Wikileaks: Made by the N.S.A. | Richard D. Hall
Created Character
Wikileaks: Made by the NSA – 15 July 2017 | Richard D. Hall
In conspiracy research circles, WikiLeaks generates much excitement. But not at Richplanet. Whenever you hear the words “Assange” or “WikiLeaks” in relation to some new “leak”, there are the questions: What is the ulterior motive for this leak and am I being taken for a ride here?
Richard D. Hall reveals just how much of a handled entity Julian Assange is. Assange is not an independent activist, but is chauffeured around by establishment handlers. He is not a wanted criminal, he is not being given asylum, he is not a whistleblower, he is not an advocate of freedom of information. He is an intelligence created tool being used to front one of the biggest psy-ops currently in operation on this planet. Wikileaks is funded and supported by globalists who are using it for a number of agendas.
“I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
Julian Assange – 19 July 2010
Cult Connections
Julian Assange‘s connection to the Australian cult “The Family” is indirect and stems from his mother’s relationship during his childhood. Christine Assange, Julian’s mother, became involved with Leif Meynell (also known as Leif Hamilton) after separating from Julian’s stepfather Brett Assange around 1979. Julian Assange later described Leif Meynell as “a member of an Australian cult” called The Family.
Christine Assange and Leif Meynell had a relationship for a few years, during which time they had a son together (Julian’s half-brother). The couple separated in 1982 when Julian was around 11 years old.
This period of Assange’s life coincides with what he has described as a nomadic childhood, during which he lived in over thirty Australian towns and cities. However, the exact impact of this connection on Assange’s life and later activities is not clearly established. Here are the key points about Julian Assange‘s connection to the Australian cult known as “The Family“:
- Assange’s mother, Christine, became involved with a man named Leif Meynell (also known as Leif Hamilton) when Julian was around 8 years old.
- Assange has described Meynell as “a member of an Australian cult” called The Family. He also referred to Meynell as a “manipulative and violent psychopath”.
- Meynell is believed to have been the son of Anne Hamilton-Byrne, the leader of The Family cult.
- Christine Assange and Meynell had a child together (Julian’s half-brother), but separated in 1982 after a “tempestuous” relationship.
- Following the separation, there was a bitter custody battle over Assange’s half-brother.
- Assange claims that he and his family had to constantly move and live under assumed names to escape Meynell, possibly due to leaks in the social security system that allowed them to be tracked down.
- Eventually, a private investigator informed the family about Meynell’s close relationship with the Anne Hamilton-Byrne cult.
- Assange and his family eventually fled from Meynell and the cult‘s influence.
- This period of Assange’s life involved frequent moves (he reportedly lived in over 30 Australian towns during his childhood) and a sense of being constantly on the run.
- While Assange himself was not directly part of the cult, this experience of fleeing from The Family and living in hiding for years appears to have had a significant impact on his early life and development.
Controlled Assets
We know that the steering psychopathy plays the long game, and we also know that if we know their name they’re in the game, so let us consider the possibility that knowingly, or unknowingly, Assange could be an intelligence asset or part of a Psyop.
Is Wikileaks what it purports to be?
Is Wikileaks a limited hangout?
Is Julian Assange an MK Manchurian asset?
What would that look like?
1. Controlled Dissent
Assange and WikiLeaks could have been allowed to publish certain classified information as a way to create the appearance of transparency and accountability, while actually controlling the narrative and limiting the damage to the intelligence community.
2. Discrediting Leaks
By associating Assange with controversial or unverified leaks, it could undermine the credibility of legitimate whistleblowers and leaks that expose genuine wrongdoing.
3. Gathering Intelligence
Assange’s interactions with sources and his global reach could have provided valuable intelligence gathering opportunities for government agencies.
4. Disinformation Campaign
Assange and WikiLeaks could have been used to intentionally spread misinformation or propaganda, under the guise of leaking classified documents.
5. Delegitimising Journalism
The prosecution and persecution of Assange could serve as a warning to other journalists and publishers, deterring them from reporting on sensitive government activities.
Limited Hangout
A “limited hangout” is a strategic tactic used in intelligence operations, media relations, politics, and information management. The term originated in the espionage trade and was popularised during the Watergate scandal. It involves the deliberate release of partial or misleading information to manage public perception and deflect attention from more damaging truths.
A “limited hangout” is a deceptive tactic used in intelligence, politics, and public relations. Here are the key aspects of a limited hangout operation:
- Partial disclosure: When secrecy is compromised, some truthful information is voluntarily revealed.
- Withholding crucial details: While disclosing some facts, the most damaging or important information is still kept hidden.
- Distraction: The partial truth serves to distract the public from pursuing further investigation or uncovering the full extent of the issue.
- Damage control: It’s often employed when a cover story becomes untenable, allowing the entity to maintain some control over the narrative.
- Credibility preservation: By admitting to lesser wrongdoings, the entity aims to maintain credibility and avoid more severe consequences.
- Mixed information: Sometimes, the disclosed information may be combined with falsehoods or misleading elements to further confuse the issue.
- Strategic timing: The release of information is carefully timed to minimise negative impact or serve specific agenda.
The term originated in the espionage community but has since been adopted in corporate and political spheres. The primary goal of a limited hangout is to satisfy public or investigative demands for information while protecting the most sensitive secrets and potentially deflecting attention from larger issues.
It’s possible that Julian Assange and WikiLeaks could be considered a limited hangout operation, though this remains a subject of debate and speculation. To understand this possibility, we need to examine several factors:
- Selective disclosure: WikiLeaks has released significant amounts of classified information, but some argue that the releases have been carefully curated. The organisation may be revealing some truths while potentially withholding more damaging information.
- Credibility building: By releasing genuine and impactful information, WikiLeaks has gained credibility as a source of leaked documents. This credibility could potentially be leveraged later to disseminate disinformation or to control narratives.
- Desensitisation: The constant stream of leaks may have desensitised the public to shocking revelations, making it harder for truly significant information to have a lasting impact.
- Assange’s statements: Some have pointed to Assange’s dismissal of certain conspiracy theories, such as those surrounding 9/11, as evidence that he may be part of a limited hangout operation.
- Wikileaks as a potential front: Some analysts have suggested that WikiLeaks may be functioning as a front organisation for intelligence agencies, possibly Russian.
To determine if WikiLeaks is indeed a limited hangout, we would need to consider:
- The full scope and impact of their releases
- Any notable omissions or patterns in the information they choose to publish
- The organisation’s funding sources and connections
- The long-term consequences of their actions on public perception and policy
- Any evidence of coordination with state actors or intelligence agencies
It’s important to note that definitive proof of a limited hangout operation is often difficult to obtain, as the very nature of such operations involves concealment and misdirection. The possibility remains a topic of ongoing debate and analysis among researchers and intelligence experts.
Perhaps the question we should be considering is: who’s running the operation?
Source: Wikileaks and Julian Assange
Leave a Comment
Want to join the discussion?Feel free to contribute!