A Room 101 Interview with Richard Thomas

Henry Baum of henrybaum.com turns the tables on me and asks me some questions about my new book PARA-NEWS - UFOs, Conspiracy Theories, Cryptozoology and much much more published by Bretwalda Books.

Henry Baum: Hey Richard,

As I mentioned on Facebook, one of the major things that struck me about your book was the references to Alex Jones, and these are questions that have been gnawing at me, so I hope you don't mind the focus. I get pretty long-winded here, hope that's not a problem...

On with the questions …

In your book, you frequently raise the spectre of Alex Jones and his ideas on eugenics, the New World Order, and so on. Personally, I take some issue with Alex Jones for a few reasons, and I wonder if you could address them. The main thing that leaps out about Alex Jones is that he never raises the UFO issue - you actually interview someone at Infowars who seems pretty disinterested in the whole subject. This seems like a fairly impossible assertion to make - it's pretty clear that there is something going on with the UFO issue, if only because the government's explanation for many sightings is so suspiciously stupid. If that's the case, and there is also a conspiracy to bring about a New World Order, then the two cannot be separated. When you look through at the NWO through the lens of the UFO issue then the NWO makes more sense - not just a way to aimlessly enslave us, but perhaps to make the population more controllable in the event of first contact. Do you think that's a possibility?

Richard Thomas: I've been following Alex Jones off and on since about 2000 when I saw him in an episode of Jon Ronson's Secret Rulers of the World series for Channel Four. He's had a big impact on the way I see the world and interpret world events. However, I do agree that he is missing a huge piece of the puzzle by not looking at the UFO topic in more depth. That said, trying to get the average person to accept that the Bilderberg Group really does exist is hard enough … so I can understand why Alex Jones doesn't cover the topic as much as UFO researchers would like him to.

More recently, however, I have noticed that Alex is talking about UFOs a lot more on his radio show. Here you can listen to him and David Icke talk about Project Blue Beam.

I myself believe that the globalists will use any crisis be it real or manufactured to further their goal of a one world government, be it global warming, terrorism, Colonel Gaddafi, or yes, UFOs.

A lot of UFO researchers tend to romanticise what they call “Disclosure”, the day when the world is finally told the truth (whatever that is) about what the US government and others really know about UFOs. I'm more cautious. I think if Disclosure ever really does occur (and that's a big if) we have to be careful that the existence of extraterrestrials or whatever isn't used as a justification to turn the world into a giant police state. Rahm Emanuel said "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste" and his words sum up the mentality of the globalists perfectly.

Henry Baum: I guess another way of saying this is that what he sees as nefarious might actually have a purpose. Granted, the way they're going about globalization is a total nightmare. I just can't shed the feeling that they have a grander plan than just profit or enslavement. I mean if you have a billion dollars, what's 2 billion? Maybe they're just addicts, I don't know. But I also think all that profit might be going to black projects - sort of like the arks in the otherwise-terrible "2012" movie. That's not a way of excusing them, but just saying that there's more purpose to this than enslavement for the hell of it. Of course. Hitler had a "purpose" too, so there's a lot to be wary of. In sum: do you think it's possible that a one-world government could - in the very long term - potentially be positive?

Richard Thomas: No I don't. Let's say just for the sake of argument that the globalists have a higher purpose of some kind for what they're doing. Maybe they know about a fleet of marauding alien spaceships heading for Earth like in the film Independence Day or something like that, and the reason they want a world government and world army is so that the Earth will be able to defend itself against the alien invaders. That doesn't change the fact that we'll still be living inside a giant dictatorship created in stealth … maybe we would be better off under the aliens, lol.

But seriously even if the globalists were honest and open about what they were doing, and openly said they wanted to create a world government but it's okay because it's going to be a democratic one, I would still be very against the idea. I don't believe something the size of a world government could function as a democracy and it wouldn't be long before it became a dictatorship. Which is why I believe a world government and even the European Union are bad ideas to begin with.

Henry Baum: I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit because the globalists have really tipped their hand about the kind of world they want and it's a bad one. But for the sake of argument - say there was disclosure of an alien that was totally benign. Given the state of the world, releasing this info could be apocalyptic. If people get this upset about sharia law and illegal immigrants, what will the American public - let alone Middle Eastern terrorists - do with a literal alien? Seen through the lens of disclosure, the Patriot Act makes more sense. Not just to stop terrorism in 2011, but to keep an eye on the total global freakout that could be coming. I'm not longing for a police state or anything, but supposing 1% of what we know about the UFO is true - that amounts to a massive amount of world-changing information. Everything that's happened - 9-11, the war in Iraq, and so on - takes on a new meaning. So I wonder if those romantics about disclosure would trade some of their liberty for the big reveal if it meant finally getting some answers to the UFO enigma.

What's always troubled me is that people like Bush Sr. or Dick Cheney are the ones who are more likely to know the story behind UFO secrecy. There's a strange alignment between UFO secrecy and right wing ideology. Do you think it's possible to have disclosure without the world turning into a police state - given the impact it would have on religious ideology and technology?

Richard Thomas: Well it depends what we're told. Not everyone is convinced we're dealing with aliens from outer space. But if we are I suppose if they were “totally benign” and no threat it is possible to have Disclosure without the world turning into a police state. But if they're not. No I don't think it looks good. After 9/11 many people were willing to give up their civil liberties to fight a couple Islamic terrorists, imagine what they would be willing to do to combat a threat from outer space. But this is all just speculation.

Henry Baum: I also wonder about his ideas on Christianity. In his Bohemian Grove video, he points out that the men are sinister because they worship "the occult." He's even targeted Peter Joseph of "Zeitgeist" for being part of the New Age conspiracy, as if Christianity is the one true faith. If you watch "Zeitgeist" or "The God Who Wasn't There" it's pretty clear that the story of Christianity is fabricated. So Alex Jones believes in many conspiracies except one of the biggest: the fabrication of the Jesus story. Personally, I'd rather there be a universal religion than saying this one book (which advocates stoning heretics, among other things) is the be all end all of religious principles. What's your view of spirituality as it pertains to the NWO, or even to UFOs?

Richard Thomas: There's no question that early Christianity was hijacked by the Roman Empire. Christmas is as about as Christian as Halloween, December 25 was an important day to pagans. But I still celebrate it and I believe everyone has the right to believe, think, say, or do as they please as long as they don't knowingly lie or physically try to hurt anybody else.

Henry Baum: Finally, I wonder about things like population control. Studying population growth is not the same thing as advocating genocide, nor is advocating birth control. Planned Parenthood isn't evil - as he says in "Endgame" (which you reference). The Bilderberg conference might be totally sinister, but on the surface a bunch of powerful people all getting together to discuss the state of the world makes sense - why wouldn't they do that? I'm not even going to get into Global Warming science, as that's so loaded. I guess I never see in him any possible solutions - just a lot of paranoia about people who are looking for solutions. Certainly, some of these people are evil, but not all. Plainly our world is disordered, so people looking for a (lowercase) new world order might not all be dangerous.

I'm beginning to sound like a fat-cat apologist. It absolutely pisses me off that Obama and Bush are so identical and the wealthy elite are profiting off the backs of everyone else and raping the planet. They really seem to be sowing the seeds of disorder, rather than sustainability. If you're not paranoid, you're not paying attention. Jones' answer is to support Ron and Rand Paul - which I don't see as feasible. Giving corporations even more power via deregulation isn't the solution - i.e. Big Business isn't any better than Big Government. So I'm wondering what your ideal system would be, politically or economically.

Richard Thomas: Well my main problem with the Bilderburg Group is that most people have never even heard about them. I don't think that many powerful people should be allowed to meet in secret once a year and nothing be said about it in the media. Thankfully because of the hard work of dedicated researchers and activists around the world that is starting to change.

I get what you're saying about birth control etc, but there's no question that population reduction seems to be a big part of the globalist agenda. You just have to look at the comments of people like Prince Philip or Ted Turner and others.

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."

- Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, in the foreword to If I Were an Animal 

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

- Ted Turner, founder of CNN 

"And I actually think the world will be much better when there's only 10 or 20 percent of us left."

- Dr Eric Pianka, University of Texas biologist

What kind of system would I like?

First I think it's important to stress I don't believe in Utopia. There's no such thing, you'll never have a perfect world and every attempt at creating one has always led to mass slaughter and tyranny. I think we need to recognise that first.

I think the founders of the United States had some good ideas. Things like a written constitution that protected the freedom of speech and other rights of the people, and an educated, informed public who could understand what that constitution said. Now, of course, even the early United States had its problems, slavery being a big one. But I think that's a good place to start. But if readers want to disagree with me … great … it's called freedom. Hopefully, we can all agree on that.

Richard's new ebook PARA-NEWS - UFOs, Conspiracy Theories, Cryptozoology and much much more is available on Amazon US and Amazon UK.

Also, please 'like' the Para-News Facebook page.

READ RICHARD'S ROOM 101 COLUMN FOR BINNALL OF AMERICA

A Room 101 Interview with Steve Watson

Steve Watson is the webmaster for independent journalist, political activist and documentary filmmaker Alex Jones at Infowars.net. He is also a regular contributor to and editor of Jones' Prisonplanet.com. Holding a BA Degree in Literature and a Master's Degree in International Relations, Steve and his brother Paul Watson first became aware of Alex Jones after watching Jon Ronson's Channel Four documentary series: The Secret Rulers of the World. In 2005 both brothers appeared in Alex Jones' documentary film Terrorstorm.

Richard Thomas: Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions mate, I'm sure you're constantly busy so it's really appreciated.

Have you always been interested in what the mainstream media like to dismiss as “conspiracy theories” or was there a particular book, documentary etc that first caught your attention and things developed from there?

Steve Watson: I was always interested in alternative theories and questioning the accepted version of the truth regarding major historical and political events. I remember when I was in school, about 13 years old, my history teacher (who was also my brother's history teacher) would show video of the JFK assassination and would raise questions over the government's explanation of what happened. That stuff wasn't even part of our curriculum - we were supposed to be learning about the Second World War - but before the lessons began, as we filtered into the classroom, he would be playing these videos and telling us about the facts and discrepancies of the lone gunman explanation - I'm certain that prompted me into exploring things more and looking for alternative explanations and I thank him for that.

Richard Thomas: How was it that you and your brother, two “red coats,” started writing for Alex Jones' website infowars.com?

Steve Watson: We both saw Alex on a British documentary called Secret Rulers of The World made by Jon Ronson, who went on to write The Men Who Stare At Goats. It was 2000, when Alex infiltrated The Bohemian Grove. We began listening to his radio show on the internet, Paul started up his website and his own radio show, as Alex always encourages his listeners to do. I began helping him with the website and eventually it got popular enough for Alex to notice it. He liked what he saw and asked Paul to write for him and create the websites that became Prisonplanet.com and Prisonplanet.tv. I was studying at university during this time, but I kept contributing and helping out and in 2005 when I finished studying, Alex brought me in full-time.

Richard Thomas: What do you think the biggest misconception is towards people interested in the kind of topics you cover at infowars.com?

Steve Watson: That we are pushing a one-sided political viewpoint like the mainstream media does. Left and right is part of the same control system, anyone who looks at what we do for long enough will see that.

Richard Thomas: I noticed your brother goes by “Number 6” and I've heard the classic 1960s Doctor Who theme more than a few time on the Alex Jones Show. Are you, your brother and Alex Jones big science-fiction fans, and if so what are some of your favourite shows/films/novels etc?

Steve Watson: I am not particularly a science fiction fan (sorry!). In terms of entertainment culture I am a fan of anything stimulating and thought-provoking, no matter what genre of entertainment it belongs to. In relation to science fiction, Patrick McGoohan's The Prisoner fits into that category for me, as does the writing of Philip K. Dick and some of John Carpenter's films. I can't say I like Dr Who at all, especially in its modern incarnation. I think Alex just uses the theme tune because it sounds good!

Richard Thomas: About 90% of what Alex Jones talks about seems to be based directly on what governments have already openly admitted to. In light of this what do you think the most disturbing document you've ever come across is?

Steve Watson: The ones that relate to biowarfare and eugenics. There are countless examples of the US government having illegally tested and used bio-weapons on its own citizens. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, The Program F fluoride study, Project SHAD which used live toxins and chemical poisons on American servicemen on American soil, spraying clouds of bacteria over San Francisco, releasing toxic gases into the New York subway, holding open-air biological and chemical weapons tests in at least four states in the 1960s, the list goes on. These are only a few examples of what has become public knowledge. Then there are documents like the 1974 declassified document of the National Security Council, entitled "The Implications of World-wide Population Growth on the Security and External Interests of the United States" in which Henry Kissinger calls for programs of sterilization and depopulation in the third world in return for increased aid. John P. Holdren's Eco-Science is another eugenicist's masterpiece. The most disturbing material is covered in Alex Jones' film Endgame.

Richard Thomas: Did you vote in the recent General Election? And what, if anything, do you think the result showed?

Steve Watson: Yes I did, though I didn't expect anything to change because all three candidates are establishment career politicians with broadly the same agendas. The result showed that people are utterly sick of the political system in the UK. The relatively high turnout also showed that people are desperate for some meaningful political change. Some people say everyone should stop voting in protest - I don't think that would achieve a great deal other than devaluing our right to vote. You have to effect change from the bottom up, that means ensuring the right candidates win locally. Though there is a great deal of optimism in our movement, there is also a great deal of defeatism - I mean people declaring that it doesn't matter whether they vote or not because everything is controlled and manipulated by the powers that be. Power is as much a state of mind as it is an actuality.

Richard Thomas: What role, if any, do you think the British Royal family plays in the New World Order?

Steve Watson: They represent an elite bloodline that has for centuries declared itself as God's appointed rulers over half of the planet, killing, torturing and maiming anyone who crosses it in order to hold on to that mantle. Are we supposed to believe they've had a sudden change of heart? Today many people in Britain suggest that these facts are no long relevant because the royal family has very little power. This is a huge myth. The Queen is the head of state and as such she can simply replace the British government at any time she chooses, should she wish to do so. The royal family still owns vast swathes of land throughout Britain and the rest of the world, and the Queen still presides as head of state in Canada and Australia. They also exert influence on the global stage through groups, bodies and corporations they charter and provide patronage to.

Richard Thomas: Why do you think Russia Today is the only mainstream media channel to take subjects like the recent Bilderberg meeting in Spain seriously?

Steve Watson: I understand why you ask this question, but I don't believe it is. This year there was much more mainstream media coverage of the meeting this year, though it takes someone like Charlie Skelton to approach it from out of leftfield for it to get into mainstream sources such as the London Guardian. Russia Today has become a prominent news provider because it has embraced the internet, while much of the mainstream resides in dinosaur land.

Richard Thomas: How long, if ever, do you think it'll be before the BBC are forced to let serious 9/11 researchers and climate sceptics on shows like Question Time?

Steve Watson: Never. The BBC is a state-controlled propaganda machine. If you buy a TV or any form of television receiving equipment in the UK you have to pay for the BBC by law. If you gave the British people a choice of whether to pay for the BBC or not, as part of a subscription deal for example - which should happen because it has violated it's charter over and over again - the majority would opt out and the BBC would cease to exist - simple as that.

Richard Thomas: I know Alex Jones doesn't discuss them much on his show, but what's your take on UFOs?

Steve Watson: It's a very broad subject, and I'm no expert. Some of the research into the topic is interesting, some of it is useless and ridiculous from what I've seen. I've never personally seen a UFO, but my gut feeling is that some are advanced military technology and the others are natural phenomena. That doesn't mean I don't believe there isn't life on other planets though - of course there is.

Richard Thomas: Thanks again mate, where can people contact you and read your articles? (Please feel free to plug anything you like here mate)

Steve Watson: prisonplanet.com, my MySpace page, and the news website of syndicated radio host Alex Jones - because there's a war on for your mind!

READ RICHARD'S ROOM 101 COLUMN FOR BINNALL OF AMERICA

H G Wells and the New World Order - Richard's Room 101

When I first started writing this column, I said that I wanted to concentrate on the world of parapolitics and conspiracy theories: subjects like the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations; 9/11 truth; secret societies; and, of course, the New World Order. However, after a particularly popular piece on the RFK assassination ("Manchurian Candidates," Mind Control Experiments and Assassinations), we seem to have spent a bit too much time on the neighbouring field of UFOs.

 

So this fortnight will mark the beginning of a conscious effort on my part to take Room 101 back to its conspiratorial roots. We begin with a piece on a man who was a big hero of mine growing up, but after watching Alex Jones's Endgame and doing some of my own research, I am much more unsure of ... science fiction god and leading futurist of his day H G Wells. For those unaware, Wells was the author of all-time science fiction classics like The Time Machine, The Invisible Man, The Island Of Doctor Monroe and, of course, The War of the Worlds.

  

"Countless people will hate the New World Order and will die protesting against it."  -- H G Wells The New World Order (1940)

  

This genuinely chilling quote is the ominous opening to Jones' Endgame. To the informed, the very words "New World Order" alone should be enough to send a shiver down the spine but what makes this quote - which could so easily be mistaken for coming from the pages of Hitler's Mein Kampf - all the more frightening is the fact that it came from a man still so wildly respected and admired even today as a true visionary like H G Wells.

 But what is the New World Order anyway and what did Wells mean by the phrase? My own understanding is that the term "New World Order" refers to a proposed future world government or pan-Earth union. The first truly global empire that would include and supplement all the nations of the world and, conspiracy researchers say, be ruled by a tiny oligarchy of enlightened elites who know what is best for us.

If this nightmare future ever unfolds, at best, it would be as if mankind were reduced to being no more than perpetual children, forever under the governorship of a benevolent parent never truly allowed to grow up and make our own choices in life. However, if human history is anything to go by, it would probably be far worse than that ... benevolent dictators are somewhat of a rarity whereas abuse of power and tyrants are commonplace. Whatever the case, though, the New World Order would mean the complete end to what we now call freedom and, very sadly, in my opinion, this is pretty much exactly what Wells calls for in his book of the same name.

 The road to Hell is often paved with good intentions and Wells' The New World Order is perhaps an excellent example of this. Spurred on by the tragedy and horrors of the Great War and the beginning of a new war with a revived Germany, Wells makes a strong argument for ending the reign of the nation-states and creating in their place a new "world state" (the New World Order) to unite and rule all the diverse peoples of the globe. A new "world peace" not all that different to the Roman peace of two millennia ago, ending war once and for all by force. Where national sovereignty is a ghost and any nation or person who disturbs the "World Pax" is dealt with "brutally and completely" by a "world police."

 Much of what Wells calls for in The New World Order sounds reasonable and sensible enough: an end to war, discrimination and unemployment. But the ends don't justify the means. It is and will always be immoral to force all the world's nations and people into bowing to the demands of a global empire. No matter how elegantly disguised Wells may put it.

Even now in the 21st century, there are parts of The New World Order that make for some genuinely troubling and even scary reading. For instance, Wells shows nothing but disrespect for the US Constitution, America's most sacred and important founding document: "I do not know how sane men in America are going to set about relaxing the stranglehold of the Constitution ... and pull America into line with the reconstruction of the rest of the world." But this is nothing compared to Wells' dark vision of a world disarmament police."

Incredibly, Wells makes the astonishing demand that the whole world, not just ordinary citizens but the nations themselves too, should be forcibly disarmed...everyone except the "world peace" enforcers of course:

"The world has a right to insist that not simply some German government but the people generally recognise unequivocally and repeatedly, the rights of man asserted in the Declaration, and it is disarmed and that any aggressive plant, any warplane, warship, gun or arsenal that is discovered in the country shall be destroyed forthwith, brutally and completely. But that is a thing that should not be confined to Germany. Germany should not be singled out for that. Armament should be illegality everywhere, and some sort of international force should patrol a treaty-bound world." 

A disarmed world totally at the mercy of a single global authority is an obvious formula for abuse and tyranny. Even Wells is forced to admit this danger: ''Its chief dangers are the dogmatist and the would-be 'leader' who will try to suppress every collateral line of work which does not minister to his supremacy." But the international force of young, uneducated thugs, totally loyal to the "world state" Wells envisions policing the globe sound especially dangerous: 

  

"A sturdy and assertive variety of the new young will be needed for the police work of the world. They will be more disposed for authority and less teaching or creative activities than their fellows. The old proverb will still hold for the new order that it takes all sorts to make a world, and the alternative to driving this type of temperament into conspiracy and fighting it and, if you can, suppressing it, is to employ it, win it over, trust it, and give it law behind it to respect and enforce. They want a loyalty and this loyalty will find its best use and satisfaction in the service of world order." 

 

Interestingly, ever the futurist, Wells predicted (somewhat accurately) that this "world police" force would be largely air based: "It is not unreasonable to anticipate the development of an ad hoc disarmament police which will have its greatest strength in the air." Perhaps darkly foreshadowing the many examples of "strategic bombing" of so-called rouge states and terrorists we have seen in recent years. 

  

There is so much more in The New World Order we could discuss but the bottom line has to be that any peace brought about by force is no peace at all. War is not peace and a "World Pax" can hardly be considered freedom.

  

One more thought. When you take on board Wells' New World Order ideas, new and darker interpretations of his writings become possible. Here is the famous beginning of The War of the Worlds: 

  

"No one would have believed in the last years of the nineteenth century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's and yet as mortal as his own; that as men busied themselves about their various concerns, they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water... Yet across the gulf of space, minds that are to our minds as ours are to those of the beasts that perish, intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this Earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us." 

  

Was Wells really using the Martians as an allegory for colonialism as is widely believed or could the Martians represent something else? The architects of the New World Order perhaps? Read The New World Order with The War of the Worlds and decide for yourself.

READ RICHARD'S ROOM 101 COLUMN FOR BINNALL OF AMERICA