling, but the people at the top are getting more.
What's your take on that?
Does that factor into what you've just been talking about?
Well, I can explain this in great detail.
But the point I was just making, if I could just finish that, is that those few at the top of the pyramid, I mean, because all these organizations are structured as a pyramid, the few at the top know what the game is.
But as you come down the pyramid in any organization, you're meeting more and more and more people.
But as you come down, those more and more know less and less about what the organization is really about.
They only know enough to make their contribution to the pyramid, to the organization, to the government.
And they will not know how all those individual contributions from many, many people they won't even know they exist come together to create anything but an innocent picture and a very clear, blatantly clear direction that that organization is going and taking the world with it most of the time.
Only the few at the top know that, and it's fiercely compartmentalized.
So, when you're looking like at the surveillance of the national security agencies, of course, it's become very much in the news recently in America.
The CIA, the NSA, or British intelligence, they're all fiercely compartmentalized.
So only the few know the real agenda.
The others just do their job.
On one level, you know, you'll have intelligence agencies or agents working to uncover this because it's national security.
But actually, in the shadows of that organization at the center, they're deep in the rabbit hole, they'll know that that agent is working for a very different reason than he or she thinks they are.
Now, and this is the same within banks.
You know, you go into a bank, a local bank or whatever, the bank manager, let alone the people at the desk that you talk to, they have absolutely no idea what the agenda of the banks are that they work for.
Never mind the banking system in which the same few people and the same few networks are actually controlling all the banks.
They haven't got a clue because of the compartmentalization.
But what has changed?
I mean, if you look at an old Western from the 1950s and the hero, you know, whoever it might be, John Wayne, whatever, rides into town, calls into the Western Union office, then goes into the bank.
There'll be people behind the counter in the bank.
Are you saying that they had more of a handle on what the agenda and the plan was for the bank back in those days?
Hasn't it always been this way?
It's always been this way.
Of course it has.
You know, why would a group of people, a network that survives and prospers absolutely because of the lack of awareness that it exists, why would they at any point in the existence of that network want people that were not part of it to know exactly what they were doing?
I've had people come to talks, including someone who worked at a very, very high level for Shell in South America for a long time, who retired and said to me after a talk, I have just understood so much about what happened to me and around me in my time with Shell that I didn't understand before.
I just heard you explain how the world is manipulated.
This is how it goes on.
If we come to the banking thing and what you've just talked about, I mean, I can explain that in some great detail, what's happening, because to understand what is happening, we have to understand what the game is.
In other words, where the world is being taken and why and how, what are the techniques used to take us there.
Now, this is the society that they want to impose upon the world.
And once people realize this, what's happening now makes total sense and will go on doing so as events unfold.
There was a movie came out, was it last year, very recently anyway, called The Hunger Games, maybe the year before, The Hunger Games.
And The Hunger Games symbolized the society that is in this blueprint that this network of families is taking us towards at the moment until we wake up and stop them.
And that Hunger Games society had a tiny mega, mega, mega beyond description, rich and wealthy elite that lived in high-tech luxury in a place they call the capital.
And then the country was broken up into sectors or districts.
And when I say broken up, I mean literally fenced off so anyone in each sector couldn't get into any other sector.
And again, we're back here to compartmentalization.
And each sector had a specialization that was its contribution to serve en masse the lifestyle and control of the super rich elite in the capital.
That was the division.
There was no middle class.
There was no upper middle class as we perceive them today.
There was just a mega poor, a tiny mega rich, and holding that status, quo, a vicious police state.
Does anyone recognize that world in terms of where we're going?
Well, listen, I think a lot of people will, and a lot of people are coming to that view.
But what I want to ask you is we talked about the way that undeniably we're being spied on, our emails, our phone calls, everything, to a greater extent than ever.
If the people at the bottom of this pyramid, this chain, know so little about it, why are the security agencies spending so much time spying on us?
Well, can I come to that question as the next question?
Absolutely.
What I'm just talking about, it's very important to continue this economically, because what we have had is always a poor and then less than poor and then doing okay and then doing more than okay and then, well, pretty rich by most people's standards.
And then you go into the mega rich.
What this Hunger Game Society is demanding is that there is only a mega poor and a super rich.
And I saw a graph on a mainstream news website a few months ago of wealth ownership in America.
And it didn't go up like with an with a steady incline from poor to mega rich.
It basically went up a bit and then was pretty stagnant going in a straight line.
And then suddenly it soared when it got to the less than 1%.
And it looked like a hockey stick in terms of the graph.
Now, to reach the point where the people that we've called middle class and upper middle class up to this point, to reach the point where you can collapse them so there's one mega poor,
you have to target the people who, Despite all these austerity programs, which are causing poverty and deprivation and horrific suffering for vast numbers of people, as well as that, you need to target these people who, despite that, are still doing okay, some doing more than okay, but are not part of this elite, this network.
So, what you had in 2008, and I've documented this in great detail in my books, you had the world economy systematically crashed in 2008.
Why would the banks do that?
Simple.
Because the people that control the banks are the same people that control the governments, and those people knew that when they crashed the economy and the banks, the banks would be bailed out by the government.
This is all part of the process of creating a fantastic transfer of wealth from people to mega-rich elite.
So was it nothing to do with common base greed?
Well, of course it was to do with common base greed.
But what they were doing from at least the early 1980s, even earlier if you go back, but when people like Alan Greenspan came in as head of the Federal Reserve, you started a process, a clear and blatant process through the next period,
through Reagan Bush, through Bush, through Clinton and through Boy Bush, a process, whether it was Democrat or Republican, they're the same party anyway, of systematically removing the checks and balances on the financial system.
In Britain, you had Blair and Brown doing that, and it's continued.
Now, when you have a financial system, which within its pyramid is awash with people who are unbelievably greedy, you know that if you take the reins off, if you take the checks and balances off,
if you say to people, we are going to pay you a bonus for getting someone to sign a mortgage document, and you're going to get your bonus, whether they can go on to afford to pay it anyway.
You are appealing to mega greed.
And that, of course, when set free, unfettered, is going to create mayhem.
And it did.
So this is part of a plan.
And these greedy people were unleashed like racehorses out of the traps.
Yes, because they knew what would happen once you took the reins off, the checks and balances off.
So they took the reins off and the checks and balances off.
These people may be sick and they may be very, very strange and I say deeply mentally ill, but they're not stupid in an intellectual sense.
They know how the system works and they know how cause and effect works.
Now, what we then had was the first stage of what I'm talking about.
You had the process of transferring staggering amounts of wealth and, you know, money in the ludicrous way that we define money from the people to the banks, i.e.
the mega-rich, via governments, by governments bailing out the banks.
Next stage, the governments say, we bailed out the banks, so therefore we've got no money, therefore we've got to have an austerity program in terms of the people.
So now we've had transfer of massive amounts of wealth and debt responsibility from people through governments to banks, and then that's come back to the people in austerity.
But even so, you still have people despite that who are still doing okay, still doing more than okay, and in some cases doing very much more than okay.
But if they're not part of this 1% or less than 1%, this network wants their wealth too.
And that's what Cyprus was about.
What happened in Cyprus was the precedent was set of taking governments out of the equation and bailing out banks by going direct to the bank accounts of people.
Now, once you do that, no one's money is safe.
And we saw in Cyprus that a lot of very, very rich people that had their or some of their holdings in those Cyprus banks lost virtually all of it.
And precedent is so powerful because what happens now, and they're already saying it for goodness sake, is when there's another banking crisis, and that's exactly what they're planning.
I mean, these banks, many of them, are held together by bits of string and a wing and a prayer at the moment.
And what the plan is, is when that happens and is made to happen, they say, well, hold on a minute.
It's not fair to the people of Cyprus if we bail out the banks through the governments.
So, no, we're going to have to have, and what they're calling it now, it's got a name, a bail-in, in which you go directly to the bank accounts of the people.
And in that way, they are targeting the middle and upper middle class, as they call them, and people who are doing okay and more than okay.
And they've also crashed the middle class in their version of it in America by demolishing manufacturing industry, by outsourcing phenomenal amount of jobs into Mexico and into the Far East, where people are staggeringly levels of exploitation.
So to produce stuff for cents on a dollar, which is then sold at a vast profit across the other side of the world.
So what we're looking at is a systematic destruction of everybody's wealth that is not part of this network.
Now, David, this is going to sound like a left-field question, and I'm sorry if it does, but it just comes off the back of some stuff that I've been reading in the papers over the last couple of days.
Where does China, this mega economy, factor in all of this?
Because I'm reading that China's buying up large portions of various countries, ports in various countries, minerals in Africa, even training, I think, the police or the armed services in South Africa for reasons I can't quite figure out.
Where do the Chinese come in here?
I've been saying, Howard, since well back into the 1990s, When none of this was happening in China or wasn't on the surface, watch for China in terms of its emergence as a global power economically and militarily.
And the Chinese society, see, the thing is that, you know, when you get deep in the rabbit hole, there are no borders.
There are borders for people.
There are no borders for this network.
It crosses borders.
The world is its oyster, as they say.
And the individual countries and borders are just regions of the one whole conspiracy.
So the Chinese communist elite, going back to Mao Zedong and before him, are in on this?
Oh, absolutely they are.
They are.
Absolutely.
They are, big time.
This is why the House of Rothschild and the Rockefellers and people like that, they have, and many of these kind of mega-rich people, they have fantastic connections into China.
It's well documented.
And they had great connections into Soviet Russia as well.
When you think, hold on a second, these mega so-called capitalist giants have this close relationship with Soviet Russia and now with communist China.
What's going on is there are no borders with these people.
They're just illusions to kid the people that all this choice and these differences exist.
I've been saying for years and years and years that what has happened in China is its closed society up to this point, and it's still very closed, but not quite as much as it was, has allowed a society to be created of total control,
which is designed to be the global system of global society in terms of its control and its end of freedom in every way that you can think.
What's the very blueprint for what they want the rest of us to become?
Yes.
And look, Howard, we've had the famous great firewall of China with the great internet censorship to stop people in China getting access to information that the government doesn't want them to know because it will get them to see the world in a different way.
What were we talking about?
Perception, deception.
Control of information equals to a very, very large extent, fundamentally, control of perception, because people get their perceptions of everything from information that they receive.
Now, now we're seeing, and I've been talking about this for years as well, the increasing excuses being made to do the same in the so-called free and Western world.
In fact, there are Chinese companies that have been involved in the Great Fire Wall of China that are actually being employed in the West to do the same.
Only instead of coming out and saying, yo, we're stopping this free flow of information, they're saying, oh, no, but we have to look at terrorists and we have to stop them and cyber terrorists and we have to stop the pornography and all that stuff.
Well, the Chinese are doing a lot of work for us and many other countries around the world, but it's amazing the lengths and depths of denials that they go to.
They say, obviously, we're not doing anything other than just what's on the contract, the technical work.
Yeah, well, you see, what's happening all around the world is the Chinese, and for Chinese, you know, this is not, oh, the Chinese are horrible.
I mean, you're not talking about the people.
You're talking about those that run the country.
And those that run the country lock into this same network as those that run America and run Germany and run Canada and all the rest of it and run Britain.
So what you're looking at is the expansion of this global fascist communist state in which China is a major vehicle for this network to impose that sort of society.
So you see, when in the past, at the time of Bill Clinton and stuff like that, when apparently, you know, there was this hostility between China and America, but then America under Clinton and others since have sold great tracts of land and assets to China.
And people go, well, hold on a second.
There's a contradiction here.
Well, there isn't.
There's only a contradiction if you think that the people that control America and the people that control China are actually independent of each other.
They're actually controlled by the same network.
Thus, one hand of the network sells assets to another hand of the network to advance the agenda of the network.
This is what's going on.
This is what is happening quite rightly in Africa.
And of course, who was the man who was the pathfinder to this relationship with China?
It was Nixon.
Of all people, it was Nixon.
Tricky Dicky.
Yeah, but Nixon's controller, who was he?
Henry Kissinger, one of the great agents of this global conspiracy for the last goodness knows how many decades.
Can I bring you onto something that was a very big theme during the summer?
And you and I were supposed to meet at the Bilderberg Shindig that happened outside London.
And for one reason or another, a plan that had been hatched to get me there reporting on it, it didn't come about.
So that didn't come about.
But you were there.
Alex Jones was there, made an awful lot of headlines, made a celebrated appearance on television in the UK that went viral on YouTube when he had a real go at Andrew Neal, a great political host in this country.
So a lot of publicity there.
But can you tell me your involvement being there at Bilderberg and Alex's involvement at being there at Bilderberg and the protests that were there on the fringe of that hotel whose name I've forgotten right now in the countryside outside London?
Did that do any good?
Well, I think what if, see, if people are looking for one thing that's going to change everything, well, they're going to have a long wait.
What it is, and what I've been doing for the last nearly 25 years, is just doing things every day that chip away and chip away And chip away.
And when you've chipped away at a dam for long enough, it starts to become unstable.
So that's what you do.
You know, one thing is not going to bring the dam down.
But Alex Jones sent his entire team there.
And I interviewed Alex Jones on my radio show a few years ago, and it was quite a colorful interview.
Let's put it this way.
He sent his entire team there.
He was broadcasting live from there.
I listened to what he did.
And he went back to America.
And it seems to me that nothing much has changed.
People are just not talking about it now.
Well, the thing is that there's so many things happening in the world, so many things that are pushing this agenda on, that obviously you deal with something when it's happening, and then you move on to something else when it's happening.
But just because people aren't talking about the Bilderberg meeting in the Grove and all the, you know, in north of London, Watford, and now they're talking about something else like the NSA surveillance of stuff, it doesn't mean that they've forgotten about the Bilderberg group.
There's a much greater awareness of the Bilderberg group than ever there has been.
And what happened in that gathering was very, very symbolic of how far we've actually come.
The first time I went to a Bilderberg location was in 1995 in Switzerland, a place called Bergenstock.
And I turned up the day before, a bit of synchronicity, I was staying about two hours away when I heard on the internet where it was.
Not many people ever heard of the Bilderberg group then.
And I turned up and it was some flash hotels on the top of this mountain, like something out of James Bond it was.
And I saw them, you know, all the suits with the name tags and all the stuff in the day before days, few days before, you know, doing all the stuff.
And then I came back on one of the days the Bilderberg group was meeting.
First of all, there was nobody there protesting.
And secondly, the police had roadblocks at the point on the road where you actually entered the mountain.
You know, you couldn't get...
But you can understand why that was, can't you?
Because you have so many important people.
Of course, they'll have security.
No, but that's not where I'm going with this.
Where I'm going with this is all these years later, because of the pressure of numbers that the police totally misinterpreted, but then very late in the day, the pennies began to drop.
How many people are actually going to turn up and have nowhere to go?
That the only place where those numbers could go were actually in the grounds of the Grove Hotel.
So, you know, symbolism is very, very powerful because it's an external expression of an energetic situation.
And so we've gone from 1995, where you can't even get on the mountain road and no one was protesting, to 2,000 plus people actually in the grounds of the hotel, looking across to the hotel where the Bilderberg meeting was going on.
And there was more publicity in the national newspapers about the Bilderberg group than ever has been before.
And so now we have a situation where at one point the Bilderberg Group was secret in the sense that almost no one had ever heard of it and secret in what went on during its meetings and what went on as a result of the decisions made at the meetings.
David, Alex Jones was claiming that he was getting documents from inside where the Bilderberg group has lost its secrecy in terms of people being aware of it and has only retained that part of secrecy, which is what it decides and where the world goes as a result, though even that's being chipped away.
So you can't say, well, you can, but I would suggest it's not valid, that it had no effect.
Of course it did.
That level of publicity about something that was at one time secret, of course had an effect in people being aware that something's going on here that I didn't know before.
But you have to, you know, you can't just stay on the Bilderberg group 65 days a year, hour after hour.
You have to go to other things as well.
Can I ask you this, though?
You were there with Alex Jones, and I know that you spent some time with him.
On his radio show, he was claiming that he was getting documents and leaks from inside the hotel and getting all sorts of information about what was going on there.
But I didn't hear much else about that.
Were you getting information from there?
And if you did, what were they doing?
Well, you know, I wasn't getting information from inside the hotel.
But, you know, in so many ways, after all these years, you don't need to because it's a blueprint.
I mean, the reason that I could write about the Bilderberg group back in the early 90s in ways that are now becoming obvious and even some of it covered in the mainstream media is because there's a blueprint.
And when you see people gathering at these events, like people like Eric Schmidt, the guy that runs Google, et cetera, and all these various politicians and these various people from corporations, you can see what's actually happening in terms of the discussions and where it's going because you know the blueprint and where they want to take us.
You know, these great internet giants like Google are not there to serve the public.
They're there to serve this agenda.
You know, the internet has, first of all, it was created on military technology.
If the internet was not good for the system and this network, we never would have had it.
So it obviously is.
And when you look at it, it's just a fantastic means of minute-by-minute surveillance, of getting personality and opinion profiles of people by where they go on the internet and all the rest of it.
And all sorts of stuff that we haven't given our permission for, but nevertheless, it's done in our name, supposedly.
Howard, there's a great line in a cartoon I saw which basically said about Facebook, although it could have been any of them, Facebook, you know, why keep surveillance on the population when the population's going to sit at its computer and tell you everything you want to know about it, you know?
And so it's just this wonderful way of surveillance and keeping profiles of people in great detail because it's all computerized now.
There's not, you know, with specific people, there might be, you know, agents that are designated for that specific person, but that's increasing, that's very rare.
It's done actually through technology now.
This is why the NSA has opened this vast, vast complex in Utah, which is just recording and holding data on a vast scale from all over the world in terms of everything.
And the biggest joke of all is that our GCHQ in Gloucestershire, here in the UK, that does something similar on a smaller scale, has apparently been complicit in some of this stuff or has been accused recently of being so.
Of course it has, because what we were talking about earlier, there are no borders.
You see, there seems to be GCHQ, yeah, that protects Britain and NSA, that protects the United States.
No, they're just masks on the same face and thus they work as one unit.
And every now and again, as you quite rightly say recently, it comes to light that that's exactly what's going on.
But I've been saying that for years because it's so blatant.
How is it to be stopped, David?
If you get high enough in British intelligence and American intelligence and Canadian intelligence and Australian intelligence and South African intelligence and German intelligence, you actually meet the same group of people.
Just very quickly, I'll come to that.
But where I was going with the internet is so on one level, it's fantastic for the system that we have the internet.
But there were downsides for it.
And I think they did underestimate the downsides.
And that is the free flow of information up to this point about what's going on.
Without the internet, people like me would never, never have got information out on the scale that we have.
And what they're now trying to do, and this has well been predicted for a long time, is they're now trying to find the excuses to remove and censor that which is bad for them in terms of the internet, leaving only what is good for them in terms of the internet.
And that's what we're facing now all over the world, not least in the European Union and the United States.
Do you feel they're going to try and close you down?
You're too big to be closed down now, aren't you?
Well, they'll have a go at some point, I'm sure.
Because, you know, they don't want any of the kind of stuff that I and many others circulate being circulated because they don't want people to be aware of what's actually going on.
And in fact, I've just, I'm in the center now of a massive amount of work creating an internet television and radio station, which I'm calling the People's Voice, which is going to be on air in November, to take this to the next stage where we have this information circulating on a great,
massive range of subjects for a broadcast out of America, out of Britain and around the world, where this information is circulating 24-7.
Anyone who wants to listen to it.
I think it's a wonderful thing to be doing.
I noticed on your website just before we started recording this that you've raised £300,000, what, half a million dollars towards this.
But you and I both know that media, television particularly, eats money for breakfast.
£300,000 is not going to keep you going very long, is it?
No, and I've made that very clear from the start that this money from crowdsourcing, as they call it, from public donations from all over the world, it will get us on air with quality technology.
We have a studio in London, which we're just about to secure in the next two days.
And it will keep us on air for a relatively short time.
But we have to find, and I've been very open with this from the start because it's obvious, we have to find sources of income ongoing because it's a completely non-profit-making operation.
I'm doing everything that I'm doing and will do for nothing.
I won't take a penny.
And there's lots of people who are going to contribute for nothing.
There'll be some people who'll be paid for which it is their main income.
Of course, you know, they have to be paid because they've got to pay bills.
But they'll be the minority, the vast majority will be contributing because they believe in what we're trying to do.
And if people are surprising you, I know this from personal experience working in big media and getting people to do stuff for me for nothing because a lot of these companies just won't pay or can't pay.
The problem is when you rely on people to do stuff voluntarily for you, sometimes A, they won't do it or they won't do it in the way that you want it.
Can you be sure that you're going to get the kind of support that you think you are?
Well, of course not.
No.
Because I can't read the minds of people.
But what can you do, Howard, in the face of what we're facing, except have a go?
No, I listen.
I totally applaud what you're doing.
I think it's a great idea.
Somebody had to do it.
And if anybody out there listening to us talking now thinks that there's no point because we've got Sky News, Fox News, whatever else news we've got, SABC, South Africa, ABC, Australia, think on this.
Have a look at RT, the Russian channel that's on Freeview.
It's available to everybody here in the UK.
You can get it anywhere in the US.
RT covers stories about this country and the United States that we never get to hear about here.
That's why I think you're doing this, isn't it, David?
Yeah, well, I mean, I was visited not that long ago back in May by an alleged journalist working for the Sunday Times to do an interview with me.
And this concrete mind came through the door with a story already written and left and wrote it.
And at that point, I thought this is a waste of time trying to get anything out through the mainstream media.
We've got to bypass it somehow.
And other things happened very shortly afterwards, which gave me the idea.
And I was sitting at this very desk Musing it over, and the words, the people's voice, the people's voice, just kept repeating in my head.
And I thought, well, I'll have that.
That's a bloody good title.
And so the idea, and we're well, well advancing with that now already in a few weeks, is to give alternative information the opportunity to circulate, not just on banking scams and political scams and how it all fits together.
No, not just that, but the nature of reality, giving musicians and bands and comedians and artists of many and various kinds a platform for their talents that they would never get otherwise.
To unleash the innate abilities that so many people have that they never get a chance to express because the system doesn't want them to do so.
Are you afraid that ultimately the lawyers may close you down?
Because I would imagine you've got pretty big libel defamation insurance for this.
You only have to have somebody say one thing that's a little bit dodgy and somebody else doesn't like it and then sues and then you've got trouble.
Well, the thing is, first of all, I ain't frightened of anything.
I'm infinite consciousness, infinite awareness, all that is, has been and ever can be, just like everyone else.
It's just that some of us remembered that and some of us still think we're Joe Bloggs and Ethel Jones that work down the store.
But you've still got to be subject to the courts if somebody objects to something you've done.
You know something, mate?
If you sit around and you think, well, this could go wrong and that could go wrong and what about that and what about that?
Well, you know, you'd have a long list of reasons.
You know, I'm in my 60s.
I mean, you know, there's every reason for me in the normal course of events to say, well, I'm going to start winding down now.
I mean, for 25 years, I've given everything I can.
So, you know, I should be winding down and thinking about, you know, taking it easy.
Well, I'm doing the bloody opposite.
And I'm doing the opposite because it needs to be done.
And if I, I don't need all this.
I don't need all this extra work.
I don't need it.
But since when is what is best for an individual at any point in time in the sense of a quiet life?
Since when is that the only criteria for people doing something?
It needs doing, so we're doing it.
And often, you know, if you just jump, and that's what I've done, if you just jump in and say, well, I'm going for this.
And when we meet challenges, well, we'll meet them and we'll sort them out.
Then you progress.
And it's with that energy that we've gone from an idea in May to £300,000 in donations from the public to having a London studio to having something like well over three quarters of the programming, 24 hours a day from around the world, already in place in terms of people agreeing to do it.
I mean, this is what happens when you go for something.
It also something else.
It's what happens when you step on the wave, the energetic wave that is going to make that happen.
So you believe if you're doing a right thing, which is what you're telling me you're doing, then the cosmos is going to support you.
Yes.
And so that's what's happened so far.
That's what's happened to me in the last 25 years.
I mean, you know, 25 years ago, I was in football terms about 35 nil down in terms of all the ridicule and dismissal.
Well, I ain't 35 kneel down now because events have unfolded that have made things happen.
But I mean, that's an absolute fact.
When you think back, and we won't harp on about that famous television appearance with British broadcaster Terry Wogan, where you were to some extent ridiculed and the papers had a wonderful time.
People are not doing that kind of stuff.
And you had your big Wembley Arena gig at the back end of last year, wasn't it?
You filled out Wembley Arena, and that's no small venue.
You wouldn't have done that 10 years ago.
And we've got another one that we'll be doing again in October next year.
I mean, so much is happening.
In a few days, there'll be a whole new Davidike.com website.
Then in September, we're going to be launching the Wembley event next year.
In October, early November is the publication of the Perception Deception, which is nearly a thousand pages and has nearly a thousand illustrations and images.
And then straight after that, in November, the launch of The People's Voice.
Now, all this is happening in just a few weeks.
And that's what happens when you go for it and you won't take no for an answer.
And if anybody thinks any of this is easy, you know, I know people who are at the moment involved in the franchise process.
They've got licenses for these new local television stations up and down the UK that we're getting.
We're getting TV stations for cities like they've had in America for years.
It's going to take them a good long time to do this.
So your progress from May to now, if it's what you're telling me, is amazing.
Yes, it is.
And it's happened for two, well, three reasons.
A, the people behind it, which are very, very few at the core, have gone for it and won't take no for an answer.
Two, fantastic, unbelievable levels of public support from people that say, yes, this must happen.
And thirdly, tremendous support from the contributors and the program makers who have that same attitude.
Yes, this must happen.
And not only, you know, program makers with people that are presenting programs and doing their own programs on video and stuff, but there's going to be a terrific amount of programs made by the public.
Videos made by the public, documentaries made by the public.
So we want the people's voice not just to be a name and that sounds good.
We want it to be indicative of what the station's actually all about.
Because the mainstream media doesn't give the people in general a voice.
It gives them what the system wants people to believe.
So coming back to your libel situation, there will be one sensor and one sensor alone on the people's voice, and that will be the laws of libel.
A, because we need to stay on air, and B, because we don't want to say anything about anyone that isn't true anyway.
What's the point?
You just become another version of the mainstream media.
Well, that means that you have to listen personally to everything that goes out, don't you?
Well, no, well, no.
I mean, you know, what we will do is do our best to make sure that we stay the other side of that line.
But I tell you what, if we can support what we're saying and the presenters and the journalists can support what they're saying with evidence, then we'll go for it.
Even though it might be libelous if it wasn't true, if we believe it is true and we're certain of that, then we'll go for it.
We're not going to pull any punches.
We're too far down the road for that.
You know, people need to know what's going on.
And we are not, you know, what's the worst thing that can happen that it all goes pairs?
At least we've had a bloody go.
And I'm okay with that.
What I'm not okay with is not having a go because of what about this and what about that?
Oh, God, my fingernails.
I haven't got any fingernails.
What's going to happen?
I'm not there.
We are in a critical situation where human freedom all over the world is being deleted by the hour.
We have to have a go to bring an end to that.
And that's what the people's voice is about.
That's what I spent the last 25 years of my life doing.
And I'm going to go on doing until I keel over or make the choice.
I'm out of here.
I don't know where you'd find the time.
Why don't you stand for parliament, though, David?
Why don't you try to be an MP?
Because look at all these parties like UKIP and the Respect Party that have got so much support over these last couple of years.
I'm sure a lot of people these days would support you if you did it.
Howard, I've had more effect on communicating suppressed information to the people globally than a member of parliament in Britain would have if he lived to be 2000.
And that's already.
Never mind what's going to happen from here on as we up the anti-big time in what we're doing.
Politicians are irrelevant.
They're irrelevant.
They don't make decisions.
75% at least now of the laws that are imposed upon British people are made by dark suit bureaucrats in Brussels, the European Union.
I mean, UKIP's not going to change anything.
In fact, UKIP is not a party.
It's a man.
Farage.
Take him away.
There is no party.
Well, wouldn't that be the same that if you stood for Parliament, you would have to be a figurehead, just as like Winston Churchill back in World War II was a figurehead.
I ain't going to stand for Parliament, Howard.
I wouldn't stand for Congress.
It's just a waste of time.
It's an irrelevance.
And I am going to do what I believe to be most effective, not go and pick up a salary talking nonsense.
I mean, you know, I mean, you've only, I mean, you look at these politicians in government in Britain and, you know, they're a junior minister for finance or something.
And then they get given a job as energy and climate change secretary.
And within two or three days, they're making speeches about what should happen in terms of climate change and changing the economy and wind farms.
And you think, well, how do you know anything about that?
Who has got the job?
I've often wondered about that.
How do they know?
Because the civil servants have written and the political advisors have written the speeches for them.
I remember interviewing one politician just a couple of years ago, and he was very clearly on the rise in this part.
Well, it's Conservative Party.
He was very clearly on the rise.
And the next thing, he gets himself a much bigger job and becomes an expert.
Overnight, he becomes an expert on law and order.
And I thought, how did you learn all of that stuff?
How do you know those things that you couldn't have known three months ago?
How do you know it all now?
They don't.
They see, they're frontmen and women.
They're frontmen and women.
You see, you have a Labour Home Secretary who takes us down the road of the Orwellian state.
You then have David Cameron in the election campaign when he was in opposition, the leader of the Conservative Party, saying, if I become prime minister, I'm going to roll back the big brother state introduced by Tony Blair.
He gets in and he, like Obama, who said the same about Bush, Obama became Bush on steroids and Cameron's become Blair on steroids in terms of the big brother state.
And so the Home Secretary from one party pushes on control and surveillance, and then the other party announces this Teresa May, now, Home Secretary, and she does exactly the same as her apparently opponent has done.
And this is the illusion, the illusion, perception, deception, the illusion of political choice when they're all standing on the same postage stamp.
And as they say, you know, enlightened people in America say, it doesn't matter who you vote for, the government still gets in.
I heard a great joke.
You probably heard it, but it's a great joke.
And if my listeners haven't heard this one, I'm not a big gag teller, but a little boy and his father go to meet President Obama.
And the little boy looks up at President Obama, smiles down at him, and he says, my daddy tells me that you can read all of our emails.
Obama looks at the little boy and says, he's not your daddy.
Yeah.
I'm sure you've heard that, but it says a lot, though, doesn't it?
You know the great irony?
We don't even know Obama's daddy is because he's never revealed his birth certificate.
And when you underpress, you go to the courts and you spend, or at least someone spends for you, hundreds of thousands of dollars to block court lawsuits from members of the public to make you reveal your birth certificate.
And when that kind of fails, you then release birth certificates that are blatantly and atrociously in terms of the quality fakes.
How do you know that?
Well, you've only got to, you've got to go, you've got to go on the internet and put the relevant words in about birth certificates, and you'll see forensic demolition Of birth certificates that he claims to be his birth certificates.
Now, when you do that, what have you got to hide?
You're supposed to be an American-born citizen to become president.
Surely, a basic criteria to run for president is to show that that's the case.
Maybe he just wants his privacy.
I wouldn't want people poking around my birth certificate.
It's not.
But then I'm not the president.
It's not a case of privacy.
It's a case of showing that you can stand legitimately for president.
And it may well not be, it may well not be that it's to do with whether he was born in America or not.
It may not well be.
It may be, but it may not.
It may be something else on that birth certificate that would show that his life history is very different to the one that we've been told about, because this guy has been brought through from one of the most politically corrupt places on earth, Chicago, currently where the mayor is Rah Emmanuel, his handler and the guy that ran the White House when he first became president.
And he's now mayor, Rah Emmanuel of Chicago, and very appropriately too, because it's a cesspit in terms of the people that run it.
And he's well known to be so, and it's well documented to be so over many, many, many decades.
But a lot of good people came out of Chicago.
What about Mayor Daly?
A lot of good people.
Well, you know, Mayor Daly, you say he was a good bloke.
You say that the Daly Klan and the Daly Dynasty are good.
I, frankly, don't agree.
And I think that Chicago is a very appropriate place for Obama to come out of.
And he has been brought through to become president.
That's why he came out of nowhere and attracted the record-breaking funding from people like Goldman Sachs and other people and organizations, which if his rhetoric was true, would not have handed a dollar over to him.
But of course, his rhetoric was not true.
And he has run his presidencies to the incredible benefit of people like Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan and Bank of America and all these people when they were among his major funders, not these Goldman Sachs.
But of course, following your train of thought, there would be people who say, well, most politicians do that kind of stuff.
Or they laugh you out of court and they just say this is all fantasy.
One of the two.
Well, how can it be fantasy when his funders are on public record?
How can it be?
This is what people do, you know.
They say, oh, no, that's not true.
How much research have you done on this?
Well, I read the paper.
Big mistake.
Big mistake to get all your information from the newspapers, David.
You know that.
I don't care.
Well, I don't care anyway, but it doesn't bother me when people dismiss what I've said when they've done some research and they said, well, I found this and I don't think that's right.
That's one thing.
But when people have done, and this is what you get all the time, is people have done no research whatsoever and they are making decisions on whether what you're saying is right, not on whether it's right or not, because they don't know because they've done no research on it on the basis of whether they can perceive, here we go again, whether they can perceive that what you're saying could be possible.
And when you live in a range of possibility the size of a pig, then almost everything that is said to be possible is not perceived to be possible by people in that mental state.
And that's why the education system is so narrow in what it teaches.
That's why the media is so narrow in what it reports and communicates.
Because if you can squeeze people's sense of the possible, then you can operate doing things with technology and techniques, etc., outside of their sense of the possible without any challenge because the people think that's not possible, so they can't be doing it, even though they're doing it 24-7.
And it's this widening of the sense of the possible that people need to go through to realize what's going on in the world.
As Socrates is supposed to have said, wisdom is knowing how little we know.
You know, it's like, you know, in religions where people say all you need to know is between two covers of a book, whatever you want to call it.
I mean, it's like, hold on a second.
You know, we're dealing with infinite possibility.
We're dealing with an infinite reality.
And all that I need to know to understand everything is between the covers of a book written by who knows who, who knows when, in who knows what circumstances.
But that is indicative of the way most people, or even not religious, have this narrow band of what they need to know or what they believe is possible.
And they are just sitting ducks to this conspiracy because the conspiracy is operating way outside their sense of the possible.
And if they don't open their minds to that, they're never going to understand the way that they're being played like a stringed instrument from cradle to grave.
One quick question to wrap this up, David.
The People's Voice, a very brave and exciting venture, I think.
Will people who dismiss what you and you're about and your own personal thoughts, will they be allowed on air?
If it's such a free platform, then you have to let them on, don't you?
Well, but of course.
You see, first of all, there's not going to be a David Icke show.
I'm not going to be on there.
I mean, I'll be on there quite a bit talking about different subjects that I research, but there's not a David Icke show where it's my platform.
It's not going to be that, where I sit behind a desk and do all that stuff.
I'm not knocking that.
We need that, but it's just, it's just not my scene.
And I'll give you an example of, well, first of all, there'll be phone-ins when people can come on and say what they really like.
But, for instance, science, we've got a science Program.
And the science program is going to look at science from the point of view of all the information available and not just that on the song sheet of mainstream science.
And what happens now is that people who are challenging the scientific orthodoxy, which is so pathetic, it's ridiculous.
Stone Age science, in my view.
Sorry, Stone Age.
I'm casting aspersions on you, and I shouldn't by comparing you with modern science.
So what happens now is when people go on, mainstream media, they are given a hard time.
They are ridiculed, even if they can get on.
And then mainstream scientists come on and they're the arbiters of wisdom and knowledge and truth.
And so they're not challenged.
They're not questioned.
Oh, yes, it's Professor Richard Dawkins from Oxford University.
He says it's rubbish, so it must be.
Thank you, Professor.
Good night.
And that's it.
What we want to do is, first of all, give a platform for people who are giving another version of reality and what we call science.
But also, if they'll come on, if they will, to get other people on from mainstream science and say, okay, you're always talking about pseudoscience with people that don't agree with you.
Okay, let's question you, not aggressively, but with intelligent, incisive questioning.
Let's ask you to justify what you're saying.
And I tell you, when that's done, it will be stunning to people to see how little they have to support much of what they're saying.
Because much of scientific orthodoxy and scientific, everyone knows that truth is nothing more than a theory which has been repeated so often that it becomes accepted fact.
I mean, you know, the Big Bang theory was first postulated by a Roman Catholic priest, a Jesuit educated Roman Catholic priest, and through repetition has become, I mean, you talk about, you see a science correspondent on the BBC who will accept global warming is the official story of that is absolutely true, won't question it.
In fact, the BBC have a policy.
It's come out through internal documents and people that have worked for the BBC.
They have a policy of not actually questioning the orthodoxy.
And they'll accept the Big Bang theory as fact and all the rest of it.
This is what's going on.
So, yes, we'll give anyone that wants to go on the ability to speak, but we will be asking mainstream orthodoxy to justify itself.
And we will not have people coming on, as the mainstream media does, who are giving a different spin on life, a different view of life and the world and world events.
We will not be aggressively dismissive of those people.
We will let them speak.
Because I have a simple philosophy in terms of media.
The important people are the listeners and the viewers.
That's where I'm coming from.
So the interviewer's job is not to impose his or her personal bias and prejudice upon the interview, but to ask questions, to glean information from the interviewee to give people the information from which they then decide if they think what is being said has validity or not.
And that's what it's supposed to be all about, David.
Exactly.
And that's allowing, when you ask someone a question, it's allowing them to answer it and not jumping in.
As I have had this so much in the mainstream media, they ask you a question, which needs a massive answer to put into context.
You get halfway through the first sentence and they're in with the next one.
And I've done that to an extent, but I have let you speak because I think it's important.
And the people who listen to this show want to hear you speak.
So I've tried not to interrupt.
Hey, listen, we're going to have to park it here until next time, though, David, because we're out of time.
Well, I'm talking about the real extremes that you get in the mainstream media of that.
And we want to do it differently anyway.
Anyway, nice talking to you, Howard.
The views of David Icke, a man who's been incredibly busy, and from what he's just told us, 2014 will see him even busier.
Whatever you may think of David Icke, there is no doubt about the fact that his work around the world is getting more and more attention.
Very popular in the United States, increasingly popular in the UK, a man who is known around the world.
And you need to ask yourself, and we all need to ask ourselves, why is that?
There must be something that isn't being provided by the world in which we live that we look to David for another take, another view of things.
And so many people packed out that big hall at Wembley in London at the end of last year to hear him speak.
His audiences are growing.
And with his new media venture, they may well grow even more.
So I think we'll be hearing more from him.
And like I said at the top of this show, the next show will be with Tricia Robertson in Scotland, some fantastic afterlife stories for you from a new book called Things You Can Do When You're Dead.
I've read the book.
It's superb.
And I definitely recommend that show.
And Paul Hellier, hopefully, my fingers are crossed here coming soon.
Thank you to Adam Cornwell at Creative Hotspot in Liverpool for devising the website and getting the show out to you and doing all the other great stuff that he does.
And above all, thank you to you for spreading the word about this show and for keeping the faith with me.
At times, I've felt, oh, I don't know whether I can continue doing this.
And you have kept me going with this show.
And thank you very much for the support.
Please keep it coming.
Go to the website, www.theunexplained.tv.
My name is Howard Hughes.
This show is called The Unexplained, and I will return soon.
▲
Export Selection