The Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions/Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics site seems to have a lot of good info on Dutroux and other topics, but there are some troubling elements too. Anyone know anything specific about Joël van der Reijden and/or about this site?
http://www.isgp.eu/faq.htm
...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.
