Ted Gunderson was considered by many who knew him to possibly be the best agent the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) had ever produced. He had an illustrious career that spanned twenty-seven and a half years. In that twenty-seven and a half years, he had thirteen assignments. He attained the rank of Bureau Chief and oversaw the operations of the Los Angeles office which meant he managed most of Southern California. At the time of his retirement, he had 700 personnel under his direction. At his retirement party, he had over 600 people attend. Among those who attended were former California governors Jerry Brown and Gray Davis (of course, this was before Gray Davis became governor — he became governor in 1999) and novelist Louis L’Amour whom Gunderson said he was quite flattered that they were in attendance.
Gunderson enjoyed humor and littered most of his speeches and lectures with a few jokes. He also was very cordial — a true gentleman. He spoke plainly and distinctly and could be very blunt. His professional demeanor and his virtuous nature were all clearly obvious for the whole world to see.
He commanded respect and his integrity was never questioned. Well, it was never questioned while he was alive. Today, however, if you go by the “Wikispooks” website, it reads:
So, who is Joël van der Reijden? Who is this among Ted Gunderson’s staunchest and most revered critics? Why does Wikispooks initiate their article with his critique? Let’s take a closer look at this Joël van der Reijden, shall we?
According to the “Joël van der Reijden” article at the Wikispook’s website, we read that he created the “Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics,” which was formerly known as the “Project for the Exposure of Hidden Institutions.” He created the “Superclass Index,” which is a comprehensive list of foundations and think-tanks, worldwide. I do have to acknowledge that his research into these worldwide foundations and think-tanks is impressive. This Superclass Index can assist in any researcher’s investigation into such non-government organizations (NGO). Additionally, October, 2011 Bruce Upbin of Forbes Magazine wrote an article titled, “The 147 Companies That Control Everything.” The source for Upbin’s piece was the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich. Dr. James Glattfelder was one of three coauthors. They took a database listing 37 million companies and investors worldwide and analyzed all 43,060 transnational corporations to see who owned what. These two studies give us a better picture into how the world’s Elites use non-government entities to manipulate, control, divert, transcend and subjugate the world’s governments. The model the study produced looks like this:
What I call the Hegelian dialectic (problem/reaction/solution or thesis/antithesis/synthesis), Joël van der Reijden calls “boxes.” I draw my definition from CIA whistleblowers who say that this is how our National Security State — namely the CIA — work. Noam Chomsky could call it Manufactured Consent/Manufactured Dissent/Resolution. Any problem can be solved using such technique. For example, laborers say they want more pay — problem. Employers say they pay enough — reaction. Government or another entity steps in to negotiate a settlement — solution. Any problem can be corralled in any direction those that manufacture the consent/dissent want them to go.
Another point that Joël van der Reijden and I disagree on is the identity of just who is behind all this corruption. What I call a natural progression, he tries to classify using just recent data compiled. In other words, our problem and its origins are much older than he is willing to admit. Our problem is Elitism. Our problem is hierarchical structures which have always been justified by a “survival of the fittest,” and a competition for resources. Historically, these resources were scarce, and the competition was largely a zero-sum game. To maintain this game of scarcity, these Elites embraced Capitalism because scarcity sustains value thereby guaranteeing profits. This is ideal in a monetary-based economy. Additionally, these type societies were historically hierarchical in structure.
The first to take advantage of the hierarchical structures were the monarchists. Their origin is prehistoric. However, after the great empires of old, there arose the Republics. The warlords of these fiefdoms were rulers of smaller confederacies, aligning themselves with other warlords in order to stay in power. Today, we can look at Afghanistan as an example of such a model. Regional warlords maintain alliances with neighbors to maintain power within their regions. Of course, it is within a modern context that we think that Centralism is the natural progression to follow Decentralization. Is it only natural for a Federation (powerful central government and weak regional leaders) to grow out of a Confederation (a weak central government and powerful regional leaders)? Just because that is America’s path, does that mean it was a natural, evolutionary process? Is Globalization inevitable? Is consolidation of power a natural progression? If we are to believe Thomas Paine, that government is necessary due to our vices while society is born due to our likes/wants, then government’s sole role is mediator/arbiter — a referee… or keeper of the rules. I other words, the structure of the government is irrelevant as long as individual freedoms are observed and maintained.
Of course, the monarchs, had to adjust to the warlords’ challenge in order to remain relevant. However, after 1776, Capitalism gave rise to a new Chieftain… the Corporatists. Again, the two existing factions that profited from the hierarchical structure tolerated their competition because they were perhaps confident that they could control the Corporatists. I simply call this model: The MIC (the Corporatists), the Mob (organized crime) and the Monarchists (because it takes money to make money and they were originally the financiers to what has grown into today’s Shadow Governments and Deep States through secrecy maintained behind the curtain of national security due to today’s National Security States.
However, who says that we must have a hierarchical structure to run a society? Thomas Paine certainly disagreed.
While I recognize three factions within today’s Elite, Joël van der Reijden recognizes four. Refer to the table below. He says there are the Liberal, Conservative, Vatican and Zionists. To explain how our models are different. I simply lump the Vatican in with the Monarchists since the Pope was clearly the legitimization for the other Monarchists of Europe. Claiming to have spoken to God, the Pope could legitimize any Monarch competing for the throne. I see both Liberal and Conservative as the Thesis and Antithesis of the Hegelian dialectic so they’re two sides of the same coin so to speak, so I lump them both under the Corporatists. What he labels the Zionists, I merely note that the Hebrew mafia have been hiding in plain sight for generations. Semion Mogilevich isn’t ethnically Russian or Ukrainian, he’s Jewish. Jack Ruby was a mobster, but he wasn’t Italian, but he too was Hebrew mob. Jack Ruby’s real name was Jacob Rubenstein. I’ll stop here, but there are other examples. The Zionists are the connection between the Monarchists and the Mob, however. Evidence of this is obviously the Balfour Declaration. How could Lord Balfour promise to give the Zionists something he didn’t possess? At the time of the Balfour Declaration, Palestine was still in the possession of the Ottoman Empire — that was early November, 1917.
Today, the extensive research and the compiling of the databases gives Joël van der Reijden substantial credibility and legitimacy. However, could this be just what a shill needs in order to spread disinformation? I say, “Yes!” I use the following examples to show how disingenuous Joël van der Reijden is. Either he’s an incompetent researcher, sloppy or he’s a shill. Europeans seem awfully defensive of their monarchs. However, why do they still exist? They serve NO FUNCTION! As George Orwell said, “They (should) be swept away!” Economic power is political power.
The whole reason I’m looking at Joël van der Reijden today is because he had the audacity to call Ted Gunderson a liar. I went by Reijden’s website and he has a web-page titled, “Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics“. He begins the website with a whimsical allegory, but he begins his assault on “Bogus conspiracy theories” thus:
CHEMTRAILS
Third on his list is chemtrails. Well, as of Nov 8, 2017, even the U.S. government has admitted that this is a fact, not a conspiracy. “Chemtrail” is, in fact, colloquial and informal term for what is commonly referred to today as geoengineering. The House Science, Space and Technology Committee hearing mentioned above was titled: Geoengineering: Innovation, Research, and Technology.
Of course, if Joël van der Reijden had genuinely researched chemtrails, then he would’ve found mountains of evidence confirming their use and existence. Just a month prior to this hearing, John Brennan, the CIA Director spoke before the Council of Foreign Relations. In this speech, he voiced his support for Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) which is the term our military has preferred for years.
Here, is a phone call placed by a concerned citizen, identified only as ‘Sue,’ to NASA because she read about their experiments releasing particulates into the atmosphere — the phone call was recorded in July, 2013. The NASA scientist whom she spoke to identified himself as Douglas E. Rowland of the Heliophysics Science Division. Notice, he admits to NASA utilizing numerous types of chemtrails in their research.
Additionally, here is the Shasta County Board of Supervisors meeting July 15, 2014, where numerous concerned citizens and experts (i.e. Francis Mangles, Iraja Sivadas, Allan Buckmann, Russ Lazuka, Dane Wigington and others) voiced concerns regarding evidence of environmental contamination due to climate engineering programs.
ATLANTIS
Since Joël van der Reijden claims to be an expert on ALL conspiracy theories, I’ll also look at his more exotic topics. He quickly mentions Edgar Cayce as a means to marginalize the topic and claims that Atlantis was merely a bedtime story created in Egypt and says that there is zero geological evidence to suggest that Atlantis is a myth. Well, the ancient Greek sage Solon whom some consider to be the “Father of Democracy” wrote about Atlantis and almost 200 years later, Plato is also known to have mentioned the legend of Atlantis in his “Critias & Timaeus” dialogues. Regardless, I’d have to concur with Joël van der Reijden that it is unlikely it ever existed.
Today, however, to do the topic justice, there is a geological structure that deserves our scrutiny. This structure is named the Richat Structure, sometimes called “the Eye of the Sahara.” It’s located in the Sahara Desert’s Adrar Plateau in West-Central Mauritania. If the legendary city ever actually existed this geological structure absolutely deserves closer scrutiny because its dimensions are surprisingly close to those described by Solon and Plato for the city of Atlantis.
According to Solon, when he was visiting Egypt a high priest translated some hieroglyphs which told the story of Atlantis. Also according to the high priest, Egypt was a colony of this ancient city.
I’m no geologist or archaeologist, but the similarities should be investigated. If you’ve read my previous articles, then you know my penchant for adhering to Occam’s Razor (the simplest explanation is usually the correct one). Personally, I’d guess that this structure has a 30–40% chance of being Atlantis and the theory that Plato was speaking of the Minoan civilization is twice as likely, maybe 60–70% likely. If you recall, the Minoan civilization inhabited Crete about 1–2 thousand years before the Athenian Republic and archaeologists were surprised to find indoor plumbing among its ruins. Plato was a revered scholar of ancient Greece. Was he speaking in hyperbole? Of course, if you believe the timeline given by Plato, then you acknowledge that we’re talking 11,600 years ago is when the great cataclysm is supposed to have occurred to Atlantis. The reason I mention it is because 11,600 years is a very long time. Can anyone even imagine what the Sahara Desert looked like that long ago? It’s also interesting to me that this timeline does coincide with the timeline of Graham Hancock’s alleged “civilization reboot.” Regardless, I’m only trying to illustrate that Joël van der Reijden is either a lazy or sloppy researcher or that he’s a shill. Why he overlooked the Richat Structure is anyone’s guess. I don’t know.
GRAHAM HANCOCK
Perhaps I should mention, that going down the Atlantis rabbit hole, I encountered another researcher that Reijden belittles. I don’t know what to make of all his theories, but Graham Hancock does seem to adhere to science. He’s the guy who says there are signs of water erosion on the Giza Sphinx far older than 3,500 years old. Regardless, here he is talking about Göbekli Tepe, an archaeological site in Turkey, with Joe Rogan. I’ll let you judge for yourselves, but both he and his colleague, Randall Carlson, seem to have science backing their theories — not discounting them. Hancock seems to theorize that human history didn’t start 11,600 years ago, but was rebooted about that time. Again, if you listen to Joël van der Reijden, you should disregard Hancock as a quack and miss out on — if anything — an entertaining alternative history.
TED GUNDERSON
Since I’m taking the time to defend Ted Gunderson, perhaps I should share, “Why?” As you know, I’m a devout follower of Q-Anon. Q-Anon utilizes Open Source Intelligence and is the epitome of Crowdsourcing. He shares information, but he (or they) never tell you to refrain from looking yourselves. In fact, Crowdsourcing is about SHARING information and ENCOURAGING, not discouraging others to look at a source. As you and I can attest — this rabbit hole is deep!
Joël van der Reijden has set himself as the purveyor or arbiter of truth. The one difference between he and I is that he believes he’s doing you a favor by discouraging you from looking at a source. I believe — on the other hand — that the ONLY arbiter of truth is the individual themselves. Everyone must discern for themselves what they believe or disbelieve. There is only one truth.
Sure, we say, “Perception is everything,” but that just means you may or may not be ready to digest what is the whole truth. I myself still have trouble with many of topics that Q has addressed in the past. If Q has access to the whole truth (all the intel on the matter) and I do not, then my resistance is more of a reflection on my willingness to believe the whole truth more so than a reflection on Q’s honesty. Unfortunately, our Intel Community (IC) had to wait so late in the game before they could discern the Deep State’s full plan. Of course, we Patriots have their playbook. This is how we’re able to stay one step in front of the Deep State.
Ted Gunderson was one of the first to draw attention to manipulation of the Fourth Estate — our press. Once many of us go down the rabbit hole we learn about Project Mockingbird (1963). However, it was Gunderson who drew our attention to the Congressional Record of February 9, 1917 where it mentions J.P. Morgan interests buying 25 of America’s leading newspapers and inserted their own editors in order to control the press.
He was the first to draw our attention to the fact that there is something seriously wrong within the upper echelons of the FBI (i.e. destroying evidence as opposed to gathering evidence). However, that wasn’t the end of it. The federal government commenced to destroying Ted Gunderson’s credibility with a vast disinformation campaign and character assassination.
He was the first to really draw everyone’s attention the “The Finders.” The Finders he described as “an international covert child kidnapping ring.” It turned out to be a program that was started in the late 1960’s, but it wasn’t discovered until 1987 when two well-dressed men were arrested accompanied by five children who were covered in bug bites in a park in Tallahassee, Florida. The children were said to be on their way to Mexico to attend a “smart school,” yet they didn’t know how to use toilets or telephones. The Tallahassee Police transferred it to the Metropolitan Police and Customs got involved. That wasn’t the end of it, but it was only the beginning for Ted Gunderson.
He was one of the first to draw everyone’s attention to what can only be described as the United States’ Deep State. Within his allegations, he implicates the FBI, the U.S. military, Senators, Congressmen and people in the White House.
For the purpose of brevity, I will not go into defending all of Ted Gunderson’s allegations, because I don’t feel that I must do so to defend his integrity. We all say things that we regret. I am no mind reader. I cannot tell you what Gunderson thought, only what he said.
The same can be said for Joël van der Reijden. I don’t know his thoughts, only his words. To set yourself up as an authority and then treat such responsibility lightly as he apparently did with the topics above — reveals disingenuous intent, negligence or he is purposefully attempting to steer people from looking at sources because he’s a shill.
However, in Joël van der Reijden’s defense, I will add that I too think Gunderson was wrong about the tunnels under the McMartin Preschool. However, even the media says that the whole idea of tunnels came from the children who had been interviewed by law enforcement, not Gunderson. Gunderson — in support of the children — of course, defended the tunnel narrative.
Today, we know that RussiaGate could not have been executed without the collaboration of the FBI, the U.S. IC, Senators, Congresspeople and people in the White House — a Deep State with ‘tentacles’ in numerous agencies/departments. Today, we know dirty cops ran the investigation into the DNC breach. Today, we know dirty cops ran the investigation into election interference. Today, we know dirty cops ran the investigation into the HRC private server/email scandal. Today, we know Q-Anon is echoing the very allegations that Joël van der Reijden — and others — seem so eager to dismiss. Joël van der Reijden was wrong about chemtrails — commonly referred to today as SAI, geoengineering or SAG/SRM (a specific program or type of SAI). Joël van der Reijden is possibly wrong about Atlantis and likely wrong about Graham Hancock and Ted Gunderson. You decide.