Is Julian Assange (Wikileaks) an agent of those with evil agendas?

Co-Founder of Wikileaks that was forced out for criticizing where they were getting $5 million their first year of starting the project...



Interview



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Bonified Ween]

this world is full of liars and deceit. when you realize 90% of everything you hear is bs you are one step ahead.

Originally posted by Bonified Ween
Co-Founder of Wikileaks that was forced out for criticizing where they were getting $5 million their first year of starting the project...



Interview



[edit on 27-7-2010 by Bonified Ween]

Wow. That is amazing. Hadn't seen that before.

If people still believe that Wikileaks is a non-biased "information depot" that seeks transparency for the sake of "truth," they should consider what kinds of organizations (ahem, governments, ahem) throw that kind of money around.

More on the agenda?

The white house, has been in control of this "leak" and what the press is reporting from the beginning.

An example:

www.washingtonpost.com...

An interesting note in the Times story concerns WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange: "White House officials e-mailed reporters select transcripts of an interview Mr. Assange conducted with Der Spiegel, underlining the quotations the White House apparently found most offensive. Among them was Mr. Assange's assertion, 'I enjoy crushing bastards.' " Assange told reporters he wanted the material to lead to "new policies, if not prosecutions." His agenda is clear.

Actually its not his agenda, but it is clear.

The white house emailed reporters transcripts of the Assange interview, and US news networks complied with what they wanted reported and what they didn't!

The white house was behind the leaks and plans to fully exploit it to change war policy, criminalize the former Bush administration, and gain political advantage over republicans.

Yes, it is clear!

Agent or pawn?

Evil? Define evil and then assign an evil factor to it. There are lesser evils and greater evils. And there's motive and intent.

While your point is taken, Fractured, it's also not wise to get stuck on the democrat vs republican and Obama vs Bush meme. it goes beyond that, is on a different level. This is warring subfaction...say Zionist vs CFR, for want of better terms...both of which still have influence over our government at various levels, both visible to us and not. I wouldn't go so far as to say that either White House or the Democrats or Obama have approved or are controlling these leaks.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

Originally posted by Fractured.Facade
The white house was behind the leaks and plans to fully exploit it to change war policy, criminalize the former Bush administration, and gain political advantage over republicans.

Yes, it is clear!

Precisely.

The sheep can't see manipulative disinformation, even when it slaps them in the face.

This leak is a controlled setting. A farce. Of course the White House must make the obligatory "we disapprove of this" comment, particularly when they're behind it. "The appearance of the law must be upheld, especially while it's being broken."

(By the way FF, thanks for linking me over to your thread. That's a GREAT thread. Been a little slammed at work, haven't had time to comment on it, but I will.)

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Agent or pawn?

Evil? Define evil and then assign an evil factor to it. There are lesser evils and greater evils. And there's motive and intent.

Agents and pawns are all tools of the king, right? I don't think it matters too much either way. If he's his own man, he's worked out some kind of deal with governments to do what he's doing. If he's an unwitting pawn, which I doubt, that only underlies that his intentions and actions serve others far above his head.

And the "evil" statement in my thread title is subjective. If he's working in concert with, in this example, the White House, to purposefully leak "sensitive" documents which turn out to be politically polarizing and even supportive of a widening of the Middle Eastern war front, well, that's evil.

And if Assange himself isn't actually, knowingly working FOR the White House (or whoever arranged the leak), his website IS. It is being used as a disinformation depot.

The jokes on you. What's in a name?
Assange.
"I sang".
Slang for whistleblower. His name is the "right in front of you" Illuminati legalism.

Why can you not find any ancestry records for this name?

I have been thinking we have a lot of people in public view the past few years who really have "no background". Clinton was one. Assange seems to have that mystery as well.

Where did they come from? Why no stories on them and their childhood friends or the communities that have known them all their lives? Shadowy backgrounds.

reply to post by MarkusMaximus

There's a difference. Also, which government was my point. The one you see and think is in power or the one you don't see? Linking "the White House" to this is retarded.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
This is warring subfaction...say Zionist vs CFR, for want of better terms...both of which still have influence over our government at various levels, both visible to us and not. I wouldn't go so far as to say that either White House or the Democrats or Obama have approved or are controlling these leaks.

I like this thought. And it brings up a good point: This leak might not have been carried out by people within the United States. It could have been orchestrated by outside groups with their own agendas.

And as I pondered earlier: Just what kind of group could actually get ahold of 90,000+ pages of US military intelligence? I lean toward nations with very large clandestine operations and strong espionage apparatuses, which have been active in the US for a while, AND which have regional concerns about the Afghan war: China and Russia.

Originally posted by ~Lucidity
reply to post by MarkusMaximus

 

There's a difference. Also, which government was my point. The one you see and think is in power or the one you don't see? Linking "the White House" to this is retarded.

It's a face. Clearly, every single thing we're talking about here is conjecture.

The "White House" is always a front for people with real influence....

Originally posted by MarkusMaximus
The "White House" is always a front for people with real influence....

Bingo!

Give this one a prize or something will ya?

Again, I want to address the overall point here:

We NEED to examine who or what this person and their website is. Not because we are paranoid, but because it's foolish to simply embrace someone because they appear to engage in actions which we approve of.

Consider this: ever since 9/11, the "conspiracy theory" community has grown exponentially. We don't trust ANYTHING the government feeds us...

We DO, however, believe in "truth" movements...

So, this guy Assange, who appears to be a lone player, is doing just that: "fighting for truth and transparency."

And as we've seen on this forum and many, many others, we just gobble this right up, mostly without question because he appears to be everything we hope for in the "fight against tyranny."

So, any government or political faction, from anywhere in the world, realizing that we trust nothing they have to say to us, gets this newly released information to us NOT through a normal press release with MSM reporters and everything we've come distrust. They "leak" it to a place headed by a guy that all "conspiracy theorists" applaud.

Unless you believe that no power on earth is smart enough to think like that....

[edit on 28-7-2010 by MarkusMaximus]

Here's more evidence that more and more people are starting to distrust Wikileaks for the apparent cooperation of Assange with authorities.
_________________________________________________
Crytogon Article - WikiLeaks - suspicions mount: Assange "Constantly Annoyed that People Are Distracted by False Conspiracies Such as 9/11″

People often ask me if I think this source or that source is disinfo...

My response is always: TREAT EVERY SOURCE AS DISINFO.

I've read interesting things on WikiLeaks, many of which I have linked to from here. Does that mean that I'm sure it's not some kind of front or honeypot? Not at all. How could I know for sure, given what's knowable in the public domain about WikiLeaks?

Julian Assange's recent comment in the Belfast Telegraph about 9/11, however, may be a more tangible source of concern for me. I know Assange isn't an idiot, so I see three other possibilities:

1. He is profoundly ignorant of the vast body of material that demonstrates that the 9/11 spectacle was a false flag operation.
   
2. He's "picking his battles" and not wanting to have to deal with the inevitable conspiracy theory stigma that could threaten his media access
   
3. He's running a limited hangout/honeypot
   

Of these three options, I doubt that it's number two.

For me, the most worrying thing about WikiLeaks is the promotion it receives from the corporate media. Even the trash talking Wired is promoting Wikileaks by constantly mentioning it.