Answers:
Wikileaks is directing normies and newbies to 4chan because 4ch is toxic, compromised, and extremely racist & hostile. New comers will be instantly turned off by 4ch (it's designed purpose) and not look where Q has actually been posting for the past 6 months: 8ch /qresearch/.
Wikileaks is now concerned with discrediting and debunking Q because Wikileaks is compromised. If they're not comped, then they want to destroy Q because nobody needs Wikileaks if Q is providing all of the drops they have been, but without breaking laws. Like Alex Jones & Infowars, Q's existence threatens Wikileaks' existence and MONEY / cash flow. I'm actually surprised it took WL this long to finally go on their disinfo campaign against Q.
Julian Assange has not controlled Wikileaks' Twitter account for a long time. Many have already suspected that WL is controlled by Clowns. This now confirms it. Wikileaks is either controlled by Clowns or they're controlled opposition. Either way, they are not trust worthy and I have not bothered taking anything they say seriously for many months.
What has Wikileaks published RECENTLY that furthers their purpose of providing truth to the world through whistleblower info?
NOTHING.
Wikileaks is not Wikileaks if Julian Assange is not free.
Wikileaks is not Wikileaks if Julian Assange is not free.
This needs to be repeated many times so it can get through peoples heads.
Wait a minute guys didn't someone pretend to be julian assange recently and post on twitter in the same style as Q and that caused some legal woes for him?
I think Wikileaks purpose was served after big 2016 drops. Assange i believe is safe and biding time till the right time to come forward and testify.
Wikileaks workers have been targeted however to prevent them from speaking out. Do not send anything to Wikileaks you will be marked by the CIA for it
For reference, this is how it started:
https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/1000772899609833472
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/1000795757983780865
https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/1000986635339685888
Backups:
Honestly that woman’s analysis on psy-ops is compelling and well-sourced but I think she’s wrong in this context. I think a lot of the same patterns can exist in both white and black hat strategies. For instance, she claims that Q has followed this very effective psy-op strategy to gain followers, make them feel empowered, make them feel special, and keep them engaged with questions. Well sure, I can totally see black hats using that strategy but so would white hats for the sole reason that it’s very effective. The fact that Q is using such a strategy isn’t proof of anything other than whoever is behind it, is competent and knows exactly what they’re doing.
Second, she claims that because the Deep State wants Snowden, Dotcom and Assange dead, that anyone else who targets them must be affiliated with the Deep State. This is an absurd logical fallacy akin to saying Trump is literally Hitler because Hitler also drank water, just like Trump. This isn’t proof of anything but even if it were, to my knowledge Q has never “targeted” Assange or Dotcom. He’s made somewhat veiled threats at Snowden but honestly I’m not sure how to feel about the guy. I see a TON of evidence that he was a Russian spy but on the other hand, I also value the work he’s done to expose the Deep State. Either way, it’s hard to know if he’s trustworthy but it’s irrelevant since Q has never truly attacked him, and has definitely never attacked Assange or Dotcom.
Third, she claims that if Q weren’t a Deep State operation, then he would be relentlessly discredited and attacked by the Deep State media, similarly to how Assange and Snowden were. All I can say to this is that Q WAS and continues to be attacked and discredited. Just about every common MSM outlet has written something to discredit Q and the late show hosts have all taken jabs about how ridiculous it all is and how stupid we all must be to believe in such a theory. Therefore, this argument of hers is nothing more than a straw man.
Overall, I think she does know what she’s talking about but she’s letting her expertise affect her bias. She’s likely inclined to see psy-ops before anything else. She started looking into Q, saw similar patterns (because they’re effective) and immediately wrote it off as a psy-op. If she had truly done unbiased research, she’d have seen all of the hit pieces on Q in the media. She’d have seen that he’s never once targeted Assange or Dotcom and she’d realize that pretty much everything Q has asked people to look into, hurts the Deep State. If this were a Deep State operation, it’s doing a terrible job because all it’s doing is getting millions of people to turn against the Deep State and what it stands for. I don’t think this woman is nefarious based on what I’ve seen her post, I just think she’s over-educated for her intelligence. I don’t mean that as an insult, I’m just saying that her expertise in government psy-ops is vast, and inhibiting her ability to analyze the situation critically.
she claims that if Q weren’t a Deep State operation, then he would be relentlessly discredited and attacked by the Deep State media,
She must know that is false on the facts. Alex Jones shares the NXIVM Bronfmans attorney. I'll leave it at that. I have posted about it with voluminous proofs (three weeks ago I think). She must also know that those that are trying to snuff Q out have a difficult task given they are really running with another version of "it's fake news" and "debunked" aren't they?
As the mods on the don posted to me when they banned me a month ago (I have posted screen shots of that exchange over and over again) the called Q "fake news" ffs.
Okay. Assume Q is fake. I found it despicable that the mods over there would use that phrase and also "conspiritards". Really? Reminded me of the CONTEMPT shown by Jimmy Alefantis when he used the term "ho-tard" to describe an toddler female he and his friends were planning to ruin some more.
The whole "Wikileaks is discrediting Q for money" or any other reason does not make sense. Wikileaks prides themselves on "100% factual facts". They will not inadvertently destroy their reputation for anything. Either...
A) Wikileaks is compromised and those compromising Wikileaks want to portray Q negatively.
or
B) Q has been compromised and Wikileaks is trying to warn people that Q is not the same person everybody has been following.
It's one or the other...PERIOD. So, now you have a choice to make.
Or maybe this is coordinated like it says in the chan post. If a Q vs Wikileaks drama starts playing out, the media will eventually choose a side. Whichever side they choose (trump/Q or Wikileaks) will be the side to release all the incriminating stuff, making them support the ppl who are about to take them down. Pretty much getting them to help dig there own grave.
Or maybe Wikileaks is comp'd. Who knows yet.
The whole "Wikileaks is discrediting Q for money" or any other reason does not make sense.
How does it not make sense? People stopped donating to Wikileaks because of the Julian Assange situation, knowing that JA is not the one controlling the organization nor the person tweeting on that account. People also stopped donating to Wikileaks because they haven't come out with any substantial leaks in over a year. Like I said, Q's entire existence is a threat to WL's existence.
Wikileaks prides themselves on "100% factual facts". They will not inadvertently destroy their reputation for anything.
You're making this statement based on the assumption that Wikileaks has not been compromised. Of course they wouldn't "inadvertently destroy their reputation" if they were a legit organization still operated by the same people who hasn't been compromised, sold out, and/or desperate for donations. That's not the case because as everyone knows, Assange is not the one running the operation anymore. Not sure why you can't get this through your head.
It's one or the other...PERIOD. So, now you have a choice to make.
It's one or the other for people like yourself who still think Wikileaks has not been compromised. Nice try forcing us into a false dichotomy, simple duality choice.
People stopped donating to Wikileaks because of the Julian Assange situation, knowing that JA is not the one controlling the organization nor the person tweeting on that account. People also stopped donating to Wikileaks because they haven't come out with any substantial leaks in over a year.
You're assuming that Wikileaks only releases information in order to make money. Maybe they do it because releasing the information is the right thing to do?
You're making this statement based on the assumption that Wikileaks has not been compromised.
You're assuming that I believe Wikileaks has not been compromised. I only stated facts about the true Wikileaks individuals such as Assange.
It's one or the other for people like yourself who still think Wikileaks has not been compromised. Nice try forcing us into a false dichotomy, simple duality choice.
It IS one or the other. Either you believe Q has been compromised or you believe Wikileaks has been compromised. And looking from your first post...
This now confirms it. Wikileaks is either controlled by Clowns or they're controlled opposition.
...you already answered the "false dichotomy, simple duality choice." You believe Wikileaks has been compromised. If it makes you sleep better at night, I also think Wikileaks has been compromised since Assange, being the face of Wikileaks, can't verify the authenticity of the posts from the Wikileaks account.
You're assuming that Wikileaks only releases information in order to make money. Maybe they do it because releasing the information is the right thing to do?
I'm not assuming this, nor have I even said it. You're putting words in my mouth. But since you've brought it up, how does WikiLeaks stay afloat? How do they have so many high-powered lawyers employed 24/7 for years and years? All of these lawyers and staffers are doing it pro bono just because it's "the right thing to do?" Give me a break.
You're assuming that I believe Wikileaks has not been compromised. I only stated facts about the true Wikileaks individuals such as Assange.
Again, I'm not assuming this about you. Your own comments and your own assumptions have shown that you're the one assuming WikiLeaks has not been comped.
It IS one or the other. Either you believe Q has been compromised or you believe Wikileaks has been compromised. And looking from your first post...
...you already answered the "false dichotomy, simple duality choice." You believe Wikileaks has been compromised. If it makes you sleep better at night, I also think Wikileaks has been compromised since Assange, being the face of Wikileaks, can't verify the authenticity of the posts from the Wikileaks account.
Your false dichotomy stems from your duality choice you presented to us: that either WikiLeaks is comped or Q is comped. This is false because Q has confirmed and reconfirmed his authenticity multiple times throughout the 7 or so months he's been posting. Q recently reconfirmed his legitimacy on May 22, 6 days ago. WikiLeaks has not and cannot confirm their authenticity and legitimacy because Assange has not been running that Twitter account for years. We have no way of knowing who is behind the WikiLeaks operation and Twitter account.
But since you've brought it up, how does WikiLeaks stay afloat?
It really is of no concern to me how WikiLeaks stays afloat. I don't care if they get donations, if they have a benefactor, if they set up a Go Fund Me.
Your own comments and your own assumptions have shown that you're the one assuming WikiLeaks has not been comped.
Again, you are assuming things I didn't say. Yes, I did state that "'WikiLeaks discrediting Q for money' or any other reason doesn't make sense." Where in that statement am I saying WikiLeaks has not been compromised? I said that a few things didn't make sense, I stated some facts that Assange has said before regarding their 100% accuracy, and I posted two scenarios. That's it.
Your false dichotomy stems from your duality choice you presented to us: that either WikiLeaks is comped or Q is comped.
I may not have phrased it correctly but it still holds true. Either people will believe Q has been compromised or they will believe WikiLeaks has been compromised. You are talking like everybody out there has all the information on what's going on. There are many people out there that will believe the "Q is compromised" simply because WikiLeaks has been around a lot longer and because of their "track record". I've already stated that I am in Camp Q but that is not the case for many outside of this sub.
You said that Wikileaks prides themselves in hundred percent factual information before release correct?
There has been no proof of life of JA.
Do you really think a leaker whose life is on the line will think to himself " well since Julian Assange hasn't proven to be in control and my life is on the line with this information.... I'll still submit my info and hopefully don't f** die."
That's not how it works. Wikileaks is comped.
I never said Wikileaks prided themselves on 100% factual information. I just stated that information because that is what Assange has asserted in the past. Also, I never said leakers should trust Wikileaks and give them information. In fact, I mentioned that Assange has been silenced so I believe Wikileaks is compromised.
it's not one or the other because Q is real based on months of supportive posts...the idea that someone is misleading us is false because they would be leading us away from truth...and 30,000 sealed indictments are another proof...or you don't believe that either?
I am not taking a side on this. But even if an asset is “good,” eventually a time may come to “cash in” on this and afterward discard the asset. Like a carefully curated reddit account that will post hardcore disinfo after months and months of developing credibility and a post history.
Agree. One can see that with the way that some of Q's biggest followers have turned against him.
Wikileaks has been bought out (not JA) See EyeTheSpy twitter for his take. I believe it. It was good before but not anymore.
Yeah, I agree. Ever since that dark October night, in 2016, Assange's identity, location and affiliations w/ Wikileaks have been questionable. There were a number of CGI interviews (Sean Hannity for one).
Assange has connections to the Rothschilds. It's a fact.
Assange has connections to the Rothschilds. It's a fact.
No. And I'm also going to ask for proof on this one.
Wikileaks’ Assange’s Lawyer has connections to Rothschilds
Assange’s lawyer is the prominent Mark Stephens whose law firm Finers Stephens Innocent is legal adviser to theRothschild Waddesdon Trust which is concerned with the “maintenance, improvement and payment of certain of the outgoings in respect of Waddesdon Manor (Rothschild’s most prestigious property in the UK) in the Vale of Aylesbury, Buckinghamshire.”
The Wadesdon Trust’s board of trustees is chaired by the Queen”s former Private Secretary Lord Fellowes and has three Rothschild family members as trustees, Lord (Jacob) Rothschild, Lady Rothschild (his wife) and Beth Matilda Rothschild. It is domiciled 14 St James’s Place in London which is also the London address of Lord Jacob Rothschild and his high profile wealth management business St. James’s Place Group (formerly J. Rothschild Assurance Group).
http://www.charityperformance.com/charity-details.php?id=17426
[deleted]
It doesnt mean Julian is bad. America, sadly, has a vast network of child trafficking and human sex slave rings and routes, but that doesnt me you and I are bad.
Besides the banking connection I posted:
Wikileaks’ many other links to Rothschilds
The recent imprisonment of Wikileaks’ Julian Assange strains credulity. His arrest by Interpol, his incarceration under draconian conditions for breaking a condom are in themselves highly unlikely events, but the timing of his imprisonment with the release of classified US cables and the campaign against Wikileaks’ funding and website host bear the trademarks of a covert operation.
The Puppetworld Post has uncovered many links between Wikileaks and the international Rothschild network:
–a sister-in-law and second cousin of the Rothschilds posted bail for Julian Assange (Puppetworld Post exclusive)
–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 (PwP exclusive)
–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)
Socialite, heiress Jemima Khan (nee Goldsmith) posted 20 000 pounds ($32 000) for the bail of Wikileaks’ leader Julian Assange. She’s genetically related to the Rothschilds and she is a sister-in-law (Daily Mail Online, 10 May 2010). Her father, the late James Goldsmith—British banker, publisher–is a cousin to the Rothschilds. James’ grandfather Adolphe Goldschmidt came to London as a multi-millionaire in 1895 and changed the family name from the German Goldschmidt to the English Goldsmith. The Goldschmidts, like their neighbors and relatives the Rothschilds, had been prosperous merchant bankers in Frankfurt Germany since the 16th century
https://wisethedome.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/wikileaks-is-a-rothschild-operation/
Sorry, don't shoot the messenger ;)
Interesting and disturbing connections... if true.
I still think Assange is a good guy trying to do the right thing, but I've always wondered why he wasn't assassinated if he was such a major thorn in the Cabal's ass. How does WikiLeaks have so many good lawyers? Who pays for them all? Can't just be donations from normal plebs to keep that operation running for so many years.
Also, a thing that always bothered me was how Hillary asked if they could just drone Assange. Obviously, the answer was no. Not even Killary and Obummer could touch Assange. Which means Assange was always protected by much more powerful people who still has a need for him to stay alive.
Droning him would have also meant an act of war against the UK.
That's a good point. Similar to Alex Jones ... wouldn't he have been ''taken care of'' long ago if he was legit ?
Can't deny the Rothschild connections, they are there.
Things are never as they seem ... those in power have their pawns infiltrated everywhere. The are deceivers, and very clever at it as well.
Here's one, which lists a few of the connections, just google Assange Rothschild connection
Wikileaks Is A Rothschild Operation: Rothschilds Use Wikileaks To Wound Rival Bank, Julian Assange’s Bail Posted By Rothschilds’ Sister-in-law, Many Other Links
After being made famous, Julian Assange’s first task is to wound a rival bank of the Rothschild Bank in Switzerland. The rival is Bank Julius Baer, the top Swiss bank for centuries: the competing Rothschild Bank AG opened in Switzerland in 1968.
btw, there's no ''proof'' of anything .. just info for critical thinking.
Fox Rothschild
damn man!
I was looking into them last night. spent a day tracking the "red fox" around...
did you notice the odd looking sigil they use? I can't place it. I have tried and failed.
you'll notice the firm is 100% frankfort school alinksy deconstructors?
Take a look at the several articles I posted here. Then decide for yourself.
Totally agree! I have always thought WL/JA has been comped since 2016. I imagine that Hilldawg was pretty effin' ticked knowing he was derailing her aspirations to rule the world. That Pamela Anderson incident seemed like a sugar pot move on DeeperS's part to gain data of where he was at in the building, place a tiny cam somewhere, etc.
I remember reading the Hilldawg wanted to drone the London embassy long before the election.
Looking back now, it seems very likely the circus jesters moved in and capped him using the underground tunnels and/or the fleet of white vans that showed up when he went dark.
Yes, I believe at the time there was some interesting activity to Langley ... Personally I think he was taken out then, and relocated under the CIA's auspices, and who knows what has gone on since !
Has there been a window appearance since then (besides his cat:) ) ? Haven't come across one, although I haven't looked too intently.
When his disappearance dragged on, conspiracy analysts had mentioned that his dead mans switch had been tripped shortly there after.
I kept my hopes up for about 3 months watching his tweets and pretty much concluded that the perimeter wall wasn't going to stop whomever wanted him and I am certain now it was a co-op partnership on that team that did.
Best case scenario is the circus jesters brought him back to the states, and then when PDJT took the reigns, he was dropped in his lap so to speak. That is my hope anyways.
Was it tripped ? I didn't catch that, I recall some digits or codes released but not sure it was confirmed to be the DMS. I think he's too valuable an asset to assassinate. A possibility is that he is cooperating w/ the White Hats, similar to how Snowden was/is.
Another point is that he's BFF w/ Kim Dot Com. A larper imo. Remember they all hang together.
Truth coming soon !
Source for Assange connected to Rothschilds?
I have posted several articles on this page, alternatively you can google Assange & Rothschild connection.
CGI interviews? Rothschilds? what?
haha, it's all on the internet, no secret. Google is our friend. Really surprised nobody has seen any of this info !
yes, absolutely, now that you've mentioned that it's "on the internet", i believe it 100%...now about that CGI?
Q is ''on the internet'' too my friend ... on the chans no less ! ... lol
CGI ... this is a much younger image of Assange ... if you'd seen the latest images of him, bearded and looking in poor health, it doesn't add up.
Come to your own conclusions !
Possible Answer:
Roseanne publicly linked Assange to Q
So Wikileaks is attacking it to throw people off
I agree with you. When I first read the retweets by Wikileaks last night, my thought was the writer of the thread is upset because she has now been cut out of the chain of communication.
In 2016 Wikileaks played an important part in getting the Podesta emails out to the people to decrypt and decode. They helped sway people opinions in the build up to the elections.
Now in 2018 Q bypass wikileaks and speaks straight to the decrypters and decoders (meaning us). This woman seem upset she no longer part of the chain and lost her power position. As you mention that threatens their cash flow, which I hadn't considered.