35 Comments

Chelsea Manning is without doubt an agent and while she may not have wanted to look like the image in your article I'm sure the glamour shot in my article pleased her absolutely no end - in fact, it was this glamour shot which struck me as having a lot of money behind it that led me to suspect her and when it was obvious from her Wikipedia bio it was only a small step to recognise that Collateral Murder, used to infiltrate Wikileaks, had been faked. They always let us know Revelation of the Method style with obvious clues and they are always faking stuff and pushing out agents.

https://petraliverani.substack.com/p/chelsea-manning-agent-collateral

I lived next door to Julian Assange's father, John Shipton, for 13 years and we were very good friends. I do not think that Julian Assange is an agent, not because of the indirect personal connection because I accept that I could easily be friends with someone who's related to an agent, perhaps even be friends with someone who was an agent - who knows? It's just that I see no clues that he is an agent.

What I do see clues of, rather, is that Julian suffers from the quality of hubris which makes him such a very easy target for agents and he is completely surrounded by them. I have serious doubts about his wife who changed her name to Stella Moris, one letter different from Stella Maris, an occult symbol connected to the Sirens who lured sailors to their deaths and also have associations with child snatchers. Perhaps she turned however and is now loyal to him. I have no idea.

I cannot persuade John or others connected to Julian of my findings even though they're done ROTM style and anyone can see the truth right there clearly underneath the magic propaganda dust. It's just incredible how propaganda works.

Everything you say about the other whistleblowers sounds good to me, Ray, although I'm unfamiliar with most of it. As far as I'm concerned unless the evidence overwhelmingly favours a different hypothesis, whistleblower = agent.

Expand full comment

why does Julian think 9/11 conspiracies are a waste of time?

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6xe03f

Expand full comment

Sorry Kitten... I meant for this reply to go to Petra.

Expand full comment

Wikileaks is CIA. Stella or Sara is too. And I'd be shocked if John was his actual father. Did you Petra ever see them together? I now believe the man is an actor. It's quite a spectacle and devastating of course of Julian. It'd be a miracle if we see him alive again.

Expand full comment

It's interesting, kitten, because I know his father recognises WTC-7 as a controlled demolition and I'm assuming he makes the inference "inside job" although I don't remember actually confirming that with him. Perhaps Julian was propagandised by the controlled opposition that surrounds him, for example, Edward Snowden might have given the impression that as alleged "ex" CIA he knew, as an insider, that all the stuff about 9/11 was just distraction "from the important stuff". However, although it makes him look like very suspect I don't think he's an agent for a number of reasons including that when he announced Collateral Murder he really looked genuinely surprised by it. Just like his father though he's not exactly an open honest person. I mean I really did like John but he drove me mad in that he just isn't straight.

The writer, Andrew O'Hagan, was going to ghost-write his biography and spent some time with him but it didn't work out because Julian was impossible to work with. He wrote a long, extremely unflattering piece about him but there's no sign in this unflattering piece that he's an agent. https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v36/n05/andrew-o-hagan/ghosting

Expand full comment

I must have misunderstood your post. I still think each body has it’s own intelligence that is not governed by the mind, hence things like gut feeling. I think we humans are designed to cooperate with one another but are not in any way a hive mind. I read the book by Dean Radin The conscious universe which seemed to prove that their is a mental connection which may increase the effectiveness of a shared intention

I believe in the sovereignty of each human being hence vaccines must never be coerced or forced.

Expand full comment

Each

Expand full comment
author

Your comment actually inspired me to write my next article (about intelligence). Posting it soon.

Expand full comment

I tend to agree with Mr Krishnamurty and think we can scare not only ourselves but can scare the ones we know and love also. I think that all technology can be a burden or a blessing which with the surveilance state we all live is probably leaning towards a burden. Their seems to a plot afoot to surveil and control rather than nurture us. I think we must keep vigilant and wherever we can we must influence and educate. We don't want to encourage paranoia but vigilance.

Expand full comment
author

Krishnamurty was a theosophist, and theosophy was started up by a con-woman in the 19th century; it also seems to have links to the eugenicist movement.

There is no "we." Everyone must make up their mind. Is it better to know nothing or to be scared, but have the chance to prepare? Once facts are faced, paranoia is in the eyes of the beholder.

Expand full comment

brilliant! thanks for bringing to light a subject that needs to be talked about, especially if we want to get to the real truth and not some fake Gatekeepers truth we're being fed

Expand full comment
author

Apparently, the timing is better than before; I'm usually early with my observations. I've written an article about limited hangouts as early as a year ago:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/how-do-lies-become-the-truth

And the creation of folk heroes three months ago:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/folk-heroes-created-by-the-globalists

Expand full comment

What role does the bodies intelligence play in th eoverall intellect of a human being?

Expand full comment

"The acquired intellect of mankind is no match to the body's innate intelligence" UG Krishnamurti

Expand full comment

Two things qualify a person as a legitimate whistleblowers: 1.) Their Life and 2.) They can make a living as licensed professionals plugged into the system! I have interviewed Dr. Peter Breggin, Dr. Paul Thomas, Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Dr. Scott Jensen, Dr. Anna Maria Mahelcia, Dr. William Makis, and several nurses, and here is what I do know; most, if not all, were dragged through the mud with their livelihoods and had to sit in front of medical boards to clear their names for no good reasons because of the Scamdemic and as for the legitimacy of the Death Jab I know eight people who suddenly died from it and I know of no one who died from COVID!!

Expand full comment
author

Nobody died of "covid," because "covid" exists only in computer simulations and on TV. The test is a fraud and so is the diagnosis from symptoms, which is pretty much like most allopathic "diagnoses."

Mythical illnesses:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/something-must-give-when-everything

Typical "diagnoses":

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/something-must-give-when-everything

General diagnostics:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/diagnostic-failures-reveal-inadequacies

Breggin's material doesn't seem factual:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/searching-for-facts-and-solutions

These days, the focus must be on the radiation, and if the nanotech is in the focus, the radiation must not be left out:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/targeting-and-controlling-individuals

I am settling with the outcome of one's activities. Those in the system MUST serve the system.

Expand full comment

People did die from CoV. But no where near comparible to vaccine related deaths - which continue.

https://theethicalskeptic.com/2024/03/07/the-state-of-things-pandemic-week-50-2023/

Expand full comment
author

Apologies, but "covid" is an invented illness that existed only on TV and in computer simulations...

That's not to say the symptoms were not real, and after that, it only depends on what someone is willing to call "covid."

Expand full comment

I hate that you're more skeptical than me. But you're on point as usual.

Expand full comment
author

Sorry about that... :(

Expand full comment

DISCERNMENT: today as never before we need this holly virtue.

Who's authentic, even if he or she made or said something wrong?

Who's fake, even if he or she made something good or said some truths?

But, most important, from the systematic speech of anyone located in the dissident spectrum, and regardless of whom we are talking about, what is right or accurate or true? What is wrong or inaccuate or false? That is, the speech in question is just incurring in some unawere mistakes or is deliberately lying?

Lies are subtle or blatant?

Which prejudices are present in the speech?

Who benefits from that speech, no matter if the speech is rignt or wrong?

How do we know what is right or what is wrong in that speech?

Is the dissident willing to correct his/ her speech when necessary? Etc.

Definitely, DISCERNMENT is not for lazy or "black/white" minds.

Expand full comment

Thanks, Ray. Lies, liars, partial ones? Pass the salt.

Request? Something's been niggling now for a while?

Connected to Bill Gates? No, not Epstein, although a big rabbit hole there, also. No, it's the ex-wife, Melinda Gates?, if she kept the name?

She remained in the 'foundation', seemed self-serving, maybe crooked, that foundation?

I have serious health issues or I'd try to track it.

She doesn't make sense to me.

Expand full comment
author

When only liars are talking, it's best not to listen. :)

Expand full comment

FWIW: Stella Assange sits down (10/01) with author and human rights activist Craig Murray [...to...] 'discuss how greater awareness around Julian’s case has led to a better understanding of its urgency and relevance...' - https://stellaassangeofficial.substack.com/p/craig-murray-on-demystifying-diplomacy

Expand full comment

Good one Ray!

Expand full comment
author

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. :)

Expand full comment

Largely ignored topic bravely taken up by Ray! Project Veritas should be called Project Whistle Blowing Hot Air.

Expand full comment
author

Thank you, although I can't see any courage in speaking my mind. It's like breathing air for me:

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/freedom-is-what-freedom-does-but

As a matter of fact, most, if not all organized and publicized "resistance" is either agents of useful idiots (one doesn’t exclude the other). The Canadian truckers seem to be an exception, because their supporters' bank accounts were frozen, and thereby the globalists gave themselves away too early, at least as far as I can see. I'll wait and see what's going to happen in Germany; it's the outcome that matters.

Expand full comment

farmers' protests in Holland (2023): the sitting government fell, followed by new elections, resulting in an unexpected (??) win for Wilders' populist party. coming June 'elections' for the European Union: let's see what happens to populist AfD (Alternatif für Deutschland) and France's Marine le Pen. oftentimes the process is as interesting as the outcome.

Expand full comment
author

As far as I can see, all those "changes" were only to satisfy the crowd. Otherwise, the timetable of eliminating cows hasn't changed. The same applies to any other "opposition" party. Nothing will change, except perhaps for a little time.

Remember how the opposition winner was celebrated in Italy?

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/be-jubilant

She turned out to be a faithful servant of the globalists.

https://rayhorvaththesource.substack.com/p/a-follow-up-on-italy

Expand full comment

Marine le Pen is a French Meloni; the politicians that really want to work for the people are not allowed to run (or if they are, they get no media coverage and get very few votes). Voting is a theatre to keep the appearance of a democratic process and keep the sheep asleep.

Expand full comment

That's an excellent article and makes a strong case for individual critical thinking and discernment when it comes to who to listen to in so called whistleblowing circles. I remember first researching the whole graphene oxide thing specifically because of watching Noack's video explaining what it does in the human body. "Razor blades in the blood". And I remember watching him being arrested, then hearing of his death. After that, it seemed deaths were coming thick and fast in those who managed to speak out. Whether "accidental" or "sudden", most were highly suspicious.

The people I find most unbelievable aren't necessarily whistleblowers but those like Malone, for example, simply by dint of the fact he's still working in the same business he decries. That doesn't make for a plausible "frontline freedom fighter" imo. And others who reach some level of "this is what's happening" and jump on a bandwagon of "bringing it down" but never seem to progress beyond endless discussion or book selling or other marketing (how many frontline doctors are selling their "detox from covid/thejab protocols"?)

When it comes to whistleblowers, as with those claiming to be fighting for our individual and collective freedoms, my method is simple..watch and wait. Do they actually achieve anything, or have they turned into a one man/woman commercial enterprise, convention appearances at no extra cost?

All the past three plus years have done is turn me into a "trust no one" poster child. That includes not trusting whistleblowers until they've actually earned trust.

Expand full comment
author

Throwing in a topic for personal thinking was exactly my objective with the article.

I had to search for the arrest video, and the "debunking" "fact checkers" came up first. Disgusting.

Malone turned my stomach from the very beginning for the same reason why I never watched a US President's public appearance. You can just smell the rat and it stinks to high heaven. "Frontline" anything is only a lie, too. While detoxing can make some sense, it's a shot in the dark, and nobody can "detox" from the microwave weapons that can clear the battlefield anytime.

Watch and wait is what I'm doing, too, unless an event is too obvious. And no, only the "one step back, two steps forward" strategy is allowed in public, no matter who is doing it. Allowing some "progress" successfully disables the mind of the crowd, waiting for "Nuremberg 2" and similar nonsense.

As for trusting, I keep my eyes open, because I have to keep changing what I think from time to time (although not fundamentally), so I don't trust my opinion, either.

Expand full comment

That's a very helpful answer, thank you

Expand full comment

Yep.....bombard them with info, be part of the fake but show us just a little bit and then hold no one responsible....except the innocent of course (J6ers). Brilliant. We give up in the end of ever holding anyone accountable for anything!!

Expand full comment