You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

MolochHunter ago

Unless Assange is to be used to collapse Western Civilisation (which is unclear as he seems to be galvanising it, to the financial detriment of globalists) I remain curious as to Assanges Rothschild connections.

Is he being used to usher in conflict that will result in the 'justifiable' reduction of population?

Are there fractures in terms of future direction within the Rothschild family?

Justaryde ago

The why is curious. The connections, however, are not debatable IMHO

–a sister-in-law and second cousin of the Rothschilds posted bail for Julian Assange

–The Economist (a Rothschild magazine) gave Assange its New Media Award in 2008

–Wikileaks used the law firm Fox Rothschild to overturn a judge’s ruling to order a web host to shut down the Wikileaks site

– The Guardian and The New York Times, two of Assange’s media partners, are linked to the Rothschilds

–The owner of the mansion where Assange was eventually put under house arrest has links to Rothschilds

–Assange’s lawyer is also Rothschilds’ lawyer

–US Senator Joe Lieberman who was ultimately responsible for making Assange the largest media personality of the decade, is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations (a Rothschild organization)

Silverlining ago

@Justaryde The connections look suspicious - agreed. There is also a suggestion that Julian is monarch Australia - https://medium.com/@sebastianedward/mk-ultra-project-monarch-and-julian-assange-ad2aa42ba1a4#.8fzi0u581 MK-Ultra Project,Monarch and Julian Assange

The CIA is nothing if not devious, patient and deadly.

The rule seems to be that if you are being shown North, you should be looking South.

doubleherpes ago

None of those connections are particularly damning. He's in a building that was once owned by a Rothschild in London? A second cousin paid his bail? Not very compelling evidence.

samhara ago

The connection are to the Pirate Co where Assange has his servers.

He's connected to a Child trafficking cult

San­doz bought the fam­ily busi­ness of 'Swiss Nazi financier' Carl Lund­strom.

One of Lundstrom's endeav­ors is Pirate Bay which hosts WIKILEAKS, in Sweden.

https://archive.is/06TlB

doubleherpes ago

But this is like playing six degrees of Kevin Bacon. When you have to rope in obviously good guys like pirate activists, it makes the whole thing seem less credible. It's saying Assange is guilty of something without having any evidence of him personally actually doing anything.

Look at it another way- what's to stop rich assholes from just donating to their enemies, to make their enemy's supporters stop trusting them? How do we know that hasn't happened here? Or a third option, where it's not a monolithic conspiracy but independent actors with different goals?

samhara ago

Its doesn't bear on Wikileaks at this time anyway. Someone busted them out and we don't know who that is.

I assume it's the "White Hats" because of what happened afterward.. The "pizzagate" leaks. - which I believe were 100% deliberate. No other way.

samhara ago

I know he came from a cult. That's for one thing.

My answer is "I don't know." I 100%. refrain from calling him guilty Because I don't know.

He was likely brought up in the Anne Hamilton - Byrne cult from childhood. How could he be guilty? He was likely bought as a child himself.

Also to me, it doesn't matter. He was never my hero.

Justaryde ago

For you, perhaps. For others the assessment is different.

doubleherpes ago

But why taint strong evidence with weak evidence?

The Economist (a Rothschild magazine) gave Assange its New Media Award in 2008

The Guardian and The New York Times, two of Assange’s media partners, are linked to the Rothschilds

The owner of the mansion where Assange was eventually put under house arrest has links to Rothschilds

US Senator Joe Lieberman is a member of the Council On Foreign Relations

These are all really vague. Like "Assange breathes air, Rothschilds breathe air, therefore Assange works for Rothschilds". Partnering with giant news orgs is just basic common sense, for example.

I'm always on the lookout for a double-cross, so I'm willing to consider compelling evidence. This vague stuff just lessens the impact of the rest of it IMO.