Petition to promote Freedom Of Expression (Web) - Wikileaks [Archive]

Zook

9th December 2010, 02:01

Hi Deega,

Thanks Zookumar,
Please tell what is “what we are trying to achieve”…?, who is it…?

If freedom, freedomS, justice, truth, fairness, transparency, etc. - if these things have to be explicated, especially here on Avalon (and especially by me after all I've posted so far) - then cognitive dissonance (or ideological subversion as Begmenov describes it) ... is already here. Sorry to be so harsh, Deegs ... but I have to call it as I see it. If your question is not rhetorical, then I'll be glad to elaborate on these concepts for you. FWIW, justice (dharmam), truth (satyam) and fairness (nyayam) ... these can only be achieved by a paradigm shift away from the existing pyramidal order.

Or do you have a different idea on what we are trying to achieve here on Avalon (and the world at large)? Or on who we are?

For the little that I know, TPTB are at work somehow, who is behind this, hopefully, we will learn in time. Yes I would concur that this was created to distract the attention elsewhere…!
If Begmenov is right, I did not investigate his record, I hold that he is truthful in his interview..! Then, may I suggest that you conclude that the secret services (US, Israel, others) is behind Wikileaks. Even if this information is “confortable truths (by design)”, we should not play the game to support Freedom of expression on the web…?, what is your fear…?

I've already concluded that TMastardsTB are behind Wikileaks. I'm suggesting that if you truly want to protect freedom speech then you should do so from the perspective of the slave and not from the perspective of the slavemaster. To wit, protection of Wikileaks is protection of speech from the perspective of the slavemaster. There is no escaping this fact. Wikileaks is an extension of the jaune journalistic mainstream media scam. (A little French for Celine).

The first petitions was to support Wikileaks in boycotting Amazon and Paypal since they drop Wikileaks as partners. The second petitions was to show support for Assange and his work at Wikileaks.

Both petitions are feelgood pills, e.g. sedatives for those awakening but who haven't yet escaped the gravitational pull of the Wikileaks deception. IMHO, real freedom of speech - while preached by anyone and everyone - is only ever practiced by those who have found the escape velocity. Those who attempt to practice freedom of speech below the threshold velocity, only contribute to the clutter and confusion. Mind you, that is their every right; but make no mistake about it, it is also our collective burden to bear. IMO, everyone should have the freedom to send gunk down the kitchen drain; but please understand that the kitchen sink will quickly clog up. Supporting Wikileaks, IMHO, is just what TMastardsTB want us all to do; after all, it's supporting gunk. Gunk will do what gunk likes to do: clog things up.

A better option - one that supports freedom of speech from the slave's perspective - is to petition for the preservation of the informational pipes. Not for the gunk (Wikileaks); but for the flow pipes. Major difference. If they want to shut down the internet, for example, then we should fight that with all our effiorts. But if they want to pretend to shut down their own gunk (and that's all they're doing) ... then save your energy for the real fight against restrictions on speech.

If the TPTB want to distract, unfortunately, it may be a strategy to play the adverse or the same game, and as you have read, I suggest playing their game...!
Yes!, I did support an uncontrolled quantitative speech (UQS), but you know that the qualitative speech is control (wholehearthedly) by the TPTB anyway. When were we excited by the news...? Wikileaks did it, everyone is eager to follow what come of it, and this unformation, even if UQS, has opened up mind, has opened up questions, has changed our ways of seeing things…!.

Actually, I see Wikileaks as closing more minds than opening them. The proof is in the cognitive dissonance that has surfaced here on Avalon in the last week. These are not mere matters of opinion, Deegs. These are freely available observations. I'm not trying to judge anyone here. That would be personalizing things. Still, I have to record my observation of a general cognitive dissonance ... or pretend it doesn't exist. Of the two choices ... the betrayal of an important truth vs the keeping of a diplomat's peace ... I'm afraid my DNA is only geared for truth. Mind you, there's been many a time when I wish I had more diplomacy in me.

And unfortunately, I hope you’re not playing the fear game here “shut down the informational pipes”, you know that fear doesn’t go far, the truth comes out to annihilate fear.
All my respect on your position, but I see it in different light, if we don’t support those (simple, non-rich people who take a stand), even if they were somehow led (CIA, MOSSAD, Other) to this, the TPTB sailing is continuous and easy, that is MHO,
So, from your position and this post, members and guests will seek, find, and make their minds on it.
All my blessings.
Deega

Time will tell, Deegs. I know you'll understand that I must and will counter each time I see something that threatens freedoms (of speech, but also of other things). To do otherwise would be an abrogation of my responsibility to humanity. At the same time, if you feel that sincerely about Wikileaks, then it is your solemn duty to protect Wikileaks as best you can. And I'll understand.

Humble opinions all around ... and twice as many to see you through the rugged patches of discourse.

:typing:

ps: I tip my hat off to anyone who defends their territory, e.g. if they honestly believe that the territory is theirs.

ponda

9th December 2010, 02:26

Zookumar

Wiki is a deception only in your opinion.You have no proof what so ever.

If wiki is legit then YOU are the deception.

Ahkenaten

9th December 2010, 03:17

OK Avalonians I am re-posting an indepth analysis of an article Deega posted earlier concerning Julian Assange taking bribes from Israel and agreeing in advance to expunge exculpatory information from Wilikeaks dumps. This article appeared in IndyBay which makes the general allegation that Wikileaks ‘struck a deal with Israel over diplomatic cable leaks.

FACT FIND RESULTS ON THE INDYBAY ARTICLE - Note: no author for this article is listed –the article appears under a section entitled “Palestine”

Link to Indybay article:

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2010/12/07/18665978.php

Allegations [1] – [8] and Sources – and links

The first and most damaging allegation in the Indybay piece (Indybay is affiliated with Indymedia and has links to Indymedia on its web page bnner, but is not synonymous with that organization) is that Wikileaks struck a secret deal with Israeli authorities to insure that any documents that could damage Israel’s interests would be ‘removed’ before the rest of the documents became public. The source for that allegation, included as footnote [1] is a Wired Article, see link below. This article provides nothing to corroborate and verify this damaging allegation, rather the article focuses on disgruntled former Wikileaks employee Daniel Dorrsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks and internal politics within the Wikileaks organization.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/09/wikileaks-revolt/

The second and very damaging allegation is that Assange accepted money from ‘semi-official Israeli officials’ and that he specifically agreed in exchange in a secretly taped interview not to publish any documents that would hurt Israeli interests. This allegation links to an article in Syriatruth and it is printed in Arabic, and cited as footnote [2] in the article, with no reliable verbatim translation from Arabic to English provided.

http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/977/36/

Because the entire Syriatruth article is completely in Arabic it is impossible for non-Arabic readers or speakers to confirm whether the article in fact makes these allegations, let alone go any further with fact-checking on this issue, due to formidable language barriers that the authors of the Indybay article do nothing to assist readers concerned about the truth to surmount.

The third, fourth and fifth allegations footnoted [3], [4] and [5] link to articles in the German Press, as follows, NOTE the first link to taz is in German and thus non-German readers cannot check for veracity, let alone follow-up for further fact-checking.

http://www.taz.de/1/netz/netzpolitik/artikel/1/vom-hacker-zum-popstar/

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,732212,00.html

and

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,719619,00.html

The last two Der Spiegel articles linked directly above again relate to the saga of disgruntled former Wikileaks’ employee Daniel Dorrsheit-Berg, why he left Wikileaks, internal squabbles in the organization, and Dorrsheit-Berg’s opinions about Julian Assange’s leadership skills. The one article that includes quotes from an interview with Dorrsheit-Berg cited as [1] includes a section that relates to internal decisions about Wikileaks decision-making concerning information is the Wired Article, previously referenced, but nothing specific is said in that article about internal issues or decisions to corroborate the damaging allegations in the Indybay article, specifically that Assange made an agreement with Israel and accepted money from them in exchange for an agreement not to publish anything damaging to Israel’s interests. In fact the Wired piece quotes from Dorrsheit-Berg only serve to illustrate the sour grapes fired Dorrshiet-Berg had and due to Dorrsheit-Berg being at odds with Assange over decisions concerning organizational priorities that prevented what he felt was a much-needed reorganization. Nothing in any of these three articles in the German Press, therefore, as presented, substantiate the general damaging claims made in the Indybay article.

The sixth allegation in the article, accusing Assange of engaging in a secret meeting in Geneva with Israeli officials and agreeing to expung any leaked documents related to the Israeli attacks on Gaza and Lebanon, in 2006, and 2008-9, references as [6] a piece in Haaretz in which, not surprisingly, Israeli leaders said that Wikileaks helped them because the leaks underscored that Arabs themselves were calling on the US and Israel to take care of the problem with Iran. Though this information is sourced ostensibly to ‘Al-Haqiqa sources’ – no footnote is provided.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/netanyahu-wikileaks-revelations-were-good-for-israel-1.327773

No one can control what any government leaders say about anything and naturally they will put whatever spin serves their purpose on any news and will extract from an information dump whatever serves their interests and emphasize it. This Haaretz article does not prove that Assange arrived at a prior agreement with Israel concerning leaks of documents, or that he took money from Israeli officials in exchange for that agreement or that he in fact expunged such documents.

Allegation seven concerns Assange “praising Netanyahu as a hero of transparency and openness.” [7] linking to an article in Time Magazine:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2034040-2,00.html

Nowhere does this article quote Assange as saying that Mr. Netanyahu is a “hero of transparency and openness” as alleged so this article does not verify accusation #7. There ARE some areas of ambiguous language in the piece, however, that COULD be conflated to infer something. But what, is unknown from the actual language in the piece. In fact the interviewer,(I am not able to provide you his name because the link [7] is only to page 2 of 4 pages in the Time article.) was the one who suggested that the information in the leaks underscored Israel’s position with respect to Iran by revealing that certain Arab leaders wished to decapitate the Iranian government.

The last allegation in the article is that Assange met twice with a left-leaning Lebanese newspaper who offered him money to obtain documents related to a secret war meeting ostensibly held between the US, Israeli and Lebanese parties at the US embassy in Beirut in July 24, 2006. According to source [8] the documents received by Al-Akhbar Editors left a gap and only covered information from 2008-forward, according to the Indybay article, thereby “supporting the Israeli deal allegations.”

Unfortunately again, footnote [8] links to an article in a Syrian paper that is entirely written in Arabic so it is completely impossible for a non-Arabic speaker or reader to verify whether in fact this article actually corroborates the allegations in the Indybay article, let alone enable one in search of the truth to take their fact-checking any further.

This is the second link to Syria Truth here:

http://www.syriatruth.info/content/view/986/36/

Conclusion:

The Indybay article does not meet basic journalistic standards. Aside from being riddled with conditional adverbs like “appears” – it is basically a hack-job. The sources cited DO NOT corroborate the damaging allegations being made, i.e. that Julian Assange of Wikileaks arrived at an agreement with Israel to redact any damaging documents prior to release, let alone that he accepted secret payments from them or from the newspaper Al-Akhbar for special dispensation. Moreover, knowing full well that the readers who will read the Indybay article are English readers, the article links to non-English publications, two in Arabic and one in German, as legitimate sources for its “news” reporting, further obscuring the truth.

ponda

9th December 2010, 04:40

Nice work Ahkenaten

One thing that stands out to me so far is that most of the anti-wiki crowd hardly discusses the actual info being released at all.They want to make loud claims against wiki and try to smear them with ridiculous claims like "billions are in danger" or "wiki wants the arabs and chinese to be killed" or who might be behind wiki etc.

This to me seems to be in itself a form of distraction by trying to put all of the focus on blaming wiki for whatever rather than focusing on the information and what it might mean in the bigger picture.

I haven't seen a politician actually debate any of the claims made in the leaks themselves.They all want to say that it's "illegal" and a "threat to the world" and "that lives will be at risk".This is also a typical political tactic of avoiding the matter at hand and changing the topic or laying the blame somewhere else.

Then you have what some of the u.s. politicians have been saying against JA.

Some say he should be taken out anyway possible or assassinated etc. Gee you would think that he was enemy number one.I would imagine that if you were a corrupt politician trying to maintain a lack of transparency and accountability then JA and Wiki really are enemy number one.

Ahkenaten

9th December 2010, 04:46

It is a typical ploy of ideological propagandists to shift emphasis from the FACTS to personalities - and then to do everything to assassinate figuratively and literally, that person. Since they can't possibly draw their swords and fight like honorable men (and women) with their opponents cable by cable, information bit by information bit (drip, drip!) and especially since they must refute the validity of THEIR OWN WORDS, the fight MUST be shifted from truth to personalities. I say, bring the battle back to the important matter of TRUTH. THIS is where any battle will be won or lost on its merits. The battle has been joined and it is raging all around us now, the battle for our hearts and minds.

Zook

9th December 2010, 10:01

Good morning ponda, the Earth says hello!

Zookumar
Wiki is a deception only in your opinion.You have no proof what so ever.

Curious statement that ... after I've provided circumstantial evidence to at least two Rothschild associations. How many more tentacles do you need before you see the Rothschild octopus fondling Assange? Let me give you two more, then.

Mark Stephens - common link between Rothschilds and Assange:
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=147282

Matt Rothschild - defender of the common man (my sarcasm meter just hiccuped bigtime!); defender of Julian Assange, and denier of 9/11/2001 conspiratorial facts:
http://progressive.org/wx120710.html

The earlier two tentacles include Assange's cozy association with the Economist, a Rothschild rag:
http://poorrichards-blog.blogspot.com/2010/12/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-has.html

... and his own denial of 9/11/2001 conspiratorial facts (which implicate Israel, the Rothschild virtual estate, as a major suspect):
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-07-22/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-annoyed-911-truth?page=2&TB_iframe=true&height=450&width=850

Do you need four more tentacles to make the octopus legitimate, Ponds? Or are you still within the bounds of cognitive resonance? But if Assange - the founder of Wikileaks - is a demonstrated Rothschild minion; then what does that say about Wikileaks, itself?

If wiki is legit then YOU are the deception.

Not necessarily. I mean, I've already demonstrated that Wikileaks has Rothschild tethers, i.e. that it is not legitimate. Does that mean you're not legitimate as well? Not at all. I'm satisfied that your biggest crime is cognitive dissonance, which is an involuntary rejection of the facts ... not a proactive association to deceive. Individuals do not choose dissonance; dissonance chooses individuals ... it preys on individuals who are satisfied with surface realities and prefer not to enter the underlying strata.

Symmetry obliges you to extend the same latitude for human error that I have given you. To err is to be human; to forgive, divine. Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

ponda

9th December 2010, 10:30

LOL

Yeah ok if YOU want to believe that the whole thing is sponsored by Israel and the rothschild's then that is fine.Go for it man.

I suggest that you dedicate as much of your time as possible to following up this theory.Good luck and don't get tangled up in all of those tentacles

btw is it the rothschild's and israel's intention to bring openness and transparency to the world or is it something much more sinister ???

Ahkenaten

9th December 2010, 10:51

Mr. Zook, Starship Enterprise up here observing from a distance - One of my favorite edgy independent genuine journalists in the US is Justin Raimundo. He happens to be a libertarian, which I personally like, and a social moderate - and he is very anti war which I like. (his website is antiwar.com ... http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/12/02/wikileaks-exposes-israeli-mafias-growing-influence/ ) Anyway I have followed Justin for years. Now he simply refuses to take a position on 911 just won't go there. He has stated that he does not believe in the 'conspiracy theories.' I respect that because if he were to do so and if he were not 100% convinced of WHO he actually thought were the perps he would have a new *** ripped for him in this environment in the US, even on the so-called liberal California Coast! Just because someone does not come out with a public position on 911 does NOT mean they are in bed with the Rothschilds and a person to be hated and loathed. That conclusion just is not logical and does not follow from the facts!! Ditto for not coming out on positions on Palestine, Israel or other issues if the journalist - or individual for that matter - is not convinced they have the facts to support taking a particular position. On the matter of evidence and guilt by association, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS JUST THAT - it is not definitive proof! Would you want to be convicted of 'sexual assault,' 'treasonous acts.' or 'endangering the national security of the USA' based on circumstantial evidence? I think not. Actually as you may know there are a lot of Rothschilds around and not all of them are the notorious bloodline - associating with a genuine specimen does not a card-carrying member of the Illuminati or an indentured servant make! I once was very close to a man who I am convinced was one of these guys but does that make me guilty by association? Assange is not a blood relative of these people nor has it been proven that he is one of their lackeys or henchmen.Thus reasonable minds leave circumstantial evidence and guilt by association out of their arguments against someone. The "tethers" you propose Mr. Zook, are not proof at all that Wikileaks or Julian Assange is an instrument of the Rothschilds, a Zionist tool and a hater of Palestine or others! Rather than focus on the person of Assange or even Wikileaks for that matter, what we SHOULD be focusing on are the facts that are revealed in these leaks. From what I can see, only about 1,000 of 260K documents from this large dump have even come out yet!! (For my analysis of the scurrilous attack article on Assange in Indybay, see my post above.) We should not be focusing on politics now - we can do better than that. We should be focusing on the facts that come out, and together assessing and analyzing those facts to see what the implications are.

Frankly I think what pisses you off, Zook, is that Assange has NOT come out with an anti-Zionist position on 911 and you suspect he is soft on the Gaza, Palestinian and Lebanese issues. But why should he do that? He is an independent person and apparently he has made the US his #1 target...............why target Israel when it can get you a ticket to the cemetary if you do it directly, and for what? This is a strategic high-stakes game playing out in the informational field and the US is the key lynchpin - NOT Israel. It is his business if he wants to pick his battles this way. If you want to take on Israeli Zionists in a head-on fight, with all due respect Mr. Zook - go for it!!

Warm regards, over & out!

Ahk

Anchor

9th December 2010, 11:23

It doesnt matter if wikileaks is a psyop or not.

If it is then I'd say right now the plan is backfiring.

If it isn't then its doing a good job.

EITHER WAY it is incredibly catalytic. Clear argument and debate is cropping in media that has a quality and quantity not commonly seen. This has to be a good thing. It is my sincere hope that it wakes a few more of the somnolent masses to the fact that all is not right with the matrix in which we live.

Elandiel BernElve

9th December 2010, 12:23

Wow what a hot discussion! I find myself in the middle of good arguments from both sides.

I think we need to seperate some aspects concerning the whole wikileaks event because in my opinion it can't be seen as one simple thing.
There are multiple important questions and observations:

- Why Wikileaks?
As a distraction for some other dark plans or as a genuine attempt to lay focus on secrecy and expose government misbehaviour or as a strike in an invisible war between factions

- Why now?
Because the dark plans described above are to be implemented or because the world is changing towards more openness and now is the right time

- Who is behind it?
The PTB, China, Mossad or just a crazy hero courageaous enough to start something no one would dare to

Observations:
- Wikileaks has gotten the attention of every existing MSM
- The documents had been send to every MSM in advance
- The cables have been filtered by the MSM
- Global politics are enraged, especially the imbeciles at the pentagon (how does sill(ar)y clinton dare to call it an attack on the world (she doesn't speak for me anyway)
- The world is definately distracted from any other major happenings behind the scenes
- The world is awakening and fighting for freedom of information and transparency more than ever
- Wikileaks decided NOT to unlock the encrypted file when Assange was arrested.
- People DO feel like they can actually stand up for once by helping and spreading the wiki leaks. Not to mention all the hackers united forming a considerable cyberweapon
( I sincerely hope they won't use those attacks as an argument to implement new more secured internet 2)

Maybe the PTB indeed created Wikileaks as a major deception and expected people to handle it like a source of political gossip begging for more and be sheepy about other major conflicts and developments. It could very well be the PTB underestimated or miscalculated the effect it would have on the world and with matters turning against them now through massive awakening and consensus about the necessity of transparency and the need to know about bizarre deeds of some politicians (clinton collecting dna w t f?!) they pull the plug earlier than scheduled.
As if Assange received the order to turn himself in, not to unlock the encrypted file and cancel his mission. All controlled powers are making sure this wikileaks awakening doesn't spread or persist. Moneytransfers are blocked, internet providers are threatened, mirrorsites are taken down.
It's like the PTB that controlled Wikileaks are now trying everything to stop the digging of their own grave that wikileaks now has become for them.

This is purely hypothetical, but it's a view I haven't heard of on Avalon yet and also combines the arguments of Zookumar insisting Wikileaks is a PTB controlled happening and others opinions it's a manifestation of genuine freedom of information and transparency.

It could be both, anyway we need to keep our eyes open to stay sharp and we need Zook to be who he is to keep us sharp.
Ponda setlle down please, because you're not suggesting those who find wikileaks suspecious are folls that should shut up are you now? :)

Love & Peace

ponda

9th December 2010, 13:01

LOL

No Elandiel there sure is nothing wrong with a bit of contrast and without freedom of speech we wouldn't even be here in the first place.Extreme minority views certainly add some spice and colour to a thread or two that is for sure and well you never know zook may even be right.Will we ever know for sure....i doubt it but it probably won't even matter in the long run.

I think the main factors here are the information that is released,the reactions of the general public to the info and what the ptw do about it.

The establishment will probably try to take advantage of what unfolds anyway that it can.Say for example....tighter internet controls,make it harder for whistle blowers to come forward,less free press etc etc

Positively i think that what is unfolding is helping to gently nudge the average person awake to what actually goes on in the world.When and if the masses start to awaken and how they react will in my opinion play a very large part in what happens in the months ahead.

So who really is behind wiki etc might not matter in the long run.

If we get a positive result from all of this and it comes out that the rothschild's and the zionist's were the instigators all along and right behind wiki then i will be the first person to congratulate our uncle zook. :p

Deega

9th December 2010, 16:18

Hi Deega,

Thanks Zookumar,

You submit some very interesting points, great!, I will add a few comments.

[QUOTE]If freedom, freedomS, justice, truth, fairness, transparency, etc. - if these things have to be explicated, especially here on Avalon (and especially by me after all I've posted so far) - then cognitive dissonance (or ideological subversion as Begmenov describes it) ... is already here. Sorry to be so harsh, Deegs ... but I have to call it as I see it. If your question is not rhetorical, then I'll be glad to elaborate on these concepts for you. FWIW, justice (dharmam), truth (satyam) and fairness (nyayam) ... these can only be achieved by a paradigm shift away from the existing pyramidal order.

My question was, what we are trying to achieve…!, inferring to Wikileaks, it stands to divulge, promote information that was never made public before. Even if the way we were informed is awkward, it stands to the primacy of information divulgation to the public. On the freedom side, I think that Wikileaks stands to demonstrate that a small group of people, divulged information that is important at this time…!

Or do you have a different idea on what we are trying to achieve here on Avalon (and the world at large)? Or on who we are?

I guess that everyone of us would have different ways of responding to this question. IMHO, Avalon Forum is a gathering of interesting people who try to bring in information (as whistleblower) for the benefit of all members and guests. On the world at large, I think that Avalon Forum is at walking pace, but we will see in time, a very rapid growth, people are searching like we do, the minute they will be aware of this possibility, they will jump in. And on who we are?, IMHO, we are creatures of a God or gods, we have the divine flame, that stand in an animal body that lived in an Illiminati Society.

I've already concluded that TMastardsTB are behind Wikileaks. I'm suggesting that if you truly want to protect freedom speech then you should do so from the perspective of the slave and not from the perspective of the slavemaster. To wit, protection of Wikileaks is protection of speech from the perspective of the slavemaster. There is no escaping this fact. Wikileaks is an extension of the jaune journalistic mainstream media scam. (A little French for Celine).

I tend to think (infortunately I don’t have the facts to back that up..”!) like you on who is behind Wikileaks, but the protection I’m trying to hold is one that stand for the information divulgation, one for the perpetuation of conscious awareness, and from this, we might see new things come out, and it may built on the paradym shift, we are hoping to achieve. No, it ain’t to protect an organization, it to protect the legitimate need to know what our representatives are doing (for one thing) on our back.

Both petitions are feelgood pills, e.g. sedatives for those awakening but who haven't yet escaped the gravitational pull of the Wikileaks deception. IMHO, real freedom of speech - while preached by anyone and everyone - is only ever practiced by those who have found the escape velocity. Those who attempt to practice freedom of speech below the threshold velocity, only contribute to the clutter and confusion. Mind you, that is their every right; but make no mistake about it, it is also our collective burden to bear. IMO, everyone should have the freedom to send gunk down the kitchen drain; but please understand that the kitchen sink will quickly clog up. Supporting Wikileaks, IMHO, is just what TMastardsTB want us all to do; after all, it's supporting gunk. Gunk will do what gunk likes to do: clog things up.

Wikileaks is gunk…!, I would say that the content, the ways our representatives act would appear to be that, but one should be reminded that when a new thing comes out, it’s always out of our standard, let time settle, we will see a betterment of information divulgation, and we will benefit from it.

A better option - one that supports freedom of speech from the slave's perspective - is to petition for the preservation of the informational pipes. Not for the gunk (Wikileaks); but for the flow pipes. Major difference. If they want to shut down the internet, for example, then we should fight that with all our effiorts. But if they want to pretend to shut down their own gunk (and that's all they're doing) ... then save your energy for the real fight against restrictions on speech.

Wholehearthedly with you, and we may have a fight to come, hope that we see it coming, hope we are not late yet…!

Actually, I see Wikileaks as closing more minds than opening them. The proof is in the cognitive dissonance that has surfaced here on Avalon in the last week. These are not mere matters of opinion, Deegs. These are freely available observations. I'm not trying to judge anyone here. That would be personalizing things. Still, I have to record my observation of a general cognitive dissonance ... or pretend it doesn't exist. Of the two choices ... the betrayal of an important truth vs the keeping of a diplomat's peace ... I'm afraid my DNA is only geared for truth. Mind you, there's been many a time when I wish I had more diplomacy in me.

Zookumar, your DNA is only geared for truth, great!, and glad to communicate with you, at least, I know that you are not trying to BS. Yes!, on your cognitive dissonance, I see it in a different light, we need to express our differences, the light that come out of it, nourish other to keep on going further, you know that we are creators, so hopefully, with all the other members, we might hold a view that we are content with…!

Time will tell, Deegs. I know you'll understand that I must and will counter each time I see something that threatens freedoms (of speech, but also of other things). To do otherwise would be an abrogation of my responsibility to humanity. At the same time, if you feel that sincerely about Wikileaks, then it is your solemn duty to protect Wikileaks as best you can. And I'll understand.

All to your merit (counter each time) to defend freedoms, and you are indispensable to have it going at least in the Avalon Forum, all my respect and appreciation.

ps: I tip my hat off to anyone who defends their territory, e.g. if they honestly believe that the territory is theirs.

I’m trying to defend the importance of information divulgation by whatever ways, and I know you believe like me of it importance, the only territory that I want to preserve is my home, my integrity and the love to myself and others.

All my blessings.

Deega

Zook

9th December 2010, 18:05

Hello Ahks,

It is a typical ploy of ideological propagandists to shift emphasis from the FACTS to personalities - and then to do everything to assassinate figuratively and literally, that person. Since they can't possibly draw their swords and fight like honorable men (and women) with their opponents cable by cable, information bit by information bit (drip, drip!) and especially since they must refute the validity of THEIR OWN WORDS, the fight MUST be shifted from truth to personalities.

Ouch. If it's a Civil War on Avalon that you're trying to start ... I must commend you on that most eloquent shot across the bow! LOL! :jester:

You'd be better off fighting the brewing Uncivil Peace, IMHO. If you win, you'll achieve Civil Peace. If I win, I'll achieve Civil Peace. Either way, Civil Peace is guaranteed if we choose to fight against the brewing Uncivil Peace (and not enlist with it).
:music:

Now, with that outta the way ... where shall I start? Have you actually read some of the Wikileaks? Was there any fluff in them? How much fluff (e.g. chatter of the cardboard-munching variety; comfortable truths; dastardly comments made by the ambassador from Fiji about the wife of the travelling emissary from Pegi Pegi; etc.) ... and how much uncomfortable truths? From what you have read or heard so far, how much would you say is comfortable truths? 25%? 50%? 75%? 100%? Of the uncomfortable truths, how much makes the Rothschild/Illuminati/Vatican/Zionist agenda look bad? How much makes the targets of that agenda look bad? These are the important questions a probing mind must ask, you'll agree.

I say, bring the battle back to the important matter of TRUTH. THIS is where any battle will be won or lost on its merits. The battle has been joined and it is raging all around us now, the battle for our hearts and minds.

I've never left the important matter of truth. I've given you what I've uncovered about both Assange and Wikileaks. I've also argued that the messenger had made himself the face of Wikileaks (he's fired dissenters in the organization; still another had resigned because of his emerging autocratic behavior). This gives us special dispensation to go after the messenger without making it personal, e.g. because there is no way to isolate the personality from the organization. To suggest that there is ... is a canard, Ahks. But even with this dispensation, I did not go after the personaility, I went after the personality's connections. Big difference. To suggest that the two are the same ... is a canard, Ahks. You've only got one rubber duck left of the alloted three. Don't worry, I'll let you have my quota. LOL!

:typing:

ps: Btw, you've sure been busy clogging up the sundry Wikileaks threads with your Indymedia-webpage analysis. Brilliant analysis, btw. One thing missing ... since your arrows have been mainly pointed in my direction, I think I can take some liberty here and speak on behalf of those declaring Wikileaks to be a fraud, a scam, a part-in-parcel of the ideological subversion. I never referenced that particular article in any of my indictments of the Rothschild virtual estate, Israel. My prime suspect is, indeed, Israel. My arguments and exposition of how Wikileaks has handled Israel (e.g. with kid gloves) and Israel's enemies (e.g. with a baseball bat) ... are real. They are valid enough without me having to enlist a website of dubious origin (as your exemplary analysis has revealed the Indymedia website to be). So it boggles the mind why you would, in attacking my arguments (and a few others also), would bring up your own chosen website for a public whipping. It would have been more honorable, and direct, if you had taken as much time applying the whip to the Israel-blaming websites that I (or others who concur with me) had provided for the purpose. Alas, you chose to flog Deega's Indymedia website. Alas, Deega's views concur with yours and he obviously didn't take as much care vetting the Indymedia website, so it was easy for you to flog it down. I wonder if you'd care to flog some of the links I posted in my four tentacles post? The third canard? Maybe not ... but let's call it a duck, anyways!

ps2: Humble opinions all around ... and a new set of ducks!

Deega

9th December 2010, 18:28

Hello Ahks,

Alas, you chose to flog Deega's Indymedia website. Alas, Deega's views concur with yours and he obviously didn't take as much care vetting the Indymedia website, so it was easy for you to flog it down. I wonder if you'd care to flog some of the links I posted in my four tentacles post? The third canard? Maybe not ... but let's call it a duck, anyways!

ps2: Humble opinions all around ... and a new set of ducks!

Well Zookumar,

Thanks to have me in, but, I should mentioned that when I opened up the Tread in reference to Indymedia Web site, it was an informative gesture.

That Ahkenaton made a good analysis of it, fine, and congratulations to him, he flogs the content in the web site, not me, not my stand, I didn't suggest any...!

And yes!, I didn't take, as much care, venting the Indymedia media, because, it's to early in this game.

All my blessings.

Deega

Ahkenaten

9th December 2010, 19:02

Hi Zook - the only reason on took on the Indybay piece was because it was posted here and I decided as an experiment to be a responsible consumer of information and actually fact-check the article. I never suggested you base your views on self-published 'journalistic' exercises like that one. I definitely understand that you operate on a much, much higher level of intellectual integrity! I am not trying to start a civil war on these threads I am simply trying to make the points that we must be critical consumers of information (and credible journalists have suggested that there are some serious unanswered questions about W.L. and J.A., so you are in excellent company!!) My personal hope is that even should it transpire that J.A./WL is some kind of a sophisticated game that those who think they are pulling the strings have lost control and instead of being a cosmic disruptor maximus, it has degenerated into a classical example of blow-back. On the quality and quantity of information released as I understand it the protocol is that the information is transmitted to the media outlets who vet the documents ostensibly redacting information that could endanger human life prior to release. I would imagine there is some coordination between media and WL prior to actual release and obviously if bad players were totally in control of the process that is the weak point in the system that could be manipulated to the advantage of various players.....and you are very correct to be suspicious about the information and who it benefits or harms, no question about that! However I do not think it is productive to engage in a head-on battle with the Zionists because it gives them too much power in the situation. Other nations and peoples are coming online with other agendas and values that may introduce some balance and perspective into international relations. My purpose is, like you - to get at the truth. I value what you contribute and respect you for shining the light on the subject! I just don't agree with some of the emphasis you place on some of the pieces of the puzzle. I continue to believe that we must be vigilant and carefully assess and analyze the quality of information we get - and I can see that you feel that way, too. So we do share those important common values.

Zook

10th December 2010, 06:55

HI Ahks,

Mr. Zook, Starship Enterprise up here observing from a distance - One of my favorite edgy independent genuine journalists in the US is Justin Raimundo. He happens to be a libertarian, which I personally like, and a social moderate - and he is very anti war which I like. (his website is antiwar.com ... http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2010/12/02/wikileaks-exposes-israeli-mafias-growing-influence/ ) Anyway I have followed Justin for years. Now he simply refuses to take a position on 911 just won't go there. He has stated that he does not believe in the 'conspiracy theories.' I respect that because if he were to do so and if he were not 100% convinced of WHO he actually thought were the perps he would have a new *** ripped for him in this environment in the US, even on the so-called liberal California Coast! Just because someone does not come out with a public position on 911 does NOT mean they are in bed with the Rothschilds and a person to be hated and loathed. That conclusion just is not logical and does not follow from the facts!! Ditto for not coming out on positions on Palestine, Israel or other issues if the journalist - or individual for that matter - is not convinced they have the facts to support taking a particular position.

My question to you: if one isn't willing to come out on important stuff like 9/11/2001 ... then why come out on any stuff? I think your logic is seriously flawed, Ahks. I mean, think about it. If Raimondo only comes out on stuff that TMastardsTB will allow ... what does that make him?

The same extends to Ron Paul as well. I think he is practically useless ... and he made himself that way by not coming out with the truth of 9/11/2001. Indeed, his tactics, assuming that they are just tactics ... have actually been a tax on the speed at which 9/11/2001 truth has come out. I also think we would've had action much earlier wrt the Federal Reserve had we someone with greater backbone leading the charge. I'm 50-50 as to whether or not Ron Paul is a gatekeeper for the libertarian factions of the US population. If you observe his decades of political service, he is definitely someone that gives free-thinking freedom-loving peoples hope ... and hope, and hope, and hope, and hope ... you see the point yet? Paralysis by indefinite hope. The US Constitution would be better served, IMO, by a popular revolt than by anything that a three-decade tin-pot banger in Congress can offer.

To wit, Ron Paul is the libertarian political equivalent of the pseudointellectual Noam Chomsky. Chomsky gives the left paradigm hope after hope after hope after ... Paralysis by indefinite hope. Chomsky, of course, is a proven left gatekeeper (google the CIA money trail that leads to Chomsky; for a quick determination, google his opinion on 9/11/2001). Justin Raimondo is another left gatekeeper.

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/09/10/911-our-truth-and-theirs/

********** beginExcerpt **************************************************************
Of course, some of the people who challenge the official story are, indeed, crackpots: they think some kind of "controlled demolition" took place inside the World Trade Center, and that no plane hit the Pentagon.
**********************************************************************************

I'm sorry ... ignoring 9/11/2001 truth is one thing; denying 9/11/2001 truith is a related thing; but attacking 9/11/2001 truthseekers is something else altogether. It's gatekeeping.

So you see, Ahks, not only is it illogical to both submit oneself to what TMastardsTB allow and then claim to be a liberty defender ... but it assists the ideological subversion of a nation state (as explained by Yuri Begmenov).

On the matter of evidence and guilt by association, CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IS JUST THAT - it is not definitive proof! Would you want to be convicted of 'sexual assault,' 'treasonous acts.' or 'endangering the national security of the USA' based on circumstantial evidence? I think not.

This is a court of public debate; not a court of law. Having said that, the standards of proof are not the same. In an apparent paradox, the standard of proof is actually higher in the court of public debate. In the judicial court, only some facts are allowed (e.g. the admissible facts); and this limits the legal discussion to a moderately informed verdict. By contrast, in public debate, the discussion is informed by many factors: common sense, circumstantial evidence, intuition, logical analysis, and any and every fact that is available and stands up to scrutiny. Although there are exceptions, the rule is that a determination based on more information meets a higher standard of proof than one based on lesser information. Btw, there's a good reason why the legal profession has the reputation it has today, e.g. its anemic standard of proof.

Actually as you may know there are a lot of Rothschilds around and not all of them are the notorious bloodline - associating with a genuine specimen does not a card-carrying member of the Illuminati or an indentured servant make! I once was very close to a man who I am convinced was one of these guys but does that make me guilty by association? Assange is not a blood relative of these people nor has it been proven that he is one of their lackeys or henchmen.

It has been shown (using a higher standard of proof than you are using) that Assange is, indeed, a lackey. I've given you four tentacles of the Rothschild octopus. His response to 9/11/2001 wasn't even one of them. But it's definitely the clincher. A genuine truthseeker can't afford to play political games with the truth. You can either plead the fifth (an American concept) ... or you can explain that you don't know enough about 9/11/2001. But when you start lying about it by saying things like it's a false conspiracyl; then you necessarily inject yourself into the game (e.g. as an obstacle to truth). Of course, if anyone after eight years still claims ignorance of 9/11/2001 truth; then they put their own integrity in jeopardy. Assange betrays privileged knowledge by committing to a determination of false conspiracy. I mean, one can only make a determination by either standing with or standing against the observable facts. That's the definition of determination. Otherwise, it would merely be an opinion. Opinions don't require facts; which is probably why there are a lot of uninformed opinions running about. So if Assange had determined that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy (and it was, indeed, a determination, not an opinion; for if it had been the latter, he would've had zero credibility before the game even started. I mean, one can have an opinion that the Moon is made of cheese, but no one will take you seriously. However, if you want to be taken seriously, then you must go ahead with the determination, but then you'll have to prove it) ... so if Assange had determined that 9/11/2001 was a false conspiracy, then Assange has to prove it. And he can't prove it because he has chosen to determine 9/11/2001 in opposition to the facts.

See how it all works out nicely, Ahks? To wit, I don't need an explicit Rothschild connection to make my case that Assange is a Rothschild minion. I can find the implicit tethers. Of course, a court of law will not admit implicit tethers; but a court of reason can and will. Again, the standard of proof is higher in a court of public opinion because it doesn't limit itself to the subjective game of admissible and inadmissible facts.

Thus reasonable minds leave circumstantial evidence and guilt by association out of their arguments against someone. The "tethers" you propose Mr. Zook, are not proof at all that Wikileaks or Julian Assange is an instrument of the Rothschilds, a Zionist tool and a hater of Palestine or others! Rather than focus on the person of Assange or even Wikileaks for that matter, what we SHOULD be focusing on are the facts that are revealed in these leaks. From what I can see, only about 1,000 of 260K documents from this large dump have even come out yet!! (For my analysis of the scurrilous attack article on Assange in Indybay, see my post above.) We should not be focusing on politics now - we can do better than that. We should be focusing on the facts that come out, and together assessing and analyzing those facts to see what the implications are.

Yes. Yours was an excellent dress down of the Indymedia article. But I couldn't disagree more about your approach to Wikileaks. Wikileaks does not serve the truth; it serves an agenda, namely, TMastardsTB agenda. And it does so by creating confusion, distraction, and infojunk, e.g. chaos. From chaos to a New World Order. Indeed, Wikileaks is an obstacle to the fundamental pursuit of truth. But hey, if you want to bury the needle in the haystack, by all means, go ahead ... JA is your pitchfork and Wikileaks is your hay. The needle, of course, being the deeper hidden agendaes of TMastardsTB (e.g. bankster scams, chemtrails, Agenda 21, Codex Alimentarius, one world bank, one world currency, one world military, Georgia Guidestone population plans, etc.).

Switching back to an earlier metaphor: clip the fingernails and no one will notice the fingernail (or the finger supporting it).

Frankly I think what pisses you off, Zook, is that Assange has NOT come out with an anti-Zionist position on 911 and you suspect he is soft on the Gaza, Palestinian and Lebanese issues. But why should he do that? He is an independent person and apparently he has made the US his #1 target...............why target Israel when it can get you a ticket to the cemetary if you do it directly, and for what? This is a strategic high-stakes game playing out in the informational field and the US is the key lynchpin - NOT Israel. It is his business if he wants to pick his battles this way. If you want to take on Israeli Zionists in a head-on fight, with all due respect Mr. Zook - go for it!!
Warm regards, over & out!
Ahk

The US is Israel North America. Zionist Occupied Government. Banskter Occupied Government, by another name. Btw, I've never shied from taking on the Israeli Zionist fascists. That's because I'm not one of them. I'm a genuine truthseeker. And I'm equally sure Assange isn`t. His comments about 9/11/2001 truth speak for themselves.

:typing:

Humble opinions all around.

Zook

10th December 2010, 07:24

Hi Ahks,

Hi Zook - the only reason on took on the Indybay piece was because it was posted here and I decided as an experiment to be a responsible consumer of information and actually fact-check the article. I never suggested you base your views on self-published 'journalistic' exercises like that one. I definitely understand that you operate on a much, much higher level of intellectual integrity! I am not trying to start a civil war on these threads I am simply trying to make the points that we must be critical consumers of information (and credible journalists have suggested that there are some serious unanswered questions about W.L. and J.A., so you are in excellent company!!) My personal hope is that even should it transpire that J.A./WL is some kind of a sophisticated game that those who think they are pulling the strings have lost control and instead of being a cosmic disruptor maximus, it has degenerated into a classical example of blow-back. On the quality and quantity of information released as I understand it the protocol is that the information is transmitted to the media outlets who vet the documents ostensibly redacting information that could endanger human life prior to release. I would imagine there is some coordination between media and WL prior to actual release and obviously if bad players were totally in control of the process that is the weak point in the system that could be manipulated to the advantage of various players.....and you are very correct to be suspicious about the information and who it benefits or harms, no question about that! However I do not think it is productive to engage in a head-on battle with the Zionists because it gives them too much power in the situation. Other nations and peoples are coming online with other agendas and values that may introduce some balance and perspective into international relations. My purpose is, like you - to get at the truth. I value what you contribute and respect you for shining the light on the subject! I just don't agree with some of the emphasis you place on some of the pieces of the puzzle. I continue to believe that we must be vigilant and carefully assess and analyze the quality of information we get - and I can see that you feel that way, too. So we do share those important common values.

I mostly agree with what you say. Again, my disagreement is with the effect of Wikileaks. You think the effect will result in exposing important truths. I think it will bury the important truths deeper in the proverbial haystack whilst simultaneously creating confusion, distraction, and infojunk, e.g. chaos. From chaos to a NWO. The stepping stone. Time will tell. Hope we're not in hell by that time.

:typing:

ps: Ideological subversion is being at play. Humble opinions all around.

Burke

15th December 2010, 15:46

A global petition has been initiated. (http://www.avaaz.org/en/index.php)

Thomas Jefferson stated that democracy can only work with an educated and informed society. It is the job of the press to be fearless and free without intimidation to guard against tyranny and corruption in all aspects of a free society.

The founders found this so important that they put it in the very FIRST amendment of the constitution that prohibits the making of any law "respecting an establishment of religion", impeding the free exercise of religion, infringing on the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Yet we find ourselves faced with a government that has repeatedly stated in public and for the record that this is no longer so and that what wikileaks is doing is illegal. The world is asking if the US GOV can make no law infringing on the freedom of the press, then what law is it saying that wikileaks has broken?

They not only say these "perpetrators" are outside the law but that they must be hunted down like Al-Qaeda, assassinated, executed, , charges with treason and sedition and stopped at all costs. Corporate power has been brought to bear.

Now whatever you want to believe about wikileaks is a moot issue here. What is the difference between this scenario and Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of the Watergate scandal or Neil Sheehan of the Pentagon Papers.

Media says government's reaction to WikiLeaks 'troubling' (http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/media-says-governments-reaction-to-wikileaks-troubling-20101214-18vrb.html)

To sign the petition all you have to do is give your name, email address, country, zip code, and phone number (some of which is optional) most of which is easily found out by looking at your IP address from posting on these boards, or digging just a little deeper, and this is without high tech GOV surveillance.

As of this writing 6,597,335 people have signed and about every two seconds or less, another signs the petition because you can see it scrolling as they sign.

I poked around some and found that the largest petition ever on the planet has only been around 20,000,000 people but I could be wrong. If anyone finds out differently please post it because I am curious if this could turn out to be the largest petition event to happen on planet Earth with hundreds of millions of people signing it from around the world.

Face-book it, twitter it, or email it with a click of a button at the site.

interesting times indeed

Burke

15th December 2010, 16:43

Thank you for signing the WikiLeaks petition! Your name has been added.

The more people join this campaign today, the more powerful our call to end the crackdown will be.

Please help spread the word -- forward this link to friends and family, and post it on Facebook:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php

Thanks so much,

The Avaaz Team

Here's the original email you can forward:

Dear friends,

The massive campaign of intimidation against WikiLeaks is sending a chill through free press advocates everywhere.

Legal experts say WikiLeaks has likely broken no laws. Yet top US politicians have called it a terrorist group and commentators have urged assassination of its staff. The organization has come under massive government and corporate attack, but WikiLeaks is only publishing information provided by a whistleblower. And it has partnered with the world's leading newspapers (NYT, Guardian, Spiegel etc) to carefully vet the information it publishes.

The massive extra-judicial intimidation of WikiLeaks is an attack on democracy. We urgently need a public outcry for freedom of the press and expression. Sign the petition to stop the crackdown and forward this email to everyone -- let's get to 1 million voices and take out full page ads in US newspapers this week!

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php

WikiLeaks isn't acting alone -- it's partnered with the top newspapers in the world (New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc) to carefully review 250,000 US diplomatic cables and remove any information that it is irresponsible to publish. Only 800 cables have been published so far. Past WikiLeaks publications have exposed government-backed torture, the murder of innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, and corporate corruption.

The US government is currently pursuing all legal avenues it has to stop WikiLeaks from publishing more cables, but the laws of democracies protect freedom of the press. The US and other governments may not like the laws that protect our freedom of expression, but that's exactly why it's so important that we have them, and why only a democratic process can change them.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether WikiLeaks and the leading newspapers it's partnered with are releasing more information than the public should see. Whether the releases undermine diplomatic confidentiality and whether that's a good thing. Whether WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has the personal character of a hero or a villain. But none of this justifies a vicious campaign of intimidation to silence a legal media outlet by governments and corporations. Click below to join the call to stop the crackdown:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/wikileaks_petition/97.php

Ever wonder why the media so rarely gives the full story of what happens behind the scenes? This is why - because when they do, governments can be vicious in their response. And when that happens, it's up to the public to stand up for our democratic rights to a free press and freedom of expression. Never has there been a more vital time for us to do so.

With hope,
Ricken, Emma, Alex, Alice, Maria Paz and the rest of the Avaaz team.

SOURCES:

Law experts say WikiLeaks in the clear (ABC)
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2010/s3086781.htm

WikiLeaks are a bunch of terrorists, says leading U.S. congressman (Mail Online)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333879/WikiLeaks-terrorists-says-leading-US-congressman-Peter-King.html

Cyber guerrillas can help US (Financial Times)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d3dd7c40-ff15-11df-956b-00144feab49a.html#axzz17QvQ4Ht5

Amazon drops WikiLeaks under political pressure (Yahoo)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101201/tc_afp/usdiplomacyinternetwikileakscongressamazon

"WikiLeaks avenged by hacktivists" (PC World):
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/212701/operation_payback_wikileaks_avenged_by_hacktivists.html

US Gov shows true control over Internet with WikiLeaks containment (Tippett.org)
http://www.tippett.org/2010/12/us-gov-shows-true-control-over-internet-with-wikileaks-containment/

US embassy cables culprit should be executed, says Mike Huckabee (The Guardian)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/01/us-embassy-cables-executed-mike-huckabee

WikiLeaks ditched by MasterCard, Visa. Who's next? (The Christian Science Monitor)
http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/Horizons/2010/1207/WikiLeaks-ditched-by-MasterCard-Visa.-Who-s-next

Assange's Interpol Warrant Is for Having Sex Without a Condom (The Slatest)
http://slatest.slate.com/id/2276690/

rosie

15th December 2010, 17:36

Thank you Heretic! I have put this on facebook.

Zook

15th December 2010, 18:40

norman

15th December 2010, 19:07

:typing:

ps: If petitions have the power to persuade (and some may, indeed, have that), I would've thought a petition designed to confront the obvious false flag terror operation of 9/11/2001 ... would have priority over an obvious false flag 'eavesdrop' operation on expendable interlocutors. But hey, maybe it's just me tossing water balloons amidst the jugglers of mirth and motley.

There always seems to be a few 'rich' veins running through the public conciousness that can be easily tapped. There is so much pseudo 'liberalism' rife in the public conciousness that just a few carefully chosen catch phrases and words can activate a mob. The simple fact that a 'mob' has indeed been raised is evidence enough that it really is only "Pseudo", and even worse, a superficial manifestation from the popular culture mills.

I remember laughing heartily a few years ago when a semi feminist, semi lefty woman was ranting across a table in a radio studio at a controller of Channel4 television that Channel4 was supposed to be the chanel that stuck up for the outsiders and the ones who were not mainstream. She was attacking the controller for giving a 'voice' to a sort-of right wing exteemist in a TV docu'. The controller pointed out to her that her liberal views were now the "established" views and that by giving that right-winger a voice she was indeed balancing out the views expressed in the docu'. The ranting woman faded away into confusion.

sunnyrap

15th December 2010, 20:41

Speaking of Freedom of the Press... If Wikileaks is shut down for 'endangering national security', then SewageLeaks, aka Faux News aka Fox News should surely be shut down for its transgressions: ... from Alter.net:

Study Confirms That Fox News Makes You Stupid
A new survey of American voters shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources.
December 15, 2010 |

Yet another study has been released proving that watching Fox News is detrimental to your intelligence. World Public Opinion, a project managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, conducted a survey of American voters that shows that Fox News viewers are significantly more misinformed than consumers of news from other sources. What’s more, the study shows that greater exposure to Fox News increases misinformation.

So the more you watch, the less you know. Or to be precise, the more you think you know that is actually false. This study corroborates a previous PIPA study that focused on the Iraq war with similar results. And there was an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll that demonstrated the break with reality on the part of Fox viewers with regard to health care. The body of evidence that Fox News is nothing but a propaganda machine dedicated to lies is growing by the day.

In eight of the nine questions below, Fox News placed first in the percentage of those who were misinformed (they placed second in the question on TARP). That’s a pretty high batting average for journalistic fraud. Here is a list of what Fox News viewers believe that just aint so:

* 91 percent believe the stimulus legislation lost jobs
* 72 percent believe the health reform law will increase the deficit
* 72 percent believe the economy is getting worse
* 60 percent believe climate change is not occurring
* 49 percent believe income taxes have gone up
* 63 percent believe the stimulus legislation did not include any tax cuts
* 56 percent believe Obama initiated the GM/Chrysler bailout
* 38 percent believe that most Republicans opposed TARP
* 63 percent believe Obama was not born in the U.S. (or that it is unclear)

The conclusion is inescapable. Fox News is deliberately misinforming its viewers and it is doing so for a reason. Every issue above is one in which the Republican Party had a vested interest. The GOP benefited from the ignorance that Fox News helped to proliferate. The results were apparent in the election last month as voters based their decisions on demonstrably false information fed to them by Fox News.

By the way, the rest of the media was not blameless. CNN and the broadcast network news operations fared only slightly better in many cases. Even MSNBC, which had the best record of accurately informing viewers, has a ways to go before it can brag about it.

The conclusions in this study need to be disseminated as broadly as possible. Fox’s competitors need to report these results and produce ad campaigns featuring them. Newspapers and magazines need to publish the study across the country. This is big news and it is critical that the nation be advised that a major news enterprise is poisoning their minds.

This is not an isolated review of Fox’s performance. It has been corroborated time and time again. The fact that Fox News is so blatantly dishonest, and the effects of that dishonesty have become ingrained in an electorate that has been been purposefully deceived, needs to be made known to every American. Our democracy cannot function if voters are making choices based on lies. We have the evidence that Fox is tilting the scales and we must now make certain its corporate owners do not get away with it.

Burke

16th December 2010, 02:10

Don't want to shake the apple tree too much (and give the ghost of Sir Isaac a really big headache) ... but what do you think will be accomplished by this petition?

Great question! Writing and signing petitions has many useful purposes that has a deep and rich history yet for the sake of brevity I merely point out that the founding fathers who penned the US constitution found it such an important tool that they made sure to guarantee this right in the first amendment right along side free speech, press, religion, and assembly when they wrote the government will make no law prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

What can be gained?

Attention. Solidarity. Strength in numbers. A united global cry against tyrannical acts of suppression by a government of elite who think they can disregard the constitution and the rights of free people. To not go quietly into that good night. To let the controllers know that a stand has been taken on a global level, that we the people will not turn our eyes away and mumble quietly to ourselves at injustice as they act against the very fabric of the first amendment to the constitution, and in turn act against us the people. One small act made by the masses is a huge act in hindsight.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love" - Julian Assange

Mainstream media has had the wikileaks saga front and center for quite some time now and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This petition is too and there is a window of opportunity here to make your voice heard on a global scale.

The Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/sign+WikiLeaks+petition+Assange+braces+court/3969529/story.html)
Google News (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGtOh2zOxSS7FdKXvrCSiWSxHRTw?docId=CNG.90a3120ac4ed728d6f0d6b3cb6809980.621)
Current (http://current.com/technology/92856031_wikileaks-petition-united-we-stand.htm)
The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/600000-sign-WikiLeaks-petition-as-Assange-braces-for-court/articleshow/7095220.cms)
The Straights Times (Singapore) (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_613637.html)
Yahoo News (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/8505469/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition/)
The Star (http://www.thestar.co.za/600-000-sign-wikileaks-petition-1.1000967)
Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/international-headlines-in-national/600-000-sign-online-petition-support-of-wikileaks-15-show-up-to-protest)
Global News (http://www.globalnews.ca/world/sign+wikileaks+petition+assange+braces+court/3969468/story.html)
Digital Journal (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301397)
ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.de/news/digitale_wirtschaft_internet_ebusiness_622_000_unterzeichnen_online_petition_zum_schutz_von_wikileak s_story-39002364-41542306-1.htm)
NDTV (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/6-lakh-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court-72460)
SILObreaker (http://www.silobreaker.com/wikileaks-support-petition-gets-600000-5_2263933167163408413)
Sky News Australia (http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=551646&vId=)
Big Pond News (http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Politics/2010/12
/14/600000_sign_WikiLeaks_support_petition_551646.html)
The Sydney Morning Herald News (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition-20101214-18vnq.html)
Inquirer (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101214-308884/600000-sign-WikiLeaks-petition-as-Assange-braces-for-court)
Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/sign-wikileaks-support-petition/story-e6frg12u-1225970687013)
Metrolic (http://www.metrolic.com/almost-600000-people-voted-an-online-petition-in-support-of-julian-assange-152261/)
International News (http://www.internationalnews.info/finance/43480-600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court-times-of-india)
Pak Tribune (http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?234427)
Times of Malta (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101214/world-news/600-000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assagne-braces-for-court)
Geo Television Network (http://www.geo.tv/12-13-2010/75745.htm)
AFR Financial Review (http://www.afr.com.au/p/business/technology/sign_wikileaks_support_petition_RJkJBrR0bE4NWDmoQd1zEJ)
Dubbo Prime Insider (http://dubbo.iprime.com.au/index.php/news/national-news/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition)
APNIEYESP News Portal (http://apnieyesp.com/news/600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court/)
The Press-Enterprise (http://topics.pe.com/article/09SoaWbf7N4a5)
CNEWS (http://www.cnewsworld.com/world-news/600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court/)
One News Page (http://www.onenewspage.com/news/World/20101214/17894862/600-000-sign-WikiLeaks-petition-as-Assange-braces.htm)
Times Chennai (http://www.timeschennai.com/index.php?mod=article&cat=FlashNews&article=15174)
India Everyday (http://www.indiaeveryday.com/news-600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court-1008-2076803.htm)
ApnaIslamabad (http://www.apnaislamabad.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5261&Itemid=117)
PC Tech Magazine (http://www.pctechmagazine.com/news/252-600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court)
The China Post (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/europe/2010/12/15/283751/Thousands-back.htm)
The Daily Star (http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=166135)
Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) (http://www.bssnews.net/newsDetails.php?cat=3&id=149668&date=2010-12-13)
AUSinNews (http://www.ausinnews.com/topic/600-000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition)
Samay Live (http://english.samaylive.com/world-news/676479015/wikileaks-founder-assange-to-appear-in-court.html)
Jorbit (http://www.jorbit.com/1744482/WikiLeaks+Support+Petition+Gets+600000+Photos+Videos/)
Brisbane Times (http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition-20101214-18vnq.html)
Bangla News (http://www.banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=95cbe1e1f1fa3d8cd5bbcefd8a59191f&nttl=2010121410538)
The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/sign-wikileaks-support-petition/story-e6freuyi-1225970687013)
Optus News (http://optuszoo.com.au/news/breaking/news-com-au/600-000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition/256682)
Expatica (http://www.expatica.co.uk/news/british-news/600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court_117114.html)

There is way more than this as I got tired of cutting, pasting, and linking and I only listed mainstream global news portals (US MSM seems silent on this so far hmm). I left out all the blogs, conspiracy websites, celebrity websites, and even food and craft websites. (go figure)

and I am sure more on the way, depending on the results...

...depending on the masses.

as US Vice President Joe Biden once said: "This is a big F___ing deal!"

Carmody

16th December 2010, 02:35

You have to understand that one of their better journalists brought suit against them a while back and it went to the supreme court of the US. It was about lying to the public.

In order to skip out on the specific aspects of a requirement to tell the truth.... Fox re-named and re-tasked their company into "Fox Entertainment" and it has an 'entertainment news division', which is not bound to tell any truth, as it is SPECIFICALLY entertainment NOT news.

So people have no understanding that the label says 'news', but it is actually a right wing version of Comedy Central, run by 'Fox Entertainment'.

Literally and legally ---exactly that.

Look it up.

ponda

16th December 2010, 02:49

great question! Writing and signing petitions has many useful purposes that has a deep and rich history yet for the sake of brevity i merely point out that the founding fathers who penned the us constitution found it such an important tool that they made sure to guarantee this right in the first amendment right along side free speech, press, religion, and assembly when they wrote the government will make no law prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

what can be gained?

Attention. Solidarity. Strength in numbers. A united global cry against tyrannical acts of suppression by a government of elite who think they can disregard the constitution and the rights of free people. To not go quietly into that good night. To let the controllers know that a stand has been taken on a global level, that we the people will not turn our eyes away and mumble quietly to ourselves at injustice as they act against the very fabric of the first amendment to the constitution, and in turn act against us the people. One small act made by the masses is a huge act in hindsight.

"all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - edmund burke

"every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love" - julian assange

mainstream media has had the wikileaks saga front and center for quite some time now and i don't see that changing anytime soon. This petition is too and there is a window of opportunity here to make your voice heard on a global scale.
[b]

....bravo....

ponda

16th December 2010, 03:17

Media says government's reaction to WikiLeaks 'troubling'

December 14, 2010

Australia's main media players say the federal government's reaction to the release of diplomatic correspondence by the WikiLeaks website is "deeply troubling".

The country's newspaper editors, along with television and radio directors, have written an open letter to Prime Minister Julia Gillard in support of WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange. The letter is supported by the editor-in-chief of The Sydney Morning Herald and Sun Herald, Peter Fray, whose newspapers have reported on the secret US embassy cables provided exclusively to Fairfax newspapers.

"The volume of the leaks is unprecedented, yet the leaking and publication of diplomatic correspondence is not new," the letter, initiated by the Walkley Foundation, states.

Advertisement: Story continues below
"We ... believe the reaction of the US and Australian governments to date has been deeply troubling.

"We will strongly resist any attempts to make the publication of these or similar documents illegal."

The editors and directors say any attempt to shut down WikiLeaks, prosecute those who publish official leaks, or pressure companies to cease working with the whistle-blower website "is a serious threat to democracy which relies on a free and fearless press".

Ms Gillard has declared the actions of WikiLeaks and Mr Assange "illegal".

Attorney-General Robert McClelland has said the initial leaking of classified documents and their subsequent distribution by WikiLeaks are likely to be illegal.

But the media's open letter notes that so far the government "has been able to point to no Australian law that has been breached".

The editors and directors state that WikiLeaks is simply doing what the media has always done - expose official secrets that governments would prefer to keep in the dark.

"WikiLeaks, just four years old, is part of the media and deserves our support."

Almost 600,000 people have signed a separate online petition in support of WikiLeaks ahead of a second appearance in court in London by Mr Assange.

The petition on campaigning website Avaaz calls on the US and other nations to "stop the crackdown on WikiLeaks and its partners immediately" and to respect "the laws of freedom of expression and freedom of the press".

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/media-says-governments-reaction-to-wikileaks-troubling-20101214-18vrb.html

Zook

16th December 2010, 16:27

Hello Heretic,

Great question! Writing and signing petitions has many useful purposes that has a deep and rich history yet for the sake of brevity I merely point out that the founding fathers who penned the US constitution found it such an important tool that they made sure to guarantee this right in the first amendment right along side free speech, press, religion, and assembly when they wrote the government will make no law prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

Wise words by wise men of the day. So the question begs, which government is being targeted by the Wikileaks petition? The US government? The British government? The government of Pegi Pegi in the Pacific Ocean? And if no particular government, then who has the authority to redress the putative grievance?

Remember, the founding fathers gave container to their First, e.g the United States. If the people's representatives in the US government failed to accommodate the people's grievances, the people had the ballot box to change the representatives ... in this arrangement, the essential power of the First is to protect the people's right of petition so that they may later exercise the essential power of the ballot box. Without the ballot box to remove delinquent politicians, all that the First - and its protection for the right of petition - offers is a measure of personal satisfaction.

So question begs, what's the container for a global petition? Remember, if there is no global government in place to redress grievances, then all that the signatories of the Wikileaks petition have is a measure of personal satisfaction. Now you may extrapolate the container of the United States to the container known as the United Nations and argue that the United Nations can redress grievances ... but that's wishful thinking, not unlike the six-year-old's belief in Santa Claus. The United Nations is not a government of the people, by the people, for the people, i.e. the representatives there are not elected by the people and are therefore not checked by the ballot box. The buggers in the UN corps are not electable politicians but appointable diplomats. Whatever elections exist in the UN, e.g. the election of the UN head, are internal affairs not greatly unlike what the internal affairs in the election of a New Pope. To wit, UN appointments are primarily rewards for being a good sheep dog of the elite classes.

Of course, if a global government should establish in the future, then you could have that putative global container to hold both the people's right of petition and a people's government in place to redress grievances ... but there is no guarantee that such a One World Government (OWG) would be of the people, for the people, and by the people. Indeed, all preliminary indications are that it will be highly centralized and of the ruling elites, by the ruling elites, for the ruling elites. Any right of petition within the NWO's OWG structure would then be a right of the ruling elites and any redressal of grievances would be done by ruling elites elected by ruling elites. Think fox. Think henhouse. (That's essentially the way things are now anyways in every so-called democratic country; but at least there is enough facade to give us an illusion that the government is ours. By contrast, the rule of the elites in the NWO is going to be less implicit, it'll have to be when the full agenda rolls out, e.g. when the culling starts in earnest.)

But the Wikileaks petition has no OWG to present itself with. And the United Nations is not a government. So I ask again, what exactly are you accomplishing with this petition if not a measure of personal satisfaction?

What can be gained?

Attention. Solidarity. Strength in numbers. A united global cry against tyrannical acts of suppression by a government of elite who think they can disregard the constitution and the rights of free people. To not go quietly into that good night. To let the controllers know that a stand has been taken on a global level, that we the people will not turn our eyes away and mumble quietly to ourselves at injustice as they act against the very fabric of the first amendment to the constitution, and in turn act against us the people. One small act made by the masses is a huge act in hindsight.

Disregard who's constitution? What specific government of elite are you petitioning? In 2010, virtually all governments are of the elite ... but there is no global government of the elite. So why do you want to address something that doesn't yet exist officially? Have you been so conditioned to accept the NWO that you've subconsciously begun your involuntary servitude? And if it does exist unofficially, and it likely does, then why are you recognizing it with an act that has no teeth? I mean, the Wikileaks petition can only give each of its signatories personal satisfaction. Even if the grievances are heard, there is no force imperative for redressal, e.g. the quintessential electoral guillotine better known as the ballot box. In this arrangement, TMastardsTB will gladly receive such a petition. And why not? For them such petitions are steam releases so that the top of the pressure cooker doesn't blow off. For them, a munching sheep with their snouts firmly on the grasses of the corralled pasture ... is a better situation than excited vampiric sheep jumping the fences. Better the bleating baa-aah than the bleeding bite. Heck, why stop at 50,000,000 signatures? TMastardsTB will accept ten times that number, e.g. 500,000,000. They are fond of symmetry; they've already paid a stone tribute to this specific number in Georgia.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Excellent quote. Very profound. The Wikileaks petition signatories are, by in large, good people with good intentions (e.g the protection of speech freedoms). As you may well have heard, however, the road to Helsinki is paved with the best intentions. Unfortunately, because no official structure is in place to receive the petition with any meaningful consequence (e.g. a structure that can be held accountable), the end result is nothing bigger than a measure of personal satisfaction for each of the individual signatories, i.e. it's tantamount to doing nothing. To wit, the triumph of evil is all but assured when we keep munching the sheeple grasses.

IMHO, the best protection of speech remains with our mass awakening to the lies, the deceptions, the bankster scams, the tentacles of the Rothschild octopus, the agenda of the Illuminati/Vatican/Freemasonry chameleon, the conspiratorial facts of 9/11/2001, the conspiratorial facts of Wikileaks, etc.

In short, the time has long since arrived to stop begging our captors for our freedom (including speech freedoms), but to go ahead and take it for ourselves. That's what truly free people do anyways.

"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love" - Julian Assange

I do have sympathy for Julian Assange ... as I would for anyone with a broken childhood. He searched for trust and love (as any child does), only to find betrayal (Hamilton-Byrne cult). He searched for independent avenues to express his enormous personal gifts, only to find the lure of the system. He searched for fortune, only to find the dower of the intelligence agencies. He searched for fame, only to find the patsy point of yet another false flag operation by the Rothschild octopus (Wikileaks, being waged undoubtedly to bring the sparsely regulated internet under full octopus control). I have sympathy for Julian Assange ... but he is an adult now. Once abused, he has now chosen to abuse. My sympathy is therefore balanced by the call for justice (for his complicity in the criminal deception that is Wikileaks). I've already demonstrated the Rothschild tentacles that fondle Julian Assange in another thread here on Avalon.

Btw, if you want to start quoting criminals, there are far greater quotes from far bigger criminals that you might want to look at first. Heck, Winston Churchill has a whole chapter all to himself! Or perhaps your understanding of the subterranean politik is not deep enough to accommodate Churchill as a criminal just yet? Don't feel bad, there are many who view him as a hero of WWII. I myself thought him ti be a hero as recently as a decade ago. Such is the sad state of our collective cognitive dissonance.

In any event, I wouldn't worry too much about patsy's Julian Assange's safety. He's more likely to end up as Watergate patsy Gordon Liddy than JFK assassination patsy Lee Harvey Oswald. After all, TMastardsTB don't want to risk their own future operations by turning him into a martyr ... you know, to resurrect him with an energy that they hadn't anticipated. Btw, if you anyone thinks Woodward and Bernstein were heroes, think again ... those were two of the more officious skunks in junk journalism history. Getting back to Assange, he'll probably get his own radio show and be feted around for a while before disappearing into the dustbin of insignificance.

Mainstream media has had the wikileaks saga front and center for quite some time now and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This petition is too and there is a window of opportunity here to make your voice heard on a global scale.
[...]
There is way more than this as I got tired of cutting, pasting, and linking and I only listed mainstream global news portals (US MSM seems silent on this so far hmm). I left out all the blogs, conspiracy websites, celebrity websites, and even food and craft websites. (go figure)

and I am sure more on the way, depending on the results...
...depending on the masses.

What makes you think that quantity is a good substitute for quality? Junk journalism is what it is, friend, whether it is being arrived by mainstream media, alternative blogs, or psychologically-manouevred pawns.

as US Vice President Joe Biden once said: "This is a big F___ing deal!"

Old Joe was right on this one. This particular false flag has the potential to realize the Zionist Rothschild push for global conflict (e.g. WWIII) by planting the seeds of mistrust among nations. Of course, all nations are controlled at a deeper level; but for public consumption, they play must progress in timed sequence: mistrust to mutual offense to molotov cocktails to Armageddon. From the resulting chaos to a New World Order. In the interim, more bankster scams will be carried out while the public's attention is elsewhere and not as sharp, e.g. dulled from distraction, confusion, infojunk.

Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

jackovesk

16th December 2010, 18:15

Hello Heretic,

Wise words by wise men of the day. So the question begs, which government is being targeted by the Wikileaks petition? The US government? The British government? The government of Pegi Pegi in the Pacific Ocean? And if no particular government, then who has the authority to redress the putative grievance?

Remember, the founding fathers gave container to their First, e.g the United States. If the people's representatives in the US government failed to accommodate the people's grievances, the people had the ballot box to change the representatives ... in this arrangement, the essential power of the First is to protect the people's right of petition so that they may later exercise the essential power of the ballot box. Without the ballot box to remove delinquent politicians, all that the First - and its protection for the right of petition - offers is a measure of personal satisfaction.

So question begs, what's the container for a global petition? Remember, if there is no global government in place to redress grievances, then all that the signatories of the Wikileaks petition have is a measure of personal satisfaction. Now you may extrapolate the container of the United States to the container known as the United Nations and argue that the United Nations can redress grievances ... but that's wishful thinking, not unlike the six-year-old's belief in Santa Claus. The United Nations is not a government of the people, by the people, for the people, i.e. the representatives there are not elected by the people and are therefore not checked by the ballot box. The buggers in the UN corps are not electable politicians but appointable diplomats. Whatever elections exist in the UN, e.g. the election of the UN head, are internal affairs not greatly unlike what the internal affairs in the election of a New Pope. To wit, UN appointments are primarily rewards for being a good sheep dog of the elite classes.

Of course, if a global government should establish in the future, then you could have that putative global container to hold both the people's right of petition and a people's government in place to redress grievances ... but there is no guarantee that such a One World Government (OWG) would be of the people, for the people, and by the people. Indeed, all preliminary indications are that it will be highly centralized and of the ruling elites, by the ruling elites, for the ruling elites. Any right of petition within the NWO's OWG structure would then be a right of the ruling elites and any redressal of grievances would be done by ruling elites elected by ruling elites. Think fox. Think henhouse. (That's essentially the way things are now anyways in every so-called democratic country; but at least there is enough facade to give us an illusion that the government is ours. By contrast, the rule of the elites in the NWO is going to be less implicit, it'll have to be when the full agenda rolls out, e.g. when the culling starts in earnest.)

But the Wikileaks petition has no OWG to present itself with. And the United Nations is not a government. So I ask again, what exactly are you accomplishing with this petition if not a measure of personal satisfaction?

Disregard who's constitution? What specific government of elite are you petitioning? In 2010, virtually all governments are of the elite ... but there is no global government of the elite. So why do you want to address something that doesn't yet exist officially? Have you been so conditioned to accept the NWO that you've subconsciously begun your involuntary servitude? And if it does exist unofficially, and it likely does, then why are you recognizing it with an act that has no teeth? I mean, the Wikileaks petition can only give each of its signatories personal satisfaction. Even if the grievances are heard, there is no force imperative for redressal, e.g. the quintessential electoral guillotine better known as the ballot box. In this arrangement, TMastardsTB will gladly receive such a petition. And why not? For them such petitions are steam releases so that the top of the pressure cooker doesn't blow off. For them, a munching sheep with their snouts firmly on the grasses of the corralled pasture ... is a better situation than excited vampiric sheep jumping the fences. Better the bleating baa-aah than the bleeding bite. Heck, why stop at 50,000,000 signatures? TMastardsTB will accept ten times that number, e.g. 500,000,000. They are fond of symmetry; they've already paid a stone tribute to this specific number in Georgia.

Excellent quote. Very profound. The Wikileaks petition signatories are, by in large, good people with good intentions (e.g the protection of speech freedoms). As you may well have heard, however, the road to Helsinki is paved with the best intentions. Unfortunately, because no official structure is in place to receive the petition with any meaningful consequence (e.g. a structure that can be held accountable), the end result is nothing bigger than a measure of personal satisfaction for each of the individual signatories, i.e. it's tantamount to doing nothing. To wit, the triumph of evil is all but assured when we keep munching the sheeple grasses.

IMHO, the best protection of speech remains with our mass awakening to the lies, the deceptions, the bankster scams, the tentacles of the Rothschild octopus, the agenda of the Illuminati/Vatican/Freemasonry chameleon, the conspiratorial facts of 9/11/2001, the conspiratorial facts of Wikileaks, etc.

In short, the time has long since arrived to stop begging our captors for our freedom (including speech freedoms), but to go ahead and take it for ourselves. That's what truly free people do anyways.

I do have sympathy for Julian Assange ... as I would for anyone with a broken childhood. He searched for trust and love (as any child does), only to find betrayal (Hamilton-Byrne cult). He searched for independent avenues to express his enormous personal gifts, only to find the lure of the system. He searched for fortune, only to find the dower of the intelligence agencies. He searched for fame, only to find the patsy point of yet another false flag operation by the Rothschild octopus (Wikileaks, being waged undoubtedly to bring the sparsely regulated internet under full octopus control). I have sympathy for Julian Assange ... but he is an adult now. Once abused, he has now chosen to abuse. My sympathy is therefore balanced by the call for justice (for his complicity in the criminal deception that is Wikileaks). I've already demonstrated the Rothschild tentacles that fondle Julian Assange in another thread here on Avalon.

Btw, if you want to start quoting criminals, there are far greater quotes from far bigger criminals that you might want to look at first. Heck, Winston Churchill has a whole chapter all to himself! Or perhaps your understanding of the subterranean politik is not deep enough to accommodate Churchill as a criminal just yet? Don't feel bad, there are many who view him as a hero of WWII. I myself thought him ti be a hero as recently as a decade ago. Such is the sad state of our collective cognitive dissonance.

In any event, I wouldn't worry too much about patsy's Julian Assange's safety. He's more likely to end up as Watergate patsy Gordon Liddy than JFK assassination patsy Lee Harvey Oswald. After all, TMastardsTB don't want to risk their own future operations by turning him into a martyr ... you know, to resurrect him with an energy that they hadn't anticipated. Btw, if you anyone thinks Woodward and Bernstein were heroes, think again ... those were two of the more officious skunks in junk journalism history. Getting back to Assange, he'll probably get his own radio show and be feted around for a while before disappearing into the dustbin of insignificance.

What makes you think that quantity is a good substitute for quality? Junk journalism is what it is, friend, whether it is being arrived by mainstream media, alternative blogs, or psychologically-manouevred pawns.

Old Joe was right on this one. This particular false flag has the potential to realize the Zionist Rothschild push for global conflict (e.g. WWIII) by planting the seeds of mistrust among nations. Of course, all nations are controlled at a deeper level; but for public consumption, they play must progress in timed sequence: mistrust to mutual offense to molotov cocktails to Armageddon. From the resulting chaos to a New World Order. In the interim, more bankster scams will be carried out while the public's attention is elsewhere and not as sharp, e.g. dulled from distraction, confusion, infojunk.

Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

Hello Zookumar...

I can not let an insightful and well researched post like this pass through to the keeper without reply!

You know my views on Assange from my previous post. I remember calling a truce with you and I saying "Time will Tell".

However, that is not the reason I am replying to this particular post!

This is completely out of Left Field, but I am going to share it with all Avalonians anyway.

I too am suspect of signing petitions, especially those that are promoted by Govts. &/or the MSM..!

I have a Full Proof Option of Success in fighting the TMastardsTB that many are Aware of in their Subconscious but have not used it in their Consciousnous!

Let me give you and my fellow Avalonians the Power they Wish for in Fighting the TMastardsTB, that they won't obtain from signing a Petition!

I'll set the stage for you 1st.

Every time I see a Poitician on TV or my Computer that I know is a Lier or Corrupt. I Concentrate on a position just above their 3rd eye and repeat the following. "I wish that God &/or Humanity exposes you for the Lier/Fraud you are!"

I have been doing this for the past 3 years and every single time, Bit by Bit these Crooks have been exposed!

Call me what you like, but there is UNTOLD ENORMOUS power in INTENT! No violence or mallice is required, but just HONEST INTENT on letting God or your own Spirituality demand justice from those who wish to Control Us!

In other words every time you see these Ba$tards on TV or your Computer ask God or whom ever you draw Strenth &/or Power from to Judge them for their misgivens.

It's a Peaceful Weapon that works Time after Time after Time! It's called KARMA!

chelmostef

16th December 2010, 19:54

Ok Humble opinions all round of course, I would like to add that avaaz.org Is Not just all about wiki leaks and far from it I have signed many a petition on this web site not because it makes me feel better but because it is another tool in the box that we have to use. If we don't demonstrate, sign petitions, boycott, inform. What can we do?

2. What if you are wrong about wiki-leaks? What about even with all the research you have done you are wrong? How can you be 100% sure they are dis-info, surely its just speculation. It seems you are presenting a conclusion when it is just a hypothesis. A conclusion can and will only been seen in a few months or years time when all the pieces of the puzzle have fallen to the floor. Untill that time its just speculation...

3.I suggest you read the web site at avaaz and see what and how signatures have been used in the past and how they have added that little bit of extra weight at a time it is needed. Not just for ego massaging..

Thankyou Zookumar

Im gonna now be adding what jack has written about to my list of arsenal as well thankyou Jack... Also when im in the bookshop and see Tony Blairs lying face looking at me I turn it round in a hope people will just walk on by and not purchase his book, perhaps that is ego massaging!

Burke

16th December 2010, 20:14

zookumar,

My intention was to present the petition and spread the word only. I do not wish to have a debate on the merits of the action, nor change focus from the message to the messenger. You have every right to disagree with it and decide not to sign without political debate from me. My days of trying to convince people to see the world as I do are over and have been for some time.

Do as you will sir.

Zook

16th December 2010, 21:11

Hello Jacks,

Hello Zookumar...
[...]
Call me what you like, but there is UNTOLD ENORMOUS power in INTENT! No violence or mallice is required, but just HONEST INTENT on letting God or your own Spiritualty demand justice from those who wish to Control Us!
[...]
It's a Peaceful Weapon that works Time after Time after Time! It's called KARMA!

Thank you for that. You have a good heart. A good heart emits good energy to the Universe, and it absorbs good energy from the Universe. I would just add that the conduits between the good heart and the Universe come in many varieties, and shapes and sizes. Your conduit is the energy field that connects your focus to a region above the third eye of the TV image of the fallen soul (e.g. deceiving politician, deceiving lawyer, deceiving pundit, etc.) ... and your abiding faith is the energy flow. My conduit is the entire library of information that is available to me ... and my energy flow is the entire collection of rational/factual arguments I make in defense of the energy fields of Nyayam (Fairness), Satyam (Truth), and Dharmam (Justice). I think the Universe grants us both in this regard. IMHO, our approaches complement each other.

Mind you, being human, I am capable of making mistakes. But because I, like yourself, have been blessed with a good heart, I am able to admit my mistakes as soon as someone points them out. There are times when two good hearts will find themselves in contrary perspectives. When this happens, you are obliged to listen to your good heart, and I am obliged to listen to my good heart. In time, the good energy of the Universe will sort things out and make its own judgment. That being said, you should follow your good heart in your understanding of Wikileaks, and follow it with full energy flow. Likewise, I will do the same and follow mine with full energy flow. Along the way, if one of us realizes the error of our perspective, then I'm confident the respective good heart will force a change in the respective course.

Good heart opinions all around.

:typing:

ps: The lock is on the mystery box. The key is in the keeper of the good heart.

Zook

17th December 2010, 09:51

Hello Chelmostuf,

Ok Humble opinions all round of course, I would like to add that avaaz.org Is Not just all about wiki leaks and far from it I have signed many a petition on this web site not because it makes me feel better but because it is another tool in the box that we have to use. If we don't demonstrate, sign petitions, boycott, inform. What can we do?

My arguments aren't directed at petition-gathering websites per se; only at petitions that support Wikileaks and other scams. I mean, if Avaaz had petitioned for the preservation of endangered whales one week; and the week after, petitioned in favor of a Nigerian Money Transfer Operation ... would you attack the website or the specific petition ... or both or none?

I would think that you would attack the specific petition; and I would also think that you would lose confidence in the website. In short the website is responsible for monitoring its content. If Wikileaks is a fraud; and teh website endorses Wikileaks; then the website gambles with its own integrity.

In any event, and with due respect, online pettitions are mostly feelgood operations as a rule. Let me illustrate, if you petition to save the whales; and saving the whales fits into TMastardsTB's agenda; then the whales will be saved. If however, saving the whales disturbs TMastardsTB's agenda in any significant way, then the whales will not be saved no matter how many signatures are collected. In this case, you'll have to revolt against TMastardsTB in an effort to save the whales; or content yourself with the fact that at least you had tried to save the whales, i.e. you'll have to settle for a measure of satisfaction in the knowledge that you yourself are a conscientious human, but one unable to help the whales. And that is the plight of the vast majority of petitioners who had signed on in an effort to save the whales.

To wit, petitioning - short of a revolt against the interests of TMastardsTB ... is indeed mainly a feelgood exercise, or in your own words below, an ego massage. It is an apparent tool, as a rule, but not a real one. Exceptions may exist, as they do with the vast majority of rules; but you'll have to make the case for each exception; for exceptions aren't readily apparent.

One more comment about petitioning. Petitioning only works if the target of the petition still has a working conscience. You'll have to make two cases here. (1) Who or what is the target of the Wikileaks petition? (2) Does this target still have a working conscience? The informed understanding is that TMastardsTB and their invertebrate minion classes (if they are indeed the target in question) are a psychopathic pack of eugenicists.

Ok, one last comment: and this will upset many as it should. Signing petitions is a poor substitute for taking real action against the oppressing authority. Real action involves informed debate to expose the lies, deceptions, bankster scams, political agendas, eugenics programs, etc. ... of the oppressing classes.
With informed debate, there can be a real awakening; a tipping point when the peoples of the world stand up and say enough is enough! And that will lead to revolution, preferably peaceful but perhaps violent. Anything else is a slow lemming march to the edge of the cliff ... including the act of petitioning to an authority that had long traded away its bag of scruples.

2. What if you are wrong about wiki-leaks? What about even with all the research you have done you are wrong? How can you be 100% sure they are dis-info, surely its just speculation. It seems you are presenting a conclusion when it is just a hypothesis. A conclusion can and will only been seen in a few months or years time when all the pieces of the puzzle have fallen to the floor. Untill that time its just speculation...

Speculation? In your informational radius perhaps. If one actually does the necessary study, with the necessary rigor, the conclusion is inescapable. Sure the possibility exists that I could be wrong about Wikileaks. The possibility also exists that the US is not a ZOG aka BOG (Bankster Occupied Government). The probability, by contrast, asserts that the US is a BOG with a greater than 99% confidence interval. A rigorous search of Wikileaks also reveals a greater than 99% confidence interval. Question begs, do we have time to waste before we begin respecting the confidence interval?

To wit, if I can predict that the Sun will rise tomorrow morning, why should I wait on that information until tomorrow morning when the Sun has risen?
Equally, if you can't predict it, then why should I respect your informational radius over my own?

I've already made the Rothschild-Wikileaks connection (in spades) in another thread. Go here for a review if you're interested (post#9):
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9046-Petition-to-promote-Freedom-Of-Expression-(Web)-Wikileaks

And here's my discussion of patterns that further indict Wikileaks:
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?9239-WikiRebels-%C2%96-
The-Documentary&p=79863#post79863

3.I suggest you read the web site at avaaz and see what and how signatures have been used in the past and how they have added that little bit of extra weight at a time it is needed. Not just for ego massaging..
Thankyou Zookumar

I'm interested in how Avaaz is using its petitioning power to promote the Wikileaks scam, friend. How Avaaz may or may not have petitioned in the past is not germane to this discussion, IMHO, and precisely because I'm not arguing against the existence of Avaaz. Here, I've already questioned the wisdom of petitioning an authority that had long ago sold its moral bag to the devil.

To reiterate, I believe that informed debate is a real tool that can be used against TMastardsTB; at the same time, I maintain that petitioning an immoral authority is, at best, a feelgood proposition.

Humble opinions all around.

:typing:

ps: Btw, I'm not questioning your good heart; I'm questioning your support for Wikileaks, a provable and demonstrated fraud.

ps2: Time will reveal to all that Wikileaks is a fraud ... but a rigorous study of the evidence will reward with the same conclusion (independent of time).

ponda

17th December 2010, 10:03

Every time I see a Poitician on TV or my Computer that I know is a Lier or Corrupt. I Concentrate on a position just above their 3rd eye and repeat the following. "I wish that God &/or Humanity exposes you for the Lier/Fraud you are!"

I have been doing this for the past 3 years and every single time, Bit by Bit these Crooks have been exposed!

Call me what you like, but there is UNTOLD ENORMOUS power in INTENT! No violence or mallice is required, but just HONEST INTENT on letting God or your own Spirituality demand justice from those who wish to Control Us!

In other words every time you see these Ba$tards on TV or your Computer ask God or whom ever you draw Strenth &/or Power from to Judge them for their misgivens.

It's a Peaceful Weapon that works Time after Time after Time! It's called KARMA!

Ok jacko i'll throw a curly one at you.

What if all of those corrupt and lying politicians were consciously influenced by a higher negative power without their knowing of it.All of their lies,passing of biased laws,voting to go to war,broken promises were all done by them being unknowingly mind controlled.Is it still their fault that they made bad decisions or are they just blameless pawns who are being used to follow a long term agenda by negative forces ?

chelmostef

17th December 2010, 10:37

Hi zookumar! Its seems you have a good heart to my friend :)

Just so you know I have not made my mind up as to what wikileaks actually is yet I also must say the evidents is quite damming to the fact that it could quite possibly be a psy-ops. But I am still hoping that I am wrong and they will give us some juicy information soon.
I also think we need time to fully evaluate all the information that is being leaked before a conclusion can be fully drawn. Despite being affiliated with rothschild/Zionist.

I would also like to say that I think that the rothschild Zionist tentacles get absolutely every ware and it would be hard, I think to be a large media organization without being infiltrated by these TbastardsTB. And what better way to strike at the heart than from within.

I also think that mossad can pretty much get whom ever they want and it would not be to far fetched to think that Assage might of been nobbled by them. If the information damming the Zionist occupation is omitted then that speaks volumes in its self.

In fighting against these monsters we have to use everything in our power and that for me include petions as I have seen them effectively used in the past.

It is very much like anti whaling.
Direct action - Sea Sheperd.
Boycotting - Dont but anything exploiting the sea.
Demonstrations - these happen every year.
Petitions - as these can be just enough to swing the vote.
And education - ties the whole thing together.

Without using all the tools available we are at a disadvantage.

To summarize we need to use every last option available even if it just makes us feel better.

jackovesk

18th December 2010, 12:56

Ok jacko i'll throw a curly one at you.

What if all of those corrupt and lying politicians were consciously influenced by a higher negative power without their knowing of it.All of their lies,passing of biased laws,voting to go to war,broken promises were all done by them being unknowingly mind controlled.Is it still their fault that they made bad decisions or are they just blameless pawns who are being used to follow a long term agenda by negative forces ?

Catch22? not quite ponda: I enjoy the odd game of Chess, but there is a simple answer to your question.

Remember my saying using the 'Power of Intent', this Power has no boundaries and will move straight through the Mind Controlled Minions and sraight onto the Puppet Masters themselves by seeking out the very source of where the negative energy is coming from! Truth is Light my friend....

Remember when your 'Power of Intent' comes through directly from the 'Source' it is Unbeatable!

ponda

18th December 2010, 14:23

Catch22? not quite ponda: I enjoy the odd game of Chess, but there is a simple answer to your question.

Remember my saying using the 'Power of Intent', this Power has no boundaries and will move straight through the Mind Controlled Minions and sraight onto the Puppet Masters themselves by seeking out the very source of where the negative energy is coming from! Truth is Light my friend....

Remember when your 'Power of Intent' comes through directly from the 'Source' it is Unbeatable!

Keep up the good work.

Yes positive intent does go a long way.

I would also imagine that the power of intent from a higher negative entity would go a long way also

The balance of influence over the planet appears to have been of the negative kind for a very long time but if more people thought the same way that you do then the balance might change back to the positive very quickly.

What i was implying in my post was that i personally don't hold any of the people who got us into this mess directly responsible because i believe that most or all of them were influenced by mind control into making decisions that fitted into a negative long term agenda.Yes and i agree with you that karma will balance it all out in the end.

Deega

20th December 2010, 15:25

Deega

20th December 2010, 15:39

Don't want to shake the apple tree too much (and give the ghost of Sir Isaac a really big headache) ... but what do you think will be accomplished by this petition? Freedom of speech? Or mollification of the excited masses? If the latter, can we afford mollification right now, e.g. when our anger should be intensifying? You'll agree that signing such a petition gives us a sense of accomplishment; but what will result from this accomplishment? Protection of speech? Or the continuation of speech restrictions (with barely a hiccup)?

IMHO, freedom of speech is better protected by shedding light on the lies, the disinfo, the psyOps operations, the false paradigms, the many tentacles of the Rothschild freedom-squeezing octopus, etc. Signing this petition may give you peace of mind ... but I have serious doubts about its capacity to effect a directional change in the squeeze on speech.

:typing:

ps: If petitions have the power to persuade (and some may, indeed, have that), I would've thought a petition designed to confront the obvious false flag terror operation of 9/11/2001 ... would have priority over an obvious false flag 'eavesdrop' operation on expendable interlocutors. But hey, maybe it's just me tossing water balloons amidst the jugglers of mirth and motley.

Thanks Zookumar, great of you, here is a few comments.

Signing this petition may give you peace of mind ... but I have serious doubts about its capacity to effect a directional change in the squeeze on speech.

Contrary to this assertion, I think that if we don’t make a move on Wkileaks (even if information tend to lead Assange to the Rothschild, to Israel), we would leave a message to TPTB that it’s okey. Is that what we want to express in this situation, if so, that is in line with what the TPTB were expecting….!

ps: If petitions have the power to persuade (and some may, indeed, have that), I would've thought a petition designed to confront the obvious false flag terror operation of 9/11/2001 ... would have priority over an obvious false flag 'eavesdrop' operation on expendable interlocutors.

Yes! Zookumar, I would encourage you to open up a petition on a new investigation on 9/11, I would sign in, and I would encourage all my friends to be in, I would encourage my siblings living in the US to sign in.

All my blessings.

Deega

Deega

20th December 2010, 15:48

Great question! Writing and signing petitions has many useful purposes that has a deep and rich history yet for the sake of brevity I merely point out that the founding fathers who penned the US constitution found it such an important tool that they made sure to guarantee this right in the first amendment right along side free speech, press, religion, and assembly when they wrote the government will make no law prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

What can be gained?

Attention. Solidarity. Strength in numbers. A united global cry against tyrannical acts of suppression by a government of elite who think they can disregard the constitution and the rights of free people. To not go quietly into that good night. To let the controllers know that a stand has been taken on a global level, that we the people will not turn our eyes away and mumble quietly to ourselves at injustice as they act against the very fabric of the first amendment to the constitution, and in turn act against us the people. One small act made by the masses is a huge act in hindsight.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence and thereby eventually lose all ability to defend ourselves and those we love" - Julian Assange

Mainstream media has had the wikileaks saga front and center for quite some time now and I don't see that changing anytime soon. This petition is too and there is a window of opportunity here to make your voice heard on a global scale.

The Vancouver Sun (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/sign+WikiLeaks+petition+Assange+braces+court/3969529/story.html)
Google News (http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hGtOh2zOxSS7FdKXvrCSiWSxHRTw?docId=CNG.90a3120ac4ed728d6f0d6b3cb6809980.621)
Current (http://current.com/technology/92856031_wikileaks-petition-united-we-stand.htm)
The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/uk/600000-sign-WikiLeaks-petition-as-Assange-braces-for-court/articleshow/7095220.cms)
The Straights Times (Singapore) (http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_613637.html)
Yahoo News (http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/world/8505469/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition/)
The Star (http://www.thestar.co.za/600-000-sign-wikileaks-petition-1.1000967)
Examiner (http://www.examiner.com/international-headlines-in-national/600-000-sign-online-petition-support-of-wikileaks-15-show-up-to-protest)
Global News (http://www.globalnews.ca/world/sign+wikileaks+petition+assange+braces+court/3969468/story.html)
Digital Journal (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/301397)
ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.de/news/digitale_wirtschaft_internet_ebusiness_622_000_unterzeichnen_online_petition_zum_schutz_von_wikileak s_story-39002364-41542306-1.htm)
NDTV (http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/6-lakh-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court-72460)
SILObreaker (http://www.silobreaker.com/wikileaks-support-petition-gets-600000-5_2263933167163408413)
Sky News Australia (http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=551646&vId=)
Big Pond News (http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Politics/2010/12
/14/600000_sign_WikiLeaks_support_petition_551646.html)
The Sydney Morning Herald News (http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition-20101214-18vnq.html)
Inquirer (http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/world/view/20101214-308884/600000-sign-WikiLeaks-petition-as-Assange-braces-for-court)
Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/breaking-news/sign-wikileaks-support-petition/story-e6frg12u-1225970687013)
Metrolic (http://www.metrolic.com/almost-600000-people-voted-an-online-petition-in-support-of-julian-assange-152261/)
International News (http://www.internationalnews.info/finance/43480-600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court-times-of-india)
Pak Tribune (http://www.paktribune.com/news/index.shtml?234427)
Times of Malta (http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20101214/world-news/600-000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assagne-braces-for-court)
Geo Television Network (http://www.geo.tv/12-13-2010/75745.htm)
AFR Financial Review (http://www.afr.com.au/p/business/technology/sign_wikileaks_support_petition_RJkJBrR0bE4NWDmoQd1zEJ)
Dubbo Prime Insider (http://dubbo.iprime.com.au/index.php/news/national-news/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition)
APNIEYESP News Portal (http://apnieyesp.com/news/600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court/)
The Press-Enterprise (http://topics.pe.com/article/09SoaWbf7N4a5)
CNEWS (http://www.cnewsworld.com/world-news/600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court/)
One News Page (http://www.onenewspage.com/news/World/20101214/17894862/600-000-sign-WikiLeaks-petition-as-Assange-braces.htm)
Times Chennai (http://www.timeschennai.com/index.php?mod=article&cat=FlashNews&article=15174)
India Everyday (http://www.indiaeveryday.com/news-600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court-1008-2076803.htm)
ApnaIslamabad (http://www.apnaislamabad.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5261&Itemid=117)
PC Tech Magazine (http://www.pctechmagazine.com/news/252-600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court)
The China Post (http://www.chinapost.com.tw/international/europe/2010/12/15/283751/Thousands-back.htm)
The Daily Star (http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=166135)
Bangladesh Sangbad Sangstha (BSS) (http://www.bssnews.net/newsDetails.php?cat=3&id=149668&date=2010-12-13)
AUSinNews (http://www.ausinnews.com/topic/600-000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition)
Samay Live (http://english.samaylive.com/world-news/676479015/wikileaks-founder-assange-to-appear-in-court.html)
Jorbit (http://www.jorbit.com/1744482/WikiLeaks+Support+Petition+Gets+600000+Photos+Videos/)
Brisbane Times (http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-world/600000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition-20101214-18vnq.html)
Bangla News (http://www.banglanews24.com/English/detailsnews.php?nssl=95cbe1e1f1fa3d8cd5bbcefd8a59191f&nttl=2010121410538)
The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/sign-wikileaks-support-petition/story-e6freuyi-1225970687013)
Optus News (http://optuszoo.com.au/news/breaking/news-com-au/600-000-sign-wikileaks-support-petition/256682)
Expatica (http://www.expatica.co.uk/news/british-news/600000-sign-wikileaks-petition-as-assange-braces-for-court_117114.html)

There is way more than this as I got tired of cutting, pasting, and linking and I only listed mainstream global news portals (US MSM seems silent on this so far hmm). I left out all the blogs, conspiracy websites, celebrity websites, and even food and craft websites. (go figure)

and I am sure more on the way, depending on the results...

...depending on the masses.

as US Vice President Joe Biden once said: "This is a big F___ing deal!"

Great post Heretic, many thanks.

My blessings.

Deega

Deega

20th December 2010, 17:28

Hello Heretic,

Thanks Zookumar,

A few comments on your post in response to Heretic.

So question begs, what's the container for a global petition? Remember, if there is no global government in place to redress grievances, then all that the signatories of the Wikileaks petition have is a measure of personal satisfaction. Now you may extrapolate the container of the United States to the container known as the United Nations and argue that the United Nations can redress grievances ... but that's wishful thinking, not unlike the six-year-old's belief in Santa Claus.

Zookumar, you would love (I would too!) that a petition has a decisional hold on grievance, but, you know that is not the case. A petition that start in a particular land, with a government that see the benefit of the signatories gesture, would probably act on the behalf of signatories such that it mayyyy get ahead...!

If one seems to suppress small singular, incremental gesture..!, what is it that should be done....?

But you know that petition has not legal binding, but it has the expression of a percentage of the population grievances, and if people talks that way, it ain't sufficient for one....!, it's better to act (petition) than doing noting...!

On the UN governance, I concur with you that this body is not representative of the people and we don’t have a solid ally with a petition.

But the Wikileaks petition has no OWG to present itself with. And the United Nations is not a government. So I ask again, what exactly are you accomplishing with this petition if not a measure of personal satisfaction?

It's more than a personal satisfactions, it's the expression of a group of people who feel that it indispensable to do a small gesture in support of a particular thing using a societal accepted form of contestation...!, you know the virtue of incrementalism…!

What specific government of elite are you petitioning?

In the case I brought up, first it was the Canadian government, then, the Avaaz is an American one if I’m right…!

Have you been so conditioned to accept the NWO that you've subconsciously begun your involuntary servitude?

I wouldn’t say that since we don’t even know what would be a NW0. We don’t know how it will be structured, how many representatives would be elected in each country…! And would it be a bicameral chamber or otherwise, with a legislative, executive and judicial branches. And if it’s not that way, which way will it be….? An authoritarian one that dictate to the slaves below, I don’t think it would be one like this, we have moved above that I hope…!

And in response to your question, if we don’t do as you tell, we are qualified “involuntary servitude”, that is qualifying someone action, I always wonder when someone start qualifying other…!

And if it does exist unofficially, and it likely does, then why are you recognizing it with an act that has no teeth?

Even if it is a symbolic gesture, it’s already action, and it is better than no-action in my IMHO.

IMHO, the best protection of speech remains with our mass awakening to the lies, the deceptions, the bankster scams, the tentacles of the Rothschild octopus, the agenda of the Illuminati/Vatican/Freemasonry chameleon, the conspiratorial facts of 9/11/2001, the conspiratorial facts of Wikileaks, etc.

Yes! Interesting Zookumar, but what may you suggest to get the people together….!, and what is to do….!, they have the guns, we won’t hold for long don’t you think….?, and then if, we are successful, what kind of governance do you think would be good for the people...?, you do have a better world to suggest…, and how would he look like…?, what do you do with the wealthy...?, and the next to come....?

Btw, if you want to start quoting criminals, there are far greater quotes from far bigger criminals that you might want to look at first. Heck, Winston Churchill has a whole chapter all to himself!

IMHO, what is unfortunate here is the fact that anyone of us that would be put in a situation of power would not have the necessary wisdom to treat people with decency…!, and lost control over time...!

All my blessings.

Deega