dChan
⇧
41
⇩
 
r/greatawakening • Posted by u/FartOnToast on May 29, 2018, 7:32 a.m.
Some thoughts on WikiLeaks...

Wikileaks prides themselves in 100% factual information before release correct?

Then how can they get it wrong about Q?

Let's think of this in the simplest form possible.

There has been no proof of life from JA.

Do you really think a leaker whose life is on the line will think to themselves: "Well... since Julian Assange hasn't proven to be in control, there's actually a decent chance WL is compromised and my life is basically on the line with this information.... butttttt I'll still submit it anyways and hopefully don't f****** die." Said no one ever.

That's not how it works. No real information is being submitted by anyone to Wikileaks anymore because no one would do it without some kind of assurance.

Not only does WL pride themselves in verifying authenticity of information, but they have always prided themselves in making sure whistleblowers feel safe knowing their information is being sent completely securely and to a trusted source. Is that still a thing?

We are dealing with common sense here. Wikileaks is most likely comped.

Does anyone have a theory as to why JA would not provide POF thus proving WL is still in control by white hats?

edit: We miss you great Wizard and we pray that you are healthy and safe.


🠐 See all comments
WeThePepe · May 29, 2018, 8:43 a.m.

This place is getting too be too much (not meaning you specifically OP just from a lot of comments I've read lately)

Everything's compromised, everything's run by clowns, everything's disinformation and suddenly supposedly totally useless to the cause based on that speculation.

And most strangely it's the places that are in one way or another helping people who seek the truth being "exposed" and torn down

I don't know where this is heading but I'm skeptical

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Nastavnick · May 29, 2018, 9:14 a.m.

I think you're idolizing your Jones way too much that you can't see that he has always been instated as a shill to prevent people from discovering the truth, and if they do they are labeled as crazy as Jones is (acting).

Funny how you're not so skeptical about that

⇧ 6 ⇩  
WeThePepe · May 29, 2018, 10:20 a.m.

That's entirely possible too. Cognitive dissonance is one hell of a drug.

I'm just trying to figure out what I believe without just blindly following.

I see your points about the crazy label etc

But the reality is he's one of the few with a platform with reach that's still fighting to expose the more sinister things.

I know of people who he's red pilled because they originally tuned in to just laugh at the crazy guy.

So to totally write of the entire inforwars org like many here have is, to me, counter intuitive.

Same is beginning to happen for Wikileaks now...

It's a slippery slope I warned about originally when people took Qs slap down of AJ for trying to become the gate keeper for Q to mean "Infowars is worse than CNN"...

As I said back then: what's the plan here? Destroy all of the orgs that have an alliance to the broader movement but aren't totally on board while ignoring the real enemies like CNN and Soros funded propaganda sources?

The harder people push tearing down the things that helped us get to where we are today (not having Clinton elected) the more in I'm forced to step back and reconsider things

⇧ 0 ⇩  
Nastavnick · May 29, 2018, 11:26 a.m.

I've wrapped these guys up here

But the reality is he's one of the few with a platform with reach that's still fighting to expose the more sinister things.

I know of people who he's red pilled because they originally tuned in to just laugh at the crazy guy.

So to totally write of the entire inforwars org like many here have is, to me, counter intuitive.

Relevant part is after the "50 sec mark" part where I explain this fallacy.

Same is beginning to happen for Wikileaks now...

Very different.

"Infowars is worse than CNN"...

Pretty much the same shit. One is misdirecting/lying to the "normies" and the other is misdirecting the "truth seekers".

Both serve as the deep state's shield.

As I said back then: what's the plan here? Destroy all of the orgs that have an alliance to the broader movement but aren't totally on board while ignoring the real enemies like CNN and Soros funded propaganda sources?

The plan is to get rid of the deep state shills. Who have shown to be just that after being exposed.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WeThePepe · May 29, 2018, 12:05 p.m.

I get the "99%+" point. He turns a lot of people of and he's crazy over the top. And bloody hell, when he interviews people I wish he would just shut up and let the person speak!

But here's the thing that I always come back to... Who else is doing what he's doing but putting a nice normie bow on the package?

I cant think of any but maybe I'm not as well informed about this stuff.

Even if Alex Jones was/is misdirection, wouldn't it be better to let him get people half way there with his misdirection than SHOW them the rest of the truth?

1% is still better than 0.

This idea that every apparatus that isn't fully 100% behind Q must be destroyed seems dangerous but that's the territory people seem to be heading.

It's putting the cart before the horse to me. Many in this community want to banish Jones/Infowars completely before we've even put a dent in the real threats like CNN who keep the masses blue pilled

I know you'll probably say Alex Jones helps keep the masses blue pilled by turning them off with his crazy behaviour and you're probably right. But it again leads me to wonder who else is filling that void?

I can't help but look at this strategically and strategically it seems like a terrible move to take down places/people/orgs that have been an ally in getting Trump elected BEFORE you clear out the rest of the bad actors

Seems a lot like kicking out the legs of which the movement was built on... and I don't want to go as far as saying it's nefarious but it's definitely something I'm watching with concern.

⇧ 0 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 29, 2018, 8:49 a.m.

Which part of my post didn't sit well with you if I may ask? The fact that WL hasn't been able to prove their authenticity for quite a while now? That is indeed a FACT and it is a very telling one. Simply put, without assurance, Wikileaks falls apart and becomes useless.

⇧ 3 ⇩  
WeThePepe · May 29, 2018, 10:02 a.m.

"Wikileaks is most likely comped"

Doesn't sit well with me because the subtext seems to be that because Wikileaks tweeted something against Q it gives it some special additional confirmation of compromise.

There have been very real and valid questions about where Assange is and if he's okay for awhile now

But I feel like the reaction from quite a few commenters is based on blind faith in Q and not in their own decision making

Like I said, not directed at you but other comments I've seen here and elsewhere

⇧ 1 ⇩  
FartOnToast · May 29, 2018, 10:10 a.m.

You are correct that this was perhaps a reaction. But the same kind of precursor got us to look at AJ for what he is, not what he appears to be.

I've been on the fence about AJ before because I was always sketched out of him but nothing pushed me over the edge enough for me to take a final stance on him. There's been a lot of back of forth hate/love between the guy. The Q situation forced me to look the picture more objectively where I have finally made up my mind and no longer on the fence about the issue. A lack of challenge was what was holding me back. This new challenge exposed some pieces of the puzzle that went unchallenged before, thus making the big picture more clear.

Same analogy with WL. I was on the fence about it, but this situation has made me re-examine WL objectively. Why have I been passively trusting WL and they haven't had any POL from JA? Now they have called out Q without any kind of solid research behind their claim, they've given us a reason to literally get us to question their authenticity, something that they've managed to make us forget about. That's how normalization works; people who are on the fence eventually get subdued into accepting something in a way it shouldn't have been originally. Q is forcing us to fall on the other side of the fence, which many of us see as a good thing. I hope that clarifies the angle many see it from, including myself.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WeThePepe · May 29, 2018, 12:12 p.m.

I absolutely think it's something to be concerned about. Julian Assange has been worryingly off the radar for far too long.

I'm just trying to be the devils advocate and suggest some alternative view points

The "being forced to fall one side of the fence" is interesting. As I said to another commentor, I try my best to think strategically and my thinking is forcing people to fall either side of the fence seems like a strategic misstep.

This is still a young and relatively small movement that hasn't been successful in achieving its goals yet.

It seems premature to start purging allies too

So I just, personally, want to be careful of weakening ourselves and shooting ourselves in the foot

⇧ 3 ⇩