You spelled “state-sanctioned, military-grade psycho-path-ological coersion techniques lifted from the communist dictatorship playbook to achieve democidal aims” incorrectly. (Remember lead psychopathologist and lifelong British Communist Party member, Susan Michie?)
Fixed it for you.
Laura Dodsworth did a decent job of chronicling this in excruciating detail in State of Fear, of course. It’s a sorry state of the paranoid affairs we’re in to now contemplate that she and her book were likely timed to be integral to the whole psyop. I read it as soon as it came out very early in the offensive, and was struck by just how detailed it was in such a short space of time, that this erstwhile unknown author had been given so much “access”.
Along with the wall to wall celebrity endorsements, the saturation of every media space from TV to digital to bus stops, the 24/7 relentless fear-mongering, it’s little wonder the otherwise mild-mannered, non-conspiratorial normie masses succumbed, with their dogged beliefs in “government has my best interests at heart” and “cock-up not conspiracy”. Alas, they, and their gullibility and susceptibility were known about well in advance by the psychopathologists, and this is why we are where we are.
Very good article apart from the third word of the first sentence, namely “inept”. This makes the whole thing sound like a cock-up, which it wasn’t. It was a globally coordinated “plandemic” and all those complicit in it deserve to go to jail.
Presumably the next limited hang-out will be a BBC Panorama programme next summer admitting some over-reaching of government agencies, but leaving the inner circle exempt. Rupert Murdoch still clinging to the original text maybe. More difficult for some journalists/ editors to be requoted tho' not much conscience with the Rebecca Reads
A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is 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."[1]
In a March 22, 1973 meeting between Richard Nixon, John Dean, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, and H.R. Haldeman, Ehrlichman incorporated the term into a new and related one, "modified limited hangout."[2]
The phrase was coined in the following exchange[3]:
“PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the--let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that--
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out.
PRESIDENT: Well, it's only the questions of the thing hanging out publicly or privately.
”
Before this exchange, the discussion captures Nixon outlining to Dean the content of a report that Dean would create, laying out a misleading view of the role of the White House staff in events surrounding the Watergate burglary. In Ehrlichman's words: "And the report says, 'Nobody was involved,'". The document would then be shared with the Senate Watergate Committee investigating the affair. The report would serve the administration's goals by protecting the President, providing documentary support for his false statements should information come to light that contradicted his stated position. Further, the group discusses having information on the report leaked by those on the Committee sympathetic to the President, to put exculpatory information into the public sphere.[3]
The phrase has been cited as a summation of the strategy of mixing partial admissions with misinformation and resistance to further investigation, and is used in political commentary to accuse people or groups of following a Nixon-like strategy.[4]
Writing in the Washington Post
, Mary McGrory described a statement by Pope John Paul II regarding sexual abuse by priests as a "modified, limited hangout".[5]References
^ Victor Marchetti (August 14, 1978) The Spotlight^ Template:Frost/Nixon: The Complete Interviews. David Frost, Richard Nixon. Paradine Television, 1977.^ a b "Transcript of a recording of a meeting among the president, John Dean, John Erlichman, H.R. Haldeman, and John Mitchell on March 22 a
You spelled “state-sanctioned, military-grade psycho-path-ological coersion techniques lifted from the communist dictatorship playbook to achieve democidal aims” incorrectly. (Remember lead psychopathologist and lifelong British Communist Party member, Susan Michie?)
Fixed it for you.
Laura Dodsworth did a decent job of chronicling this in excruciating detail in State of Fear, of course. It’s a sorry state of the paranoid affairs we’re in to now contemplate that she and her book were likely timed to be integral to the whole psyop. I read it as soon as it came out very early in the offensive, and was struck by just how detailed it was in such a short space of time, that this erstwhile unknown author had been given so much “access”.
Along with the wall to wall celebrity endorsements, the saturation of every media space from TV to digital to bus stops, the 24/7 relentless fear-mongering, it’s little wonder the otherwise mild-mannered, non-conspiratorial normie masses succumbed, with their dogged beliefs in “government has my best interests at heart” and “cock-up not conspiracy”. Alas, they, and their gullibility and susceptibility were known about well in advance by the psychopathologists, and this is why we are where we are.
Yes 😊🙏 very well put thank you!
Excellent. Unfortunately so many of my unawake friends are not ready to recognise they were duped. Will they ever ? Or be prepared to admit it ?
Very good article apart from the third word of the first sentence, namely “inept”. This makes the whole thing sound like a cock-up, which it wasn’t. It was a globally coordinated “plandemic” and all those complicit in it deserve to go to jail.
Reiner Fuellmich and his expert colleagues worked this out a year ago in their Corona Crimes Against Humanity model trial which he summed up thus (video and transcript): https://www.handsforhealthandfreedom.org/covid-crimes-against-humanity-the-trial/
Exactly. Please see my other comment on this thread. We’ve known the “how” for some time now. Fuellmich et al were asking “why” from the get-go.
Presumably the next limited hang-out will be a BBC Panorama programme next summer admitting some over-reaching of government agencies, but leaving the inner circle exempt. Rupert Murdoch still clinging to the original text maybe. More difficult for some journalists/ editors to be requoted tho' not much conscience with the Rebecca Reads
Disagree with the pantomime of the lab release. We are being poisoned in lots of ways
Everything we see is scripted weighed and measured
I'll say this
Limited hangout
https://consentfactory.org/2023/01/11/the
New word to add to your vocabulary-
Limited hangout
A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details. It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or "mea culpa" type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be "coming clean" and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.
A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.
Victor Marchetti wrote: "A 'limited hangout' is 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."[1]
Contents
1 Modified limited hangout2 References3 See also4 External linksModified limited hangout
In a March 22, 1973 meeting between Richard Nixon, John Dean, John Ehrlichman, John Mitchell, and H.R. Haldeman, Ehrlichman incorporated the term into a new and related one, "modified limited hangout."[2]
The phrase was coined in the following exchange[3]:
“PRESIDENT: You think, you think we want to, want to go this route now? And the--let it hang out, so to speak?
DEAN: Well, it's, it isn't really that--
HALDEMAN: It's a limited hang out.
DEAN: It's a limited hang out.
EHRLICHMAN: It's a modified limited hang out.
PRESIDENT: Well, it's only the questions of the thing hanging out publicly or privately.
”
Before this exchange, the discussion captures Nixon outlining to Dean the content of a report that Dean would create, laying out a misleading view of the role of the White House staff in events surrounding the Watergate burglary. In Ehrlichman's words: "And the report says, 'Nobody was involved,'". The document would then be shared with the Senate Watergate Committee investigating the affair. The report would serve the administration's goals by protecting the President, providing documentary support for his false statements should information come to light that contradicted his stated position. Further, the group discusses having information on the report leaked by those on the Committee sympathetic to the President, to put exculpatory information into the public sphere.[3]
The phrase has been cited as a summation of the strategy of mixing partial admissions with misinformation and resistance to further investigation, and is used in political commentary to accuse people or groups of following a Nixon-like strategy.[4]
Writing in the Washington Post
, Mary McGrory described a statement by Pope John Paul II regarding sexual abuse by priests as a "modified, limited hangout".[5]References
^ Victor Marchetti (August 14, 1978) The Spotlight^ Template:Frost/Nixon: The Complete Interviews. David Frost, Richard Nixon. Paradine Television, 1977.^ a b "Transcript of a recording of a meeting among the president, John Dean, John Erlichman, H.R. Haldeman, and John Mitchell on March 22 a
yes the vaccine narrative has changed, they're ready to ditch them altogether, having made £trillions, and all part of the plan https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/the-vaccine-narrative-is-changing
Jo
🐒
and the lab leak hypothesis is absolutely 100% not a fact! https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer
Jo
🐒