Wikileaks Julian Assange close links to the Economist controlled Rothschild!

[Ahkenaten]

I think I read here in these boards somewhere that Google is merely another CIA-funded information/dossier/social-network tracking tar baby like FaceBook. Is that what you mean by 'Google Vomit' Mr. Zook?

[Roofie]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Hi Roofie,



Well ... I'm a truth, fairness, and justice trampoline. You jumped on those that believe that Wikileaks is a fraud by alluding to them as sheeple. Your exact words: 'I find it funny that people, "or should that be Sheeple??" are actually swallowing this tripe about Rape allegations and the supposed links to TPTB.' In the interests of fairness, I bounced you back.

[]I guess I had that coming...
My apologies to those I have branded sheeple...[


http://mondediplo.com/2010/09/04israelbase
]Thanks for the link
Just curious ... what is Wikileaks to the vast majority of us if not Google vomit? But if it is Google vomit; then why are you eager to lend it credibility and not be willing to accept other Google vomit that exposes Wikileaks as a fraud?
Out of the hundreds of conspiracy forums, blogs, websites, etc they seem to be most feared by the TPTB. Therefore I think they are legitemate.



That's dulling Occam's Razor ... and smoking Occam's Bong, if you'll pardon my saying.
I like to think outside of the box, put yourself in his position. If you had that proof "not saying he does" would you want anyone else to compromise it??



ps: In any event, apologies never hurt no one (except maybe Arthur Fonzarelli) ... so I do apologize if you took offense.

Eyyyyyyyyy!!! Thumbs up.
I apologise again for the Sheeple remark, also probably a bit harsh.





I guess at the end of the day a majority of what any of us are researching is basically heresay anyway. Unless you were there you cant be 100% sure..

[Zook]

Hi Bill,

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
The YouTube title:
Wikileaks a clever way to sell Propaganda by sandwiching it in with the obvious.

Shiva, you're falling for the propaganda AGAINST Wikileaks.

How is this not obvious?

I'm glad you're human! If you'd kept on being right and right and right and right ... as many times as you have been ... and missed the occasion of being wrong (I'm using poetic license, Bill, hope you understand), I'd have to question your human credentials! LOL!


I'm happy to say that you are indeed human!

My reasoning as to why I believe Wikileaks is an out and out scam is summed up by one word: distraction.

Tel Aviv monitors all important communications worldwide (I'm pretty sure it monitors all the trivial stuff, too, but that's neither here nor there). So far, the stuff that's been released favors Tel Aviv's agenda and attempts to justify much that has transpired since 9/11/2001. Red flag right there. But here's the crux ... TMastardsTB (who own Tel Aviv) recognize that things have been going rather bad for them in terms of public awareness of their money scams. Worse, they're beyond the point of no return. They've engineered the destruction of the world's major economies and the looting of the respective treasuries, as part in parcel of their agenda for a NWO. And they have done this largely using distractive tools. On one level, these tools are of the Britney Spears, American Idol, Tiger Woods, Congressman in Argentina sex scandal variety. On another level, the traditional jingofare of Empire-spun cotton candy and patriot pomme pies (e.g. sports, entertainment, holiday consumerism, etc.). On a third level, the distraction is a fuse wire running from the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) to at least the contrapositive Koreas. The fuse was lit with 9/11/2001; and the travelling spark incinerated Iraq and Afghanistan (zigzagging back and forth a few times). Under cover of the massive distraction known as the War on Terrorism, the money launderers have continued their thing with the illicit drugs (opium, cocaine); the illicit defense contracts; the illicit paramilitary and Homeland Security contracts; the illicit corporate and banking bailouts; etc. etc. Following the fusewire and firebox to Iran then ... is she gonna blow or ain't she gonna? Distraction. She ain't blown? Then follow the fusewire to Pakistan-India (e.g. false flag Mumbai bombings) ... is he gonna blow or ain't she gonna? Distraction. She ain't blown? Okay, let's follow the fusewire to the craziness in the Koreas (the North afflicted by a bonafide cuckoo; the South by a cuckold-relationship with America) ... is she gonna blow or ain't she gonna?

Well ... at this point ... it looks like just another distraction.

But what's the purpose of these distractions, you may ask. Short answer: it keeps people occupied while TMastardsTB put the finishing touches on their engineered destruction of once economically viable sovereign states. But for what purpose, you may insist? Who really knows? But we can make informed speculations using our knowledge of the TmastardsTB proposed goal of a new world order from chaos. To wit, they are creating chaos; so they can reap the benefit by offering order, e.g. when the people get weary of the chaos. But what does this have to do with Julian Assange and Wikileaks, you may pound the desk and demand? Well ... if I have to fill in all the blanks, what's the fun in it for you? LOL! Short answer: distraction.

To wit, Wikileaks is a scam ... a false flag information stream manufactured to distract the people away from the ongoing engineered economic destructions. Juilan Assange is a false messenger of hope ... sent by the wolves to pose as a shepherd, to guide the sheep from pasture to pasture, to fatten them up for the day of shearing - or worse – the day of slaughter. Humble opinions all around.

Hope you have a good sense of humor, Bill. At the end of the day, Wikileaks is bad news (either from your perspective or mine). In such times, sometimes a laugh and a rolling of the eyes is the only mutually agreeable response.



ps: There's a lot of stuff in the leaked material that amounts to informational chaff, e.g. to keep us busy with our sifters.

[Zook]

Hi Ahkenaten,

Posted by Ahkenaten (here)
I think I read here in these boards somewhere that Google is merely another CIA-funded information/dossier/social-network tracking tar baby like FaceBook. Is that what you mean by 'Google Vomit' Mr. Zook?

Nope. If you read back to Roofie's post, he mentioned Google 'throwing up'. I got a bit cute and converted that to Google vomit. Hope that helps.



ps: For me Google is just a horse galloping towards the nutritious informational grasses. Toxic foxglove and other poisonous plants amidst the grasses are types of vegetation that the feeding horse is wise to spit out (and as quickly as possible).

[ponda]

Zook

Anything can be a distraction if you believe it to be


This brings to mind a quote i remember from the book "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance".It's about the only thing i remember from reading the book.

The quote is:

"People only become fanatical about something that they haven't got complete confidence in"

[astrid]

who was talking about JA having a back up plan.... well u were spot on... check this out

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...html?tag=stack

(CBS) WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has a backup plan should anything happen to him or his notorious document-dumping website. The legal net is tightening around Assange. On Thursday, Sweden's highest court turned down an appeal from his legal team, which means an international warrant for his arrest in a sexual assault case is valid, CBS News Correspondent Elizabeth Palmer reports.

(Scroll down to watch a video of this report)

Supporters of WikiLeaks around the world are downloading a file the site calls an insurance policy. The files are encrypted with a code so strong it's unbreakable, even by governments.

If anything happens to Assange or the website, a key will go out to unlock the files. There would then be no way to stop the information from spreading like wildfire because so many people already have copies.

"What most folks are speculating is that the insurance file contains unreleased information that would be especially embarrassing to the U.S. government if it were released," said Declan McCullagh, chief political correspondent for CNET, a CBS company.

In other words, the Interpol arrest warrant may eventually stop Assange but not the spread of even more Wiki-secrets.

i remember Ben Fulford saying he has the same policy......

[astrid]

Maybe... this answers the 9/11 question... maybe that's part of the policy.
The man is obviously not unintelligent......

This has all become suddenly very very interesting....
i think this warrants a thread of its own....

[Ahkenaten]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Hi Ahkenaten,



Nope. If you read back to Roofie's post, he mentioned Google 'throwing up'. I got a bit cute and converted that to Google vomit. Hope that helps.

THANKS!!

ps: For me Google is just a horse galloping towards the nutritious informational grasses. Toxic foxglove and other poisonous plants amidst the grasses are types of vegetation that the feeding horse is wise to spit out (and as quickly as possible).

I really liked the imagery with your "horse galloping towards the nutritious informational grasses" etc. I pictured the menagerie galloping to include giraffes, armadillos, pecadillos and other animals!

[Zook]

Hi Ponda,

Posted by ponda (here)
Zook
Anything can be a distraction if you believe it to be
This brings to mind a quote i remember from the book "Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance".It's about the only thing i remember from reading the book.
The quote is:

"People only become fanatical about something that they haven't got complete confidence in"

Very true. And that cuts both ways.

Me? When I make an argument, debate the facts, and find no reasonable counterargument ... then it usually means something different from fanaticism. It means that I am convinced of the veracity of my argument, not that I lack confidence in it. Some people say that I am fanatical about 9/11/2001. But is it fanatical to have discovered that the neoArabian tale of Osama bin Laden and the Nineteen Saudi Sheeps is an unmitigated lie (that has lead to mortal consequences for Iraqis and Afghans; and libertarian consequences for the rest of us), and to keep reminding the people (many still sleeping) that 9/11/2001 was an Inside Job? Or is it the kind of uncompromising defense of truth, that truth deserves?

If all the credible evidence points to Julian Assange as a patsy of TMastardsTB; and Wikileaks as a vehicle for their propaganda (with a layer of separation) ... then who are really the fanatics here ... the Wikileaks offenders? Or the Wikileaks defenders?

[ponda]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Hi Ponda,



Very true. And that cuts both ways.

Me? When I make an argument, debate the facts, and find no reasonable counterargument ... then it usually means something different from fanaticism. It means that I am convinced of the veracity of my argument, not that I lack confidence in it. Some people say that I am fanatical about 9/11/2001. But is it fanatical to have discovered that the neoArabian tale of Osama bin Laden and the Nineteen Saudi Sheeps is an unmitigated lie (that has lead to mortal consequences for Iraqis and Afghans; and libertarian consequences for the rest of us), and to keep reminding the people (many still sleeping) that 9/11/2001 was an Inside Job? Or is it the kind of uncompromising defense of truth, that truth deserves?

If all the credible evidence points to Julian Assange as a patsy of TMastardsTB; and Wikileaks as a vehicle for their propaganda (with a layer of separation) ... then who are really the fanatics here ... the Wikileaks offenders? Or the Wikileaks defenders?

Hiya zookumar


The thing is that when some major event happens it is quite possible to say that the people involved in it are being controlled by whoever you care to name.

911 is a perfect example of this.At first glance it appears that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the twin towers.Then when one delves a bit deeper one can start to see irregularities in the official version of events.This then can lead into many different directions.

Personally i doubt that we will ever know who or what was really behind 911.To me it appears multi layered and has some depth.

The negative influences have used it to introduce tighter control measures and to start wars but from a positive perspective it has woken a lot of people up to not only what really happened on that day but also to what else is going on in the world etc.

The same goes for Wikileaks.The ptb are using it to increase their lack of transparency and to reduce freedom of speech.From a positive view point many people are now much more aware of what the governments and military are up to and how much they lie and deceive the very people who vote them in.

At the moment i am happy to give JA and Wiki the benefit of the doubt and take them and the leaks at face value BUT with an open mind.Yes i agree with you that it is very easy to believe that they are just pawns that are being used to increase the Orwellian nightmare that the ptb seem to be guiding us to.

The ptb seem to be going to great lengths to shut Wiki down and to discredit JA.Just because there has been no leaks as yet that go against certain countries doesn't mean that those countries are behind Wiki in my honest opinion.

I suspect that when Julian Assange said that he thought that 911 was a false conspiracy he was referring to the theory that the u.s. government was solely and directly behind the 911 attacks.If that is what he was referring to then the chances are he is correct.I wouldn't base my argument just on that and that Israel might be behind Wiki because nothing has come out that goes against the Israel ptb.

If Wiki is genuine then all of the negative opinions about Wiki are nothing but disinformation.

[Corncrake]

I have admired the work of Graham Hancock for a long time, however, he once was the East Africa correspondent for the Economist, does that put him in bed with the Rothschilds ? No. I have not read the Wikileaks cables other than those published in the UK's Guardian - one of a very few papers I have any respect for. More than what is being released I am so pleased to be witnessing the government getting rattled.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Corncrake (here)
I have admired the work of Graham Hancock for a long time, however, he once was the East Africa correspondent for the Economist, does that put him in bed with the Rothschilds ? No.

Benjamin Fulford used to write for Forbes Magazine. I used to do management training work for British Aerospace and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Kerry Cassidy worked for a while as a temporary admin for JPL!

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by zookumar (here)
My reasoning as to why I believe Wikileaks is an out and out scam is summed up by one word: distraction.

Zook, you might be right! But I have to say that I don't think so.

Julian Assange is playing this game on a mainstream level: there's no evidence he knows or cares about 9/11, the Mars Base, or MK-Ultra. He's trying to be a mainstream counter-journalist, if you see what I mean. And he's paying the price. They are hanging him out to dry.

I have some basis for what I'm saying. An insider source I've been talking with at length - someone whose credentials I absolutely do not doubt - has been encouraging me to watch carefully what they're doing to Julian Assange and how they are 'handling' him.

The reason: he's coaching me about what to avoid and look out for, as he knows all the tricks and traps that are deployed to take someone down when they become too much of an irritant.

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by ponda (here)
One thing that the ptb might also be worried about is all of the OTHER whistle blowers who havn't come forward as yet but are thinking about it. They will be watching how events play out very closely indeed. Judging by their reactions so far the ptb are getting very anxious about what else might be coming out in the not too distant future and are trying very hard to put a clamp on it.

Exactly: they're trying to nip this in the bud - and are trying very hard indeed.

[norman]

Do we know anything new and paradigm shifting from Wikileaks? no.

Do we know which agenda this serves best, accidentally or not?, yes.

Move along folks.

[Erin]

Posted by Bill Ryan (here)
Exactly: they're trying to nip this in the bud - and are trying very hard indeed.

My feeling is that because Wikileaks has gotten so big, if they "neutralize" Assange, he could very well become some sort of martyr. This would obviously suck for Assange, but it could be revolutionary for the cause. Wikileaks is bigger than one man now.

[Erin]

Also, this might've been mentioned already - but is it not possible that Assange has deliberately acted within the MSM paradigm in order to gain substantial credibility before going on to disclose more "esoteric" information? Something to think about.

[Corncrake]

http://bit.ly/h3tvvy - interesting listening: the investigative journalist John Pilger on Julian Assange.

[astrid]

Thanks Corn, great interview, John Pilger very well respected, journalist, makes a good case for supporting JA and Wikileaks work.

[The One]

In the past few days the more notorious of the dumb****s that sit in the US Congress have denounced Assange as a traitor to America.What total ignorance. Assange is an Australian, not an American citizen. To be a traitor to America, one has to be of the nationality. An Australian cannot be a traitor to America any more than an American can be a traitor to Australia. But don’t expect the morons who represent the lobbyists to know this much. Mike Huckabee, the redneck baptist preacher who was governor of Arkansas and, to America’s already overwhelming shame, was third runner up to the Republican presidential nomination, has called for Assange’s execution.
Republican presidential nomination, has called for Assange’s execution. So here we have a man of God calling for the US government to murder an Australian citizen. The material leaked from the US government to WikiLeaks shows that the US government is an extremely disreputable gang of gangsters. The US government was able to get British prime minister Brown to fix the official Chilcot Investigation into how former prime minister Tony Blair manipulated and lied the British government into being mercenaries for the US invasion of Iraq. One of the diplomatic cables released has UK Defense Ministry official Jon Day promising the United States government that prime minister Brown’s government has put measures in place to protect your interests.Other cables show the US government threatening Spanish prime minister Zapatero, ordering him to stop his criticisms of the Iraq war or else. I mean, really, how dare these foreign governments to think that they are sovereign.

Anyone who believes the US government about anything is the epitome of gullibility