Reply to topic  [ 302 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
The Julian Assange Show 
Author Message
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
magamud wrote:
Julian Assange "We Are Headed Towards A Transnational Dystopian Total Surveillance Society"

Thank you, Mags, for posting that video.

All I see when I look at Julian Assange is a great man. I'm sure he has his flaws, but they are surely overshadowed by his lucidness, his humanitarian viewpoint, and his actions in the pursuit of goodness and in opposition of evil. I have considered and studied the opposing viewpoint held by Zook that Assange is a bankster shill, and it doesn't fly for me. I could be wrong, and, as illustrated by my long association with Andy, I can be fooled. Sociopaths recognize one another with ease. Andy claims he had Zooked pegged from the get-go, and Zook claims the same concerning Andy. Perhaps they are both accurate in this respect, and perhaps I oversimplify. If Zook says Assange is a deceiver, I certainly cannot dismiss that possibility. I hold it in mind and I look for supporting evidence, but so far, I am not even close to being convinced that Assange is a bankster shill. I am instead more and more convinced that he is genuine. One does not sacrifice 500 days of freedom in the pursuit of con-artistry, be he sociopath or not.

Julian makes a great point that having lots of money is of no value when living under a tyranny. This is exactly how a non-sociopath thinks. Sociopaths, on the other hand, believe the more money you have, the better you can negotiate your perks within the tyrannical hierarchy.

Julian's comment on the censorship of Chelsea Manning is quite appropriate and telling. Where is freedom of speech when those that practice it are silenced? Where is liberty when those who cherish it must seek asylum in other countries?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Mar 08, 2014 8:18 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
I concur Chic.

Its a complicated issue and as much as I would like it to be simple it is not. Take for instance Tucker Carlson who I use to see on CNN in Crossfire. Here he denies 911 is an inside job and denies ever knowing about building 7, but I agree with what he is mostly saying (Big brother, foreign entanglement, etc..) Assange msg sure fills a void needed to counterbalance the Tyranny that is running rampant and in my book, first things first. I suspect we are so deep in the hole, that we are between a rock and a hard place. That is, the sociopaths, are waging two fronts with Tyranny and a Bolshevik revolution. This puts us in a survival mode, so resources are thin, so we must take what we can take, which the sociopaths know and have us at a disadvantage. There is no other way, but to head long into the trap and spring it.

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:13 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
magamud wrote:
Here he denies 911 is an inside job and denies ever knowing about building 7, but I agree with what he is mostly saying (Big brother, foreign entanglement, etc..)

Yes, this is where Zook makes the mistake of killing the messenger when a detail of the message is perceived to be unacceptable. In other words, any error invalidates the entire message, when much of the message is valid.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Sat Mar 08, 2014 10:36 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
Quote:
In other words, any error invalidates the entire message, when much of the message is valid.


Indeed...

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Sat Mar 08, 2014 11:20 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
magamud wrote:
Julian Assange "We Are Headed Towards A Transnational Dystopian Total Surveillance Society"

Thank you, Mags, for posting that video.


Mags, of course, posted that video without the proper observations and excoriations ... then again, why would he do otherwise? After all, his track record here has been to support the system's shills. Assange, Snowden, Appelbaum, Kokesh, Pilger, Fisk, etc. Fifth column or fifth column by proxy, take your pick.

FWIW, Julian Assange is a provable proven fraud.

Nothing about him smells right. He smells like a skunk on the observable evidence of Rothschild connections (posited numerous times here and elsewhere).

He smells like a skunk through his own obstructive perfumings over arguably the greatest opportunity to expose the system and its corruptions (e.g. 9/11/2001).

He smells like a skunk for accepting millions of dollars on behalf of Wikileaks from George Soros, the beelzebubbian banksters' favorite son and financing intermediary of sundry color revolutions all over the world (e.g. to destabilize those nations and prepare the geography so that the banksters can move in with a hypermodern rape and pillage protocol).

He smells like a skunk for heaping praise over benjamin nut and yahoo, a war criminal if ever was one ... the same guy who - mere hours after the September attacks - declared a silver lining biding time for the dark clouds to dissipate).

And the false flag play he's acting in currently to facilitate America's planned half-retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan (e.g. Wikileaks) ... has been played once before by Daniel Elsberg,when that former day skunk acted to facilitate America's planned full-retreat from Vietnam (e.g Pentagon Papers).

Even in this latest video, we have the New York Times endorsing Assange's perspective ... the New York Times ... that great independent publishing daily of our times. *sarcasm to the power of sarcasm* A more culpable rag you'd be hard-pressed to find ... responsible for many lies that have led to millions of deaths in the last century. If truth is the first casualty of war ..,. then the New York Times is a virtual war library.

In any event, for those of you that can still discern reality ... entertain this ... if the bankster power pyramid really wanted to get Assange, do you think that the Ecuadorean embassy could stop it? The way the media tentacle of the military-corporate-media octopus carries the story of Assange's asylum - with book deals, open mikes, peace prize nominations - you'd think Saddam and Ghaddaffi both played it wrong by not asking for asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy.

:jest:


Quote:
All I see when I look at Julian Assange is a great man. I'm sure he has his flaws, but they are surely overshadowed by his lucidness, his humanitarian viewpoint, and his actions in the pursuit of goodness and in opposition of evil. I have considered and studied the opposing viewpoint held by Zook that Assange is a bankster shill, and it doesn't fly for me.


You need discernment to fly it ... or a kite and a string.

Quote:
I could be wrong, and, as illustrated by my long association with Andy, I can be fooled.


There is no could about it, Chico. You are wrong. Warranted conclusions has never been your strength ... which is why you find sanctuary in unwarranted uncertainty. So be it.

Quote:
Sociopaths recognize one another with ease. Andy claims he had Zooked pegged from the get-go, and Zook claims the same concerning Andy. Perhaps they are both accurate in this respect, and perhaps I oversimplify.


Not only do you oversimply here, you wage yet another unprovoked attack on the messenger (yours truly). Inferring that I'm a sociopath is about the only way you can solve me, it seems. Your observations are too weak. Your discernment is poor. Your logic is flawed. But cheer up. Your innuendo is A-grade.

FWIW, I was right about Andy ... you yourself have come to the same conclusion belatedly. I was also right about the Screech Owl and her sockpuppets, before you came upon the same facts. Indeed, I'm right about most of the things I speak about here. I'm pretty sure I am right about Mags, as well. Time will make you look foolish on him as well.



Quote:
If Zook says Assange is a deceiver, I certainly cannot dismiss that possibility. I hold it in mind and I look for supporting evidence, but so far, I am not even close to being convinced that Assange is a bankster shill. I am instead more and more convinced that he is genuine. One does not sacrifice 500 days of freedom in the pursuit of con-artistry, be he sociopath or not.


Your poor discernment skills will not allow you to see the Ecuadorean embassy setup for what it is. What grounds do you have for believing the setup is genuine?

Quote:
Julian makes a great point that having lots of money is of no value when living under a tyranny. This is exactly how a non-sociopath thinks. Sociopaths, on the other hand, believe the more money you have, the better you can negotiate your perks within the tyrannical hierarchy.

Julian's comment on the censorship of Chelsea Manning is quite appropriate and telling. Where is freedom of speech when those that practice it are silenced? Where is liberty when those who cherish it must seek asylum in other countries?


I see many intellect-stunted grunts waxing polemic on general stuff like liberty, censorship, tyranny, sociopathy, etc. - both here and elsewhere - but when asked to identify the banksters and their criminal enterprises, and to make the many dot connections ... very few are up to the challenge. It's quite sad, really.

In any event, a sex-change operation for someone thusly charged and locked up? Hmm ... something doesn't smell right there. Indeed, Bradley Manning seems more and more like a patsy setup to kickstart Wikileaks ... than any genuine hero of the times.

Indeed, the purpose of Wikileaks was alluded to by skunk Brzezinski. Let me see if I can fetch that article. The reference is yet another piece of the preponderance against Assange.


Here's a damning article on Wikileaks' origin and mutated purpose:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Sun Mar 09, 2014 8:53 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
UncleZook wrote:
Assange, Snowden, Appelbaum, Kokesh, Pilger, Fisk, etc.

I am astounded that you can condemn a long list of helpful whistle-blowers for the flimsiest of reasons, namely "guilt by association", and then you hold up Brzezinski as evidence that Wikileaks may be an intelligence operation! Have you absolutely no real discernment after all? Brzezinski, the classic sociopath, mentored by global war criminal and hard-core sociopath Kissinger -- where is your vaunted "guilt by association" now? Brzezinski, game-player extraordinaire, author of "The Grand Chessboard" that sees the world as a game of intrigue to be optimized through deception and manipulation. Brzezinski, who can't stop scheming for an instant, who is dishing out the propaganda (in your posted video) for his own selfish benefit right in front of our eyes, hidden in plain sight! No, if Brzezinski slyly suggests Wikileaks is an intelligence operation, the opposite is probably true, and Brzezinski is just undertaking damage control by sowing confusion and dissension while collecting a bonus under the table which is his normal modus operandi.

Really Zook, how can I take you seriously when you deliver ludicrous arguments such as this?




UncleZook wrote:
You need discernment to fly it ... or a kite and a string.

There is no could about it, Chico. You are wrong. Warranted conclusions has never been your strength ... which is why you find sanctuary in unwarranted uncertainty. So be it.

Not only do you oversimply here, you wage yet another unprovoked attack on the messenger (yours truly). Inferring that I'm a sociopath is about the only way you can solve me, it seems. Your observations are too weak. Your discernment is poor. Your logic is flawed.

Your poor discernment skills will not allow you to see the Ecuadorean embassy setup for what it is.

:lol: Like I said, I am astounded. Is this the pot calling the kettle black?

UncleZook wrote:
What grounds do you have for believing the setup is genuine?

Based on the preponderance of evidence, it is to a large degree not a setup. The evidence includes the price Assange has had to pay and is still paying (via his isolation and effectively voluntary imprisonment). It includes all the interviews Rafael Correa gave concerning Ecuador's reactions. It includes the treatment and injustice served to Bradley Manning, and the circus of his sex change while in the deceiving and manipulating hands of his mind-controlling oppressors. It includes the official reactions and legal pursuit (and disgusting hypocrisy) of the United States government against both Assange and Manning. It includes the treatment of both by the mainstream media which toed the government line. Your flimsy and speculative "connect-the-dots" fairytale can't hold a candle to the mountain of circumstantial evidence that indicates the real battle going on for the hearts and minds of the gullible public that must be fooled to be properly herded.

We are not looking to become celebrity fortune tellers here Zook, with fame, fortune, and hot babes in tow. We are looking for the truth, which guarantees derision, poverty, and loneliness. Are you so enamored with your image that you cannot take the hard road? I think you are.

UncleZook wrote:
I see many intellect-stunted grunts waxing polemic on general stuff like liberty, censorship, tyranny, sociopathy, etc. - both here and elsewhere - but when asked to identify the banksters and their criminal enterprises, and to make the many dot connections ... very few are up to the challenge. It's quite sad, really.

So, what are the intellectual giants, such as yourself, waxing polemic about? Why, they are just calling any perceived challengers "intellect-stunted grunts" because they discuss such trivial and meaningless subjects as "liberty, censorship, tyranny, sociopathy, etc."

I agree, it really is quite sad.

UncleZook wrote:
Here's a damning article on Wikileaks' origin and mutated purpose:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

Damning?! Are you joking? I can only conclude that you didn't even bother to read the article. Shame on you, Zook. John Young basically agrees with my philosophy that "money ruins everything", and that is the reason he parted company with Wikileaks. I would have done the same. That is also the very reason why this forum does not solicit funds!

John Young wrote:
One, because I think the type of stuff I was going to publish, you should never do it for money. Only because that contaminates the credibility and it turns it into a business opportunity where there's great treachery and lying going on.

And it will contaminate Wikileaks. It always does. In fact, that's the principal means by which noble endeavors are contaminated, the money trail. That's pretty obvious. I happen to think that amateur stuff is better than paid stuff. -- source

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:10 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
UncleZook wrote:
Assange, Snowden, Appelbaum, Kokesh, Pilger, Fisk, etc.

I am astounded that you can condemn a long list of helpful whistle-blowers for the flimsiest of reasons, namely "guilt by association",


An overwhelming preponderance of evidence is not a flimsy reason. Guilt by association is just one part of the preponderance ... indeed, associations are what conspiracies are made of ... proving yet again that overgeneralized principles and polemics - two of your favorite digging sticks - are woefully inadequate as research tools. If Assange can be associated in any significant way with the Rothschild brand, for example, then that is guilt by association as a co-conspirator in the Rothschild corruptions. His most significant connection to this brand is Wikileaks, a demonstrable cointel operation in the mold of the Pentagon Papers, but on an even larger scale. That's not flimsy reasoning ... that's grounds for indictment. It doesn't help his situation when he lies about 9/11/2001 by calling it a false conspiracy. A person of his intelligence would be quickly able to establish the Inside Job nature of the September attacks ... that is, if he were sincere in his analysis.

Quote:
and then you hold up Brzezinski as evidence that Wikileaks may be an intelligence operation! Have you absolutely no real discernment after all? Brzezinski, the classic sociopath, mentored by global war criminal and hard-core sociopath Kissinger -- where is your vaunted "guilt by association" now? Brzezinski, game-player extraordinaire, author of "The Grand Chessboard" that sees the world as a game of intrigue to be optimized through deception and manipulation. Brzezinski, who can't stop scheming for an instant, who is dishing out the propaganda (in your posted video) for his own selfish benefit right in front of our eyes, hidden in plain sight! No, if Brzezinski slyly suggests Wikileaks is an intelligence operation, the opposite is probably true, and Brzezinski is just undertaking damage control by sowing confusion and dissension while collecting a bonus under the table which is his normal modus operandi.


I referred to Brzezinski as a skunk ... which he is. When one of the inner members of the bankster gang starts squawking ... it pays to listen to what they are saying and why they are saying it. Many a gang has been tripped up by a gang member's loose mouth and running ego. Criminals like to boast about their crimes all the time. Heck, Donald Rumsfeld, without meaning to, betrayed the lie behind the Pennsylvania plane crash (on 9/11/2001) by inadvertently revealing that a missile had shot it down. Of course, the rest of the gang was trying to promote the theory of heroes and heroics via the "Let's Roll" legerdemain.

It takes binary context-denuded thinking to suggest that the opposite is true when Brzezinski suggests something.

Quote:
Really Zook, how can I take you seriously when you deliver ludicrous arguments such as this?




That's not the video that I offered. Nice bait and switch. I called Brzezinski a skunk remember ... and your video further confirms my perspective. Guilt by association only works if there is a common goal, Chico. Assange and the Rothschild brand have common goals. Brzezinski and Uncle Zook have polar opposite goals.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
You need discernment to fly it ... or a kite and a string.

There is no could about it, Chico. You are wrong. Warranted conclusions has never been your strength ... which is why you find sanctuary in unwarranted uncertainty. So be it.

Not only do you oversimply here, you wage yet another unprovoked attack on the messenger (yours truly). Inferring that I'm a sociopath is about the only way you can solve me, it seems. Your observations are too weak. Your discernment is poor. Your logic is flawed.

Your poor discernment skills will not allow you to see the Ecuadorean embassy setup for what it is.

:lol: Like I said, I am astounded. Is this the pot calling the kettle black?


Pithy phrases sure beats having to work for an argument, wot, Chico?

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
What grounds do you have for believing the setup is genuine?

Based on the preponderance of evidence, it is to a large degree not a setup. The evidence includes the price Assange has had to pay and is still paying (via his isolation and effectively voluntary imprisonment). It includes all the interviews Rafael Correa gave concerning Ecuador's reactions. It includes the treatment and injustice served to Bradley Manning, and the circus of his sex change while in the deceiving and manipulating hands of his mind-controlling oppressors. It includes the official reactions and legal pursuit (and disgusting hypocrisy) of the United States government against both Assange and Manning. It includes the treatment of both by the mainstream media which toed the government line. Your flimsy and speculative "connect-the-dots" fairytale can't hold a candle to the mountain of circumstantial evidence that indicates the real battle going on for the hearts and minds of the gullible public that must be fooled to be properly herded.


When actors in a play support each other, they are promoting the play ... nothing more. Yet you offer this as proof of authenticity (of the Ecuadorean setup)?? Doesn't surprise me. FWIW, I already exposed Correa on this forum (alongside Morales of Bolivia and Chavez of Venezuela) as bankster empire cronies elevated from nothing and nowhere for the purpose of geopolitical pawn positioning. They will be taken out when their purpose is finished. Ecuador is a protagonist in the current bankster play; the US is the antagonist. The playwright(s) are Zionist(s). The Zionist occupation is palpable given that monied interests control the world.

Quote:
We are not looking to become celebrity fortune tellers here Zook, with fame, fortune, and hot babes in tow. We are looking for the truth, which guarantees derision, poverty, and loneliness. Are you so enamored with your image that you cannot take the hard road? I think you are.


So stop trying to be a celebrity and start assisting me with the truth ... especially the hardcore truths that find the weak knees of most people standing. But I accept your shift from the message to the messenger as your personal calling card of concession.

Quote:

UncleZook wrote:
I see many intellect-stunted grunts waxing polemic on general stuff like liberty, censorship, tyranny, sociopathy, etc. - both here and elsewhere - but when asked to identify the banksters and their criminal enterprises, and to make the many dot connections ... very few are up to the challenge. It's quite sad, really.

So, what are the intellectual giants, such as yourself, waxing polemic about? Why, they are just calling any perceived challengers "intellect-stunted grunts" because they discuss such trivial and meaningless subjects as "liberty, censorship, tyranny, sociopathy, etc."


The aforementioned general topics have been discussed ad infinitum ad nauseam. And they will be discussed as long as mankind still walks on a pair and not on a quad. We have plenty of time to wax polemic on time-independent concerns. Right now, the bankster empire is trying to close the deal on totalitarianism. It should be the major focus of any discussion ... anywhere ... internet, water coolers, dinner table, camp outs, etc.. That it isn't the prime focus is an indictment of the times we live in ... sodomic and gomorrahaic.

Quote:
I agree, it really is quite sad.
UncleZook wrote:
Here's a damning article on Wikileaks' origin and mutated purpose:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20011106-281.html

Damning?! Are you joking? I can only conclude that you didn't even bother to read the article. Shame on you, Zook. John Young basically agrees with my philosophy that "money ruins everything", and that is the reason he parted company with Wikileaks. I would have done the same. That is also the very reason why this forum does not solicit funds!
John Young wrote:
One, because I think the type of stuff I was going to publish, you should never do it for money. Only because that contaminates the credibility and it turns it into a business opportunity where there's great treachery and lying going on.



You don't get it. John Young is supporting my argument. The money that George Soros threw at Wikileaks has corrupted that organization beyond repair. But it was designed to be corrupted in a 2-step scheme. First step is to give it credibility with the masses (John Young's name and reputation was secured for a few weeks to achieve credibility for the psychological operation to be known as Wikileaks) ... second step is to funnel in the corrupt money. Because John Young is an honest man, he left when the money stuffed in. The dishonest men remained. The most dishonest of them assumed the face of the organization.

You're willing to accept the 2-step template for a takeover and rollover by the cryptocurrencies to a One World Currency. Yet you resist the template when applied to Wikileaks, even after it fits like a glove. Perhaps it hadn''t occurred to you because of your poor discernment. So, I'll let it be.

As an side, I read somewhere that eye-flicker rate has some correlation with dishonesty. Check out Julian Assange's eyes in the earlier posted video (especially from the 2:00 minute onwards):


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2589073 ... nking.html

Quote:
And it will contaminate Wikileaks. It always does. In fact, that's the principal means by which noble endeavors are contaminated, the money trail. That's pretty obvious. I happen to think that amateur stuff is better than paid stuff. -- source


Think 2-step designed process, Chico ... and everything will fall into place. The masses need to be convinced. You can't convince them with initial corruption. You must offer them an initial boon ... before you load the burdens.
The Greeks attacking Troy knew this. The politicians are kind to the masses in the antechamber of elections. And the baby knows to smile to grab favors.

But benefactors beware, for after the boons have emptied ... the bellicosity, the bribing, and the bawling all commence according to schedule.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Mon Mar 10, 2014 1:59 pm
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
UncleZook wrote:
... that is guilt by association as a co-conspirator in the Rothschild corruptions.

And what if Assange's association is of the non-co-conspirator type? Why will you not consider this possibility, which is much more likely? Rothschild tentacles are extensive and intrude into almost everyone's life, especially those that interact with money. An operation like Wikileaks, if legitimate, will be targeted by the ruling sociopaths for corruption and infiltration. That can easily be mistaken for an association by overzealous truth-seekers with incomplete or cherry-picked information.

UncleZook wrote:
It doesn't help his situation when he lies about 9/11/2001 by calling it a false conspiracy.

The government's version of 9/11 events is indeed a false conspiracy, one of many floating around. Many people still believe the government version, for a large variety of reasons. You can't condemn them as bankster co-conspirators because they are deceived and manipulated.

UncleZook wrote:
I referred to Brzezinski as a skunk ... which he is. When one of the inner members of the bankster gang starts squawking ... it pays to listen to what they are saying and why they are saying it.

It also pays to question the veracity of their statements and understand the game they are playing. Look at Kissinger here trying to restore the old lie of his smooth statesmanship. He presents himself as the voice of reason, but it's a deceptive game, as it always is with sociopaths. Do you think it wise to believe this skunk? It's always a con-game with these crooks, and to use a ploy that Brzezinski employs as evidence for your argument that Wikileaks is a false-flag intelligence operation is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion.


UncleZook wrote:
That's not the video that I offered. Nice bait and switch.

Zook, this nicely illustrates the compounding error of your inaccurate assumptions. I know that's not your video, and I was not doing a bait and switch. I didn't mean to imply that this second video was your argument. That's just the way you mistakenly interpreted my words and my actions. I presented this video to illustrate how Brzezinski plies his con-artistry, with acute awareness of his audience and what they want to hear. He does the same thing in the video you presented.

UncleZook wrote:
Pithy phrases sure beats having to work for an argument, wot, Chico?

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. It is my point exactly that you are not doing the required work necessary to reach the truth. You take the easier path and reach the easier conclusions, which are faulty as a result.

UncleZook wrote:
When actors in a play support each other, they are promoting the play ... nothing more.

Way oversimplified, Zook. The degree of acting and the true motivations behind it are not as straight-forward and simple as you think. This is the same mistake you made by accusing me of bait and switch with the Brzezinski video.

UncleZook wrote:
So stop trying to be a celebrity and start assisting me with the truth ... especially the hardcore truths that find the weak knees of most people standing. But I accept your shift from the message to the messenger as your personal calling card of concession.

A concession? There is the same mistake again! Can't you see it, Zook? It's the compounding effect of faulty assumptions. You do it over and over again. You cannot believe how exasperating it is for me to see it so plainly while you are so blind to it. I am indeed trying to help you and anyone else that will consider my argument. Try starting from that assumption, just as an exercise if nothing else.

UncleZook wrote:
Right now, the bankster empire is trying to close the deal on totalitarianism. It should be the major focus of any discussion ... anywhere ... internet, water coolers, dinner table, camp outs, etc..

Agreed. It is the major focus of my posts, though I speak of it in terms of human psychology rather than occupation, which is more appropriate and accurate.

UncleZook wrote:
You don't get it. John Young is supporting my argument. The money that George Soros threw at Wikileaks has corrupted that organization beyond repair.

Wrong on both counts, and again the result of compounding errors from faulty assumptions. Just because one man resists the corrupting influence of money while others work with it does not separate them into honest and dishonest camps. Can you not see that?

UncleZook wrote:
As an side, I read somewhere that eye-flicker rate has some correlation with dishonesty.

I think I'm going to scream! :-o

There are other valid explanations for "excessive" blinking! Again we see the effects of compounding errors from faulty assumptions.

UncleZook wrote:
Think 2-step designed process, Chico ... and everything will fall into place.

It has fallen into place for you, and that's the problem! Combine binary thinking, oversimplification, and compounding errors from faulty assumptions, and you do not get the truth!

If you fancy yourself a genuine truth-seeker, Zook, and I know you do, you are going to have to face this ugly truth and change your ways. You are leading yourself and others astray from the truth even as you claim, with arrogant certainty, to hold it.

Zook, I appreciate the effort you put into your posts, even if I find your arguments decidedly flawed. We can all learn from this, which is ultimately the reason why we are all here.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:24 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
UncleZook wrote:
... that is guilt by association as a co-conspirator in the Rothschild corruptions.

And what if Assange's association is of the non-co-conspirator type?


Wikileaks is a 2-step conspiracy.

Anyone still associated with Wikileaks after the money had poured in (from Soros) and John Young had left ... is a co-conspirator by definition. No need to entertain non-co-conspirator types in the specific case of Assange and Wikileaks. Doing so is dancing around the facts of the case in the duty of unwarranted uncertainty.

Quote:
Why will you not consider this possibility, which is much more likely? Rothschild tentacles are extensive and intrude into almost everyone's life, especially those that interact with money.


Very few have Assange's degree of association and co-lateral associations with the Rothschild brand. But indulging your attempt at diffusing Assange's culpability, even fewer have said associations and have also signed on to the Soros-funded Wikileaks conspiracy. And fewer still have those associations, signed on to the Wikileaks conspiracy, and spread disinformation about the attacks of 9/11/2001. And fewer still have those associations, etc. etc.

Increasing preponderance is a lens of increasing resolution.


Quote:
An operation like Wikileaks, if legitimate, will be targeted by the ruling sociopaths for corruption and infiltration. That can easily be mistaken for an association by overzealous truth-seekers with incomplete or cherry-picked information.


Your problem, Chico, is that you still accord unwarranted legitimacy to Wikileaks ... even after the evidence against it is overwhelming. If you choose to be underwhelmed by the overwhelming evidence, that is your cross to bear. Call yourself a truthseeker - but understand that you'll be one in name only if you refuse to make warranted conclusions ... or continue to maintain unwarranted uncertainty.

There is zero doubt about the false flag nature of Wikileaks as of March 2014. Anyone still believing in it's authenticity is either too naive, too stupid, or worse.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
It doesn't help his situation when he lies about 9/11/2001 by calling it a false conspiracy.

The government's version of 9/11 events is indeed a false conspiracy, one of many floating around. Many people still believe the government version, for a large variety of reasons. You can't condemn them as bankster co-conspirators because they are deceived and manipulated.


Now you are prevaricating on the given facts. The facts are not subject to people's opinions. There will always be linegring doubts about you, Chico , as long as you hold to your prevaricating tendencies. Dispose of them and join the league of genuine truthseekers. Or not. Your choice.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
I referred to Brzezinski as a skunk ... which he is. When one of the inner members of the bankster gang starts squawking ... it pays to listen to what they are saying and why they are saying it.

It also pays to question the veracity of their statements and understand the game they are playing. Look at Kissinger here trying to restore the old lie of his smooth statesmanship. He presents himself as the voice of reason, but it's a deceptive game, as it always is with sociopaths. Do you think it wise to believe this skunk? It's always a con-game with these crooks, and to use a ploy that Brzezinski employs as evidence for your argument that Wikileaks is a false-flag intelligence operation is the height of irresponsibility, in my opinion.


Yours is not an honest portrayal. I never used Brzezinski as the point evidence to indict Wikileaks as a false flag operation. I presented Brzezinski as an extra element of the preponderance. Know the difference. Or not. Your choice.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
That's not the video that I offered. Nice bait and switch.

Zook, this nicely illustrates the compounding error of your inaccurate assumptions. I know that's not your video, and I was not doing a bait and switch. I didn't mean to imply that this second video was your argument. That's just the way you mistakenly interpreted my words and my actions. I presented this video to illustrate how Brzezinski plies his con-artistry, with acute awareness of his audience and what they want to hear. He does the same thing in the video you presented.


You stripped the limited context of the Brzezinski video that I posted ... and shifted to the nature of Brzezinski's sociopathy. I only introduced Brzezinski as an extra piece of the preponderance, not to discuss his sociopathy.
Ergo, bait and switch.


Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Pithy phrases sure beats having to work for an argument, wot, Chico?

Again, this is the pot calling the kettle black. It is my point exactly that you are not doing the required work necessary to reach the truth. You take the easier path and reach the easier conclusions, which are faulty as a result.

UncleZook wrote:
When actors in a play support each other, they are promoting the play ... nothing more.

Way oversimplified, Zook. The degree of acting and the true motivations behind it are not as straight-forward and simple as you think. This is the same mistake you made by accusing me of bait and switch with the Brzezinski video.

UncleZook wrote:
So stop trying to be a celebrity and start assisting me with the truth ... especially the hardcore truths that find the weak knees of most people standing. But I accept your shift from the message to the messenger as your personal calling card of concession.

A concession? There is the same mistake again! Can't you see it, Zook? It's the compounding effect of faulty assumptions. You do it over and over again. You cannot believe how exasperating it is for me to see it so plainly while you are so blind to it. I am indeed trying to help you and anyone else that will consider my argument. Try starting from that assumption, just as an exercise if nothing else.


Show me a capacity to discern things, Chico ... to make warranted conclusions ... and I may take you seriously when you suggest that my approach to understanding things is oversimplified. As it is, the patterns hold it all ... and you are guilty of ignoring the patterns. You almost sound like a defense attorney arguing against the pattern of a crime to build reasonable doubt for their client even when it is lacking.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Right now, the bankster empire is trying to close the deal on totalitarianism. It should be the major focus of any discussion ... anywhere ... internet, water coolers, dinner table, camp outs, etc..

Agreed. It is the major focus of my posts, though I speak of it in terms of human psychology rather than occupation, which is more appropriate and accurate.

UncleZook wrote:
You don't get it. John Young is supporting my argument. The money that George Soros threw at Wikileaks has corrupted that organization beyond repair.

Wrong on both counts, and again the result of compounding errors from faulty assumptions. Just because one man resists the corrupting influence of money while others work with it does not separate them into honest and dishonest camps. Can you not see that?


The preponderance of evidence supports John Young ... and the truthseekers. It rejects Wikileaks and Assange.
Why can't you see that?

Quote:
If you fancy yourself a genuine truth-seeker, Zook, and I know you do, you are going to have to face this ugly truth and change your ways. You are leading yourself and others astray from the truth even as you claim, with arrogant certainty, to hold it.

Zook, I appreciate the effort you put into your posts, even if I find your arguments decidedly flawed. We can all learn from this, which is ultimately the reason why we are all here.


I know who I am. I think my way of doing things as stood me well. But thanx for the unsolicited suggestion.

Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:54 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:33 pm
Posts: 4156
Reply with quote
Post Re: The Julian Assange Show
It starts with the awareness of your immediate environment. This choice tells of your relation to your species.

_________________
Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.


Tue Mar 11, 2014 5:06 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 302 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.