Andy Thomas's A Conspiracy History of the World

Richard Stanley

Well-Known Member
Given the scope of historical time covered, this is a remarkably coherent and concise presentation given at a 2013 Denmark Open Mind Conference. I apologize if it has been posted on the site before, but I don't remember seeing it.

In any case, with only a few minor quibbles, this is in line with my views. It is an 1 hour and 40 minute survey of two millennia of numerous conspiracy claims, starting with Nero's (false flag) burning (of) Rome. He doesn't overtly suggest that there is one thread that links these together as I do, but it seems like he might agree. He likes to focus on event highlights that allow for common agreement, as opposed to arguing about relatively minor details.

In any case, throughout is a nice presentation of the false flag tactic, and implies just how well it was understood by those who practice it.

He only toyed with who might be at the top, and as a Brit he mentioned possibly the Queen. But I believe this issue is more distributed, including those who control the Mother Church. He discussed the false flag nature of the Guy Fawkes Rebellion, and here I believe that the Mother Church perfectly understood this was all part of the deception.

There is also a brief discussion of Zbigniew Brzezinski's role, including a pic of him with Osama bin Ladin. The title of Zbig's book, The Grand Chessboard, begins to evoke a common thread, but one yet has to be able to imagine the players not being concerned with national boundaries. Yet that is exactly what a chessgame is in comparison to reality.

 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Andy Thomas's conspiracy history of the world is also covered in this book:

The Truth Agenda (2009, revised 2013)

And this blurb:

https://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-ruling-elite

Something too often missed in all the conspiracy speculation is the realisation that if we are being governed by a powerful cabal trying to twist the world to its own ends, then we are still essentially dealing with fellow human beings (putting ET/reptilian bloodline theories aside for a moment).

Like every other person on the planet, they must have physical, social and emotional needs, even if the latter faculty may be too easily set aside in the kind of mind that would plan 9/11-type scenarios (an event widely suspected to have been deliberately staged by Western sources as part of a march towards the ‘New World Order’). The personalities involved must have loved ones of their own, and experience thoughts, feelings and cares in at least some directions. They also, like most of us in our lives, probably think they are doing the right thing, however much we may see their schemes as misguided.

This is an important point. We all have reasons for doing what we do, and can often justify actions to ourselves in the face of serious challenges from the outside. Hard though it may be to comprehend, the motivation of those who might think that wiping out their own people would be a positive move, or who believe that planning wars and economic breakdowns to effect the creation of a unifying world government is an acceptable strategy, the fact is that many seemingly well-intentioned visionaries throughout history have voiced the need for such approaches. This does not make them right, of course, but there is plainly a significant, if small, seam of humanity that believes a bigger picture should be put before the needs of the masses. Those who have expressed support for eugenics and depopulation strategies, for instance, often have deep-seated environmental concerns or feel strongly that we have lost our balance with nature and must put the planet’s future ahead of the requirements of the common people.

[....]

The problem with global cover-ups is that they arrive and build up – as deception does so often for all of us – through a lack of honesty largely sparked by the fear of what people might think or do if they were to perceive the true vulnerability within. The elite appears to fear us and our reactions as much as we may fear it – otherwise it would not need to manipulate and control. Many disingenuous actions are borne of inner psychosis; a lack of trust that other people will understand. Our leaders appear to have got so used to playing deceptive games that they cannot now operate any other strategy. Everything from the banking system to Parliamentary administration appears to be based on subterfuge. Right now we are clearly not trusted by those affecting our lives so strongly and as a result we do not trust them.

[.....]

The presumption is often made that the very existence of a ruling elite means that those involved must be all-powerful and of one mind, accurately manipulating domino events that hit the required spot every time, all to a predetermined agenda. But this may apportion them an unwarranted infallibility.

There is evidence to show that there are factions and disputes within the echelons of those with great influence over our lives. After all, the world is a big and complex place. Even with a general agreement on how it should move forward, the pressures of regional needs and personal biases are almost certain to blur the clarity of purpose from time to time. Going on the word that does sneak out from Bilderberg meetings and the suchlike, it seems that as many disagreements, compromises and negotiations arise there as within any supposedly democratic Parliament. If this weren’t the case, the meetings would not presumably need to take place, so pre-orchestrated would the scheming be.
 

Seeker

Active Member
the false flag nature of the Guy Fawkes Rebellion
Since Guy Fawkes Day/Night is coming up shortly, let us start with the basics- "Guy"(regular, ordinary fellow) "Fawkes" (Faux, false, fake). Were Guy Fawkes and the other conspirators actually government agents and/or patsies, and "Guy Fawkes" a "fake guy", using the fake name "John Johnson" when caught, to further leave untraceable bread crumbs? Of course, if Guy and the other condemned plotters were allowed to escape, who took their places for their grisly public demise? Were other condemned prisoners drugged and substituted, not really knowing what was going on? Incidentally, Andy Thomas does have a personal interest in this "plot", as his hometown is Lewes, Sussex, "the bonfire capital of the world". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewes_Bonfire
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Were Guy Fawkes and the other conspirators actually government agents and/or patsies, and "Guy Fawkes" a "fake guy", using the fake name "John Johnson" when caught, to further leave untraceable bread crumbs?
These are good questions. Where can we find answers? If indeed "Guy Fawkes" / "John Johnson" was the most obvious fake, perhaps his function was to entrap and incriminate the other conspirators, and eliminate them as threats to the King?
 

Seeker

Active Member
If indeed "Guy Fawkes" / "John Johnson" was the most obvious fake, perhaps his function was to entrap and incriminate the other conspirators, and eliminate them as threats to the King?
Obviously Richard and also Andy Thomas thought all was not right here, and you are right, Guy Fawkes seems the most obvious fake. As you know, Robert Catesby was the actual instigator of the plot, and yet most of the posthumous attention seems to center on Guy, because he was in the wrong/right place at the wrong/right time, and he is even a hero now (popularized by the film "V for Vendetta") to the anti-establishment. Were Robert and fellow conspirator Thomas Percy (who leased the cellar underneath Parliament) double crossed by Fawkes (who was pretending to be Percy's servant "John Johnson"), or by someone even much higher up? As a Scottish "transplant", King James was looking to bolster his popularity with the English people, and could have used Roman Catholics and Jesuits as a scapegoat (or controlled opposition) to achieve that end, and also as a subtle warning not to mess with him.
 

Seeker

Active Member
As a Scottish "transplant", King James was looking to bolster his popularity with the English people, and could have used Roman Catholics and Jesuits as a scapegoat (or controlled opposition) to achieve that end, and also as a subtle warning not to mess with him.
This seems to be somewhat overlooked in connection with the Gunpowder Plot, but Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, the presumed father of King James, was alleged to have been killed as the result of a "Gunpowder Plot" himself, which may have increased the anxiety and overreaction of his son about assassination plots against his own life, perhaps leading him to create his own "plot", to flush out possible conspirators. James may well have come up with the idea of a "Guy Fawkes" (phony fall guy) himself.
 

Seeker

Active Member
I wish to acknowledge Charles N. Pope for the following identification of "Guy Fawkes", which may at first seem to be too much of a stretch on this site. Charles has just completed his ninth book, and is taking a sabbatical over the holidays and into next year, so I wish to give credit where credit is due before I continue. He equates "Guy Fawkes" with Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wriothesley,_3rd_Earl_of_Southampton, coerced by King James to participate in the Gunpowder Plot. Southampton is supposed to have been a secret member of the royal family, and Charles is not the first to make that claim for him, he has just put his own unique spin upon it.
According to his official biography, Southampton was a soldier, just as "Fawkes" was, and was also deeply involved in a "plot", Essex's Rebellion in 1601, which would have resulted in his execution, save for the intervention of Secretary of State Sir Robert Cecil, who persuaded Queen Elizabeth I to commute his sentence to life imprisonment. He was released after the accession of King James I in 1603, and thus owed both James and Cecil, who would become the principal discoverer of the Gunpowder Plot in 1605, and the suspected agent provocateur of it, a BIG favor. Friends in high places can be a two-edged sword, however!
Perhaps just by coincidence, both Southampton and Fawkes were considered to be fine figures of men with auburn hair (echoes of the red-haired Scythian "real players"?), and Southampton was the maternal grandson of Anthony Browne, 1st Viscount Montagu, whom Fawkes (in his official biography) was part of his household of as a footman, before becoming a soldier. Guy Fawkes is conjectured to be a descendant of the Fawkes of Farnley Hall, Yorkshire, but his ancestry is only known for certain back to his grandfather, William Fawkes. Could Cecil and his associates have concocted a Fawkes identity for Southampton, with the approval of King James, utilizing known life incidents and forging documentation? If anyone could have pulled this off, they could have.
 

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Charles N. Pope ... equates "Guy Fawkes" with Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, ...
Very clever. I suppose this must imply that the alleged execution of "Fawkes" was a hoax? The Fawkes "execution" occurred in 1606, while Southampton reportedly lived until 1624.

... which may at first seem to be too much of a stretch on this site.
Not necessarily too much of a stretch. If it's true, it supports the idea that the Gunpowder Plot was a false flag.

But what's the evidence? Lots of people have red hair. It makes sense that Fawkes would have had some sort of relationship to the nobility, in order to develop the sort of intense resentment that would lead to involvement in a plot.

let us start with the basics- "Guy"(regular, ordinary fellow) "Fawkes" (Faux, false, fake).
Isn't this argument somewhat undermined by the evidence that the surname Fawkes can be traced to Guy's grandfather, a real person? The given first name "Guy" is also very popular as a name for real people.
 

Seeker

Active Member
I suppose this must imply that the alleged execution of "Fawkes" was a hoax? The Fawkes "execution" occurred in 1606, while Southampton reportedly lived until 1624.
As Charles is on an extended break, I am speaking for myself here, and most certainly can be wrong, but, as I surmised earlier, another condemned prisoner could have substituted for Guy on his "execution" date. He was the last one to be "executed" that day, the other three prisoners ahead of him were probably too terrified or concerned about their own immediately impending grisly, horrible fates to notice him closely (they were dragged separately on hurdles to the execution site), and he was supposed to have been sick and tortured anyway, presumably causing some alteration in his appearance. He was a stranger in London, the common people witnessing his execution wouldn't have known "Guy Fawkes/John Johnson", they were just there for the "show". This prisoner may have been drugged so as not to talk too much, and was quickly executed before he could, at any rate, suffering a broken neck before the following more excruciating part of the sentence could be carried out on him. True, Southampton officially lived until 1624, eventually going back to soldiering on the Continent, as "Guy" had also done.

Lots of people have red hair.
Yes, I had mentioned that as a coincidence, remembering that Richard had equated the red-headed Scythian descendants of the Nicholas de Vere supposed ancestors as "real players", so it was a superfluous comment.
Isn't this argument somewhat undermined by the evidence that the surname Fawkes can be traced to Guy's grandfather, a real person?
Indeed it would be, unless "Fawkes" itself, as I mentioned, was a "fake" code name for a branch of the royal family, planted among real documented "common" Fawkes by the highest echelons of royal government spymasters and intelligence agents, under Robert Cecil and King James. Personally, I have seen many genealogies in old family history books, and even now on Ancestry, Family Search, and related sites, where (example name) "John Smith" is supposed to be the son of "Thomas Smith", and it turns out that the connection is bogus, or that the "son" John did not even really exist. Even with "Guy Fawkes", he is supposed to have married a Maria Pulleyn in 1590, and had a son Thomas baptized on Feb. 6, 1591, but the original parish records have never been found. People throughout the centuries have inserted their own versions of family ancestry, or just taken the easier way out and copied others. Could not this have been done also at the premier levels of power, with records falsified and/or destroyed and replaced due to "war", "fire", or the "weather conditions", where they were kept? Back in the days of King James I, parish registers were written out by hand, surely Robert Cecil's intelligence agency had handwriting experts who could create and insert a misleading parish entry?
The given first name "Guy" is also very popular as a name for real people.
Correct again. "Guy" or "guy" is a very popular, ordinary name or description for a man, just what was needed and intended for anonymity. As a coverup within a coverup, add "John Johnson" to it, and you have to peel away at it like an onion to get at the core truth. No one outside of the royal family and retainers used for this purpose were supposed to know about this, of course, which is why Charles entitled the book that I believe you have, "How to Read Shakespeare like a ROYAL". Of course for now, just consider it an unproven hypothesis of mine, since I am the one who brought it up here. I do appreciate your very discerning questions, however, it helps me to cogitate about it, Thank You. I know that you, Richard, and Charles, have been working on these kinds of theories for at least twenty years before I was, and I stand on your shoulders.
 
Last edited:

Jerry Russell

Administrator
Staff member
Of course for now, just consider it an unproven hypothesis of mine, since I brought it up here.
But not debunked, either!! It's very possible, it might have happened exactly this way. I really appreciate people who come up with such creative and intriguing ideas, seeing what might be underneath the surface.
 

Seeker

Active Member
Southampton was a soldier, just as "Fawkes" was, and was also deeply involved in a "plot", Essex's Rebellion in 1601
Robert Catesby, the official leader of the Gunpowder Plot, was also involved in the Essex Rebellion, just as Southampton was, but was released and fined heavily for his part in it (both should have been executed for treason, but were spared due to the intercession for clemency by Secretary of State Robert Cecil). Thus, Southampton/Fawkes could have known Catesby as early as 1601, and during his imprisonment been contacted by Secretary of State Cecil, with instructions to befriend Catesby and infiltrate any plot, after King James released him in 1603. If Catesby then eventually became a tool of the government also, he was effectively silenced by his being shot (or allowed to escape) when the arresting posse caught up with him. In favor of his being allowed to escape, the story that he and Thomas Percy were killed with one shot does seem fantastic. Catesby himself used the occasional alias of "Mr. Roberts", when visiting Jesuit priests that he funded. Thus, if the Gunpowder Plot was indeed planned by royalty as "controlled opposition", the descending order of plotting would have been King James/Robert Cecil/Southampton(Fawkes)/Catesby.
Also, the Gunpowder Plot conspirator brothers, Christopher (Kit) and John (Jack) Wright, were supposed to have gone to school with Fawkes, and both were also involved in the Essex Rebellion, where they would have known of Southampton (more "borrowing" of characters to form a "Fawkes" biography?) and Catesby. Christopher is believed to have used the alias "Anthony Dutton". Both of them were also killed (or escaped) along with Robert Catesby. The whole history of "Guy Fawkes" may have been fabricated and publicized to the common people between the time of his "arrest" on November 5, and his "execution" on the following January 31, a period of almost 3 months, all to the favor of King James, which of course was the intention in the first place.
Thomas Percy, the fourth and final plotter to be apprehended and killed (or allowed to escape) did not take part in the Essex Rebellion, but as far back as 1591 had married Martha Wright, sister to Christopher and John. By 1605 the couple were estranged, and his wife and daughter were living on an annuity funded by Lord Monteagle, who received the mysterious letter warning him not to attend Parliament, which he took to Robert Cecil, who then took it to King James (coincidence, or was Monteagle a conduit?). All of the other "conspirators" were arrested and dead (or switched for other prisoners) by the end of January, 1606. "Dead men tell no tales".
 

Seeker

Active Member
833Appropriately enough for my hypothesis and the article, plus the conditions surrounding today's Guy Fawkes/Bonfire Night, note the MASK!
 
Top