Wikileaks controlled opposition theory

Ok because I've never trusted Assange or Snowden; I couldn't figure out why Assange would aid Trump by attacking Hillary..Assange being the left wing, social justice warrior darling, that he was. Promoted primarily in the guardian for years etc; whenever his alleged,earth shaking, leaks, would supposedly threaten to bring down the right wing warmongering US government...yet never actually did so.

So I'll just plot a rough time line from memory...of why there are dozens and dozens of red flags to Assange.

This year is the 10 year anniversary of wikileaks. Meaning that the Bush administration was in its final 2 years of an 8 year office. That administration was already know to have lied about WMD's and we all knew for fact that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with them or 9/11..due to these facts the public already hated Bush and then before he left office we had the economic collapse of 2008. So there was no way the republicans were getting reelected anyhow..

In 2010 wikileaks leaked the Bradley manning cables..the vast majority of them published in the western media concerned Iraq and what had already been caused by the Bush administration..in short nothing exactly surprising..and certainly nothing that would really harm Obama, as he had only inherited Bushes mess not caused it. So nothing to actually bring down the US gov at all.

During this time Assange was based in a lovely country estate, owned by some friend of his, down in the south of England. England the US's number one allied country, often referred to as the 51st state. He stayed there for a whole two years whilst he published mannings leaks and supposedly angered the US government to the point of having death threats made against him by politicians...yet nobody came to arrest Julian in those two years..nobody issued an arrest warrant or deportation order or anything...it got do unbelievable that I'm sure a lot of people didn't buy what Assange was selling.

Somewhere around this time, the guardian was raided by police and computers confiscated..but of corse the British police would need to be seen to do this in order to give the whole farce credibility...but the fact Julian wasn't arrested, the man actually in possession of the "classified" leaks, was more than enough blatantly obvious circumstantial evidence to show the bigger picture.

To give Julian a fresh coat of credibility, the MSM reported he had been accused of raping two women in sweaden..I remember hearing this on channel 4 news at the time. For those of you outside of the UK, channel 4 news poses as a left wing news outlet, basically the same politically correct and social justice type of image that the guardian uses. They even have a Muslim woman reading the news who wears a hijab, just to show how "progressive" they are.

How does being accused of raping women give Julian new credibility you ask? Well it was obvious, due to his publishing classified leaks and the timing, that he had probably been set up by the US, but just to insure the viewers knew this was the case..Channel 4 news stated, either the day the rape claims were made public or within a few days..that they already knew that one of the women that had made one of the rape alligations was a known CIA asset. How could channel 4 news possibly know something like this??? Yes, I asked the same question. Could the CIA really be this sloppy and this obvious? Well anythings possible, but I highly HIGHLY doubt it.

So even after being accused of rape Julian was cast as the victim and the persecuted man who only wanted to save the world from the tyrannical USA..Next stop was the Ecuadorean embassy.

We didn't hear much from Julian from then on..if I remember correctly..not until this election. Where he did something his hard leftist fans will never forgive him for...he supposedly aided Trump to get elected. Now I've spent time trying to work this out and I couldn't decide if Julian went rouge or if something else happened..because there is no way I think he was supposed to help Trump win.

Continued...

a reply to: Counterintelligence

Julian Assange and wikileaks publishes the truth. Left, right, up, down, middle, inverted, blue, red, purple is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Counterintelligence
Ok because I've never trusted Assange or Snowden; I couldn't figure out why Assange would aid Trump by attacking Hillary..Assange being the left wing, social justice warrior darling, that he was. Promoted primarily in the guardian for years etc; whenever his alleged,earth shaking, leaks, would supposedly threaten to bring down the right wing warmongering US government...yet never actually did so.

Assange didn't pick sides. His leaks just damaged Clinton and provided talking points for Trump.

Also, the Guardian has been out to get Assange ever since they had a falling out in 2010, where a Guardian journalist published a password to an unredacted tranche of material.

So I'll just plot a rough time line from memory...of why there are dozens and dozens of red flags to Assange.

Sure, go ahead.

This year is the 10 year anniversary of wikileaks. Meaning that the Bush administration was in its final 2 years of an 8 year office. That administration was already know to have lied about WMD's and we all knew for fact that the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with them or 9/11..due to these facts the public already hated Bush and then before he left office we had the economic collapse of 2008. So there was no way the republicans were getting reelected anyhow..

In 2010 wikileaks leaked the Bradley manning cables..the vast majority of them published in the western media concerned Iraq and what had already been caused by the Bush administration..in short nothing exactly surprising..and certainly nothing that would really harm Obama, as he had only inherited Bushes mess not caused it. So nothing to actually bring down the US gov at all.

Where's this claim of bringing down the US government coming from? WikiLeaks' material may not have been surprising to some, but they did shine a light on the crimes happening in the Middle East, and they were certainly newsworthy.

During this time Assange was based in a lovely country estate, owned by some friend of his, down in the south of England. England the US's number one allied country, often referred to as the 51st state. He stayed there for a whole two years whilst he published mannings leaks and supposedly angered the US government to the point of having death threats made against him by politicians...yet nobody came to arrest Julian in those two years..nobody issued an arrest warrant or deportation order or anything...it got do unbelievable that I'm sure a lot of people didn't buy what Assange was selling.

Your memory is faulty. He was always on the move, even when publishing. He only moved to the country estate after the case against him in Sweden was opened, and when he was actively fighting it in UK courts. There was a point in time where he was allowed to effectively stay there under house arrest, with a tracker attached to his ankle.

Somewhere around this time, the guardian was raided by police and computers confiscated..but of corse the British police would need to be seen to do this in order to give the whole farce credibility...but the fact Julian wasn't arrested, the man actually in possession of the "classified" leaks, was more than enough blatantly obvious circumstantial evidence to show the bigger picture.

So you're trying to say that the police raiding the guardian and not Assange, is evidence of Assange being a controlled asset?

To give Julian a fresh coat of credibility, the MSM reported he had been accused of raping two women in sweaden..I remember hearing this on channel 4 news at the time. For those of you outside of the UK, channel 4 news poses as a left wing news outlet, basically the same politically correct and social justice type of image that the guardian uses. They even have a Muslim woman reading the news who wears a hijab, just to show how "progressive" they are.

Such accusations are not made to give someone credibility. They are made to destroy their credibility.

Who gives a # who Channel 4 hires as its news anchors, or their political leanings.

How does being accused of raping women give Julian new credibility you ask? Well it was obvious, due to his publishing classified leaks and the timing, that he had probably been set up by the US, but just to insure the viewers knew this was the case..Channel 4 news stated, either the day the rape claims were made public or within a few days..that they already knew that one of the women that had made one of the rape alligations was a known CIA asset. How could channel 4 news possibly know something like this??? Yes, I asked the same question. Could the CIA really be this sloppy and this obvious? Well anythings possible, but I highly HIGHLY doubt it.

Assange being accused of serious crimes does not improve his credibility, or that of his publications. They only harm his character. His publications were already credible due to the US' prosecution of Manning and the vast amount of coverage of the material.

Media organisations have investigative teams, and they may have found something connecting one of the women to the CIA.

So even after being accused of rape Julian was cast as the victim and the persecuted man who only wanted to save the world from the tyrannical USA..Next stop was the Ecuadorean embassy.

That's how Assange and his team/supporters painted it. Many others, including the mainstream media, painted it as serious crimes which must be answered. Even going so far as to cite incorrect information relating to the case.

We didn't hear much from Julian from then on..if I remember correctly..not until this election. Where he did something his hard leftist fans will never forgive him for...he supposedly aided Trump to get elected. Now I've spent time trying to work this out and I couldn't decide if Julian went rouge or if something else happened..because there is no way I think he was supposed to help Trump win.

WikiLeaks has been very busy since 2010. They published multiple chapters of TISA and the TPP, millions of Syrian, Saudi Arabian and Turkish documents and emails, and many other leaks.

No, Julian did not go rogue. In fact, he received newsworthy information which he couldn't ignore. He published it, which is his job. The leaks didn't help Trump win. They provided the public with an informed opinion, who then voted for their candidate of choice. Many factors went into Trump's victory. WikiLeaks only acted as a publisher.

NOW I APOLOGISE but I'm going to have to describe the wider political environment here, just to set the stage as to why I think Julian reemerged to attack Hillary...


So back to the election. Hillary was already known to be a compulsive lair with several disasters under her belt, including Lybia and Benghazi. The public already hated Hillary and didn't trust her. However she is a woman and well presented and reasonably articulate. All the establishment needed was someone worse to stand against her AKA Donald J Trump..a blow hard, sexist, racist (or atleast someone easily framed as a racist due to their politically incorrect style), to go up against her.

From the outset it appears the establishment thought certain Hillary would easily win the election..after years of political correctness force fed to the population through schools, colleges and the MSM, logically the masses should have been repulsed by trump and obviously vote for the first woman president..especially after the same majority had just voted for a black president twice on the trot..

However this is where the elites judgement was totally off...the majority of white people who voted Obama the first time, voted for him as a protest vote against the establishment ..thinking that after decades of failures by out of touch elitist, perhaps a black guy, who didn't appear to be steeped in the Washington swamp..well he might just understand what the common people go through and help the average American.

Obama couldn't be expected to achieve much during the first 4 years due the colossal mess the Bush administration had left him to inherit..and the people recognised that. Plus after he "killed" Osama Bin Laden and promised universal health care..he was guaranteed a second term. Well we know how that turned out...

It was midway through Obamas second term that the race bating started in the MSM. Beginning with the Travon Martin killing..which was hyped up beyond all reason. Obama of course helped fuel this narrative. What followed was non stop sensational headlines about "white" cops "murdering innocent black men." Of course there were some legitimately despicable cases of police brutality but at the same time the majority of the cases were criminals resisting or even fighting police..plus during all this we never saw any of the dozens of white men that had also been killed by police during the same time period.

The thing to remember is..if the media and Obama had pulled the same thing during obamas first term..he would never have been reelected. That's how we know all this was designed to get Hillary elected as the NON RACIST candidate. Did Black Lives Matter ever troll "super predator" Hillary??? Yet they even trolled civil rights activist and panderer to the black community "brother" Bernie Sanders. If I'm wrong and BLM did ever protest Hillary it can only be down to a few rouges who actually swallowed the coolaid and weren't being paid agitators, like the majority of the "movement".


Now back to Julian. This is what I think happened. Julian was already the anti establishment hacker that had been so well published in the MSM that he was a worldwide household name framed as a freedom fighter for the people..fighting tyranny on our behalf..so we wouldn't have to..and of course that predictably results in the tyranny never actually being defeated. It was time he was sheep dipped once again..

His new campaign against Hillary consisted of leaking emails that as usual, only gave added confirmation to already proven corruption and unethical pay for play deals, that had already appeared in the MSM..nothing spectacular or new as per usual with Assange. So why bother leaking any of this crap on Hillary? Well it was because Hillary was pre selected and pre destined to be the WW3 president..and Julian had to be seen to be to lone voice in the wilderness, who warned everyone before the election..so that after the election Julian would have so much credibility he would be seen as the second coming of Jesus Christ and who knows what massive psyop had been planned with him then? I can't even guess at that one.

What makes me suspect all this, you ask?

Continued...

originally posted by: CliffoCambridge
a reply to: Counterintelligence

Julian Assange and wikileaks publishes the truth. Left, right, up, down, middle, inverted, blue, red, purple is irrelevant.

Nope: Hyperbole; exaggeration; lies; and some tidbits of truth, yes.
But the truth: nope.

Assange: "My next leak will Lead to HRC indictment"

originally posted by: Counterintelligence
Now back to Julian. This is what I think happened. Julian was already the anti establishment hacker that had been so well published in the MSM that he was a worldwide household name framed as a freedom fighter for the people..fighting tyranny on our behalf..so we wouldn't have to..and of course that predictably results in the tyranny never actually being defeated. It was time he was sheep dipped once again..

His new campaign against Hillary consisted of leaking emails that as usual, only gave added confirmation to already proven corruption and unethical pay for play deals, that had already appeared in the MSM..nothing spectacular or new as per usual with Assange. So why bother leaking any of this crap on Hillary? Well it was because Hillary was pre selected and pre destined to be the WW3 president..and Julian had to be seen to be to lone voice in the wilderness, who warned everyone before the election..so that after the election Julian would have so much credibility he would be seen as the second coming of Jesus Christ and who knows what massive psyop had been planned with him then? I can't even guess at that one.

What? The fact that Trump won shows that Clinton was not predetermined to be President. Yeah, the DNC wanted her, but the people didn't.

This has nothing to do with Assange's credibility either. That's a subjective thing, and different groups of people tend to have different opinions on him. Six years ago, conservatives didn't think of Assange as credible, now they do. Just as liberals thought he was credible, and now they don't. The only thing that matters is that Assange's leaks are credible.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: CliffoCambridge
a reply to: Counterintelligence

Julian Assange and wikileaks publishes the truth. Left, right, up, down, middle, inverted, blue, red, purple is irrelevant.

Nope: Hyperbole; exaggeration; lies; and some tidbits of truth, yes.
But the truth: nope.

Assange: "My next leak will Lead to HRC indictment"

Assange said there is enough evidence to indict, but he didn't think it would happen. Just having a look at the evidence shows that he is probably right. He never promised an indictment.

Go on, OP.. very interesting read indeed! And, seeing as I had no horse in the last race, I am not laden down with preconceived biases about who/what Trump and Clinton are and therefore I'm not primed to dismiss anything that doesn't fit my narrative..

Wait, lemme get the popcorn.. alright. Ready

btw-- I, too, have been paying close attention to the media's inflamation of old race wounds in the US. You're absolutely correct it began with Trayvon.. then Don Sterling (Clippers owner) Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Walter Scott, etc etc etc.

Oh look at this a new member trying to paint Wikileaks as some sort of alt-right tool. Soros must be putting in the effort to turn ATS against a whistleblowing organisation... what does Assange have on him i wonder...


Drain the swamp.

Have you ever considered the possibility that JA was forcefully turned and became a operative ???
The right man, at the right time, with the right information.
For the overall OP to be successful, any intelligence service involved would have to have total plausible deniability.
It would have to look like the entire event was run by WLs with no outside help.
You've also got to admit, that the outcome was nothing less than spectacular.

“Sometimes we have to do a thing in order to find out the reason for it. Sometimes our actions are questions, not answers.” ― John le Carré, A Perfect Spy

Buck

a reply to: Kalixi

Hey, wouldn't it be better to encourage new members and welcome them to the site? After all, we're all here to exchange ideas and theories about conspiracies. You can choose to buy into it or not, but we should still have a voice here.

As I said Julians leaked emails only reaffirmed what was either suspected or already proven about Hillary..plus this time around the Guardian and the rest of the MSM who had once hyped him up so much as a hero..virtually ignored his leaks on Hillary anyway..but that didn't matter because they were still getting out there on Twitter etc and Infowars etc..not that that meant they were entering the mass conciseness to any damaging level..because the MSM propaganda still wasn't talking about them...and again the leaks weren't that important anyway..what was important was that Julian was being framed as the future hero, who tried to stop Hillary before she turned into the WW3 monster, that we were all to innocent to see comming a mile off.

What adds further credence to my suspsions about Assange was his much hyped "October surprise"? Well by this time it appears that Assange and whoever is ultimately behind him, realised Infowars and co actually were more influential than they had assumed..so Julian set up everyone in the tin foil hat community, by building up this huge event of the "October surprise" and then instead of realising the leak to end Hillary..he instead used all the attention to promote a book. There is only one reason Assange could possibly do this, and that was to discredit himself and wikileaks...weeks before the actual election.

From this point on he probably pissed off 100% of his new "alt right" fans..bearing in mind he had already pissed off all of his social justice warrior fans by even attacking "NON RACIST WOMAN" Hillary..but mainly due to her not being their worst nightmare Trump.

So from here on it looks like the plan with Assange was to carry on leaking the same old stuff but again it would be guaranteed to not be noticed by the MSM or even now the Internet watchers..because he had pissed everyone off..all that mattered was that history would have the Internet record that it was Julian that tried his best to warn us.

Hillary was still going to be president regardless of Wikileaks (so they thought)..plus I'd already pretty much described Julian's fan base above. Originally it was Guardian readers and SJW types, then Alex Jones followers..the one thing all these people have in common is that they are the younger generation, mostly. Older people still get their news from the MSM or simply are past caring about conspiracy theories..too busy with the 9-5 and bills and family life...IMO.

The only semi damaging thing to come out of wikileaks was Spirit Cooking..an innocuous mention in an email addressed to Podestas brother concerning some pretentious "artist" and her nonsense occult themed performance crap. I'm pretty sure this email would have not been "leaked" if anyone had of guessed that it would have blown up like it did..even so I doubt even that affected the vote than maybe more than a few thousand or so.

What finally makes me think Assange is an asset or some useful idiot is the fact that after years of being in that Ecuadorian embassy "hiding" from the only superpower in the world..is that yesterday (I think) the Ecuadorean embassy agreed to allow Swedish representatives to enter the building and question Julian..strange timing don't ya think..now that Trump just got elected Julian is finished. He is no use anymore nor can he be used again.

He committed the unforgivable sin of supporting Trump, (even though he didn't actually support him, but in the eyes of the Hillary supporters he did the same thing by damaging Hillary) so he will never be trusted by the left again..that it, its over for him. Plus because Trump won, he could perhaps leak on him but not even the left would give a damn or listen to him anymore, so he can't really resume doing that. He has completely discredited himself now. Sure Trump supporters will love him, but he can't operate as a cheerleader for Trump either, there is no such role, he was supposed to damage the winner of the election..not support them..he is used up. His job was to continue leaking on Hillary and her Tyranny as president, in order to nullify the people by "fighting" her on their behalf, by leaking crap we all already knew that never changed anything..well nothing in the USA..

this is from Wikipedia en.m.wikipedia.org...


Reaction to Manning's disclosures, arrest, and sentence was mixed. Denver Nicks, one of her biographers, writes that the leaked material, particularly the diplomatic cables, was widely seen as a catalyst for the Arab Spring that began in December 2010, and that Manning was viewed as both a 21st-century Tiananmen Square Tank Man and an embittered traitor.[17] Reporters Without Borders condemned the length of the sentence, saying that it demonstrated how vulnerable whistleblowers are.[18]


Yes, all those unflattering leaked cables that did nothing to actually damage the USA, did however give Wikileaks credibility as being anti American. This helped portions of really damaging cables to get into the Arab media..but the really damaging bits were pointing out corruption within the governments in the Middle East that the US wanted to topple.

Of corse this is just an opinion. I'm open to being totally wrong

a reply to: Kalixi

I'm not a new member..secondly I've been here on and off for over 10 years under different screen names..I don't write very often but why should I if I don't often have anything worth contributing? You can disagree but it's better and gives you more of a credible argument if you point out where my theory is way off the rails, rather than pathetic attacks based on how often I post!

It's actually post like yours that get the tin foil hats turning towards your direction..that's how long I've been here.

a reply to: Counterintelligence

Finally..what actually got Trump elected

Well it sure as hell wasnt wikileaks. Why am I confident of this..well everything I stated above for a start..but further circumstances will paint a clearer picture

America is not Canada or Western Europe. These other counties have universal health care..the people in these countries obviously like free healthcare and see it as a positive thing AND IT OBVIOUSLY IS..they also have much more humane welfare states and in lost of cases even generous ones..but this socialist element is juxtaposed not against true capitalism but it's contrast against a crony completely rigged and outrageously unfair modern western "capitalism" that robs society to bail out banksters etc. Naturally this behaviour of having a taste of positive elements of socialism compared to a destructive and psychopath style of mutant, bastardised capitalism..is pushing the rest of the western world further to socialism. Including right wing socialism...AKA Nazis

The Youth of the US would have, given the change, voted overwhelmingly for Berni Sanders the socialist..because of these very same conditions. However they didn't get that opportunity and I for one think Berni is a naive fool anyway and a sell out to boot, so I'm glad Hillary ripped him off and bought him off..plus Im glad, more than glad, relieved, that Hillary got trounced by Trump..and im not really a fan of Donald Trump..but he has pitched himself as the wrecking ball that will smash the system..can he or will he do that? I'm hopeful but doubtful but that would only be the icing on the cake of preventing the WW3 we had coming with Hillary.

This is actually why Trump got elected. It's not just me who called it like this, I honestly believe most of the people who voted Trump saw the same thing. Even a majority of "educated " white women (the ones who the elite had bet everything on would jump on the politically correct feminist bandwagon) couldn't vote for war with Russia, no matter how sexist Donald clearly is..who cares, compared to WW3.

Only the naive youth in the states think socialism will make their lives better and now see Trump as part of the capitalism problem..and to be fair Trump admitted he is..dodging taxes etc. However he has smashed political correctness, atleast for the time being people can be reasonably free to talk # again and in a lot of ways that is a good thing..especially when we have been gagged from voicing dissent on things like the refugee crisis. I didn't like everything Trump said but I liked that he was ignorant enough to say it out loud and in public. He was certainly more ignorant than brave because we can see him back peddling on his rhetoric now that he won and has people telling him to watch his big mouth...he simply didn't care before because he was his own boss and clearly was insulated for decades, from how stifled and pressured into saying "nice" things the rest of white society had been made to behave like.

a reply to: Counterintelligence

Has anyone actually seen Assange since the Bay Watch girl took him a meal. Has he been seen in the Ecuadorean embassy, has made a television appearances.

I doubt he's even alive since Pamela Anderson took him a meal and then a military vehicle rocked up shortly after.

a reply to: Counterintelligence

You completely missed the point of the wikileaks during the election.... it wasnt about helping trump.... there was no possible way they could have known he would win
The point of the leaks was to crash a corrupt candidate....

You can then ask who provided the leaks, but that doesnt matter one bit.

If someone had hacked Trumps mail server, and given them to wikielaks they would have posted those as well.

In the end, the only thing that matter is bringing down corruptiob, even if it means hurting "our own". The difference here being that Hillary was never one of us on the left wing, she just pretrended to be to gain votes.

he gives some hint to his motives in this interview:



He believes as SOS, hillary orchestrated the war in Libya and the overthrow of Gaddafi to give herself political clout when running for President.
This war resulted in the deaths of thousands and if she was willing to do that for her political ambitions what would she have been capable of doing as President?

Obviously after Benghazi any clout she gained was lost.

This is a really interesting thread, and touches on some very important points. As a lifelong Guardian reader I can say the paper has changed immensely since it was raided by the authorities, it really has shifted to the right and will not publish anything controversial any more, it did not publish anything about the recent wikileaks. It has either been bought or threatened in some way. It is hard to read Julian's motives but I do not think he is being played by anyone, he is playing his own game which is largely for the good. Channel 4 news is the last left wing voice in Britain which is a real shame.
I talked to many people about the US election here in the UK and no one had followed wikileaks or twitter, they get all their information from the MSM and as such are utterly deluded!

Great thread OP!

I still wonder, if Hillary was ever meant to win at all. Why would TPTB only have one candidate in the bag? For a dark and mysterious group not to have all their bases covered, or candidates fully in their control, would seem like they do not have as much control as we have assumed.

Look at the rift the Trump election has caused, if anything it has only delayed the inevitable, or it has sped up the timetable. Trump has no control of what the Federal Reserve does, and the Fed can easily cause an economic collapse that will wholly be blamed on a President Trump. I still don't think WW3 has been avoided, the sole reason for war in Syria was to gain control of the oil resources, and Trump has stated he would send troops in to guard the oil, to get the oil; just no focus on 'humanitarian' nation building. Russia is not interested in nation building either, they want that oil pipeline going through Syria as well.

I could be wrong, but I don't think TPTB would have such a tremendous flaw in their plan, if anything Trump is the Plan B.