Author

Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 249. (Read 647062 times)

legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
November 09, 2016, 03:17:30 AM
controls which content it releases - Wikileaks cops a lot of criticism for its publication policy; no redactions, no curation. It can only release what it is sent, after verification. You assume it gets sent information and chooses not to release it. There is no evidence of this and the only reasoning would be relevancy.

I believe you are incorrect. Wikileaks does indeed selectively not release all information. It redacts to protect sources and also to protect people who they deem would be harmed unjustly by releasing covert, classified information. Assange has stated such.

This determination is not transparent.

Also someone is controlling what information Wikileaks receives via their control over those who have access to that information. Again go listen to that YouTube where the insider of the intelligence community says, "the emails we gave to Wikileaks".

Rothschilds wants you to believe that the information is mostly coming from rogue independent whistleblowers and that is the reason to champion Assange, Snowden, and Bradley in his MSM, but the real juicy stuff for this election came from the NSA and/or FBI.

Apologies, yes Wikileaks have seemingly offered to do some selective redaction, especially after the furore surround the Iraq War logs which I dont believe were redacted. There was some controversy over whether there was an offer to redact to protect sources etc but unsure if my memory is correct here. It is however the main point of contention between Snowden, Greenwald etc & Assange. The former both prefer curation and slow release while wikileaks prefers to dump and let the public decide what is newsworthy.

The second point may well be true but is another inception level down. Controlling what can be leaked to Wikileaks is one step removed but as long as the content is true then the source is secondary. I would guess much of the leaking is for revenge purposes / agenda control as much as public good. I imagine the powerplays between fbi nsa etc are intruiging, however many of wikileaks releases deal with corporations / foreign countries and are not US specific.


sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 09, 2016, 02:54:48 AM
Quote
controls which content it releases
- Wikileaks cops a lot of criticism for its publication policy; no redactions, no curation. It can only release what it is sent, after verification. You assume it gets sent information and chooses not to release it. There is no evidence of this and the only reasoning would be relevancy.

I believe you are incorrect. Wikileaks does indeed selectively not release all information. It redacts to protect sources and also to protect people who they deem would be harmed unjustly by releasing covert, classified information. Assange has stated such.

This determination is not transparent.

Also someone is controlling what information Wikileaks receives via their control over those who have access to that information. Again go listen to that YouTube where the insider of the intelligence community says, "the emails we gave to Wikileaks".

Rothschilds wants you to believe that the information is mostly coming from rogue independent whistleblowers and that is the reason to champion Assange, Snowden, and Bradley in his MSM, but the real juicy stuff for this election came from the NSA and/or FBI.
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
November 09, 2016, 02:52:50 AM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.

Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

assange is stuck in a 2 room embassy, to accuse him of being beholden to a group is grasping. wikileaks verifies and publishes; content is what matters not the source (be that hacker / foreign gov or domestic opponent). it could come from the lovechild of soros & rothschild or transgender chinese elvis - as long as the content is true, then source takes a background role. sort of like how bitcoin is the math and not dark market use.

Wikileaks also decides what to leak and what not to leak. It is not transparent.

None of your points amount to any form of logical rebuttal to the strong circumstantial evidence.

my main point is that it is the content that matters not the messenger.

And my point remains that by controlling which content it releases, when it releases, which content it doesn't source or release, is effectively control over what is contained in the content and its impact.

I don't know why that isn't obvious to you. It is crystal clear in my abstract processing engine.

It is amazes me when others can't instantly "see" what is obvious to me. I don't know what it is like to be so intellectually handicapped. It is so easy for me that I presume it is easy for others. I need to learn it is not easy for others.

I understand your point.

But I think you are making some assumptions.

controls which content it releases - Wikileaks cops a lot of criticism for its publication policy; no redactions, no curation. It can only release what it is sent, after verification. You assume it gets sent information and chooses not to release it. There is no evidence of this and the only reasoning would be relevancy.

obviously it chooses when to release the content it receives, the Podesta emails being a case in point, timed for the US election cycle.

if you want to arguing that choosing the timing for the release or having criteria for what they publish is control over the content, then fair enough, but I don't know of any evidence that highlights that they choose not to release verified information that fulfills their criteria as stated

"We publish material given to us if it is of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical importance and which has not been published elsewhere. When we have material that fulfills this criteria, we publish."
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 09, 2016, 02:08:51 AM
in other news, Armstrongs thesis on change in US elections spot on. Was first person I read saying an outsider will win.

I can confirm from reading his blog, that his computer predicted BREXIT and Republican victory months before the votes (and he claims his computer made these predictions many years before). I am really tired of this bullshit that says Armstrong's computer isn't legitimately able to predict the future. Armstrong says it is has never been wrong on a USA presidential election except for Gore (who actually won and the election was stolen with rigging in Florida which was later proven to be true).

As I predicted Trump has won due to turnout advantage, and I can make this determination early (as of now) because (with his 244 confirmed electoral votes as of time of writing) he leads in PA and the remaining 3% of the votes to be counted in PA are all in counties where he is getting 2/3 of the vote (or in Bucks county where Clinton doesn't get a significant majority).

The Dems only got CO because they allowed 60,000 felons to vote.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 09, 2016, 02:03:37 AM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.

Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

assange is stuck in a 2 room embassy, to accuse him of being beholden to a group is grasping. wikileaks verifies and publishes; content is what matters not the source (be that hacker / foreign gov or domestic opponent). it could come from the lovechild of soros & rothschild or transgender chinese elvis - as long as the content is true, then source takes a background role. sort of like how bitcoin is the math and not dark market use.

Wikileaks also decides what to leak and what not to leak. It is not transparent.

None of your points amount to any form of logical rebuttal to the strong circumstantial evidence.

my main point is that it is the content that matters not the messenger.

And my point remains that by controlling which content it releases, when it releases, which content it doesn't source or release, is effectively control over what is contained in the content and its impact.

I don't know why that isn't obvious to you. It is crystal clear in my abstract processing engine.

It is amazes me when others can't instantly "see" what is obvious to me. I don't know what it is like to be so intellectually handicapped. It is so easy for me that I presume it is easy for others. I need to learn it is not easy for others.
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
November 08, 2016, 11:37:09 PM
in other news, Armstrongs thesis on change in US elections spot on. Was first person I read saying an outsider will win.
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
November 08, 2016, 11:13:22 PM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.

Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

assange is stuck in a 2 room embassy, to accuse him of being beholden to a group is grasping. wikileaks verifies and publishes; content is what matters not the source (be that hacker / foreign gov or domestic opponent). it could come from the lovechild of soros & rothschild or transgender chinese elvis - as long as the content is true, then source takes a background role. sort of like how bitcoin is the math and not dark market use.

Wikileaks also decides what to leak and what not to leak. It is not transparent.

None of your points amount any form of logical rebuttal to the strong circumstantial evidence.

my main point is that it is the content that matters not the messenger.

wikileaks is not transparent in telling us what it receives & when- that would endanger sources.

but wikileaks have their track record. i dont know what they are sent or how they verify it but the content they have released has been 100% genuine. you are welcome to disprove that. you are basically pushing a line that is almost impossible to verify: they are being sent X (no evidence) but not releasing it (no evidence)

your evidence is circumstantial, and wikileaks has a public record of releasing information concerning a wide range of people & institutions.

there is of course the chance that Assange is corrupted but that seems to fly in the face of his track record. he is running perhaps the most combative and subversive outfit in history (ironically by publishing genuine documents).

i have no doubt that the elitist, behind the curtain types like Rothschilds, Soros etc attempt to sway everything they can to benefit them and their system - it is easily shown in places like Ukraine, the agenda of the MSM etc. but I don't find the Wikileaks is corrupted argument plausible.






sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 08, 2016, 07:33:20 PM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.

Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

assange is stuck in a 2 room embassy, to accuse him of being beholden to a group is grasping. wikileaks verifies and publishes; content is what matters not the source (be that hacker / foreign gov or domestic opponent). it could come from the lovechild of soros & rothschild or transgender chinese elvis - as long as the content is true, then source takes a background role. sort of like how bitcoin is the math and not dark market use.

Wikileaks also decides what to leak and what not to leak. It is not transparent.

None of your points amount any form of logical rebuttal to the strong circumstantial evidence.
newbie
Activity: 39
Merit: 0
November 08, 2016, 02:31:54 PM
Not sure if I've shared this here before, but here is the Monthly/Quarterly/Yearly Dollar Forecast Arrays:

https://i.imgur.com/imyv64o.png

2020 is the big year, most likely the peak in the Dollar, but by no means will the climb be a straight shot.

And here was his Portfolio recommendations he gave out at his 2015 WEC conference, as well as his thoughts on how his recommendations might shift going into Jan 2017:

https://i.imgur.com/YblxNKy.png
https://i.imgur.com/R8fih8c.png

Unfortunately I can't afford to go to his WEC this year, as I have most of my liquid capital tied up in a frivolous legal battle. Long story...

Here's what the monthly array looks like on the S&P 500 (trader preview):
https://i.imgur.com/yZDozuy.png

January is an important month...
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
November 08, 2016, 11:24:41 AM


This image says it all.

Lady Gaga addressing Hitlery crowd last night.



Edit. Not surprised, here is the link to Lady Gaga practicing Satanic rituals with that spirit cooking witch

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5b6nkj/nsfw_lady_gaga_naked_with_spirit_cooking_witch/?st=iv9o5m62&sh=09054b82
legendary
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
November 08, 2016, 10:14:38 AM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.

Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

assange is stuck in a 2 room embassy, to accuse him of being beholden to a group is grasping. wikileaks verifies and publishes; content is what matters not the source (be that hacker / foreign gov or domestic opponent). it could come from the lovechild of soros & rothschild or transgender chinese elvis - as long as the content is true, then source takes a background role. sort of like how bitcoin is the math and not dark market use.
legendary
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
November 07, 2016, 11:18:10 PM
Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

And one of the Rothschilds clan providing bail for Assange and Assange living in a Rothschilds' clan abode in the UK before being forced into the Ecuador embassy.


The Rothschilds are rich enough, and probably smart enough, to better their tracks, I believe they (French branch) had to hide/run away from the Germans in WWII.  Or perhaps they don't care if some of their works are somewhat visible (the Clintons don't seem to be bothered with many of THEIR misdeeds being in public domain).

Many, many years ago I had the opportunity to meet a Rothschild banker (not an R, met an underling) at one of their banks in Europe.  My wife even met one in London back around 1980, he was a nearby neighbor of the people she was living with (she was an au pair at that time).  That girl (who became my wife) had no idea who he was...


Thenoticer

Ha ha, great graphic.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 07, 2016, 07:45:14 PM



Thought iamnotback would appreciate this one.

They forgot "Now showing in your MSM". Other than that, yes I view the entire operation as a grand cinematic diversion to dumb down brain stems and inciting the populace to fight each other conquer-and-divide.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 07, 2016, 07:41:55 PM
Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?

And one of the Rothschilds clan providing bail for Assange and Assange living in a Rothschilds' clan abode in the UK before being forced into the Ecuador embassy.
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
November 07, 2016, 11:27:13 AM



Thought iamnotback would appreciate this one.
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
November 07, 2016, 11:19:30 AM
Government Workers Now Outnumber Manufacturing Workers by 9,932,000





Federal, state and local government employed 22,213,000 people in August, while the manufacturing sector employed 12,281,000.

The BLS has published seasonally-adjusted month-by-month employment data for both government and manufacturing going back to 1939. For half a century—from January 1939 through July 1989—manufacturing employment always exceeded government employment in the United States, according to these numbers.

Then, in August 1989, the seasonally-adjusted employment numbers for government exceeded the employment numbers for manufacturing for the first time. That month, manufacturing employed 17,964,000 and government employed 17,989,000.


Read more at http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/government-workers-now-outnumber-manufacturing-workers-9932000.


Cool

Nothing to see here. Except alot of people sucking on a teet
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
November 07, 2016, 10:17:06 AM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.

Are there additional data points that point to Rothchild, besides wikileaks using the same lawyer as Rothchild and the proximity of Assange to these people?
sr. member
Activity: 332
Merit: 250
November 07, 2016, 10:13:51 AM
Has Hillary Clinton arleady ushered in a new dark age?

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/north_america/2016-u-s-presidential-election/terabytes-of-clinton-documents-have-vanished-from-national-archive-presumed-stolen/

Add in all of her emails she tried to destroy.

Result equals bannana republic

She is literaly deleting all evidence of her amazing public service exerience that some people keep touting makes her more qualified and going down the orwelian path of rewriting her own history.

Atleast when you make a deal with the devil (spirit cooking etc)he takes more then you bargained for, aka her parkinsons disease.
sr. member
Activity: 336
Merit: 265
November 07, 2016, 07:51:18 AM

Note in case anyone didn't realize, Martin Armstrong totally screwed up his fact checking again. The above linked Armstrong blog refers a The New Yorker satire.

That doesn't change the point that Rothschilds is masterfully employing his control over the mass media both in traditional forms and Wikileaks, to accomplish this chaos.
Jump to: