Half-truths, Limited Hangouts & Manipulation

Things to keep in mind

Suddenly, after three long years, the truth is starting to surface…or is it?

First we have the lab leak theory. At first, any mention of lab leaks was labelled a racist conspiracy only discussed by Q Anon Trump supporters. Then it became forbidden to talk about at all or as the BBC puts it, a theory only discussed by fringe conspiracy theorists. Occasionally an article would pop up before being shot back down again. Natural spill over was the only theory allowed. Even though there was zero evidence for a natural spill over, utter the words ‘lab leak’ in polite circles and security would be called to remove you.

(I am using the words ‘lab leak’ to make a general point but I know it is a lot more nuanced than that. Leaked, intentionally released, small releases in different countries which quickly burnt out and many other theories are all possible but I won’t go into that here.)

But now, the media wants you to think a lab leak is a strong possibility. First the Department of Energy concluded that the virus was accidentally leaked. And then a few days later, FBI chief Christopher Wray said the bureau thought the same thing. It was reported in almost all of the MSM indicating that this line of thought is what ‘they’ want people talking about.

Why now? We have known most, if not all, of this information for almost three years so of course the FBI have known too. Is this a classic example of half-truths and limited hangouts?

The term ‘limited hangout’ comes from the intelligence community and refers to the practice of releasing only limited amounts of information about a covert operation to protect more sensitive information from being revealed. It is also used in politics and public relations to reveal only part of the truth whilst withholding other crucial information. The term was made popular during the Watergate scandal with the Nixon administrations using these tactics to hide the full extent of their involvement.

Usually in a limited hangout a person or organisation will admit some wrongdoing or reveal some embarrassing information in order to appear transparent and cooperative. However, they withhold back all the juicy stuff that could be more damaging or incriminating. In this way, they attempt to control the narrative and minimise the impact of the scandal.

So in a few days we’ve had Woody Harrelson’s monologue about big pharma locking everyone up so that they could sell vaccines. And then the Department of Energy and FBI say they think Covid leaked from a lab. Probably not linked but anything is possible nowadays.

Next, in the UK, we are at the beginning of ‘The Lockdown Files’. To summarise what these are, about a year ago a journalist called Isabel Oakeshott was given access to 100s of thousands of WhatsApp messages by Matt Hancock, the Health Secretary during the pandemic. These messages were between ministers and experts discussing what should be done in terms of testing, masks and lockdowns etc.

So far we have learnt:

• Top mandarin’s mocked quarantined holidaymakers;

• Boris Johnson feared Britain’s second lockdown was based on ‘very wrong’ Covid data;

• Boris Johnson wanted to lift lockdowns early but was told the public ‘wasn’t ready’;

• Masks in schools were introduced to avoid arguing with Scotland’s First Minister;

• Care homes refused to test staff they feared had Covid;

• Care homes were cast adrift and inhumane rules were discussed but kept anyway; and

• Matt Hancock used the media to ramp up fear to hit Covid testing targets.

Plus much more and undoubtedly much more to come. However, there’s nothing new there, we knew all of these ‘revelations’ already. And why now? Isabel Oakeshott has been sitting on these messages for almost a year. Furthermore, why did Matt Hancock even give them to her in the first place, let alone write a book with her? Isabel was always against most of Matt Hancock’s policies so it was a strange choice of co-author. Plus she has previous form for revealing confidential information.

So are we witnessing a number of limited hangouts? Firstly the lab leak and now the lockdowns.

If it is a limited hangout, then we should be looking for what they aren’t telling us.

With the lab leak, the blame is being placed firmly on China. Obviously there is no discussion about the involvement of the US. Also it is clear that the anti-China rhetoric is ramping up now that there is the possibility that they will assist Russia in the Ukrainian war.

And the reports all conclude that the leak was an accident. So it would be logical to consider the other alternatives.

With the lockdown ‘limited hangout’ we are seeing a number of fall guys, saying silly things and making stupid mistakes. People are being thrown under the bus but is this to cover darker information? For example, why key medicines were removed, why there was an increase in sedative drug use and why Do Not Resuscitate orders were given. I will be surprised if we see any information about those sorts of issues.

Alternatively, perhaps the world is coming out of its mass psychosis. Suddenly journalists are remembering how to be journalists again and are not stifled by the vast sums of money paid by governments to parrot Covid propaganda. But I doubt it.

If these are limited hangouts then they could also be used to manipulate. What would the average person think after reading these latest revelations? They would be worried about another lab leak and they wouldn’t trust politicians to handle any future emergency correctly. It has just been revealed how badly they have behaved. Not only did they make the wrong decisions over and over again but they were laughing in our faces. How do we ensure this doesn’t happen again?

Conveniently, at the same time as these revelations are happening, the World Health Organisation (WHO) is preparing a world wide treaty giving them the power to not only declare a pandemic but dictate the policies which counties must follow, including on testing, quarantining, lockdowns and vaccination.

In the past, people might have thought that the WHO treaty is a step to far. But now, after reading how badly our politicians handled the situation, they might start to think that maybe an independent group of experts telling us what to do is the best way forward.

Any revelations of the truth are welcome but we must also stay alert as to what is not being said and how the leaked information may manipulate minds.