OF THE QULT AND THAT STRANGENESS IN THAT WIKILEAKS DUMP
So many people sent some version of this story last week that it made it almost immediately into my "finals folder" of stories to blog about. So thank you to all of you, once again, who brought it to my attention, and another "generic thank you" to all of you who take the time to send articles. Anyway, this story is about that little bit of strangeness that made it into the Wikileaks dump which occurred around the time frame of the arrest of Julian Assange. But before we get to that, first a little caveat lector; most regular readers here already know, that during my years of writing, talking, and blogging about "strange stuff" that I've not commented much - if at all - about Wikileaks or Julian Assange. When Assange and Wikileaks first appeared, it was not a subject that was very much on my radar, and hence, to this day, I do not know much about Assange nor his operation. At the time he first appeared, I expressed some skepticism as to how it all worked, including who his sources were. I still have that skepticism. That said, I am even more skeptical and cynical about the nasty precedent and implications that his arrest portends. In some respects, I suppose, what bothered me about Assange was what bothers me about the Q-cult, or Qult as my colleague Bernard Grover calls it: it struck me as contributing to that malaise of our age, the desire to be "
on the inside" and "in the know," not that that was Mr. Assange's goal, but that seems to be one implication. Granted, Assange and Wikileaks did not concoct a labyrinth of bread crumbs for the faithful acolytes to decode and follow nor did Assange assert cryptic claims to a kind of infallibility ex cathedra et ex consensu ecclesiae Qque. That is to say, Assange at least did not, so far as we know, construct a psyop nor was he part of one. That makes his arrest - at least to me personally - very troubling.
What I find even more troubling is the possibility that the Qult has been carefully nurtured for the past couple of years, almost as if some sort of "replacement" was being prepared for the day that Mr. Assange was taken down.
Which makes the strange little document in the last Wikileaks dump, and that has been making the rounds on the Internet, even more intriguing:
Taking this document (and the accompanying article) as authentic for the sake of argument, we're presented with a bit of a conundrum. On the one hand, if one views the document itself, and then reads the above-linked accompanying article, one is struck by the fact that the original document states that the report that the Soviet Union destroyed a secret US moonbase was unclassified. Quite frankly, when I read the accompanying article and saw the document itself, it struck me that the headline read like one would expect to find on The National Enquirer, accompanying yet another article headlined Two-Headed Elvis Seen in Hotel Bar in Mindinao. So my first difficulty here is not only the Enquirerlike headline, but the fact that the whole thing is unclassified ab initio. Without the benefit of the whole document and possessing only its summary, we're left with not much other than the possibility that we might be looking at a summary of a newspaper article that might have appeared in some foreign media.
A second possibility here is that we might be looking at a bit of deliberate and intentional "meme-planting." After all, it would be a relatively easy thing to plant false documents for someone (like Assange) to "find" and disseminate.
But strangely enough, it took a junior Senator from Wisconsin to point out the possibility that perhaps one way to keep a "super secret" super secret is to downgrade the classification from "Super Secret" to "Kinda Secret but Not So Much," that way, one doesn't have to track the "Super Secret" document on the "Super Secret Documents Ledger". By the same token, some times the best way to hide something is just to pull it from the public awareness, but not to classify it Super Secret, nor even Kinda Secret but Not So Much, but just to leave it unclassified and on the shelf. No one else knows about it, who doesn't know the location on the shelf, and since it's So So Secret, it's above Super Secret and its ledgers; it's So So Secret it's not even classified.
But with all the strange photos of stuff on the Moon, including some strange things in the Chinese and more recently the Israeli pictures, the idea that the US may have had a So So Secret (i.e., unclassified) base on the moon is not so strange, and raises new questions: what kind of base - manned or unmanned - was it? Where was it? What was its mission? When did it become operational? When was it constructed? And who constructed it? Did this base have something to do with NASA's strange L-CROSS mission in 2009, which was designed to crash into the South Pole of the Moon? Remember that one? We were all told that the impact would be visible on Earth, so spectacular would the collision be.
When it happened, it was - at least after all the hype - a big nothing burger. Except to a handful, who were far more excited about the fact that the impact was not visible to the naked eye. What the telescopic images revealed was rather stunning, for the impact signature was not that of impacting on a solid surface, but of impacting on, and penetrating, a roof and exploding into an empty space beneath it.
And finally, to round out today's high octane speculation, there is a bit of an odd thing in the assertion that the Soviet Union destroyed this alleged American Moonbase. On the document itself there is a space labeled TAGS< and under this heading, one reads "ARBOGAST, CEYD QUENTIN, OGEN - Operations-General, UR - Soviet Union (USSR)." Now, the way I'm reading that strange list, ARBOGAST, CEYD QUENTIN, and OGEN" would seem to be codewords, with "ARBOGAST" perhaps being the codename for a specific project area, and CEYD QUENTIN and OGEN perhaps being specific projects within that project area. OGEN could be simply a sigil for what follows it: "operations-General". Then we get something very suggestive: "UR - Soviet Union (USSR)." Is UR explained by what follows it, as OGEN appears to be by "operations-general", in which case UR becomes some sort of sub-project heading for the Soviet Union in whatever ARBOGAST represents? Perhaps. Or, even better, is UR intended - as one individual who sent this story to me speculated - to represent an ancient UR, Ur of the Chaldeas in Mesopotamia? And is the reference to the Soviet Union indicating that it has some sort of "project ARBOGAST" (whatever that may be) interest in Ur?
Who knows, but I find that whole chain and line of reasoning to be intriguing to entertain.
So, for the moment, color me skeptical, but willing to be open to the high octane speculations here if indeed we could find out more information and details about this document.
See you on the flip side...
Help the Community Grow
Please understand a donation is a gift and does not confer membership or license to audiobooks. To become a paid member, visit member registration.