[Kp update-add-ons: I forgot to add that perhaps “the cabal” only try these “limited hangouts” when they are desperate. They know their “laundry” is being exposed, so they do a “limited laundry hangout” as a desperation measure. And perhaps it is similar to what Corey and David have been referring to as “partial disclosure”.]
Some may be not-too-pleased that I’ve been into this “limited hangout” deal and posting a few things about it, and potentially seemingly de-guru-izing “the Snowden” and “the Assange”. But clearly something opened up within me a couple days ago about all this once I read the Ian Greenhalgh article. So like it or not, here is one more piece… with more of my personal “get” on all this.
First of all, any of these “whistleblower heroes” may be blindly viewed as “heroes”, and thus serve as “gurus to those who want a ‘hero'”. It is possible, in my view, that this is part of what happened with Assange and Snowden. For the first time, I see that it is a possibility that they were “set up” to be just that. That’s all I’m saying.
Secondly, I am not labeling either Assange or Snowden as “good” or “evil”. As I mentioned before, the Snowden revelations certainly helped me to wake up to the NSA and all their personal data-mining and spying. Which helped me a lot in waking up.
Thirdly, the “Snowden NSA revelations” came out on a very interesting date. Checking the Glenn Greenwald Guardian page, I found these Greenwald articles:
NSA collecting phone records of millions of Verizon customers daily (6-6-13) (“Exclusive: Top secret court order requiring Verizon to hand over all call data shows scale of domestic surveillance under Obama”))
The National Security Agency: surveillance giant with eyes on America (6-6-13) (“The NSA is the best hidden of all the US intelligence services – and its secrecy has deepened as its reach has expanded”)
I immediately noticed one thing about the dates on both: 6-6-13.
Add up numbers and you have 6-6-2013 = 6-6-6 = 666. Typical “cabal” deal… choose a date which has a specific numerology. So the initial articles posted by the Guardian were on a “666” day. Doesn’t that seem like something “the cabal”, “NWO”, would do?
And yes it’s possible this “limited hangout” deal (and all those promoting it) is itself “disinformation”. But I see the “limited hangout” pattern in the Snowden/Assange affairs. And when I see something fits a prior pattern, it’s very likely it is that same thing. So I see it as very possible that the Snowden/Assange affairs are indeed “limited hangouts”.
Perhaps the pricipals don’t even know it. But my sense is, they do.
Well, anyway, in all this, it’s a great chance to use that thing called, “discernment”… “Higher Discernment”.
Appendix: I checked DW’s site for Snowden references, and although he seems to support the idea that Snowden was contacted by and is working with “The Alliance”, there are statements like this (in this 8-22-13 article):
It is entirely possible that Snowden came into contact with the Alliance during his early years at Dell — particularly with his existing military background.
SNOWDEN MAY NOT HAVE BEEN WORKING ALONE
This new information makes Snowden’s activities seem far more organized and premeditated than they originally appeared. He was confident enough to extract highly classified info from Dell, and then take another job with a top defense contractor just to collect even more.
SNOWDEN MAY HAVE BEEN ‘VETTED OUT’ AFTER POSTING COMPLAINTS IN A TECH FORUM IN 2010
Snowden may have been contacted by the Alliance as a brave soldier whose loyalty and honor could be trusted after he posted on Ars Technica in 2010.
Sorry David… but that’s a lot of “may have”s and “It is entirely possible”s to stand as “proof” that Snowden indeed was involved or contacted in the ways described.
One definition I found of “limited hangout“:
“A limited hangout or partial hangout is, according to former special assistant to the Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency Victor Marchetti, “spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.””