It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Wikileaks Exposed - The man behind the NWO Curtain

page: 24
203
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Not to derail, But wikileaks could be put to shame by Clinton leaks. Hell hath no furry.......like a Clinton scorn.
edit on 3-12-2010 by nocents because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by burntheships
 


Loved this





"It's very important to remember the law is not what, not simply what, powerful people would want others to believe it is. The law is not what a general says it is. The law is not what Hillary Clinton says it is."



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I apologise if this has already been brought up. I've looked over the whole thread and as far as I could see it hasn't . . .

I believe the whole Wikileaks topic is being portrayed much too simply here . . I definitely think the OP is right to question the structure and the motives behind Wikileaks, in fact I know they are right to do so . . but that goes for just about everything one reads on the internet . . . we're talking about a game of manipulation and social engineering that has been going on for a very long time and is being played by the world's very best.

As far as I know the issue of George Soros' investment is not that noteworthy in the grand scheme of things (as far as I know) . . personally, I would pay more attention to the beginning, the very roots of Wikileaks . . there is a lot out there for people to disseminate if they look . . I may be able to look for examples if people have trouble finding anything, but I make no promises . . .

The main thing I would research is the initial batch of data that Wikileaks launched with. I imagine a large portion of ATS readers are familiar with TOR? If not, TOR is an internet communication system that utilises onion routing to provide a level of anonymity to senders and/or recipients of data that utilise it. Unfortunately, people get a bit excited about this and assume that TOR provides them private data transmission . . it does not. TOR does not in any way encrypt the data one is sending . . it merely attempts to obfuscate that sender and recipient of that data. Any one able to intercept that data along it's route (a lot of people) can still copy it and even alter it (and often extract the recipient if not the sender) . . a large percentage of contributions to Wikileaks are made via TOR . . . a large percentage of leaks from foreign nations are distributed via TOR.

TOR is what I would personally describe as a honey pot. To utilise TOR one must obviously at some point enter a TOR network. It is within the TOR network that, to put it simply, data is bounced around without keeping a trace history in an attempt to obfuscate it's origin. That's right, it's the digital equivalent of mailing a letter from a different postal area to hide your location.

The servers that make up a distributed TOR network are usually donated by 'very nice people'. If one was to just happen to operate a TOR exit node (this is where the data comes out of the TOR network, back into the 'regular' internet) on their servers . . . well, think about it: TOR gives (most) people the impression that they're transmitting secure private data freely without it being traced back to them . . almost everything (apart from pornography) being transmitted across TOR is of extreme value to someone in some way, either financially or politically or what have you (actually, pornography is relevant here) . . . if I were to operate a TOR exit node I would have unfettered access to a large amount of extremely valuable information . . the vast majority of it unencrypted (or unsatisfactorily encrypted) as the original senders were usually quite unaware of just what they were using . . .

If I were to really bend my ethical code I might be able harness this amazing honey pot of awesomeness (data) and launch a website based around the slow dissemination of all this data into the hands of the public . . heck, I might even really believe that this is truly the right thing to do . . . get it all out on the table you know? I am, however, going to monetise this baby, because that's what I do. I'm a hacker and I make money off people on the internet . . it's easy . . too easy. But this time I'm doing it and I'm doing something I believe in . . . even if it spirals out of my control . . .

In any case . . whether you entertain my fiction or not, Wikileaks has already lost the trust of a lot of people . . it may be that organisations such as this can never last very long . . . it may be that the concept is much more important than any one organisation . . . Wikileaks is not Julian Assange, it never has been . . . It's not George Soros either . . ANYTHING remotely like this, no matter what it's origins, will eventually be co-opted for broader purposes . . whether the organisation itself realises it or not . . .

We are far beyond the idea of renegade leaders of organisations skipping around the world evading Interpol. THAT is a fiction. Our world, for better or worse, is a bit more complex than that . . .

Also, I think someone said that John Young worked for Wikileaks? I'm almost certain that you'll find that John Young was merely included on the original Wikileaks/Pre-Wikileaks email subscription list based on his previous work in the 'field' . . . he was asked to register the Wikileaks domain name on behalf of the 'group' and did so (a service he has performed for numerous websites) but was at some point un-subscribed from the list (essentially cut off from the group), by who and for what reason he claims not to know.

The idea of him being 'employed' by Wikileaks is kinda weird . . but, who really knows. One thing I like about John Young is he seems to accept the fact that there's absolutely no anonymity . . there is no hiding anywhere in this 'new' society of ours . . . so why even try?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by nocents
 


True, with that said ...and at the risk of repeating myself, lol
I am no fan of Hillary.

But she did present a very formidable opponet to Obama, and would have won IMO if she had continued.
Obama hung his presidency on Heath Care, as a sworn promise to her. He knew he would most likely
only have one term from the disfavor fallout of HCR (Obamacare).

The question we should all be asking now is ...
Who will run in 2012.

The elections are huge power grabs. As we can see, Soros made Obama's presidency.

I have hear that in the CIA there are two factions.

They vie for power. One is more powerful.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


Yes, it is only references. But wouldn't you agree it will be interesting?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by nocents
I only went back a few pages, so if this has been covered I beg your Saintly forgiveness.

3) Soros only gets involved where there is means to the end.



Where did you get that idea? I know George Soros as a do gooder. One of my friends is his chief PR guy for his drug alliance -- an outfit that promotes having a more sane drug policy. More education, less jail.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by sakokrap
There's some good cliches similar to: "know a man by his fruits," and in this regard I confess I like what Assange is doing

finally, a post worthy of discussion


Just what is he doing ????
Do we really know???
All we know is what we are spoon fed
by the MSM. They have lied before.
Why not now ????

I'm getting flashbacks from 9/11 here
when ALL the news networks started
blurting out Osama Bin Laden's name
within 2 hrs of the attacks.

Mass propaganda PR campaign
comes right straight out of the
clandestine playbook.


For me, the gist of Assange's work is pulling the pants off of corp/gov in the brilliant light of public day. He, and Wikileaks, have provided hard evidence to those who had the same stirrings of Neo and V ("there is something wrong with this government...")

The evidence of the greatest cultural impact was likely the Apache gun-camera vid. The killing of journalists and the shredding of children. The obvious lies and corruption of the DoD.

All of this evidence verifies what so many already believe: The Corp/Gov is lying to We The People.

The long-term outcomes of Wikileaks is: increased distrust, decreased credibility, and innovative solutions to this Matrix System. And THAT is beautiful. Wonderful. Fabulous.

Is it possible that some people will die because of the leak? Yes. Will people lose their homes, and end up in prison? Likely. Will the death-toll of the leaks compare in any sense at the piles of carcasses from a War without Declaration and abhorrent to the Constitution? Not a chance. Will the lose of homes, pensions and jobs by inept bureaucrats / public servants compare to the systemic corruption and looting of the people by the banks/corpgov? Ha!

Long term, Assange has changed the face of Arakus. Given tools to a riled mob (or maybe just lit their torches ;-).

While I do agree with every premise you have about MSM and perception management, I see a generally negative connotation regarding Assange. I think he pulled the britches off of a few fluty-flutes, and they're embareassed. Heads have to roll now, so they've got to help manage the perception on Wiki.

Hell, they're even pulling the old Koresh trick on him. Charging him with rape so the proles are less likely to support him. Assange has been Koreshed for crying out loud.

Did you raise the possible premise that Soros and the MSM were colluding to destroy the (former) union (or what's left of it)? I'm no NWO fan myself, but I'm also no fan of the criminal syndicate that has overthrown the lawful (Constitutional) government of the union. If Soros, MSM, and Assange will ignite a prole revolt against the Syndicate, you won't catch me crying about it.

... and if you contend that that is part of the NWO plan, then I can't say I'm opposed to that part of it. Maybe you can liken the destruction of the (former) union (now Syndicate) to the part in the old tv program "Amerika" where some states secede to create a country called, "Heartland". In the tv program, the Constitution had already been destroyed (as I believe it is in RL), and a new political structure was born, under the managed care of the Soviets called, Heartland.

If you're right Boondock, they're going to try to replace the Curtain, but not the man behind it. And if so, I'm certain we'd all be happy to see this Curtain removed anyway. We just have to be ready with our own Curtain when the NWO goes to install one of their managed care.
edit on 3-12-2010 by sakokrap because: Had to add the Assange has been Koreshed comment



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by sakokrap
The long-term outcomes of Wikileaks is: increased distrust, decreased credibility, and innovative solutions to this Matrix System. And THAT is beautiful. Wonderful. Fabulous.


Maybe . . or perhaps it's a deliberate push to break down our society . . . there is definitely a push from 'someone' at the moment to do just so. Whether or not that would be a 'good' thing is extremely hard to call . . . it's all a grey area . .

EDIT TO ADD: When I type that it's a deliberate push to break down our society, I don't necessarily mean that Wikileaks was created for such a purpose . . more that it could be used for that purpose now, whether it knows it or not . . .
edit on 3/12/10 by redblack because: Edited to add fuller explanation of opinion



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by SkurkNilsen
So, if you don't mind. What did change your mind?
I have seen you defend wikileaks before, and I hope it's not just Glen Beck saying so, because that would be just sad.


what changed my mind?

google searches on topics like:

wikileaks financing
wikileaks incorporated
wikileaks money
wikileaks stockholder
Julian Assange
wikipedia wikileaks
wikileaks funding

etc.... etc....

it's called online research


Yeah, I have ofcourse allready done some research on Assange and Wikileaks, and found no evidence whatsoever of what you are talking about.

But my question isn't coming through to you.

So i will give it one more try.

What made you change your mind?

Did you find any evidence of Assange and wikileaks beeing a part of the NWO or somesuch? Don't you think we should cooperate in finding it?
I sure would like to know if what you say is true

Are you atacking wikileaks and hiding your sources?

If Soros has chiped in the 600,000$ Assange said he needed it would not be out of character regarding his political views at all.

If you think about it Soros spent more than 40.000.000$ to get Bush out of office and recently 1.000.000 to support the marihuana bill in California.
I just fail to see your problem....



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by redblack

Originally posted by sakokrap
The long-term outcomes of Wikileaks is: increased distrust, decreased credibility, and innovative solutions to this Matrix System. And THAT is beautiful. Wonderful. Fabulous.


Maybe . . or perhaps it's a deliberate push to break down our society . . . there is definitely a push from 'someone' at the moment to do just so. Whether or not that would be a 'good' thing is extremely hard to call . . . it's all a grey area . .


Break down our society? Really?

Forgive me sir, but when I look out my window or remember the past 20 years, I have only ever seen a breakdown of society.

From the institutionalized corruption evidenced in the many bubbles, the fractional reserve immorality, the pretending that income tax isn't slavery, the burgeoning bureaucratic empire, the Executive Branch "police actions", the whole of a corp/gov built upon the illusion of Constitutionality, the Admiralty Courts, the police state, the hidden black budgets and citizen surveillance...

break down our society?

What part of this menagerie is worth saving? Better question- Is it likely that this society will break down further without Assange's help?

May I suggest reframing your perspective from a "deliberate push to break down society" to "the appearance of a controlled crash" ?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by boondock-saint

Originally posted by sakokrap
There's some good cliches similar to: "know a man by his fruits," and in this regard I confess I like what Assange is doing

finally, a post worthy of discussion


Just what is he doing ????
Do we really know???
All we know is what we are spoon fed
by the MSM. They have lied before.
Why not now ????

I'm getting flashbacks from 9/11 here
when ALL the news networks started
blurting out Osama Bin Laden's name
within 2 hrs of the attacks.

Mass propaganda PR campaign
comes right straight out of the
clandestine playbook.


This isn't spoon fed to the media... It's beeing spoon fed to all of us, you can go read what you want, and the insurance file has the whole thing for you to download.
And Assange seem to be one couragous man for doing it this way as it makes the media go trough the files at the same pace as the media and everyone else, but this also puts Assange and other wikileaks emploiees in greater danger for every day.
I don't think Assange is kidding when he says this is going to change the world, and if that change brings about a bit of chaos or total full out madness is up to ourselves as a species.
But we can not continue in the same track that we started after 9/11, it has to stop as George Saros have said, and I agree wholeheartedly.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by sakokrap
Break down our society? Really?

Forgive me sir, but when I look out my window or remember the past 20 years, I have only ever seen a breakdown of society.

From the institutionalized corruption evidenced in the many bubbles, the fractional reserve immorality, the pretending that income tax isn't slavery, the burgeoning bureaucratic empire, the Executive Branch "police actions", the whole of a corp/gov built upon the illusion of Constitutionality, the Admiralty Courts, the police state, the hidden black budgets and citizen surveillance...

break down our society?


I think I very much agree with you with my personal opinion. Perhaps I was referring more specifically to an organised push different in nature and beyond what you or I have witnessed these last 20 years . .


What part of this menagerie is worth saving? Better question- Is it likely that this society will break down further without Assange's help?


What part is worth saving? I can only offer you boundless personal opinion there . . perhaps beyond the scope of this post. Will this society break down without Assange's help? Yes, definitely . . it'll even break down without Wikileaks' help . . but what I was referring to was a deliberate push far beyond general decay.


May I suggest reframing your perspective from a "deliberate push to break down society" to "the appearance of a controlled crash" ?


Oh man . . are you serious? Let's focus on new information and not semantic nitpicking . . . it's verbal masturbation . . . no offence, as I said I think I agree with you . . and what does our opinion matter anyway? Move on?
edit on 3/12/10 by redblack because: formatting error



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by boondock-saint
 


I have often wondered about one thing: Why doesn't Wikileaks ever do any useful hacking as in finding what the government are up to right now and will be doing.
Not to mention NASA starts to act weird on the same day the Wikileaks release occurs.
edit on 12/3/2010 by Nogard2012 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/3/2010 by Nogard2012 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 07:09 PM
link   
wow, very interesting post OP.
Looking into the Open Society Foundations claims and previous projects, it does sound like Wikileaks is exactly the sort of project they would back. From looking at their timeline alone, they have spent a minimum of 1 billion dollars on projects since 1979 (and that's just their key highlighted projects, not to mention everything else they have been doing).

Now there is no way that a simple non-profit and purely humanitarian organisation can raise and spend that much money on aid projects without a major goal in mind, and without some heft heft funding from somewhere. You don't spend over a billion dollars out of the goodness of your own heart (not to mention where the money comes from in the first place).

very interesting stuff.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 07:31 PM
link   
ok, ignore the last part of that comment, his Soros Fund Management LLC is one of the most successful organisations ever, and he has a personal worth of 14+ billion... so I guess that kind of answers my question



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 07:39 PM
link   
I have to say Boondock, you really disappoint me. I've gone through the entire thread and have read every one of your replies. It's become crystal clear to me that you have absolutely no intention of actually knowing the truth of the matter. People here have asked valid questions and brought up some pretty strong rebuttals and yet you so blatantly and consistently ignore them. This is certainly not a trait of someone who is honest with themselves and genuinely after the truth. You can't deny it either... for if you were honest you would at the very least admit that your theory in the OP is merely a possibility and not fact... yet even in the face of legitimate argument against your theory, you continue speaking out and swaying the opinions of those easily fooled as though your thoughts truly were fact.

It's this sort of dishonesty with ourselves that has put us in the mess we're in today and to be honest I still can't tell whether or not you truly are just genuinely misguided in your way of thinking or if there is a more sinister agenda at play... but in any case, I'm angered and saddened to say that today you become yet another ATS member of which has lost all credibility in my eyes and I'm sure a lot of others here on ATS.




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fredcall
Boy, you may have read my posts.....but you didn't understand them.


Boy, I did read them, and I do understand them. I never said you hated Assange. I said it's obvious you don't like him, by the way you intentionally try and twist his name around to disrespect him, over and over and over, in thread after thread. That's some grade school crap, and it's annoying to read for me personally. But, it's not up to me what you post, so carry on.



But that's about all the happiness liberals have anymore.


I wouldn't know about that. I don't play the BS game of liberal vs. conservative. I don't fit either mold, and I feel that anybody who plays that game is one of the swindlers who benefit from it, or a complete moron. How people could be so easily manipulated, is beyond me.
edit on 3-12-2010 by 27jd because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Navieko
 



I have to say Boondock, you really disappoint me. I've gone through the entire thread and have read every one of your replies. It's become crystal clear to me that you have absolutely no intention of actually knowing the truth of the matter. People here have asked valid questions and brought up some pretty strong rebuttals and yet you so blatantly and consistently ignore them.


I agree..I posed many valid questions and they were called "nit picking"
Is "nit picking" a new term for questioning and asking for proof??

I have seen NO proof to justify the OP...



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Sofar as what I've read in this thread, we still have no idea whether or not Assange is an NWO pawn other than wild speculation and this "email" that apparently popped into thin air. Isn't it possible that email is a fabrication of the NWO to keep people occupied? This supposed link between Julian Assange and the NWO is pointless, unfounded and pure speculation..

Who, what, why or how any person or organisation is funded doesn't definitively prove anything. George Soros is a wealthy wierdo with too much money and too much time on his hands. WE GET IT! If you take every organisation and/or every single person funded with money from George Soros like half the country would be part of the NWO. Are you kidding me? We still live in a free country the last time I checked!

People like George Soros are over-the-hill, rich dweebs trying to put their money in places they think could possibly leave something resembling a positive legacy. Soros is a wierd guy with a questionable and disturbing history. Where the money goes isn't near as important as why. Noone dumps that kind of money into something without trying to leave behind a legacy. Soros is not after money or power. He already has plenty of both. What he would call it his "legacy" some people would call an elaborate plot to take over the world. If he really wanted to take over the world he could've done so decades ago.

Beside's, If in any way at all this is some kind of "social experiment", the only thing being experimented with is Julian Assange's fate. There is so much that people don't know about Julian Assange and/or why everyone is after him other than the very obvious fact that he's releasing information and it's making some people extremely nervous. And there's really no point in judging him for doing so either. People should be judging the people that allowed those kinds of security breaches in the first place that allowed people to walk away with said information scott free only to eventually give it to wikileaks anonymously.

Julian Assange is just a figurehead. He doesn't represent a specific partisan body, he doesn't represent secret societies, partisan viewpoints or people bent on global domination. Assange is not a dangerous person and the only reason people fear him is because of what they think he represents to the world as a whole and/or because they assume his personal political viewpoints oppose their own (which has nothing to do with wikileaks anyway).

I actually think it's pretty interesting to see how this is unfolding but It's also kind of disturbing to see how far people are willing to go to connect Assange to the NWO or at least whom and/or what is percieved to represent the NWO from a theoretical standpoint.

How the release of information even gets twisted into a political debate about how the release of said information is somehow immoral or dishonorable I still don't understand. there is nothing definitive to suggest it and it only acts to build upon certain people's pre-existing suspicions and theories. IMO, some people are digging way too far into this to connect these dots. Information is information! The way I see it, how or why Wikileaks comes about said information is irrelevant when seen in the context of what the information is and what it tells us about ourselves and our country.

-ChriS
edit on 4-12-2010 by BlasteR because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 4 2010 @ 06:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Navieko
I have to say Boondock, you really disappoint me. I've gone through the entire thread and have read every one of your replies. It's become crystal clear to me that you have absolutely no intention of actually knowing the truth of the matter. People here have asked valid questions and brought up some pretty strong rebuttals and yet you so blatantly and consistently ignore them. This is certainly not a trait of someone who is honest with themselves and genuinely after the truth. You can't deny it either... for if you were honest you would at the very least admit that your theory in the OP is merely a possibility and not fact... yet even in the face of legitimate argument against your theory, you continue speaking out and swaying the opinions of those easily fooled as though your thoughts truly were fact.

It's this sort of dishonesty with ourselves that has put us in the mess we're in today and to be honest I still can't tell whether or not you truly are just genuinely misguided in your way of thinking or if there is a more sinister agenda at play... but in any case, I'm angered and saddened to say that today you become yet another ATS member of which has lost all credibility in my eyes and I'm sure a lot of others here on ATS.



I completely agree with you, this is no longer a discussion, a couple of members are using this thread as a smear campaign against wikileaks, answering only questions that play into their agenda, and they are not willing to substantiate any of their so called evidence.

Everyone have to continue to ask these questions until the OP gives a real answer instead of throwing up a smokescreens for every legitimate question that is posed.

This is officially a new low for ATS.....



new topics

top topics



 
203
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join