Its about perspective though. Was he deliberately ridiculed for what he knew or what he was, harmless to the majority, if eccentric, or dangerous to the established order?
The context he places information in is tainted by his extremes, but there is no denying a lot of what he stated has gone on to be borne as true, specifically about the upper echelon's involvement in paedo rings, and also the banking system, the EU amongst others.
He was also a member of the Green party and constantly rips into them for having an alternative agenda too.
Not everyone's cup of tea I know, but on information and research alone he has more than a tad of credibility.