All Episodes
Previous Next
Nov. 20, 2017 - The Unexplained - Howard Hughes
51:49
Edition 320 - David Icke Part Two

Part Two of the conversation with David Icke about his new book...

| 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.
And this is part two of The Conversation with David Icke.
I hope you found part one interesting.
Let me know your thoughts.
Once again, I have to say the views you're about to hear expressed are those of David Icke.
They come from his book Everything You Need to Know But Have Never Been Told, which he is currently promoting across the UK and around the world and is literally just out.
So this is one of the first interviews with him about this book.
It will be interesting to see how much mainstream media David gets for this new book.
But like I say, always interesting, always charismatic, always controversial.
Your thoughts, welcome.
And you can, of course, always contact David through his own website, which I'll put a link to on my website, theunexplained.tv, the website designed, created and owned by Adam from Creative Hotspot.
Okay, here comes part two then of my conversation with David Icke.
On page 256 of the book, David, you say that there is state control of children and a socially engineered breakup of the family.
What's that all about?
Again, it's creating division and it's breaking down ways that humans interact and work as a family unit.
One of the things that I've done over these years is looked at the wish lists of social engineering organizations, people like the Frankfurt Institute in Germany that came out of Frankfurt in the 1920s and then moved to New York, to California.
I think it was in Switzerland for a while as well.
But not just them, but many other social engineering organizations.
And on their wish lists of how they wanted to change society, one of the most common themes of all is destruction of the family unit.
Because you see, when you've got a group of people as a family, there is interaction going on and there is the possibility, doesn't always happen, but there's the possibility that different information will be exchanged, different information will be discussed.
But what the state wants is control of the children's minds in totality.
And they want to break up the family unit for many reasons.
I mean, here we go.
I've been searching for it.
This is a Frankfurt School of Social Engineering wish list.
It was formed in the 1920s.
The creation of racism offenses, continual change to create confusion, the teaching of sex to young children, huge immigration to destroy national identity, the promotion of excessive drinking, legal system with bias against victims of crime, dependency on the state or state benefits, and then pulling them, control and dumbing down of the media, and, here we go, encouraging the breakdown of the family.
And you find that one over and over again, not just in social engineering organizations, but in documents of various institutions and what have you in the UN.
And what we're seeing in this totalitarian tiptoe, as I call it, step to step to step, is the power of the parents over their children, or the power of decision-making over their children being taken away and eroded all the time.
There was a guy in 1969 called Dr. Richard Day.
He was a Rockefeller family insider, and he was an executive of Planned Parenthood.
And he spoke to a meeting of pediatricians in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1969 and shocked them by asking them to turn off recording equipment and not to take notes because he was going to tell them how the world was going to change because that which he was part of was in the process of changing it.
And one doctor called Lawrence Donegan did take notes and later did some interviews on tape about what happened that night.
He actually knew Richard Day at arm's length anyway.
And what that man Day said that night was extraordinary in the sense of not only did it predict the world we're in now, but he predicted it in detail.
He was describing the internet in 1969.
He was describing smart televisions in 1969.
And one of the things that he talked about was the fact that the family unit was going to be targeted and that the state was going to take over and become the parents of the children.
And one of the things he said was the school is going to be the center of the community and not the parents.
Now, schools now are dictating to parents.
I mean, I'm reading stories week after week of the imposition against on parents of decisions about their children.
You call schools programming prisons in the book.
Yeah, they are programming prisons, yes.
They should be places where an individual comes in and they should be a place where that individual child is encouraged to critically think, to question everything, to come to their own conclusions, and to bring out their natural unique gifts, which the education system doesn't do.
It's like Einstein said, you know, everyone is a genius, but if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing it is stupid.
But people go through their whole lives with wonderful gifts inside them that are never brought out.
But don't you think kids- But don't you think kids, David, are encouraged more now than they used to be?
Look, I don't know when you went to school, but I went to School in the 70s.
And, you know, the schooling that I got up to age 14 was not exactly enlightened.
It was very much a discipline regime where you were made to shut up, do and think what you were told, and that was it.
Things improved a little bit when my school became a comprehensive, and you know, I was allowed to express myself.
Surely the world is better for kids now.
They can be themselves much more than they could when you and I were growing up.
Let me give you a quote from a study by a professor of education at the College of William and Mary in Virginia, who did a study of school-aged children between kindergarten and right through to 12th grade, a large study.
What she found was a massive decline in creativity as children have become less emotionally expressive, less energetic, less talkative and verbally expressive, less humorous, less imaginative, less unconventional, less lively and passionate, less perceptive, less apt to connect seemingly irrelevant things like dots, less synthesizing and less likely to see things from a different angle.
I've got enormous respect for young people, many of whom come to my events, who have been through this perceptual programming sausage machine and come out still thinking for themselves.
I meet enormous numbers of people who've come through that and do not, because they've either taken on the perceptions of the postage stamp or they've been so bored rigid, they've just taken none of it in and not even taken the things that are worth learning from it.
They've just rejected it altogether.
I left school at 15.
I never took a major exam in my life.
And I have taught myself on the basis of my passions and what I want to learn.
And I'm a great believer in something that they call basically the person-directed education, where people learn what they want to learn.
And in learning that, they learn how to write, they learn how to read, they learn all these other things, but they're learning something they wanna learn.
What happens in school is so much, Again, take a deep breath, take a step back.
Children are up in the morning.
They're into school.
What, nine o'clock?
They're sitting at a desk.
They go through the day till the bell goes.
They then go home, mostly taking homework to further destroy their own time, their own thinking time, their own perceiving time and pondering time.
And then they're faced with exams where they have to revise and revise and revise to remember, to repeat things that they'll then forget once their exam's finished.
They learn things like algebra.
I mean, who needs bloody algebra?
You need algebra.
I gotta say, they forced me to, It's crazy, man.
But what would you like?
Would you close all schools?
What I would do is have far less time at school.
I would have children not go to school for far, far longer than they do.
The amount of time they have before they go to school is ridiculous.
It's insane.
And I would then change the nature of school.
Some of the best schooling that happens now and in what they call kindergarten is done by this child-directed education, where they let the child decide what they want to learn, and then that child goes at it with enthusiasm.
They don't feel that they're in a prison and they've got to do something they don't want to do, and they've got to listen to something and learn something they don't want to learn.
Boars and silly.
It's personal, person-directed.
But we have to give, I mean, here's a, just to say, I mean, I've come across many of these things because I study this a lot.
You've got a school in, more than one, actually, but one school in America that just stopped homework.
Stopped it.
They said, look, the child has to have time to themselves to pursue their passions and pursue their thoughts.
So we're stopping homework.
So if that school was able to do that, why weren't they stopped by some elite that is controlling the agenda?
That they've been allowed to do that.
Mate, one school, one school, a handful of schools at most, in a country of 320-odd million people.
It's not even a drop in the ocean.
And will it continue when that group of teachers that are running that school are replaced by others as time goes on?
The point I'm making is the educational standards, if you like, or success, the way that children learned improved when they stopped homework.
Another school in America decided that they were going to have morning and afternoon, 15 minutes where children could do what the hell they liked for 15 minutes.
And they said, again, the way the children learned as a result of that dramatically improved.
What are we doing having on wonderful summer days, having children sitting at desks all day, being told by many schools that it don't matter about the heat, you're still going to come in your school uniform?
It's crazy.
And more and more, the people running schools are not running them from an education point of view, they're running them from an administration point of view.
I've got a school around the corner from me that's dramatically changed.
All my children went to that school and it was a lovely school as schools go.
And the children were happy and got on, and there was a little wall around it.
And it was part of the community, not dictating to the community, part of the community.
Now, it has a massive fence all around it.
And when parents come in the morning, they have to go through one lock gate, and then to get to the next part of the school, they have to go through another lock gate.
I've only seen that twice, and that's in zoos and prisons.
Well, I mean, look, these days, there are all kinds of security threats out there.
And if I had kids, which I don't, I would want to stop bad people getting into the school.
Nonsense.
Well, there were lots of bad people around when I was a kid.
How did we survive?
It's ridiculous.
What do we do?
What do we do?
Every time something bad happens, we take more freedom away.
What do we do next?
Do we build a massive wall around it?
Then what do we do next?
Do we have helicopters over it?
Where does it end?
It's ridiculous.
And I tell you what it's doing, and it's systematically doing this.
It is preparing children now for the entire world being like that when they're adults.
You know, people like me born in the 1950s, we have a radar, we have a compass to what's happening now.
And that is what we remember in the 1950s, what the world was like, what school was like, all of it.
I'm not saying school was perfect then.
It bored me to tears then.
It was a prison then.
But we've gone much further now.
Because I can look at the world as it is, and I can see the change that's taken place.
But when people come into the world, they tend to take the world for what it is, as this is how things are.
So young people born in this increasingly Orwellian big brother society and state do not have the compass that people born in the 1950s have.
They come in while it's happening.
I'll tell you one thing, David.
Because it's normal.
I'll tell you one thing.
The more that you can have cameras all over schools, you can have children having to use fingerprints and what have you to get library books, and the more you can turn them into literally physical prisons, the more that becomes the normal.
And then when they become adults, you're going to have less resistance to that being introduced in the world in general because to them it's normal.
So you think that's a deliberate psychological agenda behind all of that.
I'll tell you one thing, and just to get on very briefly to another related topic.
I mean, do you think, and I'm not sure what to think, that young people have almost thought-blocking going on?
I'll tell you what I mean by this.
Whenever I say, if I'm with a group of young people sometimes at work, that a lot of what I see on television is absolute mind-numbing trash, and how can we be falling for this garbage?
When I suggest that there might be a possibility that the rich people are constantly getting richer and all the rest of us are constantly getting poorer, there's a big, sharp intake of breath.
How could he say such things?
How could he challenge these huge institutions?
It's terrible.
I don't know what to say in response to what this man has said.
I find that bizarre.
Now, that may be just a random happening or maybe indicative of something else.
I don't know.
It's not a random happening.
It's the way minds are being molded and perceptions are being downloaded.
I mean, you know, I remember very clearly in the 1960s, the great student marches out of places like Berkeley in America, demanding freedom of speech.
Would never happen today.
Howard, they go on marches demanding it's taken away.
We have this organization, Antifa, that's just a proxy army for this elite, if the idiots realized it, who are violently breaking up meetings, particularly in America, that are protesting for freedom of speech.
Antifa is anti-fascist.
Anti-fascist, yeah.
It's very difficult to be anti-fascist when you act like one, though.
And you've got this whole thing in universities where people are deplatformed and not allowed to speak because it's saying something that the prevailing tyranny at the university doesn't want to hear or doesn't agree with.
And this is how far it's gone.
We've now reached the point, Howard, where people like Peter Tatchell, I remember Peter Tatchell when I was a spokesman for the Green Party.
I met him then.
He was in politics then.
Peter Tatchell was speaking out for gay rights when it wasn't a way to increase your Christmas card list.
He was taking enormous amounts of abuse constantly for his views and what he was campaigning on.
And he did the most fantastic job in gaining respect and rights for gay people.
He has now suffered being deplatformed in a university by the Student Union and the National Union of Students Representative because of his Views.
He's gone from being the champion to being the villain.
And he's not changed anything.
The point about Peter Tashill is that he's held on, at least to a large extent, to a sense of balance.
He's saying, yes, we should be respectful to each other, but this political correct nonsense is destroying discourse.
And therefore, now he's the villain.
What's happening is even those great champions of inequality and diversity in the past are now becoming the villains.
And that's indicative of how far and more extreme this is becoming.
It's absolutely devastating to human freedom and freedom of expression.
So you've got students that are protesting, sometimes violently, to stop someone of a different opinion having a platform to speak.
It's insane, but they can't see it.
Because what's happened is, and this is another part of the mind game, is the word progressive, which came out of America, has been thought to be interchangeable with the word liberal.
They're not the same thing.
If you look at the dictionary definition of the word liberal, then not political liberal, perceptually liberal, then that sums me up to a T. But these progressives are not liberal.
They are destroying what liberals stand for, which is the freedom of speech, freedom of expression, free discourse, free lifestyle.
Here we go.
I've got the deference in front of me.
Progressive, favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters.
Those are all good things, aren't they?
Well, depends what they are.
A liberal, in the definition in the dictionary, is favourable or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, especially as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties, favoring or permitting freedom of action, especially with respect to matters of personal belief or expression.
Now, that definition of liberal is what these progressive movements are protesting and arguing and sometimes being violent against.
They, of course, would take issue with you about that.
Well, they could, but they wouldn't be able to produce evidence to support their issue with me because they are acting in ways that are completely illiberal.
So, David, how can campaigning to stop someone you don't agree with having the right to speak in public, how can that conform to that definition of liberal?
Are we saying you can't say that, you can't say this, and if you do, we're going to campaign for you to get thrown out of your job?
How can that be perceived as liberal?
They're anti-liberal.
That's the point.
I want to move on to foreign policy, which you talk about towards the end of the book, around about page 470 thereabouts.
You talk about the hidden hand controlling foreign policy, which it has done so, you say, in Libya and Syria.
Now the hidden hand is moving on to North Korea.
What is it you believe we are not being told about the situation to do with North Korea, which of course Mr. Trump has been in Japan only this week talking about?
Well, I mean, it's a simple sequence of events.
If you go back to September 2000, there's an organization in America called the Project for the New American Century, which produced a document calling for a list of countries to be, quote, regime changed and for the United States to fight, quote, multiple theaters of war to bring about those regime changes.
The people that were involved with the Project for the New American Century in September 2000, just literally a matter of weeks, certainly just a few months later, dominated the regime in Washington of boy George Bush.
Project for the New American Century was created by two American Israeli dual citizens called Robert Kagan and William Crystal.
And also involved in that organization and the document was Dick Cheney, who shortly afterwards would be Vice President of the United States, in fact, president in truth.
Donald Rumsfeld, who would be Secretary for Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, who would be his far more powerful deputy, Dub Zachheim, who would shortly afterwards control the entire Pentagon budget as comptroller to the Pentagon, and others.
And what they said in this document was that for this program of regime change to happen and to be justified, there would have to be a catastrophic event like a new Pearl Harbor.
This is the actual quote from the document.
Further, the process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor.
One year to the month after that document was published and nine months after the people that wrote it came to power with Bush, not least in the Pentagon, America had what Bush called at the time the Pearl Harbor of the 21st century, 9-11.
As a result of that, the list of countries, which included Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, China, North Korea, started to be ticked off.
They started with Iraq.
And of course, we had the Lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq because they were justifying ticking off Iraq in the list when they didn't have a genuine excuse.
So they made one up.
And we shouldn't forget, by the way, that the people that told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when they knew there weren't were exactly the same people who told us the official story of 9-11, which was used to justify this war on terror that led to these so-called regime changes.
They then move on.
But would you have done nothing about Saddam Hussein oppressing his people?
Hold on a second.
There's a sequence here, and people need to hear the sequence.
That's here.
They then move on to Libya.
By the time they are sending the boys into Libya to protect the civilians from violence by bombing them from the sky, Boyd Bush is gone.
Tony Blair is gone.
The people who fronted up the invasion of Iraq.
Now we have a different party in government in America, the Democrats, through Barack Obama.
We have a different party in power in Britain through David Cameron.
But another country on the list is picked off.
They then move on to Syria, and that is used or attempted to be picked off by a proxy army called Syrian Rebels.
We then have another guy come in who's apparently this maverick, this anti-establishment maverick, Donald Trump, and he starts to target and demonize three others on the list, North Korea, Iran, and China.
And so what you've got is this hidden hand which is directing the policy.
And these different people and parties come in and out, here today, gone tomorrow politicians.
But the same list goes on being followed.
And I'll tell you now, you are going to see the demonization of Lebanon and an attempt to regime change Lebanon.
The Prime Minister's already resigned.
This is all connected to Israel and connected to Saudi Arabia because Lebanon was also on the list in September 2000.
It's an agenda unfolding before our eyes.
When you connect the dots, it becomes blatantly obvious what's going on.
And let me quote you from the former French foreign minister, Roland Dumar, on French television, talking about the rebel civil war in Syria.
He said this on French television.
I'm going to tell you something.
I was in England two years before the violence in Syria on other business.
I met with top British officials who confessed to me that they were preparing something in Syria.
This was in Britain, not in America.
Britain was organizing an invasion of rebels into Syria.
They even asked me, although I was no longer Minister for Foreign Affairs, if I would like to participate.
And I'll quote you too from a document that is from the American military.
And this document was published for the military on November the 30th, 2010, which is just before the Arab Spring began, the fake Arab Spring, in Tunisia.
And it's called the U.S. Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Strategy.
This is what it says.
The U.S. military's unconventional warfare strategy requires that target state population perceptions, this is what they're going for everywhere, are first groomed into accepting an armed insurrection using,
quote, propaganda and political and psychological efforts to discredit the government, creating, quote, local and national agitation, helping organize boycott strikes and other efforts to suggest public discontent, before beginning the infiltration of foreign organizers and advisors of foreign propaganda, material, money, weapons, and equipment.
If retaliation by the target government occurs, the resistance can exploit the negative consequences to garner more sympathy and support from the population by emphasizing the sacrifices and hardship the resistance is enduring on behalf of the people.
This is the mantra in Libya, the mantra in Syria.
He's killing his own people.
So it's all in black and white in American military documents, the very techniques they used in Libya and the very techniques they used in Syria and in many other countries as well over the years.
And it's all orchestrated.
And what's happened is Russia came in to Syria and threw a spanner in the works.
And where it goes from here, we'll have to wait and see.
And what about North Korea?
I mean, there is somebody who's developing nuclear weapons and missiles that may eventually be able to reach the United States and us here in the UK.
Can we really stand by and let that happen?
Is that what you would want?
No, what you've got to look at is how, well, you would have said to me in relation to that question in 2003, well, we can't just let Saddam hit us with weapons in 45 minutes.
I mean, Tony Blair, the prime minister, has said that.
They can hit British targets in 45 minutes.
We can't just let Saddam, with his chemical weapons, just do what he likes.
But we've seen Kim Jong-un's weapons, though.
He's paraded them on television.
And they weren't freaking there.
We have seen Kim Jong-un parade his weapons and his military forces in the center of Pyongyang.
We know that they're there.
Yeah, but what you've got to understand, well, not nuclear.
What you've got to understand is that when you've got a list of target countries, you also need a list of excuses to target them.
And The excuses can change, or as with Libya and Syria, they can just use the same excuse.
The point is that I find it interesting, I'll say no more than that, that just when these people need an excuse, this man-child in North Korea starts firing missiles into the ocean to give them that very excuse to demonize him.
I find that very strange.
Let's wrap this up by asking the question, what would you like people, thinking people who read your work to do?
What must they do?
We can look at solutions and we can form organizations and get someone to take the minutes.
And it will get us nowhere, really, unless our perceptions change.
Einstein, again, said, or is quoted as saying, anyway, don't matter who said it, brilliant line, that you can't solve problems with the same level of consciousness that created them.
And so we need to start expanding our sense of the possible and our sense of who we are to a much more wide level of perception.
Because, you know, the great irony is that, you know, people shout racism and they shout Nazi and they shout this and they shout that.
And it's the ones that shout racism most loudly and most often who are most obsessed with their body or actually most obsessed with race.
Where I'm coming from, and this will bring us round out to where we started, what I'm coming from is that we all, I don't care if you call yourself Jewish or Islamic or American or South African, black, white, sky, blue, pink, that's just your experience.
That's all it is.
What you are is that which is having the experience, that awareness of which is having the experience.
And that awareness is just another point of attention within the same infinite awareness that I am.
I'm just another point of attention in it.
So ironically, while people shout racist and this and that and the other, where I'm coming from in my, if you like, philosophy of life is the ultimate non-racist stance.
In I'm saying that race is a nonsense, just an experience.
Why do people get obsessed with it?
Why do they get obsessed with the color, creed, background, history, life story, income bracket?
They're just experiences.
We are infinite awareness.
Now, if we don't expand our understanding to encompass the nature of the true self, then phantom self, which is obsessed with labels, sexual labels, race labels, religious labels, all that, they'll go on fighting each other because all the fault lines of divide and rule are there.
Once we realize that we're actually all expressions of the same awareness, having different experiences, we might then have a chance of putting down the weapons, putting down the abuse, putting down the divisions, therefore.
And without the divisions and the divide, there can be no rule.
The target population is enormous compared with the networks that are manipulating us.
They have to set the target population at war with itself.
Target population in unity, game set, and match.
They've got to be at war with themselves, and that's what's happening.
And what you're seeing, Howard, is that the labels are subdividing and subdividing and subdividing all the time so that the minuti of self-identity is getting smaller and smaller and smaller in many, many, many people.
And if it goes on like that, well, we're just creating more and more fault lines of division through which we can be ruled.
This is what political correctness and all this stuff is about.
And what I would say, and this is one of the things I emphasize in the book, we've got to stop looking at each other as groups.
It's got to stop.
Because once you perceive people in groups, therefore this group, what's that label for this group?
Oh, good.
This group's good.
Okay.
This group, colonial fascists.
Okay.
And then anyone in that group gets the label.
Well, any conscious, intelligent person does not judge people by their group, whether it's their race or whether it's their religion or whatever, income bracket.
They look at them by what they say and what they do and what they are as individuals.
There are nice Muslims and there are Muslims that cut people's heads off.
There are nice Jewish people and there's Jewish people that manipulate and drop bombs on Gaza.
There's nice white people and there's white supremacist white people who are deeply unpleasant.
So if we fought, and this is what political correctness does, it groupthinks.
Not just thinks as a group, it sees everyone in their self-identity as a group.
We've got to stop it and look at individual behavior and not just look at people in groups.
Because once you've got groups that are labeled and has walls around them, bang, then you've got divide and rule on a massive scale.
Last question.
You quote somebody, I've lost her name here in the book, who claims that she saw Prince Charles transform, you know, I'm going to ask this, transform into a reptile.
Do you believe that happened?
Yes, I do.
And that sounds fantastic.
And I would say the Queen, too, and others.
And this has come from people, not just in quite a considerable number, but people very, very close to them and people who've claimed to have experienced it.
You do realize that a lot of people will find that really impossible to accept and would see you as parting with reality at that stage.
They might have gone along with you so far.
But of course, but hold on a minute.
Well, first of all, shapeshifting is an ancient theme, going right back to the ancient societies.
They're all talking about shapeshifting.
The shamanistic stream talked about shapeshifting.
And this is another point, Aud.
If we don't understand the nature of what we perceive as physical reality, there's so many things that are going on, can't be going on, if the world is physical.
Can someone move between a solid body and a solid body of a different kind if the bodies are physical and solid?
Impossible.
Absolutely impossible.
And of course, because most people perceive everything to be solid, that's their immediate reaction.
That's impossible.
I'm not saying that's happening at all.
I'm saying it is a shift of an energetic information field, which is what the body is, to another energetic information field.
The only place an apparently physical shape shift takes place is in the perception areas of the brain that decode the reality that we think is outside of us, but is actually in the brain.
I mean, mainstream science understands this now, but most of it tries to, well, some parts of mainstream science understand this.
What is happening is that the five senses, the ears are a classic example.
The five senses are picking up waveform information.
What is me talking to you now except a waveform information field, which your brain is decoding into my words?
And so the waveform field, like a Wi-Fi field, that is the base reality in this universe as we perceive it.
The five senses then turn that waveform information into electrical information and they communicate it to the brain.
And different parts of the brain specialize in decoding from the different senses.
So the only place that the world that you're looking at now and I'm looking at exists in the form that we're experiencing it is in a few cubic centimeters at the back of the brain, which produces visual reality.
So when we are looking at people, for instance, what's happening is they exist in the form that we perceive them in that area at the back of the brain, because they are in their base state, waveform, information field, waveform entities.
And we are decoding that through to a holographic realm, which only exists in the head.
And so when an information field, not a physical body, shifts from one to the other, to the decoder, the observer, they have been decoding the field that we call human and appearing to have a human body.
And then there's not a physical shift.
There is no physical.
There's an energetic shift and another energetic field in these what I call hybrid bloodlines, they have dual fields, now becomes the dominant one.
And that's the one the observer starts decoding.
So it is down, as you say, to perception.
Yeah, to the observer, the decoder, that person has shifted physically from a human to a non-human.
But that's not what's happened.
The only place that has appeared to happen is in the holographic decoding system of the brain.
What's actually happened is there's been an energetic information field shift.
And maybe just to give people an idea before we go, if I can just find this one quote, which really does absolutely encapsulate the illusion of reality.
There's so much information in the book that highlights the illusion of reality.
But I'm just trying to find this.
It's a scientist who is describing the simple action of seeing a candle, a candlelight, and what it is actually happening.
I'm not sure I can find it actually, but it's incredible.
When we see a candlelight, it's actually electromagnetic energy.
That's what it is.
That electromagnetic energy has no colour.
Colour is a frequency.
And therefore, the only place colour exists is when we decode that frequency information.
So if you're looking at, say, a garden of flowers that is full of colour, the only place the colour exists is in your brain.
Because in the base state of the flowers, which is electromagnetic fields, there is no colour.
The colour is encoded as a information frequency.
It's not something that is actually out there.
So we are constructing reality in the most extraordinary ways that we don't realize.
And it's an incredible, the level of the illusion that we're actually experiencing is just extraordinary.
Extraordinary.
I found the quote.
This is from a scientist called Robert Lanzer in a book called Biocentrism.
The flame, this is the candle of a flame, flame of a candle.
The flame is emitting photons or tiny packets of electromagnetic energy, each pulsing electrically and magnetically.
These invisible electromagnetic waves strike a human retina, and if and only if the waves happen to measure between 400 and 700 nanometers in length from crest to crest, then their energy is just right to deliver a stimulus to the 8 million cone-shaped cells in the retina.
Each in turn send an electrical pulse to a neighbor neuron, and up the line it goes at 250 miles per hour until it reaches the optical lobe of the brain in the back of the head, what I've just been talking about.
There, a cascading complex of neurons fire from the incoming stimuli, and we are subjectively, and we subjectively perceive this experience as a yellow brightness occurring in a place we have been conditioned to call the external world.
So when you look at shape-shifting, if you like, from the view of the world is physical, postage-stamp consensus, it's impossible.
It's ridiculous.
It's insane.
And that's why people see that when they hear me talk about this stuff.
But when you look at it from the nature of reality as it really is, it becomes perfectly explainable.
And that, to conclude the whole thing, Howard, is why there is such a fantastic benefit in mainstream science keeping from us the true nature of reality.
But those walls are now falling.
Hallelujah.
Very finally, page 186.
You say that reptilians and grey aliens have colonies in caverns or caves and they have human hybrid networks.
Do you believe that?
Oh, of course.
So I could go and visit one.
Well, no.
Well, I don't think you'd come back.
I've been on this road for 30 years, keep saying nearly.
I've talked to enormous numbers of people, including insiders in America, who have been inside underground bases, what they call dums, deep underground military bases, which go deep into the earth, who've described what goes on down there and the interactions between the elite scientists that are way, way outside of the public arena and these entities.
And there is an exchange goes on of technological knowledge because these entities are more advanced technologically.
In fact, they're obsessed with technology.
Hello, anybody?
Hello, look around.
And it's extraordinary, isn't it not, as I point out in the book, that just when this hidden hand needs the next technological breakthrough to push on this Orwellian big brother global state, which couldn't happen without technology, then that breakthrough happens.
Amazing coincidence.
So the technology is being delivered to us.
We're not creating it.
Yeah, absolutely.
Most of it.
The society transforming stuff.
And most of the stuff that goes on technologically within the human realm is more about bringing scientists up to speed than actually developing the technology.
And, you know, so we're going to see more and more fantastic technology come out quicker and quicker and quicker.
And they'll explain it.
Oh, it's happening this, it's happening this.
No, no.
It's been there.
It's been there all along.
It's just being introduced in an order, both in an order and in line with human ability to understand it as part of this global control system.
And I call Silicon Valley in the book the devil's playground.
And it's from there, in league with others, but absolutely from there physically, that so much now of the human control is coming from.
Boy, we've covered a lot of ground here, David, and thank you for it.
It's our longest one.
This book is, I'm just having a look at the book now.
I think I said it was 580 pages long.
I lied.
It is 600, if you take the very back end of it and take the bibliography, it's pretty much 700 pages, so it's a major effort, and you're going through a major launch for this major effort.
There will be people who want to question you.
I wonder if you, you can probably answer this.
Are you being booked for mainstream media interviews about this?
Is it happening?
No, no, not yet, no.
You see, there's two ways of dealing with me.
One is to pan me and ridicule me, and the other one is to ignore me.
So I'm going to be interested to see what happens.
I am actually doing an interview next Wednesday.
It's never Wednesday morning.
But we'll see where it goes because the real launch starts next week.
But I'll be interested to see whether it's panned or ignored because it'll be one or the other.
Well, yes, it will be, or any combination of the two.
And I think you have to have great intestinal fortitude to go along with the ride, David, because as we both know, there are people who do not buy it and do not buy you.
But as you've told me, and as the numbers show, more and more people are going to your shows, and I will be intrigued.
Maybe you can tell me how many copies of this book you sell.
The book is called Everything You Need to Know But Have Never Been Told.
The man we've been speaking with is David Icke.
And David, thank you.
Pleasure, Howard.
Lowly, always great to talk to you.
And that's it.
Part two, and before that, part one of David Icke on his new book, Everything You Need to Know But Have Never Been Told.
Big book.
Big heavy book.
Big heavy title.
We'll see how this goes.
Your thoughts, of course, welcome on this.
Please email me if you'd like to.
Go to the website theunexplained.tv and you can email me from there.
If you'd like to leave a donation to the show, too, that'd be great.
And the website designed, maintained and owned by Adam from Creative Hotspot in Liverpool.
More great guests and back to our normal format in the next edition of The Unexplained coming very, very soon.
So until next, we meet here on The Unexplained.
My name is Howard Hughes.
I am in London and please stay safe.
Please stay calm.
And above all, please stay in touch.
Thank you very much.
Take care.
▲
Export Selection