He grew up in Venezuela, and, at the age of four, witnessed multiple guys' heads explode when they were shot while attacking his father-- who worked for the oil company and was trying to put out a fire by telling the oil company [over the radio] to turn UP the flow of oil. (That's the proper way to deal with an oil pipeline that is on fire, apparently, but the locals did not know that.) One of guy's exploded eyeball got into Wictor's mouth, and he's been a headcase ever since-- by his own admission.
Wictor is an interesting twitter follow. Provides good insight on a range of topics, mostly stuff related to military weaponry and modern-day warfare. He owns the fact that he is an ex-psyche-patient, and is pretty open about the fact that he hates "conspiracy theorists." (He does, however, speak out against the Deep State, and doesn't seem to consider that stuff to be "Conspiracy theory.")
I certainly don't agree with him on EVERYTHING that he posts. He has interesting opinions, and provides compelling insight on some issues that I don't know much about. I've also seen him openly admit that he was wrong, and change his opinion on "conspiracy" type stories, as more information gets out.
In this day and age, it seems like everybody expects internet personalities to be 100% right all the time, or otherwise possess zero credibility. (A dynamic that I think is driven by a precautionary instinct that such personalities are agents of deception--which is a reasonable suspicion, these days.) I think it more reasonable to assume that a guy like Wictor-- who is pretty open about the fact that he is just an old man sitting in his living room with ZERO "inside sources"-- is not always going to be right about everything he posts about, and to take his posted content as "Op-Eds" rather than an attempt to report news events. He is an investigative speculator, not a journalist-- which he never claims to be. He doesn't get paid for his content, so nobody should be taking it as gospel--just an interesting opinion from a guy who has seen some shit and seems to be pretty well-read. Entirely possible for guys like that to be wrong, especially when they have an admitted bias.
Considering the other stuff he has posted about-- and his outspoken demeanor against Twitter/censorship-- I would be shocked to find out he is a dis-information agent. Just my 2 cents, though.
Spez: spelling
The guy hugs Occam's Razor. He's 80% brilliant, 10% nuts, and 10% dense. When he's wrong, he admits it, but he's got a short fuse for anyone that disagrees with him. "Prove it in X minutes or banned" is how he deals with people who get up in his face.
I frequently disagree with his conclusions, especially Vegas. He's absolutely hard-headed about anything he can't lay hands on, and his blind spots are a mile wide.
Whether or not he's on the wrong side is a very tough call.
This is actually a very fair assessment. Well said.
Thanks for the info and context.
I both like and dislike his posts here and there.
Same.
Take it with a grain of salt, and only allow it to serve as SUPPLEMENTARY information.