Assange/Wikileaks Debate

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5208

Assange/Wikileaks Debate

Postby Masato » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:49 pm

OK folks, I have lately felt compelled to come back to a very serious question that is the credibility of Julian Assange/Wikileaks.

On one hand, Wikileaks has published a host of damning info over the years, including the Clinton/Podesta emails and pedogate emails which IMO are serious shit and are likely greatly responsibility for Trump's victory

On the other hand, he avoids anything about 9/11 like the plague and downplays the whole event, never seems to leak anything about what many CT hunters consider to be the real power-holders in the world, and has been suspiciously celebritized by the MSM.

I have also heard some things like that his lawyer is also a Rothschild's lawyer, the Economist of which Assange is associated is also Rothschild run, etc etc which sounds awfully suspicious.

I hope to collect some more info in this thread outlining why Assange should be viewed with serious skepticism.

There is also this, which has never ceased to haunt me:
[spoiler]
Image




User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5208

Postby Masato » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:53 pm

A Limited Hangout scenario to me does not only seem plausible, but LIKELY. In an age where conspiracy leaks are everywhere, it makes total sense that TPTB would create a controlled limited hangout for everyone to focus on, who leaks what looks like damning info but is actually nothing to ever actually damage or lead people to the real issues.

His avoidance of 9/11 is staggering:

"I'm constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud."


He just won't touch it.

Other critics say he has a track record for never leaking anything substantial about Israel or their dealings in spy tech, nuclear tech, or lobby influence in the US.

User avatar
The Anti-Archon
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:11 pm
Reputation: 200

Postby The Anti-Archon » Thu Feb 08, 2018 2:19 pm

Assange may have been real at one point. I believe he came out of that Australian cult Nicole Kidman's dad ran, somehow shook the brainwashing and tried to expose the globalists as he knew how. He only wanted to attack certain elements, though, and didn't want to suicide himself by exposing anything 9/11 related. However, after they chased him into the embassy and he released the DNC and Podesta stuff, I think he was assassinated. What we've seen since is a combo of CGI digital magic and old-fashioned lookalikes keeping his brand alive for whomever is now using it. Take everything that comes from Assange and Wikileaks with a grain of salt.

That said, verifiable documents are verifiable documents and I look forward to anything new that does get released, even while understanding there is an agenda behind it.

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5208

Postby Masato » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:30 pm

The Anti-Archon wrote: That said, verifiable documents are verifiable documents and I look forward to anything new that does get released, even while understanding there is an agenda behind it.


OK well said, but my point is that therein lies the debate; if indeed it is a compromised/controlled opposition/Limited Hangout operation, then why should we get excited at all about their 'leaks', no matter how verifiable or damning it may be?

For instance lets say Wiki puts out more emails that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the DNC was all involved in (insert horrific crimes here), and brings the whole thing down. But if its all controlled opposition, then maybe the DNC gang are expendable and are being thrown under the bus and it is inconsequential or even beneficial to whatever grander agenda you allude to?

If someone sends you barking up a wrong tree, is it not the wrong tree, no matter if there are shiny things in it or not?

For example at what point did you stop giving MSM credibility? A what point did InfoWars lose its appeal? At what point do we say something is mis/disinfo and start viewing their stories as such? It may be premature to do this w/ Assange but imo its getting really close. Really interested in the Wiki/Rothschild rumors, there are a few but need time to go check em out

User avatar
The Anti-Archon
Posts: 240
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:11 pm
Reputation: 200

Postby The Anti-Archon » Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:58 pm

Masato wrote:
If someone sends you barking up a wrong tree, is it not the wrong tree, no matter if there are shiny things in it or not?



Let me put it this way: If Chrysler finds provable evidence that a model of Toyota blows up and that Toyota hid this info, well, I don't give a shit that Chrysler wants me to drive a Chrysler. What's important is that I know not to drive that Toyota.

User avatar
Masato
Site Admin
Posts: 11238
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:16 pm
Reputation: 5208

Postby Masato » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:38 pm

The Anti-Archon wrote:
Masato wrote:
If someone sends you barking up a wrong tree, is it not the wrong tree, no matter if there are shiny things in it or not?



Let me put it this way: If Chrysler finds provable evidence that a model of Toyota blows up and that Toyota hid this info, well, I don't give a shit that Chrysler wants me to drive a Chrysler. What's important is that I know not to drive that Toyota.


That is pretty great, lol

I could try to play devil's advocate but it would be silly/tinfoil

For example maybe Toyota is the only brand that doesn't have spyware installed, and the blow up thing is overhyped/probably won't happen but you play safe and thus buy a car (maybe not Chrysler) that is spying on you.

See? told you it would be silly/tinfoil! :D


More seriously, I am losing patience with anyone who claims to be about truth but won't call anything about 9/11. That's the ultimate irony for me, a true litmus test for who is REALLY interested in truth and who is still playing a game of pretend and trying to fit into the mold of MSM action. Guys like Noam Chomsky, who I admired for other reasons, can go fuck himself forever for his silence and betrayal on the matter. Assange too, he is too smart and knows too well how shit goes down to keep pretending 9/11 is not at the heart of so much of it. I mean he won't even talk about it he just scoffs and changes the subject. This to me says volumes.

How can you take these sort of people seriously? Many times I am listening to someone talking or interviewing or whatever and they seem to be making sense so I am listening and then they drop some rhetoric about Osama Bin Laden and Al Quada doing 9/11 as whole fact and their whole game just dissipates. I refuse to live in that pretend world, yet people like Assange apparently have at least 1 foot stuck in it.

If ANY of what we are seeing is a call for truth and an exposure of the Deep State or whatever you wanna call it, mofos better be acknowledging 9/11 soon or I will call the whole fuckin thing as a controlled opposition show


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests