Wikileaks Julian Assange close links to the Economist controlled Rothschild!

[norman]

The 'personalisation' has already happened. Why are we all talking about Julian Assange instead of Wikileaks the web site?

[Ahkenaten]

Yes, Norman - sadly that is true, and here, amongst active practitioners of alternative media. See how susceptible we are to the spin effect? We must not be taken in by the usual tactics. This particular vignette is a very, very significant one otherwise it would not have gotten all the oxygen from govts, so-called public (pubic) figures and agencies that it has, we should all be assured of that.

[Martin]

Posted by Elixer (here)
The least WL should do imo, is provide a narrative along with the data.

My guess is that Wikileaks is the narrative in question here. At least a stage is set up around it. What ever that means. We just have to look at what comes out of it. Up until now: not much. But the theme seems to be quit polarising. If Wikileaks can be of any help then it primarily needs to reach the brains of the the people not the ears and eyes. Is Assange or Wikileaks able to do that? Well, I did not mange to catch it ... till now.

MfG

Martin

[Ahkenaten]

We should be mindful of the spin and the purpose for it and step outside the paradigm to look at the facts which will lead us to the truth.

[Zook]

Hi Ahkenaten,

Posted by Ahkenaten (here)
I don't follow your logic when you say that a case can be made for Assange being in league with US Intelligence (I wonder about that term) Agencies due to Main Streat Media's cherry-picking of certain information supporting certain powerful factions' strategic military and political objectives.

The logic is sound, Ahks. Three words: Zionist Occupied Government. ZOG, for short. Of course, whenever I make the argument of Zionist hegemony, I'm obliged to disclaim that Zionists are powerhungry false flag Jews and not the ordinary righteous Jews that adhere to Judaic traditions, ethics, and tolerances of others ... obliged to disclaim (so conditioned are we sheeple to accept the the false equation of antiZionism with antiSemitism). Assange, being a Rothschild stooge (the proof is ample if one cares to study it objectively) ... is, by extension, necessarily a Zionist stooge. After all, the Rothschilds funded the modern Zionist movement from its inception, to its promotion and codification (e.g. Balfour Declaration) all the way to the establishment of the fascist state of Israel (using the manufactured contrived false slogan of 'a land without a people for a people without a land').

To wit, logic is the convergence of the ZOG, the Zionist founders; and the Zionist stooge.

That doesn't make sense! Main Stream Media is a tool of Corporations - as for the IQ agencies - well, I do not think they have sorted out amongst themselves WHO they are working for because they are factionalized. If we were to know the TRUTH about those factions and what they represent, THAT would probably cut to the heart of the reasons for all the secrecy............................. Why not get off the figure of Assange and focus instead on the damaging information. THAT is the important point here - the information. Knowledge (information) is POWER. In this case, we come to know the larger and more complex truths driving HIStory.
Why should Wikileaks provide a narrative. Isn't that the job of journalists, if any genuine ones even exist? The facts, as complex, overlapping and contradictory as they seem, are the heart of the matter.

The one major flaw in your reasoning, Ahks, can be be illustrated with a simple metaphor. Suppose you fell into a ten-foot deep hole. Suppose you had a rope and grappling hook that was just long enough to get you out of the hole. Now, suppose someone ties six knots in your rope, reducing the overall length of [rope and grappling hook] to nine feet ... a foot short of being useful. What do you have to do? Correct! You have to untie all the knots before you get a useful [rope and grappling hook] again. Therein lies the narrative. The narrative is the effort required to untie the six knots.

To wit, Wikileaks without a narrative ... or with a false narrative ... is propaganda.

It is a disgrace that these revelations come from a source like Wikileaks and that the press, supposedly the Guardian of Democracy, long ago abdicated the field of fact-finding, investigative journalism, and truth-saying for purience, pandering and boot-licking exercises.

It is more than a disgrace, Ahks .. it was engineered to be this way. Humble opinions all around.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=E_CC-t_pwH0

[Ahkenaten]

But Zook while the particular faction of whom you speak surely is a significant player in current events one must not be misled into looking at the world through a prism that is a star with six points! (colored glasses) - while I agree to a point with your logical method I, with respect do not agree with your conclusions. I think the key lies in the concept of factions................factions we dimly sense in conflict with one another. Factions that may have, until recently, had every reason to quietly work together in a detente behind the scenes but whom, for whatever reason, now find themselves again, warring with one another behind the scenes, and the signs of that conflict are seeping through. Do you understand what I am saying? Factions that one would think would be bitter ideological and historical enemies.

[Zook]

Posted by Ahkenaten (here)
But Zook while the particular faction of whom you speak surely is a significant player in current events one must not be misled into looking at the world through a prism that is a star with six points! (colored glasses) - while I agree to a point with your logical method I, with respect do not agree with your conclusions. I think the key lies in the concept of factions................factions we dimly sense in conflict with one another. Factions that may have, until recently, had every reason to quietly work together in a detente behind the scenes but whom, for whatever reason, now find themselves again, warring with one another behind the scenes, and the signs of that conflict are seeping through. Do you understand what I am saying? Factions that one would think would be bitter ideological and historical enemies.

True enough, Ahks. But you'll agree that you are asking me to accept fractionation (and resulting factions) as an article of faith.

You bring the evidence (and I'm not saying that it does or does not exist) ... but you bring the evidence of factions and I'll be the first in line to wanna have a peek. I mean, without the evidence, who can really tell if this apparent fractionation in TMastardTB is genuine and not a delaying tactic to give time for the chaos to saturate ( from which their NWO can emerge, e.g. with less resistance than, say, in the absence of saturation)?

[Ahkenaten]

OK Zook - will do!

[Corncrake]

Great summary the attacks this week on WikiLeaks http://is.gd/ibpzu

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by norman (here)
The 'personalisation' has already happened. Why are we all talking about Julian Assange instead of Wikileaks the web site?

Many thanks, Norman - this is exactly the point.

Watch who comes next. Alex Jones? David Icke? Jordan Maxwell?

Anyone else you can think of?

[Zook]

Good morning Norman, the Earth says hello!

Posted by norman (here)
The 'personalisation' has already happened. Why are we all talking about Julian Assange instead of Wikileaks the web site?

I can only speak for myself; but I've not focused on the individual messenger, Julian Assange, without also focusing on Wikileaks (e.g. a band of messengers as well as a website). Indeed, JA is merely the face of Wikileaks, itself the current popular face of false flag alternative news. You can't discuss the living body without also discussing its face. Once its head (and face) are decapitated ... it's no longer a living body. To wit, as long as Wikileaks is alive; then its face is part of the discussion. FWIW, JA himself acknowledges that he is merely the chosen face of WL. (I found a video yesterday attesting to this very fact; so many videos of JA out there, that I'll have to search for it; will do so and post it here only if requested).

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=EEAxzOtDO9c

We can establish one more thing here, now. Russia Today, like Al Jazeera, is a fake alternative news outlet! Follow the money trail (and I haven't done so yet) and you'll likely find an intelligence organization (e.g. Mossad or CIA (which is more or less the same thing)). The first free clue is the news template: beautiful babes with enormous personalities *wink wink nudge nudge* giggling up an apparent news tempest in a tea cup! For real news, give me Helen Thomas any day! I mean, folks, use your sense of discernment! You weren't born with it merely to avoid haggis, sauerkraut, and David Hasselhoff stirring up intellectual conversation with a harem of beach babes!

[Dale]

Posted by zookumar (here)
I can only speak for myself; but I've not focused on the individual messenger, Julian Assange, without also focusing on Wikileaks (e.g. a band of messengers as well as a website). Indeed, JA is merely the face of Wikileaks, the face of false flag alternative news. You can't discuss the living body without also discussing its face. Once its head (and face) are decapitated ... it's no longer a living body.

Here's my first, thoughtful post on the Julian Assange/Wikileaks saga.

Firstly, I find most of these "disclosures" put out by Wikileaks as quite boring, for lack of a better term. Only surface level, black suit chatter. Nothing of alarming substance, nor value.

With that said, I feel this Julian Assange fellow is being made the face of "snooping on Big Brother." Of course, as he is now the face of such an activity, he must be made an example of. He must be demonized, criminalized, and much everything in between; deterring any future individuals from pursuing such a path.

As for Mr. Assange, I feel he's a confused fellow, not truly understanding the inner-workings of much of anything; and I feel this is the reason he's being made the example. He's a perfect face for a mainstream audience to recognize as a "dangerous conspirator," without any frightening information being leaked out.

[Deega]

Posted by norman (here)
The 'personalisation' has already happened. Why are we all talking about Julian Assange instead of Wikileaks the web site?

Thanks Norman,

IMHO, Wikileaks is the instrument, the means to published the information.

And this instrument need to have a leader that will make the decision on publishing or not, so it is the other way around, we have to concentrate on the leader Assange! Concentrating on Wikileaks will get one nowhere!

IMHO, I think that Assange have to live, he need money to live, so he could have sided (secret contracts, or else) with different organizations (CIA, MOSSAD, other) for the purpose of diffusing information that will set the attention elsewhere, could serve the US interests, the Israel interests, or other national interests.

Interesting articles are coming out and it should enlightened us on this critical event. We don't have to take sides (for or against Assange), we need to get the information to have a better judgment on what is at stake here, who is behind this, who will benefit from it, and what will be the results of this disclosure.

Have no wary, TPB will used Assange the best they can, probably, we are in for surprises, hopefully, if the real truth comes out.

All my blessings.

Deega

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Posted by Dale (here)
Here's my first, thoughtful post on the Julian Assange/Wikileaks saga.

Firstly, I find most of these "disclosures" put out by Wikileaks as quite boring, for lack of a better term. Only surface level, black suit chatter. Nothing of alarming substance, nor value.

With that said, I feel this Julian Assange fellow is being made the face of "snooping on Big Brother." Of course, as he is now the face of such an activity, he must be made an example of. He must be demonized, criminalized, and much everything in between; deterring any future individuals from pursuing such a path.

As for Mr. Assange, I feel he's a confused fellow, not truly understanding the inner-workings of much of anything; and I feel this is the reason he's being made the example. He's a perfect face for a mainstream audience to recognize as a "dangerous conspirator," without any frightening information being leaked out.

Thank you for saying what I've been thinking, only couldn't phrase in such a logical, succinct way.

IMHO, MSN is very good at burying what they don't want us to be focusing on. Just the fact that they are keeping this in the forefront of the news, makes me suspicious as to their motives - and once again they keep us divided as to whether he's good, bad or otherwise, and following their arrows, rather than looking behind the picture they are painting for us. Best to stay out of the emotions of it.

[norman]

Posted by Ba-ba-Ra (here)
...... Just the fact that they are keeping this in the forefront of the news, makes me suspicious as to their motives

There has been quite a lot of "EVIDENCE" that 9/11 was not what we were officially told. Has the Main stream Media shoved it onto the front burners and made a big deal out of it?

Naaaaaaaa

[Ahkenaten]

I wonder if anyone on Avalon has read all 200K + documents in order to state unequivocally that the information disclosed on Wikileaks is of no real interest to anyone? Apparently Joe Lieberman doesn't think so - clearly he thinks the fact that Wikileaks even exists poses a clear and imminent threat to...........................to the interests he serves.

[Deega]

Hi,

Continued information, the Telegraph have produced a Wikileaks page, one may get plenty of information there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/

All my blessings.

Deega

[Snowbird]

Posted by zookumar (here)
Excellent observation! I, too, had the same light bulb burn wattage last nite; but didn't have enough data to pursue it with any confidence. Now that you have initiated things in that direction, I will go one further. I believe that Assange is a Rothschild agent to Fulford's Rockefeller agency. IMHO, Fulford's association with Rockefeller is highly suspicious (e.g. Fulford hiding behind some Japanese secret society and throwing arrows at Rockefeller, only to meet up with the grand old eugenics Mastard, himself, face to face, in an arranged hotel room). Let me see if I can dig up some information for you.

This is the association between the Fulfords and the Rockefellers.

FULFORD: My great grandfather was G.T. Fulford. He was one of the richest men in the world - George Taylor Fulford. You can find him on Wikipedia. He was one of the richest men on Earth, and he was the largest single shareholder in General Electric.

He was going to finance Nikola Tesla, but he was murdered by the Rockefellers in 1905. It was made to look like a car accident.

RENSE: Your grandfather.

FULFORD: Great grandfather.

RENSE: Great grandfather. So really! Wow.

FULFORD: And the family fortune was stolen. My grandfather was only three years old at the time. The family fortune was taken over by the Rockefellers. My grandfather didn't know how to suspend his assets.

I am telling the Rockefellers right now, they can think of me as the ghost of G.T. Fulford, come back over a century - from four generations - to get justice.


http://www.rense.com/general77/fulf.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Taylor_Fulford

[Carmody]

When you go to a bank, to sign a mortgage, or large loan, or whatever.. look closely at the funding source, the true funding source. I've seen the name General Electric pop up a VERY interesting number of times. This, with paperwork - loans being done at major banks.

[Ahkenaten]

I know this is off topic, but Carmody with the deregulation of the banking industry everyone got into the act.............anyone can start a bank. Maybe we should start a Project Avalon Credit Union? Only half-joking. Now would be the time to do it - at least we could print up money for ourselves. I bet almost every rock you look under these days has a corporate logo hiding there..................of course that is only somewhat meaningful because in reality we are all mortgaged, and I mean our physical persons - to China.