David Icke talks about Illuminati and Freemason involvement in the shadows of world politics and the U.S. Government. Although it is not a huge theme by Icke here, he implies he is a Truther meaning that the 911 Islamic Terrorist attack was actually an inside job rather than coordinated by al Qaida. I personally think that is a load of manure.
Here is the fourth section of Global Watch Special Report 2011.
JRH 8/31/12
**************************
Interview with David Icke
David Icke Profile
David Icke was a man leading an enviable life: by the age of 20 he was a professional goalie for a British football team; by 30 he was a national television sports anchor on BBC; a husband; and a father leading the life he had dreamed of.
But something began taking him in an altogether different direction after reaching his worldly goals. As one life-altering revelation after another dropped him on a path he would have never imagined.
Since then he has become a world respected authority on dissecting the components that contributing towards the emergence of a one world government. Icke has authored a number of publications of which the most popular are Children of the Matrix and the David Icke Guide to the Global Conspiracy. Whilst ongoingly ridiculed by the British mainstream media Icke is a popular author and presenter on a global level.
Interview Section Focus: “The Economic Agenda”
(RM is the Interviewer and DI is David Icke)
RM: I think a lot of people were surprised but many people put a smile on their face when you decided to run for Parliament a few months ago and I haven’t spoken to you since then, so I don’t know what kind of realities and validation of everything you have been working on the last 18 years or so, you rubbed up against in the whole process.
DI: It was a bizarre thing, really, because I must be the only political candidate—not that I was a political candidate—who has put out a . . . What happens in Britain is when you stand for Parliament you get a free mail-out to every home in the constituency, the area of the election. I must be the only candidate who has ever sent out a leaflet saying I don’t want your vote.
RM: Right! I loved it. (laughing)
DI: It said I don’t want your vote; I just want your brief attention. The reason I did it, and I learned a lot from it about other more subtle levels of manipulation. What happened—for people who don’t come from Britain—an opposition conservative Home Affairs Spokesman, called David Davis, resigned his Parliamentary seat in what he said was protest of the emerging Big Brother State.
RM: Can you tell us a little bit about what he said to the media because that was really quite interesting?
DI: Well, he was protesting, he said, over the government’s decision and real pressure on its own members of Parliament to change the law so that you could go 42 days without charge and still be held in prison. He said he wanted to make a stand against Big Brother. I watched this with interest, and like everything, I always step one step back because there is always more to know no matter what it is. And the Labor Party, the Labor Government didn’t stand against him: It’s just a farce! It’s just ridiculous; we’re not taking part in a farce! Brackets, decoded, translated: We know we’d get slaughtered so we’re not standing and we’ve got a good excuse not to stand. The Liberal Democrat Party said they weren’t standing because they agreed with him. He kept saying I want to debate on Big Brother.
So, fine; I’m looking at this one night when he resigned and it was clear that eventually no one was going to stand against him except fringe candidates of various kinds. There are a lot of them. Then a friend of mind contacted me and he said hey, what do you think about standing against Davis and giving him a debate? I said OK I’ll do it; let’s do it. And, in a ridiculously short time, from standing to end it was about two and a half weeks; I dropped everything, went five hours up north in England and stood in this election. What I found immediately is that David Davis didn’t want a debate at all. I was banned from events that he was at; I turned up as a member of the public to hear a “debate” involving David Davis and Bob Geldof. I had a ticket waiting for me and I was turned away at the door! I was turned away by the authorities so
I couldn’t listen to a debate challenging Big Brother. I mean you couldn’t make it up, right. So, all this was going on.
DI: They never really explained it. Basically it was he’s not coming in. We don’t have to explain why. We’ll just tell the media—as they did—he didn’t have a ticket. Well, I did!
RM: So not only were you not allowed to debate; you were not even allowed to watch the debate.
DI: That’s right. They were frightened that I was going to stand up and ask questions.
RM: Sure.
DI: But what happened was that people who supported me in the area, they got together—quite a vociferous group got together very quickly—they started going to these events and, of course, for a while the people running them, Davis’s people didn’t realize didn’t realize who they were and why they were there and they got up and asked some questions they didn’t want to hear, and then they got banned. (laughing together)
So, the Big Brother Challenge Election was going very rapidly awry, and then what started to happen—this is where I started to really see some of the subtleties of how this work, though it wasn’t really subtle, some of it— people started arriving to support David Davis and his anti-Big-Brother stand who were from an organization called the Henry Jackson Society, which was started in 2005, in Britain. And, staggeringly, a British political Think Tank organization was named after an American Senator, Henry “Scoop” Jackson. Why? What’s going on?
Well, people look at the Neocon (neoconservative) network that put Bush in power and has been running that regime ever since, the William Crystal’s, the Robert Kagan’s, the Richard Pearl’s, all these people, and they think because they are now involved in the Republican Party they must have come from the Republican party and that’s the way it was. No, no. Those people started as supporters and sometimes close aides to Henry “Scoop” Jackson in the Democratic Party.
Then when Reagan and Bush came along they jumped ship. Then you look at these people who were coming up from this organization, a Neocon organization, a Neocon front in Britain and they are supporting David Davis against Big Brother when that is exactly the opposite of what they want. They want Big Brother. And then you look at the international patrons of the Henry Jackson Society, Richard Pearl, William Crystal, Robert Kagan, and all these guys behind Bush are international patrons of this organization.
And then another lady started coming up in the media and she came up and did a public meeting at this election supporting David Davis and his stand against Big Brother. Her name is Shami Chakrabarti, who is the head of Liberty, which is our version of, you know, the Civil Liberties Union in America.
And she is a former Government Barrister in the home office of the government. And she became head of Liberty. It turns out she is also a governor of something called the Ditchley Foundation, which connects into the Bilderberg Group, the Tri-lateral Commission Council on Foreign Relations network. She is also involved in something called the British American Project, which is which is another kind of organization in that Think Tank web, which manipulates behind the scenes.
Whenever there is a Big Brother story in Britain they go to Shami Chakrabarti for a comment. What it was clear was happening was that you have those who were pressing the agenda for this Orwellian state, and then you have those often people who are not aware of how they are being manipulated themselves who are opposing that agenda, but they are opposing it on a level that the agenda is never in trouble.
RM: Right
DI: For instance, when a friend of mind tried to explain to Shami Chakrabarti that 9/11 was an inside job and the official story was nonsense, in his words, her eyes glazed over. She just didn’t want to know and couldn’t go there. So, what you have is an expression of the establishment opposing, in theory, though not in a way that is going to have any effect, another part of the establishment.
RM: Would you say that this is agreed upon from the inside to create a perception of freedom for the individuals, a perception of choice?
DI: Well, I think sometimes it is, and sometimes—and, I think this is the case probably with Shami Chakrabarti—is they take someone of a certain viewpoint, a certain range that she will accept as possible, i.e. she will never go into this conspiracy stuff . . .
RM: Right. So hand picking the person is very important.
DI: They put the right person in the right job.
RM: And that would be a person with a very predictable response.
DI: Yeah. It is interesting that on the Ditchley Foundation site they do a promo video and they have a clip of Shami Chakrabarti in which she says my world view has been changed by being involved with this organization. See, there are those who know, who are in full awareness of what they are doing; they are the minority. You can’t have too many of them or eventually the whole thing will leak out. Then there are those who are brought into the fold and they are then—it is a form of programming.
DI: It is opinion manipulation, viewer manipulation, which brings them into the fold, and they think they are opposing something but they are not really. It was interesting when I looked at the head of the Civil Liberties Union in America, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, the previous one [also] a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Now, you’ve got the Council on Foreign Relations as part of this web of the Bilderberg Group and all the rest of it. They have been working for decades and decades—in terms of the Council on Foreign relations it’s back to about 1920-21—to bring in the Big Brother State and to manipulate events to justify it, and one of their members is the head of what is the most famous Civil Liberties organization in America.
RM: Right. So, this is a foe watchdog group. But it is a very good point that you bring up in that people aren’t necessarily complicit in conspiracy in these situations; it is just that those who are are (sic) very skilled at placing a very predictable individual in key positions, so you are not going to have to worry about what the ultimate behavior or reaction is going to be to anything.
DI: I’ll give you one example, Margaret Thatcher. Margaret Thatcher was not a knowing manipulator but she had a real fierce, rigid view of the world and economics and economic policy. So, they bring her in in (sic) Britain in 1979. And, she introduced a form of economics—a vicious, merciless form of economics— called Thatcherism.
RM: Right.
DI: One year later, in 1980, they bring in the cowboy, who brought in at least in theory—he didn’t, but he was the front man for it—something called Reaganomics, which was a mirror of Thatcherism. And these two came in together . . .
RM: Coincidence. (laughing)
DI: Oh yeah, nothing to worry about. Reagan would have been more knowing, but Margaret Thatcher, she was the Iron Lady, the person who was in complete control and she was totally manipulated without realizing it. So, you know, they don’t want too many people in the full knowledge of what is going on.
RM: So, for the sake of maybe a little bit of repetition from a lot of your past work, let’s talk about say a handful of the top manipulators and then give us maybe a portrait of maybe a handful of people who think they are in control but are not, and are actually being manipulated. Because a lot of times we confuse the two—the public at large, who are into the Conspiracy Theory, will confuse the two. I mean, if that is a fair thing to say.
DI: Well, the people who are really, full in total knowledge of what is going on, you hardly see them. I mean you can see them, now and again, in the form of people like the Rothschild’s, people like that. But they are what I call the shadow people; they operate completely in the background.
RM: Within the next layer.
DI: Everyone in the pyramid or interconnected pyramids below those shadow people in full knowledge, they are all expendable, all of them. So, you have the here-today gone-tomorrow politicians who come in; they are apparently in power for a certain time and then they leave. Then someone else comes in and they are in power for a certain time and then they leave. What doesn’t change is the unfolding agenda. Why? Because there is one force that doesn’t come and go. That’s the one I’m talking about.
RM: Right.
DI: People are now starting to—for a long time they have instinctively felt it—but now it is becoming more conscious. It doesn’t matter who you vote for because nothing ever changes.
RM: Right.
DI: Why? It doesn’t matter who you vote for because the same force stays in power. So, when you get to people like father George Bush, he will be much more in the know; people like Kissinger will be very much more in the know than the general run of politicians like Gordon Brown, the here-today very gone tomorrow Prime Minister of Britain, currently. Tony Blair will be more in the know, but not enough to know the full big picture of what is behind it. It is a pyramid of manipulation that mirrors secret societies like the Freemasons. There was a guy called Jim Shaw who wrote a book some years ago, now. He was a rabid Freemason who went up the 33 degrees of the Scottish right. And, by the time he got to the top he still thought the Free Masons were about certain things, philanthropic things.
RM: Community endeavors.
DI: Yeah. He realized that it was good for business and it was good for your career, but he didn’t see anything really malevolent about it. But what he did see as he went up is as he went up the degrees what he was told at the lower levels was changed constantly. Oh no. That’s what you learned there; this is the real story. But, no. no. This is the real story. No. This is the real story . . . to the point where he was at that supreme headquarters of the 33rd degree in Washington, D.C., just down from the White House, where they have the two symbolic sphinxes outside and the big rising sun and the pillars. It is like some kind of Greek/Egyptian temple. And he went there to be initiated into the 33 degree, and he said there were—he never named them—but he said there were former presidents there; there were famous television evangelists there, and all these people. Then he said at the end of it a friend of his, who was also initiated into the 33rd degree, said to him they have said I’m going higher. And, of course, he’s going what do you mean higher?
There are only 33 degrees. Well, he realized, suddenly, there weren’t [only 33 degrees]. And he said my friend left through a different door of this temple than I did. So, he started to then question the whole thing and started then trying to expose the fact that Freemasonry, as he learned more, was not what he thought it was, and he got to the 33 degree! Now, if you transfer that structure to mainstream society and politics and business and banking, you’ve got exactly the same situation.
RM: They leave through a different door.
DI: Yeah, and we have the secret societies and they feed out of the top—of their official top maximum—into another pyramid, which I call the Illuminati Pyramid, and that his fiercely hierarchal and compartmentalized, as well, and that is where the action is. I mean these [gesturing lower in pyramid] are used to manipulate society and put people in different levels of jobs and power, but this [the top] is where the action is, and these are the shadow people. And then you’ve got the political pyramids, so down here somewhere you’ll meet the Prime Ministers, the Presidents and the Secretaries of State. In the military one you’ve got the Secretary of NATO, and all these things.
Some of them will be from the bloodline families and if they are they will be much more in the know of the bigger picture because they might be representatives from this pyramid [pointing to one side] actually in these positions of power. But most of them will be in different levels of bewilderment and be unaware of the big picture that they are part of. Because for the few to control the many very, very few people have to understand what the game is because then you can get elements of the many to enslave the many without realizing that is what they are doing. They appeal to things like to get people to do what they want they appeal to their desire for power—or apparent power—they look at their desire for money and prestige and position. If they can’t get them that way they will look at their sexual persuasions and what have you and make sure that they are catered for and it is filmed and all the rest of it.
And so hey, you know that policy that you don’t want to push through—have a look at that [trap] and then give me a call. All these things are done, depending on the personality, to control those people in the apparent positions of power, when the real power is here [levels above], and that is what you never see.
RM: Looking at the bigger game, you already mentioned the Rothschild’s, and we are looking at a game where certainly the U. S. and British economies are coming unraveled. Europe is having troubles, even the Far East. Let’s say the world economies are becoming unraveled. Is unraveled even the right thing to say, or is this very much by design?
DI: Totally by design.
RM: There is road-kill and there are the vultures circling. We already know the taxpayers are the road-kill. Who else is the road-kill in this, and who is circling? Who is gleeful?
DI: What I present in my talks are what I call coordinates. The world seems extremely complex and bewildering and chaotic and what’s going on? But when you’ve got the coordinates, then suddenly ah ha, yes! See where it goes. Those coordinates, the basic ones anyway, are where is the world being taken? And what are the techniques being used to take us there? Once you have got those two a lot of this chaos and confusion starts to fade and clarity starts to emerge. Take the first coordinate: Where do they want to take us? They want a centralized global state with a world government, world central bank, world currency—electronic—no currencies in terms of cash—just one electronic world currency, a world army to impose the will of the world government, and a microchip population.
That is where they want to take us. Now, the techniques used to take us there are what I call Problem-Reaction-Solution: Create the problem; offer the solution. Without the problem, the solution would get a lot of opposition and could not have the justification of being introduced. But now, because of the problem, OK, we don’t like it but we’ve got to solve the problem so we’ll accept it. And the other way is what I call the Totalitarian Tip-Toe, where they go where they long plan to go right from the start, but they do it in steps not so big that people will notice vast change--that’s changing now; we’re moving faster—enough to keep the people in check in terms of their opposition, and looking up from the game show and saying what’s going on?
RM: Roll it out slowly.
DI: Yeah, but as quick as you can and as big as you can, but not so big that you create a big reaction. So, when you put all these things together we are seeing in all these different areas of this structure that they’ve run that I have just described are problems being created, engineered to bring about the solutions, which is the steppingstone move towards this structure. If you take the financial situation now, people think that a stock market crash is a bad thing for everybody in finance. No it is not. If you know it is coming because you are going to cause it, you get out of the market at the highest point and then you crash it and you get back in the market at the lowest point. You have vastly increased your wealth and you have vastly increased your control. This has been going on all the time. So, in the 1929 Crash and the Great Depression that followed was a manipulated crash. If you look at the number of banks that there were before the crash and the number of banks afterwards, it was just dramatically fewer afterwards than it was before because the big boys have now taken that market and taken that control. Of course, as this moves on you move from a stage of big fish eating small fish, to big fish eating medium fish. Now we’re having big fish consumed by mega fish, if you like—really big investment houses and banks being taken over by mega banks.
RM: I just read one comment in a report today and it was a comment where the financial analyst was saying that Goldman Sachs are going to “have”—they call it have the regional banks for lunch, now.
DI: Goldman Sachs is going to have the regional banks for lunch; that is quite right. But let’s look at Goldman Sachs.
RM: I mean I was just using that as an example.
DI: Yeah. But let’s look at that because it is very relevant to what is going on. What you have in this network, this web of control, or these pyramids of control, however you want to symbolize it, where the same force controls into all these at our level of society, if you like in daily experience, unconnected organizations and institutions, but if you go high enough up the pyramids you eventually meet the same people; they are all controlling the same thing. One expression of this is the revolving door, which you see all over the world but you really see it in America, between the so-called private sector and government. And this revolving door has these people moving around all the time. For instance, you look at the Bush administration’s use of Monsanto executives and employees in government and you find Monsanto—and, of course, GM Foods and all this other stuff—you see their representatives moving from Monsanto, getting government jobs in agencies that are then supposed to police Monsanto.
RM: Right.
DI: This is how the revolving door works. So, Goldman Sachs was heavily, heavily involved in the whole so-called Subprime Mortgage situation that officially triggered this economic crisis. There is a man who has worked for the Defense Department; he has worked for the White House and then he moved into banking with Goldman Sachs. He became Chairman and Chief Executive of Goldman Sachs. In 2006 he left Goldman Sachs and became U. S. Treasury Secretary, a man called Henry Paulson. The same Henry Paulson who, because there was this massive problem with the banking system because of all this debt—all the toxic debt and the credit crunch—hey, Henry, what’s your answer to it? Well, glad you asked; I’ve been thinking about it. I’ll tell you what it is, it’s let’s give 700 billion to a trillion dollars of debt taken on by the government, i.e., generation after generation of the population, and let’s give it to the banks, which I work for. And when I finish with this job, quite shortly probably, I’m going to go back there, and let’s do that. And, it is just so utterly blatant now! This is what is happening. For instance, we had the biggest British mortgage bank providing mortgages for people in Britain called The Halifax. First of all it was The Halifax Building Society, just an organization like many building societies. Then the building societies became banks. They were doing fine as building societies, but no. Banks! That completely changes the dynamics along which they work. Halifax is then taken over by the Bank of Scotland. So now we have a fusion of Halifax and the Bank of Scotland. Then we have this big bank in Britain called Lloyd’s, and it absorbed another bank called the TSB; it used to be called the Trustee Savings Bank. At this point British monopoly laws would prevent this going any further. Ah! But not when you’ve got a big credit problem and a banking crisis. Because what happened just 10 day to two weeks ago now, at the time we are doing this interview, we had the monopoly laws dropped and cast aside to allow Halifax/Bank of Scotland, which had got into financial trouble during this situation, to be absorbed by Lloyd’s/TSB. Two absorbed entities are no absorbed together, and that new mega bank currently has 41% of UK current accounts. This is where we are getting to now in this big fish eats little fish, eats big fish . . . kind of situation.
RM: Bank of America / Merrill Lynch.
DI: Yeah, but the point I would make is that if you control the game, then no matter what happens in the game you can’t lose. So, you might have a face called Merrill Lynch and you might have a face called Bank of America, but if Bank of America absorbs Merrill Lynch you still own the same thing except that your power has now moved because you’ve concentrated the power into fewer hands than were there before. But the controllers of the game, they don’t lose because they control the rules of the game. And, they keep changing the rules of the game. I mean the rules of the financial game have been dramatically changed in the last few weeks caused by this so-called sub-prime crisis, which was actually totally manipulated.
And going back to what we talked about earlier with this pyramid and it coming down the pyramid to different levels until you reach people who are playing it out without knowledge of what they are playing out—what it has been promoted as, this crisis, is the result of banking greed. And there are people who are attacking banks because they have bet on the share price falling, so they attack the bank to make the share price fall. Then they win their bet and they win millions of pounds. But, that is the greed of those people being manipulated by those who are coldly calculating from the top of the pyramid to play out and cause the crisis; they are pawns in the game. Yes there is an appeal to their greed and all that stuff and their lack of empathy with the people who suffer the consequences of their actions, but they are being used. And it is at that point that the media pick it up. Oh, it’s just greed! No. No. It is greed there that is pointed out, but what has created it and used that greed to play it out is here [the top of the pyramid]. That’s what they never talk about. When you get up to the top there all the banks fuse together. So if one goes down another one picks up that business. The same people are still there [at the top] so the only thing that changes is the centralization of power.
RM: I didn’t know until I read your recent newsletter that Bank of America is ultimately a Rothschild holding.
DI: Well, this is what they do you see; they create trusts and groups and different organizations, smoke and mirrors. This is how they hide the fact of where the power is. What the Rothschild’s have done brilliantly throughout the later part of the Twentieth Century up to now is hide the extent of their holdings. You see back in the days of the time when they were the biggest, most famous name in banking and finance they could be seen to have the power that they had. But, it is much more effective if you can control events without being seen to control events. So what they have done is work to conceal the extent of their power while not just keeping it but expanding it.
RM: Expanding it, yeah.
DI: Again, the events of the last few days and weeks, with more and more centralization of power, and banks going under and bigger banks taking them over, that Rothschild power will be even more concentrated now. They do it by front directors and nominees and trusts. Own this trust and . . . eventually it gets to the Rothschild’s. But it is so far back, often, from the bank.
RM: It would be difficult for anyone to discern.
DI: Yeah. It takes an enormous amount of research by people just to find the true owners of one bank, you know, never mind the banking system.
RM: You wrote something in your book—this is your most recent book, David Icke’s Guide to the Global Conspiracy, and I’m reading in the banking section here. This is a quote by Senator Thomas Hart Benton, who was a fierce opponent of the Bank of the United States, which was a predecessor to the Federal Reserve. His comment back then--so this would have been pre-1913, right?—was the government, itself, ceases to be independent, it ceases to be safe when the national currency is at the will of a company. The government can undertake no great enterprise, neither war nor peace, without the consent and cooperation of that company. It cannot count its revenues six months ahead without referring to the action of that company, its friendship or its enmity, its concurrence or opposition to see how far that company will permit money to be scarce or to be plentiful, how far it will let the money system go on regularly or throw it into disorder, how far it will suit their interest or policy. People are not safe when such a company has such power.
DI: In America that company is called the Federal Reserve.
RM: Exactly. So, I wanted to talk to you about the cozy relationship between the Federal Reserve and the U. S. Treasury.
DI: Well, it is just a swinging door. You see in recent times we’ve heard about a Federal Reserve bail-out of this company or that company as if it is a government bail-out. But, actually the Federal Reserve is a cartel of private banks; they are neither federal nor have any reserve. It is a total confidence trick, and if you look under government departments you won’t find the Federal Reserve in the phone book. Look under private banks you will find the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve is also being controlled by the Rothschild’s.
They manipulated its creation through people like Paul Warburg, who was a subordinate of the Rothschild’s. He was heavily, heavily involved in the creation of the Federal Reserve, a total scam. [He] manipulated Capitol Hill to bring it about, and America was never the same country after that. It wasn’t meant to be. So, the Federal Reserve is a cartel of private banks, which controls the U. S. Treasury; so, the government is controlled by a cartel of private banks; the money supply is decided by private banks. When we have a situation where there is a lot of money in circulation we have a lot of economic activity and we have what we call an economic boom because there is lots of economic activity and lots of units of exchange changing hands because they are there to change hands. You have people with lots of jobs that they are doing well, you have companies with lots of orders and things are booming. What tends to happen in times of boom is people get into more debt because they get real confident. Oh, yeah, don’t worry; we’ll barrow; we’ll have two holidays this year; we’ll have a bigger house; we’ll have a bigger car, all this stuff. It’s going really well.
RM: America has bought into it to the max through the Clinton years until now.
DI: Yeah. Exactly, and when you look back, this has been played, this scam, so many times. I call it fishing line out-fishing line back. The line goes out when private banks issue lots of money into the economy, and this is called credit / loans. That is how money comes into circulation, through private banks, overwhelmingly, giving loans. And what are loans? They are credit; they are nothing; they are figures on a screen that don’t exist except in theory. Then at a certain point when the boom has created mountains of debt for business and banks, as we have seen, and people in general, then they pull the fishing line in. And how they do that is they take money out of circulation. They bring about what is currently known as the Credit Crunch and things like that. What happens is we start to then move from a boom to a depression or a bust. People lose their jobs, they lose their houses. Companies that took out loans from banks here to get new plant machinery to meet the demand, now they have still got the loans to pay back, but the demand is gone, so they can’t pay the loans back and companies start to fall. People lose their houses in vast numbers, etc. Who gets all that wealth that does exist? It’s the banks who created a situation of doing that by putting out money that doesn’t exist but for on a screen of credit. This is what economists call the Financial Cycle, as if it some kind of natural thing that unfolds. It is not; it is totally manipulated, and we are now moving from the point where the fish are in the net with all the debt, to when they are going to be trolled, and they are being trolled.
RM: But this is a more dangerous game this time, is it not, in that we are moving toward centralized banking, centralized . . . yes.
DI: Again, these coordinates—understanding these coordinates is so important because then you can start to see some clarity in the complexity, as I said. So in banking, if you want a world central bank, the world central bank is not going to be just introduced. I think it’s a good idea; let’s have a World Central Bank. We’ll all have that. No. No. You need a reason for the World Central Bank to come in, and the reason is going to be global financial chaos. see some clarity in the complexity, as I said. So in banking, if you want a world central bank, the world central bank is not going to be just introduced. I think it’s
a good idea; let’s have a World Central Bank. We’ll all have that. No. No. You need a reason for the World Central Bank to come in, and the reason is going to be global financial chaos.
So what we need is a World Central Bank to bring an end to the chaos. It is just a higher level of we must introduce 700 billion dollars to buy up the banks bad debts to solve the problem of the current banking crisis, which it won’t, of course. It will exacerbate it, eventually. It is the same principle; the same thing keeps recurring because if it
works, why change it, basically?
So, we are going to be pushed along this road of more and more financial problems until, eventually, the solution they have been working towards all this time, the World Central Bank, is introduced to “solve” it, bring a solution to it. Now, at the same time, going along another route towards another aspect of this structure, the World Army, we are going to be seeing more and more moves towards a global conflict, to say just as they have, or will, with the World Central Bank: We must have the World Central Bank to stop the problems of the global economy. It is now a globalized economy, you know, if Japan gets a cold then America sneezes. And all these bloody lies you get, stupid stuff. Therefore, we’ve got a global problem so we need a global solution . . . Ah! World Central Bank. That will solve it. This is how it works.
And in the same way, in terms of bringing about the World Army, they want conflicts, a massive conflict, a Third World War in effect, where they can then say, after it, we must stop this ever happening again. The only way we can stop this is to dismantle all national armies and bring about a World Army to insure that there will be no more conflicts of this kind. Now, if you read some of the writings of the Illuminati and some of their front men, people like Albert Pike, the infamous American Freemason and a major, major player within the secret society network of America, while he was alive. He talked about, in effect as we say in Britain, the point being reached when they will throw everything but the kitchen sink, as we say in Britain, at the people to hit them on so many levels to create fear, panic, bewilderment, chaos, and then they, as he [Pike] put it, would come forward . . .
RM: Magnanimously offer the solution. (laughing nervously)
DI: Yeah, and offer to save the people from their predicament. We are now at that point in the journey where that is now happening and it is going to continue to happen. We need to take a deep breath and reevaluate our whole outlook on life and ourselves to meet this
challenge, because they are going to be hitting us on all different levels to get us to please save us! Oh my god, save us! One of them [the ways they are hitting us] is this war. They are looking for a conflict involving North America, Europe, Russia and China.
I’ve been saying from way back now, fifteen years or so, that China is going to be brought forward as a major, major player in this whole scenario that is unfolding. And I’m not pulling that out of the ether; I have met people over the years who should know, who have told me the same story. And so now we are seeing China emerging as a massively powerful financial player, and also backing that up, a military player. Now, because everything connects to everything else, because it is an interconnected web, who I am now reading is the major holder of American debt? China.
RM: China. Yes.
DI: Where will Paulson and his crowd go to try to raise this money to give to their own banks? It is going to increase the indebtedness of America, and they are going to be passing it off again in even greater amounts to China, who are taking over America by stealth—and the wider world. I mean they are absolutely physically taking over Africa, the Chinese Government.
RM: Yes.
DI: This is where we are moving. Now, let’s go back to Henry Paulson, this save-the-world-for-the people Treasury Secretary. He is, of almost all world bankers of any level, the most connected and closest to China. He has made at least 100 trips to China discussing the whole financial, banking situation with the high and mighty there. That is not an insignificant coincidence. It’s all moving in this direction.
We’re going to see China more and more brought forward and eventually brought into some kind of conflict, which will then be the Third World War, maybe come out of the Middle East. Who knows? This will then justify the World Army and the World Government and this whole structure to stop it from ever happening again. And all it is is (sic) a higher level or version of the First World War and the Second World War. After the First World War power was in dramatically fewer hands than it was before, even fewer hands after the Second World War; the idea is to complete the job with the Third World War.
This is why a complete consciousness change is necessary in people to start seeing the world and themselves in a different way, because the only way that a few can control the many is if the many control each other or give their power away to the few. Now, all those
things are happening.
As they said in the 60’s, if they had a war and no one turned up, what would happen? There could be no war. You know Bush and people like him, and those that control him, they declare wars; they don’t fight them.
They get the population to fight them; this is the whole thing. Now, if the population refused to there couldn’t be a war. As Einstein said you cannot solve problems from the same level of consciousness that created them. Well, you can’t become free with the level of consciousness that enslaved you. So, there has to be a shift in consciousness and if there is not then nothing can change.
End of Interview Section
________________________
I performed a spell check here that changed many words from the original PDF.
