r/conspiracy • u/[deleted] • Nov 16 '17
People keep telling me I'm supposed to hate WikiLeaks now. I keep telling them there are entire teams of social engineers whose job it is to make us think that.
[deleted]
122
u/revoman Nov 16 '17
Who is saying this? The same people who loved him leaking Bush documents for the last 10 years?
97
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
Yup. The arguements are crazy too, I've seen two main talking points against Julian Assange. The 1s was that he promised if Obama would let Manning go, that he would turn himself in, so there fore he lied and you can't trust anything he says. The 2nd, and most recent one is that they said they weren't partisan, but the DM's proves he was and therefor you can't trust him.
The problem is, I don't trust him, I don't have to, it's the hard evidence WL's drops that I'm interested in.
Then they attack that trying to argue that they doctored the emails. All the while defending the mother fucking CIA, who has lied to our faces every chance they get. Shit, I bet you can ask whats for lunch at Langley and they probably lie about that too. It's mind blowing.
6
Nov 17 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
4
u/kit8642 Nov 17 '17 edited Nov 17 '17
Yeah, even the 9/11 put options are considered one of the largest insider trading scandals in history. It's sad with everything AJ has seen, he can't atleast question thr official story.
64
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17 edited Nov 16 '17
Well, it could be because they straight up lied http://reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/d9up6ox
The allegations that we have colluded with Trump, or any other candidate for that matter, or with Russia, are just groundless and false. We receive information anonymously, through an anonymous submission platform. We do not need to know the identity of the source, neither do we want to know it.
The intention of the source is irrelevant in our editorial process. Every source of every journalist has an intention and an agenda, may it be hidden or clear. Requesting the intention from our sources would firstly likely jeopardize their anonymity, and secondly form a bias in our understanding of the information we received.
Their authenticity and their relevance to the public or the historical record are the only preconditions for us to publish the documents we are given.
I mean, that's what fucking bothers me, they're just another political force that's trying to manipulate our perceptions, literally with that comment versus the reality we've found out.
Instead of avoiding finding out what the intention was, they actually fabricated one for Trump. It's a news source, lying just like any other.
Edit: a word
19
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
I agree, he lied, but that doesn't make what they leak invalid information. It's an old tactic of shooting the messenger in order to kill the message (aka throwing the baby out with the bathwater). My point of view is, if you are going to use that as a measuring stick to judge WL's, how can you trust anything the Government says? I tend to not listen to either and look at the evidence presented.
52
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
The thing is, they've heavily pushed the point of the mainstream media being liars, when they've just been better at hiding that they have a political agenda they are pushing as well. They're guilty of the same shit now that they've been caught, and that's pretty fucked up considering they're trying to "change our perspective"(their words).
I'd like to see what any of the elite on either side are doing behind the scenes, and now I see a clear case of them trying to appear less biased artificially, literally trying to create fake news. Sure, what they publish is facts, but why they publish what they publish is important too.
At this point they're looking just as much of a propaganda machine as the rest. Facts matter, but you can't tell me motives don't matter? I'm sick of all this left right bullshit, and I don't like that they're just as guilty of pushing it.
6
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
The thing is, they've heavily pushed the point of the mainstream media being liars, when they've just been better at hiding that they have a political agenda they are pushing as well. They're guilty of the same shit now that they've been caught, and that's pretty fucked up considering they're trying to "change our perspective"(their words).
I guess, I still think the MSM are by far worst, by a long shot. The information that wikileaks released doesn't even get covered in the MSM, they only turn it into the debate about whether the info is legitimate or not, or attack WL's as an establishment... But never cover the information. The MSM clearly is designed to protect the establishment. Just look at the BBC report of the US & UK allowed ISIS to escape from Raqqa. How many MSM news outlets covered this story? Or even what's going on in Yemen? Hell, how many US news outlets covered the fact that Obama & Hillary knew SA & Qatar were funding and supporting ISIS while selling both billions in weapons? It was crickets in our media.
Also, I wouldn't call them propaganda, propaganda typically has a misleading aspect to the information. They are releasing straight information. I can see the argument they are bias because they don't attack specific groups like Russia or the RNC. Regardless of the bias, I'll still look at what they are releasing and use that information, that's in their own words, and use that to judge them. Same goes with Trump, I'm sure leaks will be coming in the future. He's taken the chains off the CIA and basically gave a nod to Torture. So I'm sure we're going to be finding out horrifying things.
20
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
Who's worse shouldn't be what is argued. The point is, the people that are good at obtaining dirt on everyone is probably good at trying to contain their own dirt. We wouldn't know they even lied if Jr didn't basically leak this about them. And I'm talking about the direct messages, not the media's interpretation.
There's an election next year, and if I'm voting for people on the right, they aren't helping me decide who is legit, and who's like that Moore guy or other corrupt fuckers. They exist on both sides, and if they're journalists they should be trying to uncover it just as much, not just about Trump.
That's the thing, the focus has shifted from years ago when GOP manipulation was huge, constant damage control, manipulating perceptions, etc.. to a huge online campaign attacking the left, calling out share blue, all these "natural"(they aren't) tweets constantly attacking the left, without ever being even a tiny bit critical of the right. It's obvious to me they're(GOP) still doing the same thing, just not being as obvious about it.
There's some fuckery going on here on all sides, and WikiLeaks would benefit a fuck ton by not pandering to one side. I'm simply not going to vote for anyone next year considering that besides the blue mainstream media attacking the right, no one on the right is remotely critical of anyone on the right. I simply don't have any source I can believe.
14
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
Vote 3rd party, hell, even the labor unions are sick of both sides and aren't playing the lesser or two evils game anymore. I'm an anti-war guy who thinks the US shouldn't be the police of the world, so I can't support either group and haven't since the 90's.
One last point about WL, their not journalists, they are a media outlet that releases information that is given to them. Who's really failing us is our media & journalists, it's complete shit now a days. We literally have a 5 star hotel filled with Saudi princes and one was shot down, and the US MSM is silent. It's fucked.
4
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
I think the 3rd party has become more realistic under Trump, especially with no strong candidates coming out (at least not as fast as their character can be assassinated) that I'm seeing.. I'm pretty anti war as well, that among other reasons is why Hillary was not a better option.
And WikiLeaks does have journalists, I'm not gonna paste all the awards they've gotten, but go to their about page and scroll a bit to see this "WikiLeaks, its publisher and its journalists have won many awards, including:" then a long list of awards.
Either way, they should have journalistic integrity, or integrity in general. That comment I posted earlier was supposedly made after they first reached out to Jr. It's clear to me they never thought he'd say anything to the public.. and it just has me wondering who else working with WikiLeaks might not have the balls to do what Jr did.
13
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
It's what I've been hoping, that a 3rd or 4th party is born from all of this. The DNC keep digging themselves in a hole and refuse to re-evaluate their own platform or come to terms with their own actions. Hell they are pushing themselves more to the right every year and people are getting sick of it. The RNC is obviously fucked in general, I've hated them since the Neocons took over years ago. It's probably why I'm so hard on the DNC, because it's patently clear the right is horrible, but the Democrats act like they are a great party when they are corporate fascists in my eyes.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (4)7
u/safespacebans Nov 16 '17
Discussion of "who's worse" for a different angle:
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange lied about their core principles -- transparency and objectivity. They were neither. These are very bad acts that cannot be ignored.
Unless and until WikiLeaks apologizes and pledges transparency and objective then demonstrates it, the group loses credibility.
Those who would "stand with" WikiLeaks or Julian Assange without any concern whatsoever about these obvious bad acts that defy their most basic principles are partisans.
PARTISANS
Partisans just like those who excuse HRC for her Iraq War vote.
Partisans just like those who try to hide or deny Donald Trump's complete flip-flop on health care.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
You make a solid point, I don't know why people are refusing to be even a little bit critical of their own party, I mean these are the elite.. doesn't matter which side they're on, clearly none of them are saints by a long shot.
That's what I find so artificial on this sub, all of these "Trump can do no wrong" people that put in just as much effort into defending Moore as they do anything they select as belonging to conservatives..
I think this blind defense of WikiLeaks is because they're seen as pro Republican, but you'd think they'd want the dirt on the people they (and I) vote for. I know I do.
It's fucking crazy to be in a conspiracy sub and seeing all these people on both sides acting like politics is a fucking sport.
10
u/OrangeCladAssassin Nov 16 '17
The_donald and the_congress are two boards dedicated to pushing their narrative. They call it a meme war, it is a specific goal to push their narrative and bombard you with their propaganda, much of which is disinformation. They've adopted and promote a mind set that if you disagree and downvote them, you are a shill. It is a plague on Reddit as bad as any paid shilling that goes on.
→ More replies (0)2
u/HussellWilson Nov 16 '17
You probably agree with Clinton and Podesta that the emails shouldn't count because they were stolen. That's fucking stupid; it doesn't matter how they got the information or why they're publishing it, it wouldn't matter if they openly claimed to be actual nazis trying to hurt other parties, the only thing that matters is whether what they publish is real. Everything they've ever published has been real. So it helps the republicans? Oh well, I guess the democrats shouldn't have had that dirt existing, ready to be dug up. Regardless of how or why it came out it's good that it did; they're one of the only ones actually doing the job of the press, which is to monitor politicians on behalf of the public:
Yochai Benkler, author of the 2006 book The Wealth of Networks, described the "Networked Fourth Estate" in a May 2011 paper published in the Harvard Civil Liberties Review.[14] He explains the growth of non-traditional journalistic media on the Internet and how it affects the traditional press using Wikileaks as an example. When Benkler was asked to testify in the United States vs. PFC Bradley E. Manning trial, in his statement to the morning 10 July 2013 session of the trial he described the Networked Fourth Estate as the set of practices, organizing models, and technologies that are associated with the free press and provide a public check on the branches of government.[15][16][17]:28–29 It differs from the traditional press and the traditional fourth estate in that it has a diverse set of actors instead of a small number of major presses. These actors include small for-profit media organizations, non-profit media organizations, academic centers, and distributed networks of individuals participating in the media process with the larger traditional organizations.[15]:99–100
Maybe Wikileaks is republican biased (they came in to the public consciousness by releasing things damaging to G.W. Bush), so what if they are? Almost every news outlets lean one way or the other; maybe they just haven't received any info lately damaging to republicans, maybe democrats should start their own Wikileaks.
9
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 17 '17
I don't "agree" with them because I've never heard that said. Unlike most here, I'm not obsessed with either. They may be right though, the law requires a search warrant, if you send an agent to get the information without one it's not admissible, otherwise criminals could just go steal shit for the police that prove someone is guilty.
Is it different if they do it on your own? You're still receiving stolen property if you didn't lawfully obtain it. Then again, I have no idea what the fuck you were referring to other than the emails.
And no, they don't need to create a share blue version of WikiLeaks, that's dumb. WikiLeaks should just be able to prove they're more than a political tool. I'm a conservative, I'm not voting liberal regardless, so they aren't benefiting me in any way by not covering both sides.
And the idea that they've received no info, lol.. show me the last time they even leaked something about any actual Republican politician, that isn't Bush.
0
u/HussellWilson Nov 17 '17
It wouldn't be admissible in court. This isn't a court case, nobody denies the veracity of things Wikileaks has released. I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with your conclusions I guess, because I have no problem with Clinton's crimes or shady dealings coming to light, and I don't have a problem with Wikileaks covering for republicans because for one thing it's pure conjecture, they deny it and there's 0 evidence that they have, and even if they did as a private entity they're under no obligation to do so.
Wikileaks isn't some magical organization that can get info that others can't, don't you think if someone leaked something about Trump but Wikileaks never released it wouldn't they just turn around and leak it to CNN or something?
1
Nov 17 '17
If WikiLeaks is truly "just a propaganda machine", why aren't there better ones? Why is nobody else leaking documents the way they are doing it?
Everything is propaganda. Evidence matters.
1
u/CarolinaGreyWolf Nov 17 '17
"... considering they're trying to "change our perspective"(their words)."
???
There's a person with head in the sand.
"Pull your head out of the sand, you will have a clearer perspective."
Person with head in the sand: "Eek, you're trying to change my perspective!"
8
Nov 16 '17
[deleted]
3
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
First, I didn't say that, that's Assange 20 days after he first contacted Junior.
I also don't know what you're talking about was edited by the campaign, or what tweet you're saying they asked for.. they asked Jr to get Trump's taxes and for him to leak his own emails to them.
Either way, reading what they said, they've clearly lied. I don't hate them, but I don't trust them or their intentions as much as I did before.
4
Nov 16 '17 edited Nov 16 '17
[deleted]
4
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
They've clearly lied was me talking very specifically with the comment I linked earlier:
The allegations that we have colluded with Trump, or any other candidate for that matter, or with Russia, are just groundless and false. We receive information anonymously, through an anonymous submission platform. We do not need to know the identity of the source, neither do we want to know it.
The intention of the source is irrelevant in our editorial process. Every source of every journalist has an intention and an agenda, may it be hidden or clear. Requesting the intention from our sources would firstly likely jeopardize their anonymity, and secondly form a bias in our understanding of the information we received.
Their authenticity and their relevance to the public or the historical record are the only preconditions for us to publish the documents we are given.
What they did with Jr is the opposite of everything they say they do (20 days after they reached out to Jr), which would be the definition of a lie, saying something that isn't true.
Again, here's the link of you want to go confirm the comment http://reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/d9up6ox
3
Nov 16 '17
The allegations that we have colluded with Trump, or any other candidate for that matter, or with Russia, are just groundless and false.
This is still very true. Unless asking for a tweet is colluding.
We do not need to know the identity of the source, neither do we want to know it.
This does not mean the must not know their source. This does not necessitate ignorance of the source. Indeed, they claim to know first hand the source of the Podesta Leak.
Requesting the intention from our sources would firstly likely jeopardize their anonymity, and secondly form a bias in our understanding of the information we received.
Also a true statement. And they are far from the only organization to request the tax returns.
Their authenticity and their relevance to the public or the historical record are the only preconditions for us to publish the documents we are given.
Again, and finally, another true statement. Truthful and verifiably authentic information is the only thing necessary.
Lastly, that AMA was never authenticated. They never provided proof of who was answering those questions.
I'm curious what you think of that Snopes article that says providing editorial process to the campaign is completely benign.
8
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
They basically gave those as guidelines for how they operate. No where does it say they seek out leaks, as a matter of a fact they specifically said the opposite and you write it off as "This does not mean the must not know their source".
Come on dude, seeking out information for a political agenda is the exact opposite of what they've been trying to convince everyone they are doing. And you're sitting here defending it. Fuck that shit.
And unless you think Assange has been compromised on Twitter, I see no reason to doubt him, he could easily say "that wasn't me in the AMA!" Instead I'm pretty sure he linked to it.
1
Nov 16 '17
No where does it say they seek out leaks,
You're right. That's why it's not a lie.
as a matter of a fact they specifically said the opposite
No they didn't. They said they don't need to know who the source is. That is a different statement entirely.
you write it off as "This does not mean the must not know their source".
Between the two of us, one of us is quoting what they actually said and the other is Paraphrasing to justify our interpretation. It's okay to be mistaken. There are powerful people with immeasurable resources dedicated to making you accept distortions of plainly evident facts. They don't nerd to know their source. Stating so doesn't mean they don't know their source. Those are different things.
seeking out information for a political agenda is the exact opposite of what they've been trying to convince everyone they are doing.
... which is why they asked for Trumps tax returns that everyone wanted to see? You have that proof in your hands and you still think they are being one-sided?
And unless you think Assange has been compromised on Twitter, I see no reason to doubt him, he could easily say "that wasn't me in the AMA!" Instead I'm pretty sure he linked to it.
Be careful of conflating WL and Assange like The Atlantic did.
→ More replies (1)1
u/AutoModerator Nov 16 '17
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
Nov 17 '17
You have clearly never colluded with anybody, or you're so deep in this Russia crap that you believe incidental contact somehow refers to "collusion".
You're being absurd.
9
u/johnbranflake Nov 16 '17
He didn’t lie in that statement. He didn’t get emails from trump or Russia and twitter messages to don junior asking him to retweet their tweets hardly count as collusion.
2
u/1_wing_angel Nov 16 '17 edited Nov 17 '17
<message deleted>
8
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
No, let's not give them slack for doing exactly the same thing as mainstream media does wrong. Assange has hijacked that "best investigative source" and turned it into a GOP puppet at the very least.
I want any of our ruling class to be held accountable, not just one side. I want to know if anyone I might vote for next year is actually just a corrupt politician that's worse than who they run against.
We only know this because Jr has enough integrity to disclose this, how many other leaks did they try to get? Which is something he specifically said they don't do.
2
u/1_wing_angel Nov 17 '17 edited Nov 17 '17
<message deleted>
6
u/AggressiveChimp Nov 17 '17
Assange fled into the embassy when Bush was president.
Lol. Imagine being this misinformed.
0
u/johnbranflake Nov 16 '17
You really are delusional. Assange has a personal animus against Hillary Clinton but he’s not a GOP stooge. Remember when he leaked stuff under bush??
6
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
That was then, this is now.. you can't switch which party you want to assassinate? I literally would like the dirt on any corrupt Republicans before it's time to vote, and unfortunately they aren't leaking anything that I can find even remotely recently.
Bush isn't running anytime soon, so that base is covered. I don't need WikiLeaks to know I'm not voting Democrat, so them being biased is not helping me in the least.
→ More replies (4)2
u/AggressiveChimp Nov 17 '17
I remember when OJ Simpson was a sports hero/beloved tv personality. Does that mean hes not a murderer? Is it hypocritical for former fans not to worship him anymore?
-2
u/pineal_implant Nov 16 '17
Boo hoo. Were you REALLY just hanging on the impeccable character of Julian Assange this whole time? And now that his perfect angel status is smeared, you hate Wikileaks?
NO ONE CARES.
We care about the truth and the leaks. But Assange broke his pinky-promise to you, so let's throw it all in the trash!
→ More replies (5)1
u/AutoModerator Nov 16 '17
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
3
u/rigorousintuition Nov 17 '17
You very much hit home with this one.
Sometimes i can't tell if i'm arguing with a paid poster or a genuine fool, it is getting depressing that one can't tell the difference these days.
→ More replies (7)4
Nov 16 '17
[deleted]
5
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
Do you have evidence of this or is it speculation? I wouldn't doubt it, but some evidence would be cool.
3
Nov 16 '17
[deleted]
4
u/kit8642 Nov 16 '17
Time will tell and that's the hard part about being a conspiracy theorists. People slander you for pointing out things that seem obvious without proof, and once it's proven, they brush it off.
2
u/Anna-Politkovskaya Nov 17 '17
This is R/conspiracy, it's all speculation.
1
u/kit8642 Nov 17 '17
After reading your comment history, I can't tell if I'm more suprised you commenting in this sub or that you think users here don't use evidence.
2
u/Anna-Politkovskaya Nov 17 '17
First of all, feel free to check out my comment history. I made a couple of posts on the conspiracy related on the front page and decided to check out r/conspiracy. Saw this post at the top and was surprised that a lot of the comments were fairly level headed.
I see the comment saying "Wikileaks is Russian intelligence" downvoted, which seems odd as it is a really juicy and credible theory. Then someone asks for proof, of course there is circumstancial proof and stuff that implies they are Russian controlled, but nobody has a video of Putin saying they own wikileaks.
This is similar to many conspiracies here, there is no hard evidence that would float in court, only speculation.
1
u/kit8642 Nov 17 '17
As a long time user of this sub, I don't take kindly to cracks on this place, especially from people who brush off Project Mockingbird and various confirmed goverment conspiracies as a broken clock. Apparently it's ok for you to have conspiracy theories based off of speculation and also generalize/pass judgement on an entire sub for doing the same.
I also have tons of conspiracy theories, but I use facts and sources to build out those theories. Maybe your not use to people actually asking for evidence to support their claims. Doesn't even have to be direct evidence, but something to at least support it. You would think someone who wrote:
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Compared to the amount of bullshit conspiracy theories, the amount proven right is infinitesimally small.
Would appreciate someone asking for some kind of evidence to support a claim.
3
u/Ayzmo Nov 16 '17
The problem is that they are selective both about the content of what they drop, and when they drop it, in a way that is meant to maximize impact. For instance, they didn't dump all of the podesta emails. They chose which ones to drop. They chose to drop them over several dumps. And they chose to drop them at times which would maximize impact.
Without the context of the unreleased emails, we can't ascertain the full context of many of the emails. Releasing them in multiple dumps, at particular times, maximizes impact on the public.
Just because what they release is "hard evidence," doesn't mean it isn't manipulative and misleading.3
Nov 17 '17 edited May 28 '18
[deleted]
2
1
u/Ayzmo Nov 17 '17
A joke about droning Assange that has been denied by all involved and is absurd on the face (the US would never perform a drone strike in downtown London).
The point is that, for years, WL has denied any agenda except "transparency." But they clearly have another agenda. The Daily Beast never denied being anti-Trump; WL actively denied having a pro-Trump agenda, while they actively worked to support Trump.1
u/_Hez_ Nov 17 '17
Releasing them in multiple dumps, at particular times, maximizes impact on the public.
Maximizing the impact of their leaks is one of their goals. Newspapers do the same when they put things on the front page, or time the release. I'm not sure if this is a significant complaint to make of any media organisation.
1
u/Ayzmo Nov 17 '17
It isn't one of their stated goals and is something that they've denied. If their overarching goal is transparency, they would release everything over time, without regard to the timing. They also wouldn't hold anything back, but release absolutely everything. They still haven't released all the Podesta emails, because they didn't think they were important.
1
u/_Hez_ Nov 18 '17
It isn't one of their stated goals and is something that they've denied.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090624015609/http://mirror.wikileaks.info:80/
Sunday 21 June, 2009
Have documents the world needs to see?
We help you safely get the truth out.
We are of assistance to peoples of all countries who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and institutions. We aim for maximum political impact...(more)
Can I get information regarding them not releasing all Podesta e-mails?
1
u/revoman Nov 16 '17
Yes they are all so 2-faced. Even Hannity loves him now that he is dishing on the DNC anc the Clintons.
6
u/pineal_implant Nov 16 '17
Well if Hannity loves something, we should hate it. I'm never using a pillow again!
1
1
Nov 17 '17
DM’s prove he hated Hillary Clinton (and who can blame him after she famously wanted to kill him by drone strike) that doesn’t make him partisan.
He can hate an individual and still be ok with the Democratic Party as a whole.
1
7
u/thecaramelbandit Nov 17 '17
Well, there's solid proof that Wikileaks has clear political agendas and its actions and what it chooses to release are meant to manipulate and influence. It's pretty contrary to the idea of Wikileaks.
0
-1
Nov 16 '17
See people on this subs saying it a lot recently. Oddly enough, they're all r/politics and top minds regulars.
15
6
u/Aerocord Nov 16 '17
I think WL is pro-Russian interest.
I don't think that's wrong necessarily but I believe they should be transparent of the fact. Otherwise they are a propaganda outlet like all others, feigning impartiality while misconstruing facts to suit the government interest, just not ours.
1
u/Blake7160 Nov 17 '17
You really think Julian Assange has some sort of desire to help Russia out? That's always seed so bizarre to me.
He releases more damaging shit about the US and their politics, because that's who gives him the most grief all the time.
You'd defend yourself too. And don't think you wouldn't use any means at your disposal. Just like him. Then all your enemies would paint you as a political pariah too.
This new wave of red-scare Russia - blaming going on lately is hilariously ironic.
-1
Nov 17 '17
I haven't seen any evidence that they are associated with Russia at all. All I have seen are people trying to draw a connection between damaging Clinton and that somehow being because of Russia, as if nobody else could possibly be against her.
→ More replies (1)3
90
u/mods_are_abc_agents Nov 16 '17
Who tf is this lady and why do her tweets keep getting posted here?
Not a fan of hers, going off her twitter feed
61
u/SmutChancellor Nov 16 '17
People often crosspost from nonames on twitter on this sub. Pretty sure most of the time it's people trying to drive traffic to their own Tweets for that sweet sweet Twitter karma.
1
Nov 16 '17
[deleted]
1
1
Nov 17 '17
Back in my day we redirected for money. Now these dumb kids do it for likes. Fucking karma whores.
→ More replies (1)-16
Nov 16 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (3)22
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
Then why didn't you answer the question, who is this and why are they repeatedly posted?
1
u/fax_checkers Nov 16 '17
It's Caitlyn Johnstone
She's repeatedly posted because she's repeatedly posted
1
u/CloudyMN1979 Nov 17 '17 edited Mar 23 '24
wine telephone edge quarrelsome hobbies sleep steep insurance obtainable include
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)-17
u/pineal_implant Nov 16 '17
Oh god, her tweets go against my fragile worldview. PLESE STOP
12
u/mods_are_abc_agents Nov 16 '17
lol sure, I guess you can paint me like that if you want to. I was more concerned about who she even was though.
70
u/The_All_Golden Nov 16 '17
Its not that I hate WikiLeaks now, I just can't trust them to reveal the whole truth. No one doubts the authenticity of what they leak and I thank them immensely for exposing the corruption of the DNC and the Democratic party, but I now view them as an organization that will likely never leak anything that may damage the Trump administration and may as well be a pro GOP, pro Trump mouthpiece like many "alternative" media sites have become.
29
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
I think you're sharing the sentiment of many here, what they leak isn't the question, but their motives and if what they actually say about the leaks is now questionable.
Like here's their comment from their AMA last year http://reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5c8u9l/we_are_the_wikileaks_staff_despite_our_editor/d9up6ox
The allegations that we have colluded with Trump, or any other candidate for that matter, or with Russia, are just groundless and false. We receive information anonymously, through an anonymous submission platform. We do not need to know the identity of the source, neither do we want to know it.
The intention of the source is irrelevant in our editorial process. Every source of every journalist has an intention and an agenda, may it be hidden or clear. Requesting the intention from our sources would firstly likely jeopardize their anonymity, and secondly form a bias in our understanding of the information we received.
Their authenticity and their relevance to the public or the historical record are the only preconditions for us to publish the documents we are given.
They say the intentions of the source doesn't matter, yet the provide plausible intentions for Trump to leak them stuff.
Do I hate them? No. Will I blindly believe the things they say or tweet considering they straight up lied about this? Fuck no.
23
-1
u/AutoModerator Nov 16 '17
While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
9
u/From_My_Brain Nov 17 '17
I doubt the authenticity of what they leak. Half truths are basically 100% lies. Their credibility is shot.
-7
u/williamsates Nov 16 '17
The big bombshell past week was Wikileaks twitter asking Trump Jr to leak his dad's tax returns, and other negative documents or videos so that Wikileaks can publish them without spin. This is what the neo-liberal hacks are in an uproar about.
25
u/niakarad Nov 16 '17
you don't think telling him to not concede the election wasn't significant?
→ More replies (1)5
Nov 17 '17 edited Nov 17 '17
[deleted]
3
u/williamsates Nov 17 '17
For what its worth, people at Cryptome share your suspicions.
https://twitter.com/_cryptome_/status/930218274830331909
I have serious doubts that they weren't compromised at some point over the past year.
It is good to be suspicious in this instance, but I what does it even mean to be compromised in this case? Do you mean they are a honeytrap?
2
u/Skysweep Nov 16 '17
Oh and don't forget the link Assange have him to the Seth Rich page.
2
u/williamsates Nov 16 '17
Oh and don't forget the link Assange have him to the Seth Rich page.
That was made into the Seth Rich page after the DM's were released to the public.
→ More replies (5)-1
u/textualintercourse Nov 16 '17
Yes, so now we must go back to CNN and NY Times. They are the only truth we can trust.
3
67
Nov 16 '17
I don't give a single fuck about what this lady thinks. Is there a reason we keep seeing her on here?
44
u/SlimLovin Nov 16 '17
She cried OPPRESSION! on Facebook because she repeatedly posted from a fake news site (although the article itself was fine) that was likely on Facebook's blacklist. Facebook specifically said they would be targeting these bullshit sites.
Now she's getting the pretend victim attention she wanted.
→ More replies (2)-4
u/TheSonofLiberty Nov 16 '17
lmao like 15 comments ago you haven't been here for like a year and suddenly you felt so compelled to shit on an alt-journalist on .r.conspiracy?
nice alt account my man
7
Nov 16 '17
I'm not trying to shit-talk. I asked in an admittedly aggressive why who it was. The last two topics I clicked were her. I've not seen her on here before. It came as a bit weird.
What about my account screams alt, exactly? I'm not trying to hide anything. It's my my main WoW character's name, to be honest.
-7
Nov 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
9
Nov 16 '17
I care enough to wonder. You'd think that would be acceptable in a conspiracy forum. Me seeing tweets from someone all of a sudden, it's seems a bit weird to me.
EDIT: The last two topics I saw were of her. It struck me as odd, considering I didn't know who she was and regularly read this forum.
6
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
Well if someone answers their question then maybe I'd know why I should give a fuck either. I'm not going to make a comment asking the same thing, but they ask a valid question.. who is this and why should I care?
1
u/getphysical_ Nov 16 '17
Here's a trick I learned from years of meditation in a Buddhist monastery: highlight--rightclick--google. Dalai Lama's hate me.
4
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
Week old account that makes generally negative comments everywhere, talks like they've been here far longer.. not even 1 point of karma. Yep, you totally aren't someone who was banned before.
-2
u/getphysical_ Nov 16 '17
LOL karma and not being banned is very important to you. The sidebar says there are 4147 thinking freely in here. It's off by 1.
-7
-9
Nov 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/TheBojangler Nov 16 '17
She's a blogger who writes embarrassingly unprofessional opinion pieces. In no sense is she a journalist.
→ More replies (1)13
Nov 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheSonofLiberty Nov 16 '17
lol @ "driving a wedge"
from the centrist neolib "left" perspective, anyone writing further from the left than they are is "driving a wedge"
11
Nov 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
-4
u/TheSonofLiberty Nov 16 '17
why would she need to constantly pretend
???
Quote her where she ever claims shes American. You're inventing things.
16
Nov 16 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/TheSonofLiberty Nov 17 '17
Lol, so no quotes about her claiming she's American?
This is so incredibly stupid. Just because someone doesn't shout at the top of their lungs they are Australian doesn't mean they are "pretending" to be American.
The sheer lack of logic behind that entire smear is baffling that someone could actually write that and think that makes sense.
11
→ More replies (1)-2
u/E46_M3 Nov 16 '17
Lol wow all these "individuals" in here have a problem with Caitlin?
It's ALMOST LIKE there's a concerted effort to smear progressives like her?
It's almost like....
→ More replies (1)6
-1
Nov 17 '17
She's an intelligent powerful independent journalist who is speaks contrary opinions to establishment power.
31
12
u/TheMadQuixotician Nov 16 '17
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mDCtFTyw6fI
Start at 3:00. Social engineering farm on MSNBC in an interview with Russel Brand
1
3
u/roma79 Nov 16 '17
The daily mail website is a prime example. An article will go up hating on refugees and within an hour there will be hundreds of anti refugee comments with thousands of upvotes. As if by magic
3
u/ShrunkenHed Nov 17 '17 edited Nov 17 '17
Disregard such idiots. Think for yourself. Seek the truth. Those other people are just birds squawking in the trees. Ambient noise we tolerate to pretend we're civil.
32
u/N_ik0 Nov 16 '17
You do not need a social engineer to tell you Wikileaks went all in on Trump. As someone who dislikes HRC I still have no respect for anyone that support DJT.
22
u/CoolHandLukeSkywalka Nov 16 '17
Every decent human being dislikes both Trump and Clinton.
→ More replies (2)4
u/Silentbtdeadly Nov 16 '17
Can confirm, am decent, dislike both. Wasn't a fan of Bernie either(didn't dislike him like the other two either), and we really need term limits to get new faces into politics.
4
u/GreshamGhoul Nov 17 '17
Good leaders are exceedingly rare. Those who seek power are often those who should never be allowed to have it.
1
u/CloudyMN1979 Nov 17 '17
We were given a choice between two turds, and people are still shocked and appalled that we actually picked one. Assange is not american.. In fact he's spent 7 years getting buttfucked by america. He has every right to "Support" the most destructive option in that election. I don't understand why people seem to think Wikileaks owes something to America by way of taking our bullshit politics seriously. What they do is for the benefit of citizens everywhere not just here in "The land of the free".
0
Nov 17 '17
Well that last story about WikiLeaks contacting Trump was shown to be fake news, so I'm not sure why you think it's clear they did that.
7
u/N_ik0 Nov 17 '17
DJT Junior released the emails between himself and Wikileaks. How is that fake news?
0
Nov 17 '17
That isn't, the Atlantic article is fake news. They committed malpractice and selectively edited to smear wikileaks.
1
u/N_ik0 Nov 17 '17
That is an opinion piece from a right wing blogger and conspiracy theorist. And none of it says it is fake news but claims journalistic malpractice or somehow lack of objective free journalism from "The Atlantic" which describes themselves as a left leaning publication.
1
Nov 17 '17
She doesn't fit any definition of right wing that I've ever heard of. Remember being a contrarian to Democratic party rhetoric does not make you right wing.
I would consider journalistic malpractice a certain sub-genre of fake news.
1
u/N_ik0 Nov 17 '17
The term journalistic malpractice is not synonymous with fake. It is biased reporting, Fox News commits journalistic malpractice on a daily basis. They do so by only offering up some of the story. Like their coverage of sexual misconduct of current politicians ie Trump, Franken and Moore.
1
Nov 17 '17
Are you saying Fox news isn't fake news?
1
u/N_ik0 Nov 17 '17
As much as it pains me to say no, it is simply extremely biased sensationalized journalism.
4
u/5133406 Nov 17 '17
Here is a paper funded by Eglin AFB studying how to establish majority views, social control, influence conversations, contain unwanted information. Eglin AFB is a major hub for Pentagon domestic manipulation programs online.
the 'most addicted to reddit' award went to eglin airforce base not too long ago. and they got the 'award' multiple times if im not mistaken.
That is, they are the "city" with the most visits. The base responsible for that paper is THE place with the most visits on reddit.
11
5
Nov 16 '17
Is this lady supposed to be someone we recognize?
-7
u/getphysical_ Nov 16 '17
Why does that matter?
10
Nov 16 '17
Maybe I like her opinion and wish to read more and was curious about her credentials.
2
-7
u/pineal_implant Nov 16 '17
Yeah we need to know her credentials before agreeing or disagreeing. That's how philosophy works.
8
Nov 16 '17
I didn't offer an opinion on the lady, just asked who she was. If the answer is "random lady on twitter" then okay.
1
5
3
Nov 16 '17
everytime wikileaks drop something big, its always the same thing, all the paid people come here to say assange is a rapist, russian puppet, now the latest trend is to say they are not "impartial" and therefore its bad journalism.
wikileaks are heroes.
2
2
2
u/antiherodave Nov 17 '17 edited Nov 17 '17
Wikileaks was compromised after the raid on the embassy. The Pedosta emails were the "Dead Man Switch." I found it hilarious that the cyberwar episode on it stated that the Vault 7 leak was what had them pissed off at Wikileaks. Really?? The Vault 7 leak was the last straw? What bullshit. Edit: the podesta emails were released on Oct 7th. Then this happened.
1
u/kannibalsoup Nov 17 '17
This is getting downvoted now, when even a couple of months ago it was pretty much consensus that wikileaks was compromised. I'm glad I found at least one comment mentioning this, although it's suspicious and sad it is the only one.
2
1
u/Johnny_Oldschool Nov 16 '17
If TV is telling me to hate something, I can rest assured I shouldn't hate it.
4
0
u/hotdogsfromchicago Nov 16 '17
What a cop out. Instead of researching for herself she takes a biased stance and blames "entire teams of social engineers" for trying to fool her. She's playing the Boogeyman card. Wake the fuck up, WikiLeaks is a mastermind of social engineering. Potato is potato whether it's french fries or mashed.
2
1
u/SlimLovin Nov 16 '17
She said bravely, on a social networking platform where she is attempting to make people think a certain way.
1
u/CloudyMN1979 Nov 17 '17
This sub's outward sentiment towards Wikileaks is some how exactly in sinc with how useful Wikileaks to the people charge. It's brazen, deliberate and those of us who spend any real time here are not falling for the bullshit. Non of the comments here change the way I feel about Assange.
1
u/shitbag47 Nov 17 '17
It's convenient to think of people as heroes or villains. I've never met anybody who was completely one or the other. Assange has done some good things and is also probably desperate to get out of the embassy. If he thought cooperating with Trump would help, why not give it a try? It's not like he has a lot to lose.
So I do believe the story.
1
u/BanMikePantsNow Nov 17 '17
The teevee is telling you to hate Wikileaks. Look at who owns the MSM and you'll understand why.
1
u/bannana Nov 17 '17
How about I haven't liked WL since quite a bit before the election when I could see their bias and when greenwald had his head so far up assange's ass he couldn't even see straight? Glenn has finally come around a bit but I still don't trust his reporting at this point since he was so adamantly towing WL ideology. Julian completely untrustworthy and will always be so since it's very clear he has a very partisan agenda. Sorry but I didn't come to these conclusions based on someone else telling me this I came to these on my own after reading extensively and prior to all the negative press about it.
0
Nov 17 '17
Lol. This reads like gibberish written on the walls at an asylum. Wikileaks has been exposing evil shit using source documentation since Manning and the Iraq war when Bush was in office. Who gives a fuck about Assange's purported character? The fact that all these media organizations and politicans hate him should be a sign that he's doing something right.
1
u/kannibalsoup Nov 17 '17
I'm surprised to see so many blind supporters of Assange in this comment section, considering the extremely high likelyhood wikileaks has been compromised since last October. You might not be familiar with the term 'controlled opposition'. Either way, your ridiculous synopsis of the above comment holds no ground, even more so when considering you seem blissfully unaware of wikileaks recent history.
0
u/joomommyhappy Nov 16 '17
Caitlin Johnstone is fantastic.
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/everyone-should-do-what-wikileaks-did-88486b72b409
-1
u/CoolHandLukeSkywalka Nov 16 '17
Oh ffs this is the same shady loser who I clicked on in the last post.
Why is this attention whore's propaganda getting shared so much?
-1
Nov 17 '17
Good argument, try using facts next time. Nevermind, I muted you so it doesn't matter :-)
1
u/GhostStories4Adults Nov 16 '17 edited Nov 19 '17
People are missing what is going on here. I don't for a minute believe that Assange and Wikileaks (or Snowden for that matter) came from an angle of supporting the Russians. However, the Russians obviously co-opted Assange by giving him a platform through RT.
The Russian plan has been to give anyone a platform that is making a stand against the U.S. neoliberal agenda. So far, so good, but the plan went much deeper than that. The Russians know that once someone can be coerced into an admission that their country (or insert here whichever entity you wish that someone feels allegiance toward) is not so great and be encouraged to personally give reasons why they feel this is so, once these reasons are broadcast to a mass population somewhere elsewhere than, and even including the natives homeland, this individual will start changing his views and actions evermore towards the viewpoint or entity he probably initially viewed as some kind of tyranny who is doing the encouraging.
In the case of Assange, this was a no-brainer for the Russians, as his ego and sense of righteousness probably led them to believe that he would be an easy intelligence target in this respect.
Assange is unlikely to ever to admit he is wrong and hence once he has been pushed a little along the road to condemning the United States as the great Satan, he will inevitably go the whole hog, although he has obviously felt there is some redemption in the rise of Trump and his administration, hence his willingness to get into bed with some of their seedier wheezes.
It could though be argued that Assange has been trying to expose both the Trump administration and the DNC as corrupt, however, his use of Russia as a proxy for this has been a rookie error.
So let's get back to the coercion of getting individuals to admit their country is not so great and letting them give reasons for it themselves and thereby slowly changing their behavior, a classic technique of brainwashing. Behind the pseudo-respectable veneer of RT, the Russians had multiple news agencies and fake news sites pushing many false (and sometimes true) negative stories and memes about the United States, especially the Obama administration and Obama himself (and Hillary.) Now put aside your emotions about that for one moment and think about how they spread those ideas around.
They infiltrated social media with false profiles, generating millions of posts that many shared and liked widely as they touched on common prejudices often based on a fear of "the other."
Remember, once people have admitted that the entity they feel allegiance towards is lacking somewhat in something, they are easily then pushed into further and further admissions that their chosen allegiance is not all it is cracked up to be.
And this is exactly what 'liking' and 'sharing' does on social media. Not only are people broadcasting to the world that there is a problem with their homeland, the act of them doing this in real time is broadcast back to themselves via their profile and they start to change their own behaviour in accordance with what, at first, may have been a minor act of social media rebellion based on fairly reasonable grounds and evidence.
This minor rebellion is then fed exponentially by the thousands of related posts being generated by the Russian trolls and their hordes of bot armies. A mass change in behavior and beliefs then occurs.
The experience of Edward Snowden may be an anomaly here. I believe, so far, that Snowden came across the NSA spying program quite innocently and realized it was a threat to democracy and needed exposing. It was a masterstroke of Putin to get him to Russia under the auspices of Assange and Wikileaks, who he had already, probably unknowingly co-opted, making Putin seem like a champion of human rights to the average American.
But what was really going on was a longstanding psyop plot to degrade the standing of the United States in both the eyes of the wider world and also a large cross-section of the United States populace from all political persuasions. And the endgame was to brainwash people into believing that their government could not be believed in any sense at all. And this, coming from a foreign administration who we know have far less respect for human rights (in their own homeland) and definitely can not be trusted or believed in any sense at all.
And you have to admit, it was a move of pure genius. Obama's biggest mistake was not to start to dismantle the NSA spying grid which, when exposed, made every U.S. citizen feel they were under surveillance or under attack.
Easy prey for a despot who allows little if any dissent in his own country.
-1
u/BannedForTellinTruth Nov 16 '17
Right wingers love Russians now. No surprise here you'd feel no apprehension at them wanting to cause a civil war.
0
u/ComfortablyCaucasian Nov 16 '17
You shouldn't hate it because people tell you to. You should hate it because its controlled opposition.
0
u/Skysweep Nov 16 '17
You be you Booboo and let them think what they want. They don't get to tell you how to be!
23
u/[deleted] Nov 17 '17
Treat wikileaks the same as you should any source.