Perhaps the only fact on James Le Mesurier about which I would agree with the MSM war cheerleaders is that he was a very busy man. It is remarkable therefore that he found the time and inclination to follow “Philip Cross” on twitter. Given that “Philip Cross” has virtually never posted an original tweet, and his timeline consists almost entirely of retweets of Nick Cohen, David Aaronovitch and openly pro-Israel propaganda accounts, why would Le Mesurier bother to follow him?
“Philip Cross” has never posted any news other than to retweet columnists. He has never given an insight into a story. In addition to James Le Mesurier, why then were all these MSM journailsts following “Philip Cross” from before “he” gained notoriety for his Wikipedia exploits?
Oliver Kamm, Leader Writer The Times
Nick Cohen, Columnist The Guardian/Observer
Joan Smith, Columnist The Independent
Leslie Felperin, Film Columnist The Guardian
Kate Connolly, Foreign Correspondent The Guardian/Observer
Lisa O’Carroll, Brexit Correspondent The Guardian
James Bloodworth, Columnist The Independent
Cristina Criddle, BBC Radio 4 Today Programme
Sarah Baxter, Deputy Editor, The Sunday Times
Iain Watson, Political Correspondent, The BBC
Caroline Wheeler, Deputy Political Editor, the Sunday Times
Jennifer Chevalier, CBC ex-BBC
Dani Garavelli, Scotland on Sunday
Prominent Freelancers
Bonnie Greer (frequently in The Guardian)
Mason Boycott-Owen (The Guardian, New Statesman)
Marko Attilla Hoare (The Guardian)
Kirsty Hughes
Guy Walters (BBC)
Paul Canning
What attracted all of these senior MSM figures to follow an obscure account with almost no original content? No reasonable explanation of this phenomenon has ever been offered by any of the above. What a considerable number of them have done is to use the megaphone their plutocrat or state overlords have given them, to label those asking this perfectly reasonable question as crazed conspiracy theorists.
This week, on the day of Le Mesurier’s death, “Philip Cross” made 48 edits to Le Mesurier’s Wikipedia page, each one designed to expunge any criticism of the role of the White Helmets in Syria or reference to their close relationship with the jihadists.
“Philip Cross” has been an operation on a massive scale to alter the balance of Wikipedia by hundreds of thousands of edits to the entries, primarily of politically engaged figures, always to the detriment of anti-war figures and to the credit of neo-con figures. An otherwise entirely obscure but real individual named Philip Cross has been identified who fronts the operation, and reputedly suffers from Aspergers. I however do not believe that any individual can truly have edited Wikpedia articles from a right wing perspective, full time every single day for five years without one day off, not even a Christmas, for 2,987 consecutive days.
I should declare here the personal interest that “Philip Cross” has made over 120 edits to my own Wikipedia entry, including among other things calling my wife a stripper, and deleting the facts that I turned down three honours from the Crown and was eventually cleared on all disciplinary charges by the FCO.
I hazard the guess that at least several of the above journalists follow “Philip Cross” on twitter because they are a part of the massive Wikipedia skewing operation operating behind the name of “Philip Cross”. If anybody has any better explanation of why they all follow “Philip Cross” on twitter I am more than willing to hear it.
The “White Helmets” operation managed for MI6 by Le Mesurier was both a channel for logistic support to Western backed jihadists and a propaganda operation to shill for war in Syria, as in Iraq or Libya. Wars which were of course very profitable for arms manufacturers, energy interests and the security establishment. It should surprise nobody that Le Mesurier intersects with the Philip Cross propaganda operation which, with the active support of arch Blairite Jimmy Wales, has for years been slanting Wikipedia in support of the same pro-war goals as pushed by the “White Helmets”.
——————————————
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Alternatively:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
How do the named individuals figure in the released Integrity Initiative documents?
Jimmy Wales is a sleazeball like Le Mesurier, the only difference being that ‘Jimbo’ fell upwards.
Was the deceased, ,RIP, not from an ancient lineage of spies (beginning with a certain Havilland Le Mesurier, floruit early 1800s)? I seriously ask.
Yes discussed on the previous post
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2019/11/the-sad-death-of-james-le-mesurier/
If Philip Cross was a multi-person operation why would they be using one account only?
Good question.
To appear to be one person. Has the account logged on from a number of different Internet Providers?
Because, in the same manner as document sharing applications used in business can facilitate use by multiple editors, it permits a coordinated barrage of updates to other accounts which would be difficult for the owners of those other accounts to counter.
Also, the use of one account makes it more difficult to track down who, exactly, is performing the edits – except, as always, there is a certain ineptitude (due to their colossal arrogance) which results in their revealing themselves. By the fact that they all follow the Philip Cross account.
Just a thought.
“it permits a coordinated barrage of updates to other accounts which would be difficult for the owners of those other accounts to counter”
How?
By the fact that you have multiple people all using the same userid to carry out edits on multiple other accounts. Unless you can get all those people whose profiles are being edited to band together respond in a similar fashion then PC has the upper hand.
The interesting question is not “how”, but how it is coordinated. Even applications which permit multiple editors to edit a single file (not that Wikipedia is a single document – but there’s a question there), I’m also thinking of source code control systems here too. It gives me the impression that there is a team of people – which probably points at PC being a group within GCHQ or some similar organization like the one not many miles from where I live.
Wikileaks recently asked me for another donation, to follow one I made some time ago, to their funds. After learning about the activities of PC and Jimmy Wales disinterest in doing something about it they will be waiting a long time for it.
The “multiple people” you mention would be as effective if they all had individual accounts. Actually, I think they would be more effective and virtually impossible to detect.
I have no idea what’s going on with the Cross/Wikileaks stuff. I think Craig is right to question it, and it definitely stinks. But maybe it is just some crackpot working on his own.
On Wikipedia, it is important to be known as a regular and to forge alliances with other regulars. They could have used two accounts or even three and still profited from that effect. But then people would have noticed that these accounts are editing very similarly and would have suspected them of being really only one person. And there would have been blunders. A strict rule that each employee uses only one of the accounts would have been impractical, e.g. when all operators of a certain account want to go on holiday at the same time. This would have delayed reactions to events concerning only that one account by a lot, so other accounts would have intercepted (possibly suspiciously so), or someone else would have taken over that account temporarily (something that might have been noticed).
Putting all eggs into one basket is a good strategy in this case because it creates a prolific editor persona and these tend to relatively protected against accusations of breaches of WIkipedia’s core rules.
Maybe they thought to use someone who already had a good reputation with Wikipedia and was good at it. Somehow Philip Cross, crossed the path of a “well connected” journalist and they forged an alliance. If this theory is true then it would suggest a change in behaviour to more political page edits sometime in the past.
that wikipedia is a propaganda outlet, there is no doubt… you have raised this question on the nature of philip cross before.. it is indeed a mystery which many would like to know the basis for… i doubt very much it is one person.. more like a multiple of people with access to the account from cia-gchq and etc. etc.. they are being paid f/t to propagandize..
To be fair, I joined Wiki in 2006 and have clocked up 98,000+ edits.
To be fair – tell us where you work. It’s not near Cheltenham, is it?
98,000… and your area of expertise is?
averaging 20 edits per day, every single day, for 13 years
presumably lots of different pages?
if done properly involves, at the very least, closely reading existing pages, research, debate with other editors, checking previously edited pages for edits you don’t agree with…
all in your spare time? and still find time to read/comment on blogs as well?
sorry, not credible mate
stunningly brazen of those journalists to link themselves so publicly with a prolific establishment smear campaign. they must be very confident it will not be viewed negatively by their employers.
on the contrary, they must be expecting significant rewards for signalling so clearly that they will never question any establishment narrative and are prepared to demonize anybody who does.
Re “stunningly brazen of those journalists”
Bearing in mind that these Journalists do no meaningful journalism, shouldn’t the word journalist be in inverted commas?
I originally thought that when Craig first highlighted the ‘Philip Cross’ wiki problem I imagined it was just something you could note by referencing the history page, and thus you could ignore it if the data had been tampered with by ‘Cross’. But it is not always easy to see the history page and compare the revisions made due to the fact that mobile devices, display the content differently than on a PC. Which means that there is therefore a problem of transparency with Wikipedia, it is now a toxic resource as far as data on public persons and contemporary events is concerned.
Given the various forms of harm ‘Cross’ has caused I would therefore support the idea of taking legal action for malicious damage against Wikipedia itself for colluding with this poisonous entity.
I have been thinking more about Philip Cross.
My theory is this.
1) He is one guy. Yes, he has been producing an extraordinary amount of activity for one person, but the point is we are filtering for an obsessive wikipedia editor, given all of them, not taking a random one and thus cannot expect him to hold to a normal standard. That is a statistical fallacy – like taking a lottery winner and then pointing out that the odds are 14 million to one so they cannot have won the lottery. I have also seen similar posting rates, 30 per day, on another forum I used to post on, so although very high this is not impossible. That he seems to post every day without variation suggests he is one person and that is his life – if it was a team, you would expect them to take Christmas off, or some other variability be apparent.
2) ‘followers’ are his currency. For someone like Philip Cross whose entire life is online, having high profile twitter followers is his reward. I think the deal was, follow me, and I’ll have your back and attack your enemies on wikipedia. Perhaps it was never even made explicit, but came about after one journalist decided to friend the person who was fighting their corner and then shared the wealth.
well, this is my theory anyway.
I know this still seems rather strange but
… I can’t think of anything else that makes sense at all.
N posts an average of 16,500 times per day on here. I used to wonder if he was some sort of multi-headed hydra or possibly some sort of robot, a sort of crude Marxist version of Cross perhaps.
I’m now 98.4% certain he’s just a guy that doesn’t play golf.
Why does Wikipedia allow this sort of manipulation of its content to go on? It undermines in a very serious way Wikipedia’s core product, information.
“Why does Wikipedia allow this sort of manipulation of its content to go on?”
Ever received a begging letter from Wikipedia? Like most such o9rganisations, they have an insatiable thirst for money.
And right from the start of recorded history, flattering and agreeing with the Powers That Be has been one of the best and safest ways of getting money.
St Jimmy is also an arrogant rich self satisfied tool, so you must take that into account.
Craig, a mutual follow on Twitter establishes a channel for rapid communication that can then lead to action in real time. One might accept that Cross does the edits and hypothesise that he gets messages suggesting them.
Yes, that makes more sense than anything else I can think of
This was my first thought too. And for that matter, it’s very likely that we have found an actual “bot”, after so much BS about “Russian bots”.
indeed! philip cross as uk bot incorporated…
It has come to something when an ordinary citizen like me can say with some confidence that almost everything the papers say of any import is contrary to the real truth, and if not it is surely inconsequential. Olivia Solon wrote a hatchet piece on the excellent ‘Working group on Syria, propoganda and the media’ some months ago. In years to come it should be studied as a textbook piece of post truth propoganda. The circular references it made to wikipedia and other ‘sources’ were rediculous. Mind you, Olivia was a former fashions feature writer who had never set foot in the middle East. The journalists she criticises Eva Bartlett and Vanessa Beeley are vastly more credible. They report from the region, often the front line and frequently using first hand video testimony. Not that their footage ever makes it beyond youtube. I highly recommend them.
You may also want to check out Andrew Ashdown (Anglican vicar) and Janice Kortkamp, both of whom have also been on the ground over the last three years and have many interesting tales to tell.
Nothing surprising about where Philip Cross’s stands on Le Mesurier and his critics, as seen in a.screenshot showing most of his contributions to Le Mesurier’s Wikipedia page: https://ibb.co/y5Jjk4S .
picturesque pseudonyms 🙂 I vividly imagine a Gaint Snowman, accompanied by a Black Falcon, a Moscow Mule and a Sceptical Scot – all of them editing LeMesurier’s Wiki page.
And you can’t go without an acronym. Nere is BSRF and I wonder does it stand for ‘Black Sea Rotational Force’ or ‘British Scoliosis Research Foundation’ or even “Beijing Synchrotron Radiation Facility’?
He appears to be a real person and a single individual, but is being used by other people and possibly doesn’t even know it due to his condition.
https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201910131077038943-andrew-philip-cross-wikipedia-editing-scandal-continues-but-for-how-much-longer/
Most of his edits are minor things like punctuation and the larger ones are just copy and paste or deletions, so it is possible that he could clock up a huge number of edits over the years.
It’s odd that any subversive operation editing Wikipedia would choose to make what they’re doing obvious by always using the same “Philip Cross” name. The “single obsessive” explanation does seem to have some plausibility.
Except it does not explain why the “reclusive single obsessive” has all those journalists – and Le Mesurier – following his entirely mediocre twitter output?
Nevertheless, the “Philip Cross” matter does seem a bit odd in that it is so obvious. Why not do the opposite i.e. have a team of hacks, each of whom creates multiple accounts? Perhaps it was one of those developments that just happened through laziness?
Membership of the D-Notice group would mean regular contact with the secret services. It isn’t beyond the realm of possibilty that following Phillip Cross on twitter is a way to ensure these followers can amplify messages, and speak as one voice. That creates a consistent narrative, which many of us cannot distinguish from truth or likely truth of a matter.
there was spook related news about a smartphone “weather channel” app, a few years ago – which when set to a certain city became an encrypted comms channel. not that i’m suggesting that….etc etc
my twitter app is version 8.1.5 (but I don’t use it)
One could ask the same about Bellingcat.
They are not following because they want to read his tweets – they have learned that if they publicly honour him by following him, he will defend them relentlessly. This is not a normal person Craig. His sense of status is derived from his twitter followers list.
I claim my £5, you hVe discovered the cowering msm who get their message from and army of GCHQ revisionist..
Or, they all collectively keep in touch via the phillip cross moniker, they are all phillip cross.
Whatever Jimmy wales says on the subject, he has got the key to close this gatekeeping down to a minimum, but seemingly is not interested or, if it is possible, has lost control over his own site.
Rather too busy counting his money to care
I only ever use Wiki for finding answers to non-controversial questions like “where is the source of the Nile?”. Whenever I get a request from Jimmy Wales and his minions for more money to keep Wikipedia going, I just reply “fuck off”. I hope that my freeloading his appalling site hastens its demise. It started well with such promise to end up as a major tool for the CIA and the rest. I hope everyone uses it without contributing money so that it becomes unsustainable.
‘Whenever I get a request from Jimmy Wales and his minions for more money to keep Wikipedia going, I just reply “fuck off”’.
Quite good. Instead, I would suggest something along the lines of,
“Craig Murray. Dr Malcolm Kendrick. C.J. Hopkins”.
And let them work it out – if they want to.
James Le Mesurier’s death, along with the recent deaths of senior ‘rebel’ leaders in Syria following US attacks, suggest that the US is worried about the consequences of leaving their former Syrian assets running around on two legs.
If I were offered my choice of presents by a djinn, I might well plump for transferring the entire personnel of ISIS – together with all their weapons, ammunition, and vehicles – immediately and invisibly to Washington DC.
Is the Integrity Initiative the common factor?
I agree there is something awry here – surely there are plenty of right-wing retweet accounts that people can follow, and the odds they all chose this particular one are pretty low. But if these journos were up to no good – a claim that requires a high degree of proof – is it not odd that they would follow this account so openly? Surely they would just create an anonymous secondary Twitter account, especially if they had wanted to communicate with Cross.
The only reason I can think of – to answer my own question – is that Cross would only communicate with “verified” journalist accounts, so that he could be reasonably sure he was not being gamed by folks hostile to his operations.
Craig, do you know that someone reinserted part of your Wikipedia page that you had deleted? That’s the fabrication from the Daily Mail about how you allegedly claimed to have personally received the stolen DNC e-mails in a park in Washington DC. The current Wikipedia page doesn’t even say that you deny ever saying that or receiving anything from the leaker.
It wasn’t Philip Cross that reinserted that, it was someone else https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craig_Murray&diff=prev&oldid=859345178 , although Cross has added more than anyone else to your page – about 40% of the total content. Cross did however object to the deletion of that section but he was then reminded by another editor that the Daily Mail should not be treated as a reliable source. (see kashmīrī TALK 03:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC) near the bottom of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Craig_Murray )
Thank you Brendan. I am not surprised. I realised some time ago that the powers that be were going to ensure my own Wikipedia page was as slanted against me as possible. The Wikipedia rules of course greatly assist this – the Daily Telegraph is apparently an authoritative source of information about me, as is the state propagandist BBC, while my own blog is apparently not!
Absolutely fascinating that, because I was reading the Wikipedia page of a (non controversial but famous) musician recently and most of his history post about 2004 was taken from his blog and other small independent online sites. It seems the rules only apply to the Cross editees.
It seems to me that to be obsessed with the veracity or otherwise of the social media in general (twits, face, inst, wiki etc etc) is to be sucked into a never-ending vortex, a spiral of fake news that one can never verify nor validate. So much energy in examining the angels on the head of a pin! Social media is a confidence trick; those who follow are being duped by the meag-corporations who are happy to encourage your obsession. Take a break, get a life – log off – for good!
Sadly impractical Pierre. Over 90% of people reading this website get here through social media. It is essential to countering the establishment narrative, which is why its gatekeeper function is so disturbing.
Many sites offer inducements to bring traffic. Obviously here, you are run on a shoestring, but if all your readers introduced one person a year your readership would increase thirty fold in five years.
I found out by chance that my supplier of copper gardening tools (a nice lady from the Midlands) reads your site, so it quite reasonable to assume that our own contacts contain those of similar enough mindset to find reading your site valuable.
Perhaps we should all have a new years resolution to introduce three people to your site in 2020?
While I agree it’s dangerous to spend too much time involved in social media, its power to build currency of reliably sharing information can also occur and is extremely valuable for building alternative point of view and perhaps allowing some truth to emerge. Also, for building lasting relationships and for organising. Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say in the UK!
I found a tweet by a lady called Helen Simms who has come up with an excellent mnemonic(try saying that when pished!) When readying any news source
“came up with mnemonic to spot #FakeNews :
S-Check SOURCE-(Where did it come from)?
A-AGENDA-(What do they want you to believe)?
F-FINANCE-(Not always easy,but find out who paid for story).
E-EXPAND-Look for other sources/info to support/debunk it.
#helenswriting”
She forgot C – apply some critical thinking.
So FACES.
Let us assume 5 mins per edit (some may be shorter, some longer), that could be 25 per day in just over two hours of actual editing, a reasonable time length for an obsessive ‘evening anorak’. That makes just shy of 8000 edits per year, which would top 100,000 since 2006.
I could easily see a full time editor since 2006 topping 250,000 edits.
“Wikipedia contributor “Mojito Paraiso” recently tried the experiment of creating an entry for “Philip Cross” the apparently pseudonymous editor/contributor who has been a persistent defamer/disinfo source, making rapid-fire and negative editing of the Wikipedia entries for many alt-media and “pro-Russia” journalists and commentators.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the article was disappeared very rapidly. And in what looks a lot like overkill, Mojito_Paraiso was then banned from editing in perpetuity.”
https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/15/wikipedia-takes-down-article-on-philip-cross-life-bans-author/
Liberals would tell you that entry was malicious smearing of a vulnerable adult. We live in Orwellian times.
Joel
A seriously unhinged person I was working with on student accommodation in the summer told me that ‘safeguarding’ could mean protecting the incurable pervert just as much as protecting the innocent student. I agree with his analysis in so far as we all have to create our own personal strategy for countering the one-law -for-us, another -law-for-you Big Brother menace.
If you contradict the government’s political narrative, as expressed in the MSM, you will be spied on in order to expose your weak points which in turn might ruin your life. For example, I have fungally infected toenails and I don’t medicate them. Armed with this information the gatekeepers of political conformity could argue that my personal hygiene is disgusting and insinuate this on my wikipedia page.
Craig is our teacher here, because he always robustly self-exposes the personal flaws that state apparatchiks might otherwise expose. Our private life is private , however many legions of centipedes are frittering their tiny nerve twitches, watching for private weaknesses to expose. If there is an individual called Philip Cross who has Asbergers which is on the spectrum of Autism, we have a duty not to persecute him for his mental abnormality. We also have a duty to remember that in a digital age no digitally stored material can ever be regarded as untampered with.
I can see a perfect logic in someone who is mentally different being driven to obsessively straighten the inconsistencies of other human beings, and also in someone who has been seduced by the disease of Thatcherite greed to obsessively spy on and criticise those who are blessed with normal post-Christian or post- Muslim altruism and peacefulness. One just has to retain a fragment of non- PC brain storage, backed up by an internal power source, to remind one that the evil politicians who love war, lies, and large pension portfolios are the mad ones, while we are sane.
It is that self-correcting chip of sanity, that torture/rendition /brainwashing was intended to erase.
why wouldn’t you treat your toenails?
Vicks vapo-rub will sort it out in a couple of weeks of daily application
much cheaper and more effective than proprietary “cures”
just sayin’
It mentions that here too:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Philip_Cross
The reference is a bit circular, because wikispooks has used Craig Murray’s blog for much of its sourcing.
Pretty astonishing that wikipedia deep-six’d an article on Phillip Cross. That’s blatant.
Plus;
“Commanders of Bolivia’s military and police helped plot the coup and guaranteed its success. Before they were educated for insurrection through the US military’s notorious School of the Americas and FBI training programs.”
https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/13/bolivian-coup-plotters-school-of-the-americas-fbi-police-programs/#more-16607
I just read a previous post by Craig on “The Philip Cross affair” and am shocked that Wikipedia appears to have been hijacked for right-wing political purposes. But it may have one good result: if it brings Wikipedia and even the internet as a whole into disrepute as a source of reliable information, this may revive the tradition of printed encyclopaedias, printed books and and professional independent journalism.
I am curious as to who might be behind the Philip Cross operation. The dedication required may well be beyond that of an individual, but the commitment sounds like the kind of thing one would expect from devoted members of a movement. The question is, which movement. Is there anything on the right wing resembling anything like the Comintern?
Alternatively “Philip Cross” is a professional operation, albeit done by people who are both well-paid and willing. It would require a wealthy sponsor or group of sponsors.
I wonder whether we might see any whistleblowers from such an operation. After all, people have abandoned or defected from other movements.
None of the journalists on that list would see themselves or are regarded as being right wing, a term British media applies only to outright fascists. The Philip Cross gang are without exception “”centrist liberals”, “moderates”, “pragmatists” — in other words the mainstream, dead centre of British journalism.
I wonder whether a politically independent rival to Wikipedia could exist. I imagine it could come under all sorts of pressures and be difficult to sustain. I recall that the late Donald Woods founded an Institute for democratic journalism in Johannesburg, South Africa. Possibly a website run by professional journalists from such institutions, with an international composition, not vulnerable to dictators and with a code of conduct might survive better than sites set up by talented individual techies who might succumb all too easily to financial pressure once they achieved popularity.
Whether or how it could be done, I don’t know!
“Found a Society of Honest Men, and all the thieves will join it”.
– Alain, Propos d’un Normand, 1906-14
One reasonable explanation for those people following is content aggregation/selection has value.
ie the very same reason people watch the news ( where they are reporting stuff that has happened elsewhere – not original in that sense ). The Cross account is simply doing the same – reporting on what is happening in twitter. People can then follow one account and rely on his editorial choice to filter out the ‘important’ stuff.
That’s not to undermine anything else you say, but there is a reasonable explanation why those people might follow – they simply found the account a time saving way to get to keep abreast of ‘important’ content.
George Galloway “investigated” this “Philip Cross” person and found him to be a kind of socially incapacitated living his him mother poor lonely soul against whom Galloway decided to leave him alone? GG’s conclusion is as mysterious as PC’s motivations and connections itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0UKveD9R3Y
… lest we forget… Jimmy Le Mesurier was a close colleague and confident of Harry Legge Bourke, brother of the royal princes nanny, Tiggy, and founder of the Olive Group, now merged with Constellis and working alongside other PMC’s… Bechtel, Halliburton and Halcrow…
A couple of years ago the company Olive was named as being responsible for finding the Syrian child victims who would be chlorinated for all the world to be shocked by. I was certainly very shocked about the news that was dribbling out about the White Helmets at that time, thanks to one or two brave journalists.
Now I have no idea if this rumour about Olive was true but Syria does seem to have drawn the ra-ra’s like moths to a flame. Money I suppose.
If you think James Le Mesurier is actually dead I can introduce you to a man with a bridge for sale.
There was an autopsy. You think it was of someone else?
Whether he’s right or wrong, he has a point. After everything it’s fair to ask, how would we know?
Not sure if this is the case or if it’s been pointed out already, but does this have anything to do with the ability to DM (direct message) people via twitter?
A previous article by Craig said (if I have understood correctly) that “Philip Cross” had access to information about a member of Momentum that would normally not be accessible to googlers, or even users of Wiki unless they knew exactly where to look.
Is it possible that the owner/s of wiki have access to software that regularly sweeps the changes made for anything un-conservative and passes it to “Philip Cross” for action?
If this secret censorship has gone on steadily for over a decade, I fear that we are talking about something that has not only great wealth behind it but a group that is capable of long-term commitment. That rules out specific political leaders who are usually out of office within (or well within) a decade. A movement is more to the point. But for that very reason, I would expect such a group to find it impossible to stay secret without someone eventually blowing the whistle. Perhaps we should be looking for potential or actual whistleblowers from conservative movements or circles for clues as to this “Philip Cross”. I don’t mean Craig or necessarily Snowden(?), but people like that.
“Is it possible that the owner/s of wiki have access to software that regularly sweeps the changes made for anything un-conservative and passes it to “Philip Cross” for action?”.
That depends on the construction of the Wikipedia site: it is likely that it is some form of database, in which case monitoring for changes would be relatively simple (a database admin’s job includes such activity). What is presented to the ordinary (man in the street) user is a front end to that database which permits reading and, for some, very controlled editing. BUT, there will be, behind the scenes, administrators who administer and control the backend database functions – for them global edits and monitoring of any changes would be relatively (if not slightly tedious) simple.
“Philip Cross”, hmmm, sounds like he is another bunch of junior GCHQ apprentices. What a horrible job they do , bad for the soul. The payoff is they get a nice career further down the line. Like that travel writer bloke who is always on TV these days, the one who was “first” to write about Osama Bin Laden .
I sincerely hope that the UK’s professional secret services (like GCHQ) are not behind “Philip Cross”. Even if a government tried to put pressure on them, it could be elected out of office at some point. But maybe a way to deal with such danger is to not have monopolies. We need rivals to large companies like Google, Wikipedia, facebook, twitter, news organisations etc to make disinformation operations harder, since users of the internet, once they know what is happening, can turn to rivals.
I wonder whether Edward Snowden would know who “Philip Cross” is, or clues might be found in the information he passed on, even if he doesn’t now hold the files himself.
“We need rivals to large companies like Google, Wikipedia, facebook, twitter, news organisations etc to make disinformation operations harder, since users of the internet, once they know what is happening, can turn to rivals.”
Which is why they are spending an immense amount of effort to shut down every one of the existing rivals.
When you control the narrative you control the perception of reality.
Excellent cross fire!
It seems highly likely that a large amount of the ‘Syria’ news emanating from the jihadist occupied areas was channeled to our msm, using various proxies who never once set foot there.
There is precious little from these scribes in recent weeks…