This is Google's cache of http://www.isgp.eu/faq.htm. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on 11 Dec 2009 19:01:33 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime. Learn more
Text-only version

| Front Page
| Archives
| About
| FAQ
| Links
| Contact
| How YOU can help
| Index of institutes
| Intro
| Le Cercle
| 1001 Club
| Pilgrims Society
| Multinational Chairman's Group
| Sun Valley Meetings
| Bohemian Grove
| JASON Group
| Unacknowledged SAPs
| Beyond Dutroux
| "La Nebuleuse"
| Disinformation
| Peak Oil
| The UFO issue
| Miscellaneous
FAQ Many of these questions I have been asked at some point or another. Others, especially the last four or five, I assume some people will have.
I cannot print your webpages. The text and pictures go off the page. Sorry, I'm not a professional webpage designer. Copy the site in MS Word or print the pages sideways.
What country are you from? The Netherlands. You know, that small country directly to the east of England, across the channel.
What has been your motivation for building this site? I just want to know what makes the world go round. Organizing the information and sharing it with others is the best way to learn and to make sure no one has to reinvent the wheel. Then again, if I couldn't share my information with the world I would undoubtedly go do something else, so maybe I'm not entirely selfish. In addition, now that this site is more or less finished, many of you truth seekers will be shocked to find out that many conspiracy authors in past and present have been supported by America's hard right intelligence and big business community (see Pilgrims Society article). Think of Gary Allen, Dan Smoot, Pat Robertson, William Still, G. Edward Griffin , Christopher Ruddy, Joseph Farah, the Falwells, Jeff Nyquist, Jerome Corsi, etc., etc. These interests have opposed the traditional liberal Eastern Establishment and that's why they've been working to expose its influence. The patriotic and evangelical communities in the United States have been peppered the most with this kind of propaganda. You can still see how much the conspiracy community has been infected with this virus when you listen to people as Alex Jones: Illuminati this, New World Order that, David Rockefeller evil, United Nations equates communism, globalism equates collectivism, etc. There's much they don't (want to) understand and, ironically, maybe even more than the average citizen, their opinions have been formed by decades of propaganda and disinformation. Isn't that the ultimate irony? The rules are something like this: America's hard right exposes the Eastern Establishment for being a bunch of communists. Members of the pro-Saudi oil Eastern Establishment and America's anti-Zionist hard right expose the intrigues of Israel, most notably nuclear spying and the U.S.S. Liberty incident. They have even flirted with 9/11 Truth. ** Zionists expose the tradional anti-Israel and pro-Saudi oil role of the Eastern Establishment. Oligarchs in exile expose the wrongdoings of Putin & Co. Get the picture? ** David Ray Griffin's biography at - believe it or not - the Middle East Policy Council, where this most prominent 9/11 Truth author is a member of the advisory board: "David Ray Griffin has established himself—alongside Seymour Hersh—as America's number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths." The MEPC is part of pro-Saudi oil network which has traditionally been very opposed to Israel and the Neoconservatives (the main suspects of 9/11). Griffin also received support from a CFR member with whom he has written about globalization, a movement also opposed to Zionism and Neoconservatism. But why such a superficial investigation and why promote the no-757 theory? Blackmail operations involving sex, starting around Richard Helms and the CIA's Executive Action in the 1950s (and picked up by many other interests), may be the key here. Unfortunately, there's only enough information from Belgium at this point to really make a detailed case for that. Names from the U.S. are still to scarce (or from bs sources).
You are a conspiracy guy, aren't you, so do you believe the holocaust happened? Duh, of course it happened. Holocaust denial is just part of the whole disinformation game of the extreme right, just as the "no-plane" and "pod" theories of 9/11. Since the conspiracy community largely has its roots in the extreme right, it's not a coincidence that so many authors have denied that the holocaust happened - and establishment pundits have been exploiting this weakness forever by continually linking together "conspiracy" and "holocaust-denial". Holocaust denial largely focuses on the exact role of Auschwitz and that the Nazis didn't really put a whole lot on paper. But why not avoid these deadlocks and look at the bigger picture? There were many ghettos and death camps throughout eastern Europe and there are many eye witness accounts of what happened here. Begin by typing in "Babi Yar" in Google.
Can you summarize what you do believe in and in what you don't? I believe in: large scale drug and arms trafficking by important officials; regular collaboration between mafia and gangs, intelligence agencies, diplomats and military and government officials; large scale sexual blackmail operations and the use of child pornography networks in this; regular false flag terrorist operations; CIA-mafia-Cuban exiles involvement in the JFK and RFK assassinations; old boys networks; the ever increasing influence of the Israel Lobby in the U.S.; that the Israelis attacked the U.S.S. Liberty on purpose; that the Israelis have been obtained a considerable arsenal of nuclear weapons; that the Israelis and Neoconservatives played a crucial role in 9/11; voter fraud, even in the United States; the UFO phenomenon (whatever is behind it); a globalist-oriented Anglo-American power bloc; a very radical anti-communist, fascist bloc in the United States with allies in the just as radical Vatican-Paneuropa bloc; a Zionist-Neoconservative power bloc; that the world's remaining oil and gas supplies are not enough for long or even short term economic growth; that the conspiracy community has been retarded by retarded researchers and people who are paid to mess everything up; that shows like Rense and Coast to Coast mix in huge amounts of bullshit with some really interesting stuff. I think the following is absolute BS: Illuminati and bloodline theories; Satanic conspiracies (although some ritual abuse comes close); Nibiru or Planet X; Annunaki and Reptilians; that bankers as the Rothschilds and Rockefellers rule the world; holocaust denial; pod and no-plane theories of 9/11; the Cathy O'Brien and David Icke's Queen Mother stories. In other words, half of the stuff you come across the first few years when reading about conspiracy.
How long did it take you to gather this information? Several thousand hours over almost five years... which brings me to another reason for having put together this site: saving time. Because of all the false and incomplete information out there--not to mention the amount--it's not possible for the vast majority of people to understand conspiracy and covert politics in any reasonable amount of time, even in modern times. In fact, I would argue that even today it's not possible to fully understand the world we're living in, although this site will hopefully play a large role in getting people up to speed as fast as possible.
Why haven't you addressed the basic 'secret societies' in any detail? I first chose the ones which I thought were the most unknown and-or the most important. The internet is already loaded with information about Bilderberg, the Trilateral Commission, and the CFR. They've not always been analyzed thoroughly, but at least the names and basic background info is available.
Some of the articles include so many names and details it becomes difficult to follow. Every article I write is meant to incorporate all (known) aspects of a particular group or subject, and at the same time keep the article as short as possible. The result is that you might need go slow when reading the article or re-read a number of sections. Can't really help that. Besides this, there are much better authors than me out there, especially in English.
Your name shows up prominently in Google at TinWiki.org. Do you support that website? Nope. I care for almost no site that links to me. Tinwiki is no different. It is a site sponsored by Abovetopsecret.com, so then you already know it's bad news. Abovetopsecret's favorite darling is John Lear, the son of the Learjet founder who has never really uttered a sane word in his life. Lear, who apparently has worked for the CIA and was involved in Iran Contra and such, tends to muddy every pond he steps into. In the 1980s and 1990s this was the UFO community; in more recent years he did the same with 9/11. Abovetopsecret and Tinwiki are creating a kind of creepy "look at what fun this is" conspiracy culture and just promote every kind of bs theory. Wouldn't be surprised if they are just in it for the money. Would also not be surprised if they are doing a nice job of quelling interest in conspiracy and covert politics matters.
Are you interested in speaking at my local radio show? It's a honor, but no. My reasons? A) my English is far from fluent when I have to speak it; B) I'll leave the talking to people with the proper backgrounds; and C) I really haven't got that much to say, as it's all on my site. People are going to ask me all kinds of questions and I can only speculate.
Your website needs improvement. I can help. I appreciate any advice, but nobody is going to edit my articles or remodel my site. I'm also not going to merge my site with anyone else's.
What came first? Wikipedia or ISGP? When PEHI/ISGP first wrote about the Cercle, the 1001 Club, and the Pilgrims, entries on Wikipedia about these societies did not exist. In each case they were added shortly after the PEHI/ISGP articles had been uploaded. Virtually no other information existed on these groups at the time. Wikipedia's Sun Valley/Allen & Co. entry took years before it was created. Wikipedia's JASON Group article did exist, but was far from complete. At least half of the members were taken from ISGP. Details about the Bohemian Grove camps and the visitors also came from ISGP. Although membership lists have leaked in recent years, back in 2005/2006 none were in the public domain and names were scattered all over the place. ISGP has been responsible for other information on Wikipedia, mainly relating to the Dutroux affair and snuff films. In many cases this information was removed for no good reason - sometimes after six months of continuous visits and no complaints.
Are you supported by other conspiracy researchers? I get quite a bit of feedback from professional investigators (which I'm not) and people from universities, but for some reason the most influential aspects of the conspiracy community have increasingly begun to ignore my work. Exceptions have been relatively small websites - whose content I don't agree with at all - as Save the Males, Illuminati News, and Conspiracy Archive - and possibly Truthseeker. Articles since Le Cercle and the Struggle for the European Continent in late 2006 have been ignored by the major conspiracy gurus as Alex Jones and Paul Watson, David Icke, Jeff Rense, or even Global Research. To get the hugely popular Beyond the Dutroux Affair on Prisonplanet, I had to pay $500 dollars. It was only after the article was listed here as a regular news item, that sites like Rense, David Icke, Rumormillnews, etc. picked it up - and in case of Rense, only after one of his columnists recommended it. Again, the only site that I can stomach is Prisonplanet. The Pilgrims Society and La Nebuleuse articles of July 2008 were completely ignored by the major conspiracy sites, as was the September 2008 1001 Club article, all of which were based on highly reliable and previously unavailable documents. The Pilgrims Society article was listed as a commercial for several days on the Infowars website after paying $200 dollars, but this time no other major sites picked it up. Rense wouldn't accept money. It makes you wonder why the pillars of the conspiracy community, which everyone who has taken an interest in the existence of conspiracies should have come across, have decided to boycott this site, even though their readers have been nothing but extremely supportive. It's not exactly as if it would hurt their credibility. What's furthermore ironic in the case of Alex Jones, is that in his movie Endgame there's a picture created by the author of this site. Although in this case I don't care about copyrights, it makes me wonder why they would use a picture like this, but at the same time refuse to make any references to ISGP and ignore all other information on this site. Compare with the picture listed here Except for some remarks in the very beginning, I have refrained from publicly questioning the motives of the major conspiracy gurus, the simple reason being that their support would have allowed the site to grow further in a relatively short amount of time. If given enough exposure, it will significantly change the intellectual level of the conspiracy community while at the same drawing in many more (rational) people. Now that it is clear that even the most alternative of the alternative media will not support this site, and in fact continues to promote its own simplified theories, which often have their origins in extreme-right, intelligence-sponsored propaganda, there's nothing that keeps this author from speaking out. The site has about 110,000 unique visitors per year and that will probably remain somewhat stable over the years. ---- By the way, some people seem to think that this information has been uploaded because I would be bitter or angry about this lack of support. While I am a little disappointed in the persons discussed above, the major reason for posting this information here is to give people some healthy perspective on their favorite "truth seekers". Researchers often do not give their opinion on fellow-researcher unless they have something positive to say. I entirely disagree with that habit. As long as the discussions are polite and rational, distrust and differences of opinion should be voiced as much as possible, as in this way other researchers are forced to explain their writings or actions. What the conspiracy community needs most of all is transparancy, and keeping my opinions and experiences to myself out of a misplaced feeling of courtesy would go against everything this site is trying to achieve.
What (conspiracy) researchers do you support? This is not the kind of business you want to make friends in, as it's almost impossible to fully trust someone. There are only 4 or 5 low profile researchers I've interacted with and that I personally like, virtually all from Europe and likely not persons most of you have heard of. There have also been a number of contributors to the site whom I respect.
What's your relation to Lyndon LaRouche's organizations, mainly Executive Intelligence Review? I'm not a member, nor will I ever be. They have supported some of my work and therefore I've kept in contact with one of the members to whom I've regularly passed information in return for small favors (sometimes with success, sometimes not). Although their information can be intriguing, I often disagree with their point of view. At the very least it would be nice if EIR focused more on presenting evidence, instead of spewing their dogma that the British are behind every subversive political movement on the planet. The members' strict adherence to LaRouche's dogma can indeed make me a bit uncomfortable during conversations, as it sometimes seems as if you are talking to a robot or public relations officer instead of a real, independent, thinking person. All this having been said, I've never caught EIR writers inventing facts. It has always been their conclusions that I doubt.
The Disclosure Project appears on many places on your website. Do you support the project? I used to be a pretty big fan of the Disclosure Project - and apparently some within the Disclosure Project liked this site - but over the years my enthusiasm has dimmed quite a bit. Allow me to explain. The Disclosure Project has been a really big thing, mainly because of the credentials of many of the witnesses, the prominence of the National Press Club press conference in Washington in 2001, and the persons Steven Greer has been talking to. But despite all this, I've never really had a good feeling about Steven Greer. Take the case of astronaut Edgar Mitchell. In an early Disclosure Project video he stated: "Whatever activity is going on, to the extent that it is, a clandestine group, a quasi government group, a quasi private group; it is without any type - as far as I can tell - of high level government oversight." As recent as 2004, the St. Petersburg Times wrote about Mitchell: "A few insiders know the truth . . . and are studying the bodies that have been discovered," said Mitchell, who was the sixth man to walk on the moon. Mitchell, who landed on the moon with Alan B. Shepard, said a "cabal" of insiders stopped briefing presidents about extraterrestrials after President Kennedy." At first sight it appears that Mitchell is completely on the same page as Steven Greer when it comes to UFOs and secrecy. However, back in 2001 when the Disclosure Project held its prominent National Press Club conference, Mitchell distanced himself from the project by stating: "I cooperated with Steve Greer some years ago, but he began to overreach his data continuously, necessitating a withdrawal by myself, and, I believe, several others. ... Although I firmly believe it is time for openness and disclosure by government, I object to being misused in this fashion and acquire guilt by association with certain claims that simply are not true. ... I, nor any crew I was on (I was on three Apollo crews), received any briefing before or after flights on UFO events, saw anything in space suggesting UFOs or structures on the moon, etc. We did it just like we said in official reports. My only claim to knowledge of these events is from the individuals, mostly of yesteryear, who were in government, intelligence, or military; were there, saw what they saw, and now believe it should be made public. But I claim no first hand knowledge, nor have any." Who has been listening to the Disclosure Project witnesses knows that some of them have been talking about structures on the moon and such, something which Mitchell denies having seen. Greer, on the other hand, in recent years even began to repeat the very questionable rumors that the first astronauts on the moon had seen UFOs. Over the years I've found the following things to be a concern with Steven Greer: 1) Greer is close to members of the Anglo-American Establishment. He's been to the ranch of Laurance Rockefeller where he was brought into contact with the Clintons, he's always talking about globalization, the effects of global warming (which I think is bs), and his adventures at the United Nations. Greer also vaguely claimed to know about the interest of the Rockefellers, the Rothschilds, Peter G. Peterson, Maxwell Rabb, and Prince Philip in the UFO subject and the Disclosure Project. Each and every person or family mentioned here is part of the Anglo-American Establishment (they have all been Pilgrims btw). It is actually quite likely that Greer has been in contact with Maurice Strong, a close associate of Laurance Rockefeller, the Rothschilds, Al Gore, and such, in the sustainable development and global warming movements. Increasingly I wonder: how much do Greer's spiritual and New Age ideas overlap with those of Maurice Strong? Equally interesting is Greer's talk about the worldwide policy group that oversees the UFO secrecy. According to Greer, about two-thirds of this group approves of disclosure, although there's a small, but very influential and violent minority that wants to keep things secret. As usual, Greer hasn't spelled out the story, but it's interesting to note that Greer has been attacking a number of traditional opponents of the Anglo-American establishment: key neoconservatives as Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney, the Mormons, and reactionary elements in the Vatican (-Paneuropa network). 2) His spiritual/remote viewing stories don't make that much sense here and there. Remote viewers slamming into alien spacecraft is just one example. 3) Greer continually teases his public with little nuggets of seemingly new information. However, he never lays out the full story, nor does he mention how this information came to him ("witness A said this, witness B said this, we checked this and found out that, etc."). 4) Greer has been talking about finding a free energy device for at least a decade now. Occasionally he claimed to be on the verge of a breakthrough, but ultimately things never seem to go anywhere. He has also never explained how his team would be able to protect the scientists in question, as, according to his own words, the rogue group involved in UFO back-engineering is in the possession of incredibly advanced monitoring equipment. 5) How would Greer be able to protect his (new) witnesses when his adversaries are in the possession of consciousness-linked real-time monitoring systems that supposedly can spy on anyone, at any time, anywhere? 6) Greer's Disclosure Project with its hundreds of witnesses would be incredibly vulnerable to disinformation, especially when information is not being carefully checked (or put aside until it can be verified). New witnesses can have all the credentials in the world, but who says they are telling the truth? It is perfectly possible that the Disclosure Project has been targeted by a long-term disinformation campaign involving at least several dozen witnesses, all of them backing up aspects of each other's stories. Greer's explanation that he is remote viewing many of his future witnesses is not particularly satisfying. 7) Some of Greer's information sounds quite spectacular. However, the more reliable aspects of it have already been discussed in the past and Greer seldom gives credit. One example is the December 1991 document entitled 'memorandum of the Task Force of Greater CIA openness to the Director of Central Intelligence' which included a passage about the CIA's continued cooperation with the media. It's on the Disclosure Project website and Greer frequently mentions it in his lectures as something members of his team have brought to light. He forgets to mention, however, that it was the Washington Post who quoted from this document in 1992 (April 23, 1992, Washington Post, 'CIA Report On Openness Classified Secret'). Another example from 2006: Greer publicly stated that a top-level SETI scientist had confirmed to the Disclosure Project that SETI had received multiple extraterrestrial signals, but that these signals were soon jammed by U.S. intelligence agencies. True or not, few people know that already in 1990 Pulitzer prize winning author Howard Blum - who has written for the New York Times and was acquainted with Seymour Hersh - had reported something similar in his book Out There (about the only UFO book that I really recommend to anyone). Blum received this information from Jonathan Thompson, the executive secretary to President Bush's Science Advisor. The scientist in question, however, denied ever having said that to Thompson and immediately tried to put an end to the conversation. A considerable amount of material is described in Blum's book that is today associated with the Disclosure Project. Blum already described the quick reaction teams of Projects Moon Dust and Blue Fly that were to "recover or perform field exploration of unidentified flying objects..." (quote from official documents). Blum also described Joint Chief documents in which they were worried that the increase in UFO sightings above national security sites were preparations for an alien invasion. Out of these fears not only grew Projects Moon Dust and Blue Fly, but also Project Saint and Project Blue Gemini, which were about tracking and killing UFOs. Greer adds a lot to this older information. The only question is how reliable it is. 8) Greer has used very unreliable witnesses. Probably the best example is Dr. Fred Bell, who appears under the alias "Dr. B." in the Disclosure Project briefing document. It makes me wonder, is it Dr. Bell or Dr. Greer who decided to keep the name "Fred Bell" out of the Disclosure Project briefing document? In the document "Dr. B." is described as "a scientist and engineer who has worked on top-secret projects almost all his life." What is left out is that Dr. Bell has been somewhat prominent in California's New Age circuit since the 1980s (selling his extremely overpriced garbage), and that Dr. Bell claims to be a Pleiadean contactee, that we are all going to die in 2012, that no-757 hit the Pentagon, and that Grey aliens eat humans dissolved in acid. At the very least Greer would normally consider this last point to be pure disinformation, but somehow did think Dr. Bell - who certainly knows his physics, engineering, chemistry, and biology - was credible enough to be a Disclosure Project witness. Very strange. On June 22, 2008, Paracast hosts Gene Steinberg and David Biedny finally asked Greer some real questions. This interview clearly showed some more peculiar aspects of Greer's personality, among them: 1) Greer can be incredibly condescending, especially when questioned. 2) Greer just talks, and talks, and talks, and is very hard to shut up for even one moment so a follow-up question can be asked. At one point he even says to the hosts "don't interrupt me" and rambles on. In my opinion, at that point Greer wasn't particularly rationally refuting the claim that some abduction cases have been quite malevolent. 3) Greer doesn't do a good job of explaining why participants of CSETI contact events have to sign non-disclosure agreements when it comes to photographs and video material. First Greer is worried that certain members of the contact group may not want these materials out; then he states he's worried individual group members are going to copyright and sell the material. An argument follows about these copyright laws in which one of the hosts - who has some experience in this field - explains to Greer that it's perfectly possible to allow persons to share their videos but not allow them to sell them for profit. Regardless of who's right (and I suspect it's the host), it is quite strange that at the present moment (virtually) no videos about the CSETI contact events are available for download anywhere while CSETI events are supposed to be incredibly spectacular, judging from the words of Steven Greer. 4) At one point during the interview, one of the hosts says he has a close, personal friend who is extremely wealthy and has become interested in Greer's Orion Project, which is trying to raise 3 million dollars to build and market a free energy device. The host explains that his friend would hardly blink even at spending 30 million dollars, but that it is always important to know who exactly is involved in a project. The host, more or less acting as a proxy for his friend, rightly tells Greer that the information on the Orion website is too vague to make it of real interest to any potential big funders, and asks for some additional information on the persons who would be putting together such a device. Interestingly, Greer doesn't embrace this potentially huge opportunity to get all his funding problems out of the way. Instead of taking the host's word for it and scheduling a meeting with this wealthy businessman, he insults the host by questioning no less than four times if he actually has this wealthy friend. Greer's additional explanations on who's involved in the Orion Project, as always, leave much to be desired. This just shows that Greer either is a total retard when it comes to spotting business opportunities, or he has never been interested in actually putting together a free energy device. You'd almost forget I like a considerable amount of what Dr. Greer has to say during his lectures, including his discussions on all the disinformation that has been spread in the UFO field. Unfortunately, he could make himself much more useful than he is now in getting to the bottom of the UFO issue. All his peculiar antics put a really big dent in his credibility and that of his work. Update, February 2009: Dr. Greer just did it again. In late December 2008 and early January 2009 it was possible to read the following message on the Disclosure Project website: "December 19, 2008 - Dr. Greer felt it was important to release this important document now. January 1995 Strategic Studies Institute document describing a plan to control citizens through physical and psychological means including contrived/hoaxed UFO abductions, drugs, holograms, and psychotronics. Note: RMA = Revolution in Military Affairs. Click the following links to read: First page Second page" The Disclosure Project only uploaded two pages of this "document", which beared the name Strategic Studies Institute. Although this partial document was announced as being a really big and totally new revelation, it actually is anything but that. Here's why: 1) The "document" had already been available to the public for many years at Mindcontrolforums.com, although the paper never spread beyond this page. 2) The "Document" is not at all an official document written by the Strategic Studies Institute, as the Disclosure Project stated. It actually was a fictional scenario written by Julianne McKinney, a former army intelligence officer and an activist against the abuse of microwave and other electronic weaponry. McKinney's not-too-rational scenario was preceded by another slightly irrational letter. In part it read: "Dear Dr. Metz and LTC Kievit [of the Strategic Studies Institute]: I read your _Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War_ with great interest. ... Your paper contains all of the right elements for a successful (psychotechnologies, profit motives, manipulation of public opinion, deniability, crime as the public's inducement to sacrifice privacy, spiritual insurgency, etc. etc.); ... My proposal is a "homemaker's recipe" for a successful RMA if you will--embodying not only the ingredients which you have furnished in _The Revolution in Military Affairs and Conflict Short of War_, but, also, a few additional which you had not thought to discuss. My "recipe" is as follows: A Successful RMA "Ingredients: "Satanic Cults UFO Cults Directed-Energy Technologies Neurocybernetics/Psychotechnologies Biotechnologies/Experimental Drugs Multinational Government Contractors Investment Portfolios and Other Financial Inducements ... " And this is where the Disclosure Project's carefully-picked pages pick up: "Imported East Bloc Mercenaries and Military Equipment Imported Foreign National Scientists A Controlled and Compliant Media Decentralized U.S. Government Control An Induced Crime Wave Instructions: 1. Raise one or two generations of children under the auspices of government-approved satanic cults, such as COL (USA ret.) Michael Aquino's Temple of Set..." In other words, the credibility of both Dr. Greer and his Disclosure Project continues to sink to new depths. Reading Dr. Greer's book "Hidden Truth Forbidden Knowledge", you actually begin to wonder how much inspiration he has taken from this piece of fiction. When Greer stated he had official documents talking about "stagecraft", was he in reality referring to McKinney's fictional scenario? "2. Create a global UFO cult, which will involve the abduction of citizens so as to foster an illusion that this earth is facing an extraterrestrial invasion. UFO abductees-of-preference will have an expertise in computer technologies, since that expertise will be required in future technocratic RMA scenarios. Use of experimental drugs, holographic projection capabilities, directed-energy technologies, induced auditory input, experimental aircraft, and special effects costuming and stagecraft, among other things, will be used to persuade abductees of the reality of their circumstances." In the mean time, the Disclosure Project apparently realized the mistake and quietly took down the information from their website.
You seem to be against globalization and European integration Are you kidding? I'm among the biggest globalists you will ever meet. I love everything global: government, law, currency, language, military, space program, etc. However, with this bunch of apparent closet fascists running the globalization show it's not very smart to go along with this agenda. At least in the past it was somewhat possible to relocate to avoid a new Stalin or Hitler. That's not going to be possible anymore with the technologies that are being developed today. If things go wrong in 40 or 50 years, where you gonna go with a microchip in your head and hyper-advanced satellites and drones monitoring every inch of the planet 24/7? That's right, you're not going to go anywhere, and you wish you had listened a bit more to those early 21th century "counter-culture" figures who warned you about the globalist group. At the same time, the Anglo-American establishment figures appear to more rational than the Neoconservative movement in the United States or the Vatican-Paneuropa group in Europe - other groups with agendas that need to be watched out for.
I read your article on the 1001 Club. Are you against conservationism? Not at all, I used to be a great fan of Steve Irwin and love everything that has to do with animals and nature. I also think we definitely need an organization like the World Wide Fund for Nature. In fact, on the first site I ever created I had some empty space and put in a banner of the WWF--little did I know. Same with climate change, a topic I've been interested in for many years. It took a mega-billion worldwide campaign headed by Al Gore to somewhat convince the general population that the climate is changing. However, as expected, the facts have been spun to suit a certain (globalist) agenda. It's the same thing with the WWF, at the top it's more about power and politics than about saving the planet.
Do you have something against rich people? No, I don't. I hope to be one one day.
Any political leanings? Not really. In theory, I would like a strong military, some socialist policies, a lot of conservationism, a lot of research money into "fringe" science and spiritual matters, easy accessible education for anyone at any age, and don't really care how "big" the government is (just want it to be non-invasive and efficient). It seems that this combination is as impossible as they come. However, no smart, honest person will take the words of a politician at face value and attach himself to one of the major political parties. Personally, I like the way Mike Ruppert once put it: political parties can be likened to mafia families; they all compete, but when their territory is invaded by a newcomer or some other common threat they all team up (and yes, that's a very rough paraphrase).
Any strange things happened? Followed in the streets? Harassed? Intimidated? Not really. A few interesting things have happened though. Event #1) In 2005, I did an article on the JASONs. For some reason I ended up on the mailing list of one of the JASON members in the weeks after that. Together with dozens of JASONs I got an email with all kinds of details on nuclear power plants and how they might be protected from enemy attacks. These blueprints or whatever they were were extremely complex with so many scientific terms in them that I couldn't understand them at all. It might well have been the most hard-to-understand stuff I've ever seen. Anyway, I closed the email within two or three minutes, letting it sit there in my inbox. I thought about notifying the JASON who had put me on his mailing list, but at the time I still somewhat considered the possibility that the JASONs were involved in other, more "exotic" shall we say, engineering projects, so I kept quiet. I never had the slightest intention of distributing or uploading the information in the email. All I did was wait and see if they would send me something else (read: a blueprint of some totally unknown weapon or energy device). A week or ten days later something interesting did indeed come my way. I opened my email program and found that my inbox was completely empty. Although I immediately suspected this had something to do with the JASON email, I did check my deleted items and other folders. Everything was still exactly the same in these other folders, so the emails I was missing from my inbox, including the JASON email, had mysteriously skipped the deleted items folder. Although I'm still not 100% sure I did something wrong, I knew this had never happened before and basically made a bet with myself that this would never occur again. And, of course, it hasn't. My guess: a JASON or someone in the DoD corrected this mistake. Event #2) Sometime in the first half of 2006 all of a sudden it had become impossible for me to order any books from Great Britain. Actually, to be more precise, I could order them, but they would never arrive. In a brief period I ordered three different books from three different book stores: none of them has ever arrived. The book stores in question all assured me they had shipped the book I ordered and in one case they sent me a scan of their post office receipt. This book store also returned my money. Now, I had ordered numerous books before that time, both from the US and Britain, and I've never had any problems with delivery. What's the chance that three books from three different book stores all get lost at about the same time? (Actually, I don't know. But I bet the odds are not very high.) I reordered the books from the US and, as usual, there weren't any problems. I also recently again tried to order books from Britain, and it seems the delivery problems are over. I still wonder where those three books are that I ordered. Event #3) In about the same period--give or take a few months--that I had these shipping problems from England, something else happened that was very interesting. One day I picked up the phone to call someone. I dialed the number, but instead of hearing the person I wanted to speak with, I ended up talking to a room with humming noises in the background, like a bunch of servers were running there. After maybe 10 seconds either I hung up or the connection was broken--can't remember anymore--and I redialed the number of the person I wanted to speak with. This time I was successful. The person I called hadn't heard anything the first time. Coincidentally, I had been reading Steven Greer's book 'Forbidden Knowledge, Hidden Truth' a week or two before this event. I was immediately reminded of the following passage, which can be found on page 118: "I'll never forget what he said to me during this conversation, "You know, if you want to get a message to us or to the President, all you need to do is pick up the phone. Don't dial anything--just talk."... And I said, "Yes, I know."... I proceeded to tell him how they had made errors and left their end of the hook or tap open a couple times. It happened to Emily, and it's happened to me. Once when I picked up the home phone to make a call, I heard a control room on the line. I could hear people talking, instead of a dial tone. So I asked, "Who is this?" Then a woman with a very thick foreign accent but speaking proper English says, "Oh, my God, it's Mr. Greer." And I said, "Dr. Greer to you, bitch." And hung up! In those days, I was outraged by these things. Now, I could care less." In the book 'Enemies of the State' (a book that recently actually did arrive from Britain), written in 1993 by the British author Gary Murray, we find stories of anti-nuclear energy activists being intimidated and occasionally killed by British intelligence. On page 220 we can read about experiences of a person whose phone was tapped. One experience was very similar to my own, except for the fact that I did not hear anyone on the other side: "She [a victim of serious harassment] also had the fairly common, and unnerving, experience of dialling a number and hearing not a ringing tone but people moving about in a room." Has my phone been tapped? As usual, I don't know. As a Dutch documentary showed a few years ago, the number of phone taps per person in the Netherlands is higher than anywhere in the world. But I must say that I don't care that much anymore. It's still wrong, but worse things happen and I've gotten used to the possibility that my computer, phone and personal files are checked on a regular basis. Besides, a nice phone tap or a good old harassment would really make me feel like I'm doing something useful. And it would certainly be interesting to write about. Yeah, I know, be careful what you wish for.
How serious do you take that Satanism stuff you described in your Dutroux article? Like you, I don't know what to believe when it comes to ritual abuse and Satanism. Guess we'll have to wait what else comes out about it in the coming years. It's nothing to joke about, that's for sure.