I don't think the Julian Assange case is as clear cut as it might seem. I lived next door to his father, John Shipton, for over a decade and he was a regular visitor in our household. John is not a straight-talker and neither is his son but my feeling about Julian is that he was infiltrated from probably when he first hacked a government computer when he was in his late teens/early twenties and has somehow been brainwashed to believe that 9/11 really was a terrorist attack. It's interesting because I know his dad recognises controlled demolition. I think his wife is an agent who's somehow turned - Stella Moris (not her original name) is one letter different from Stella Maris which has occult associations. It's all a mystery and my having been a neighbour of John's and dined with him numerous times does not help me understand things any better than anyone else. Bradley / Chelsea Manning is clearly an agent and I think Julian really believed her, I don't think he was "in on" the fakery of Collateral Murder. Andrew O'Hagan does not paint a flattering picture of Julian but I don't think his portrait tends to suggest he's an agent (wittingly or unwittingly).
I'm so sorry I forgot to do you a proper reply. Blame it on the G&T - that and my awful short-term memory. My short-term memory used to be excellent, according to my teenage Wechsler tests. I wonder what happened to it.
I do like your hypothesis about Julian in the sense of 'they got to him', or he was 'set up'. There's certainly the consideration of the proverbial offer you can't refuse, which would've happened when he got caught hacking. Then there's other threats which can be continuous for someone in his position. Plus one has to say he would not have had any control over the kind of information people upload to Wikileaks.
So in this sense, maybe his quip about 9/11 is a complete red herring. I guess I only cite it to illustrate the basic point about a discrepancy test. Some people lie, after all, not to deceive others, but to protect themselves.
Manning would've been part of the set-up of course. Simply the delivery agent for the CM video, as well as a 'warning' to other potential whistleblowers. Playing the part, so to speak.
Whether he/she is genuinely trans I don't know. Maybe s/he only dolls herself up for public appearances, and all other times s/he's out larging it with the lads. People wouldn't recognise her/him in that guise, after all. Plus - as a bonus - they get to use her in their manufactured culture war thing (which coincides with the timing, as far as I remember - around the 2014 mark I'd say, when the WHO finally said 'trans' was not a sexuality disorder anymore, after reviewing all the fMRI studies - that's when the gender crits came out of their respective shitholes).
So yes, absolutely, I can't see any anomalies in that hypothesis.
In fact, it highlights one important consideration when we look at manufactured events. Namely, it can be the case that the person (or people) at the centre of those events are indeed innocent (of any knowing collaboration in the event), but they are surrounded by agents who make sure the event proceeds as planned, and the innocent centre-point person acts in line with the narrative. I'm thinking specifically here of those two issues Miri keeps talking about, namely the Lucy Letby saga (I know a massive amount about this one, btw, and Miri is totally wrong about it), and the Maddie McCann story. i.e. the parents are innocent, they did have a daughter called Maddie, and she was the victim of an 'arranged' abduction - I have a fair amount to say about this one too, which can be a forthcoming article; whether Miri is correct about the narrative now being about microchipping children - which I seriously doubt tbh - it wasn't that originally; it was about the child abuse Network - the timing is coincidental with the release of the Belgian X-dossiers, as well as a renewed set of accusations against Saville, covered up by a certain DPP, of course.
Anyway - Julian being innocent doesn't mean Wikileaks wasn't set up as a limited hangout, of course, so I'm willing to believe both.
Will reply when I’m sober Petra. Today turned out to be our annual gin & tonic day. We always regret it the next day and swear not to do it again. Ten moths later we are of a different mind, then it takes about two months for the weather to be favourable.
Thank you for your comment, though - the truth is clearly very nuanced and I agree with you about Manning (in terms of the timing him going trans also plays into their manufactured culture war thing, which started up around the same time). Maybe we should be analysing Wikileaks (as a LH & entrapment) separately to Julian…
I don't think the Julian Assange case is as clear cut as it might seem. I lived next door to his father, John Shipton, for over a decade and he was a regular visitor in our household. John is not a straight-talker and neither is his son but my feeling about Julian is that he was infiltrated from probably when he first hacked a government computer when he was in his late teens/early twenties and has somehow been brainwashed to believe that 9/11 really was a terrorist attack. It's interesting because I know his dad recognises controlled demolition. I think his wife is an agent who's somehow turned - Stella Moris (not her original name) is one letter different from Stella Maris which has occult associations. It's all a mystery and my having been a neighbour of John's and dined with him numerous times does not help me understand things any better than anyone else. Bradley / Chelsea Manning is clearly an agent and I think Julian really believed her, I don't think he was "in on" the fakery of Collateral Murder. Andrew O'Hagan does not paint a flattering picture of Julian but I don't think his portrait tends to suggest he's an agent (wittingly or unwittingly).
https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/chelsea-manning-agent-collateral?r=1c11bx
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting
I'm so sorry I forgot to do you a proper reply. Blame it on the G&T - that and my awful short-term memory. My short-term memory used to be excellent, according to my teenage Wechsler tests. I wonder what happened to it.
I do like your hypothesis about Julian in the sense of 'they got to him', or he was 'set up'. There's certainly the consideration of the proverbial offer you can't refuse, which would've happened when he got caught hacking. Then there's other threats which can be continuous for someone in his position. Plus one has to say he would not have had any control over the kind of information people upload to Wikileaks.
So in this sense, maybe his quip about 9/11 is a complete red herring. I guess I only cite it to illustrate the basic point about a discrepancy test. Some people lie, after all, not to deceive others, but to protect themselves.
Manning would've been part of the set-up of course. Simply the delivery agent for the CM video, as well as a 'warning' to other potential whistleblowers. Playing the part, so to speak.
Whether he/she is genuinely trans I don't know. Maybe s/he only dolls herself up for public appearances, and all other times s/he's out larging it with the lads. People wouldn't recognise her/him in that guise, after all. Plus - as a bonus - they get to use her in their manufactured culture war thing (which coincides with the timing, as far as I remember - around the 2014 mark I'd say, when the WHO finally said 'trans' was not a sexuality disorder anymore, after reviewing all the fMRI studies - that's when the gender crits came out of their respective shitholes).
So yes, absolutely, I can't see any anomalies in that hypothesis.
In fact, it highlights one important consideration when we look at manufactured events. Namely, it can be the case that the person (or people) at the centre of those events are indeed innocent (of any knowing collaboration in the event), but they are surrounded by agents who make sure the event proceeds as planned, and the innocent centre-point person acts in line with the narrative. I'm thinking specifically here of those two issues Miri keeps talking about, namely the Lucy Letby saga (I know a massive amount about this one, btw, and Miri is totally wrong about it), and the Maddie McCann story. i.e. the parents are innocent, they did have a daughter called Maddie, and she was the victim of an 'arranged' abduction - I have a fair amount to say about this one too, which can be a forthcoming article; whether Miri is correct about the narrative now being about microchipping children - which I seriously doubt tbh - it wasn't that originally; it was about the child abuse Network - the timing is coincidental with the release of the Belgian X-dossiers, as well as a renewed set of accusations against Saville, covered up by a certain DPP, of course.
Anyway - Julian being innocent doesn't mean Wikileaks wasn't set up as a limited hangout, of course, so I'm willing to believe both.
I'll read the links now. Sorry for the ramble.
Will reply when I’m sober Petra. Today turned out to be our annual gin & tonic day. We always regret it the next day and swear not to do it again. Ten moths later we are of a different mind, then it takes about two months for the weather to be favourable.
Thank you for your comment, though - the truth is clearly very nuanced and I agree with you about Manning (in terms of the timing him going trans also plays into their manufactured culture war thing, which started up around the same time). Maybe we should be analysing Wikileaks (as a LH & entrapment) separately to Julian…