3 votes

Julian Assange meeting with CFR & Bilderberg members

I found link for a bizzare meeting that took place in 2011 between Julian Assange & Bilderberger Eric Schmidt & CFR member Jared Cohen (both with Google).

I was flabbergasted that such a meeting even took place & of course hadn't heard of it thru any mainstream or even alternative media.

Discussion in this meeting covered various topics:

Information production & transmission
Information brokering
Information retrieval

Privacy & anonymity issues related to all of above

Wikileaks architecture related to above

Cryptocurrencies - in particular Bitcoin & monetary issues related to it.

Direct audio for this long meeting is here:


Full text transcript is here:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.


As your link says, Eric Schimdt requested the meeting for his book-


And the CFR executive that was there was Schimdt's girlfriend at the time.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

JFK meets with Khrushchev...

...therefore he is a communist puppet.

False analogy

Extremely poor analogy, try again.

Key words: adversaries & negotiation

Prior to going into meeting w/ Krushchev, Kennedy clearly knew he was dealing with scum adversaries & in negotiation.

Did you even bother looking at this Assange - Google meeting transcript or listen to it? There is clearly no indication that he thinks he's talking to the bad guys or there is any negotiation being done. (Except for very mild suggestion @ the end by Eric Schmidt that he'll talk with Google lawyers about Assange-Wikileaks request to ignore unconstitutional FISA court orders & honor 1st amendment. All of which didn't amount to a hill of beans, and I surely feel Assange should have known it in his gut anyway.)

For all the work being done by Assange exposing multiple coroprate corruptions like Bank of America, and whatever name Swiss bank: I find it hard to believe he didn't know from which side of fence Google scumbags were coming from, and only needed to offer clarification about the meeting post-NSA.

Unlike some other posters above, I'm not willing to throw Assange under the bus, due to track record of his good work. All I'm saying is that, knowledge about this meeting makes my head spin.

There probably are no black-or-white clearcut demarcations here, lots of shades of gray.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!

Or maybe he met with Google execs

Your post is misleading. There are thousands of people who are "members" of the CFR and hundreds of people who have attended Bildeberg. A lot of these people also happen to be leaders in business and government. I can play the 6 degrees of separation with just about anyone in the limelight in this way. This is a highly disingenuous post.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

The CFR isn't a good thing

to be associated with.
The meddling of the original CFR, after WW1 led directly to WW2, as they designed it to. The CFR was instrumental in the treaty of Versailles, which went on to steal a large portion of Germany, bought percussion to the native Germans that suddenly found themselves living in "Poland", broke a country and bought suffering and pain to millions of German Citizens.
These people are thieves and meddlers who constantly stick their poky noses into other Nations Business.
The should be disbanded and stripped of the wealth they have stolen.

Eric Schmidt strikes me as a


Was really gutted

when I became suspicious of Julian Assange and wikileaks.
He was to me, a hero, a person who wanted to put the truth "out there", change the world, wake the people, take risks……now I think he is a CIA (and probably others) asset, and that Wikileaks is an information filtration center.

Whether he is positive CIA or what, Wikileaks is not grassroots.

I think that proves Wikileaks was never grassroots, is the bottom line. The operation was definitely CIA run.

Then there was the second half of Wikileaks that split off, who felt like Assange's ego was getting too large and hectic for them. Whatever the reasons, that newly made half of Wikileaks was ran by grassroots.

No, wikileaks is very grassroots. You know who isn't grassroots?

You paid shills who attempt 24/7 to manufacture a viewpoint prepared by the establishment. You post on an activism-oriented site with nothing but criticism for all other anti-establishment actors, be it Greenwald or even Assange--despite the fact that both have been welcome guests on Dr. Paul's own web channel. You make the same asinine arguments about both that appear on MSM. By the very nature of the necessity of your presence here, you all are defaultly the chumps.

Dr. Paul...

...has no way of knowing for certain that Greenwald, Snowden and/or Assange aren't puppets. He has to avoid looking like a conspiracy theorist, which means he has to have irrefutable proof, unlike some of us. Also, since these people appear, on the surface, to be heroes to so many people, and that their contributions—again, on the surface—fit nicely with what he's been saying for decades, wouldn't it be wise to use them to bring people over to our side?

Also, just because Assange had a meeting with Google representatives who happen to be "club members" doesn't mean he initiated it or that he's in cahoots with them. If someone that can help me with something important to me wants to meet with me, I'd do it too. Doesn't mean I know that the person is a CIA operative and sure as Hell doesn't mean I'd participate in their nefarious cause.

On the other hand, we don't know that these guys (Snowden, Greenwald, Assange) are NOT assets. To be absolutely sure about any of this is naive. There's just not enough evidence.

Work for pay, pay for freedom
Fuck 'em all, we don't need 'em

So Paul sought out Assange and Greenwald

To "avoid looking like a conspiracy theorist"? Except, virtually no one believes Assange or Greenwald or Snowden are in it with the CIA. That's an manufactured viewpoint that only trolls push--you're projecting your paranoia about Assange and Greenwald onto Paul, claiming he would have them on in spite of any suspicions because he needs to appear mainstream. But when it comes down to it, you're essentially saying Ron Paul is a dupe. Yeah, that'll go over real well here.

Nice try though.

Why does it have to be manufactured?

All through history, people, organisations, senates, and governments have been infiltrated and used to bring about an agenda or outcome for an opposing party, organisation, or industry.
The globe and her assets are being fought for like at no other time in history, we have been warned for a long, long time that we are heading for a One World Government, a New World Order.
Some people can join-the-dots, taking lessons from history, picking up past patterns and operation styles.
Sure, sometimes they, (me) get it out right wrong, miss the mark, but more often than not, history will plainly show us the future.
I have never been comfortable with Glenn Greenwald, because history shows us that when the same party is involved in the release of "bad news", then goes on to "fix" the problem, it is always bad for the citizens.
Case in point, after 9/11 the "people" wanted to be safe from terrorists, and called on the very Government who perpetrated the "terror" in the first place, so, for your "protection" you got the Patriot Act, the TSA, the NSA, gun control, loss of civil liberties, and loss of personal freedoms.
For arguments sake, what if GG and ES are being USED to bring the control of the internet into the control of the UN, and this plan works. Then what? We will all be much, much poorer for it.
Remember that 1000's of people worked on The Manhattan Project, and almost NONE of them knew they were building the most evil, destructive weapon the world has ever seen.
To be part of a conspiracy doesn't mean you are in the loop.

Is it grassroots,

or has it under gone a make over because too many people became suspicious of it?

In my opinion that shows collusion between Assange....

And other nefarious elements, not necessarily Wikileaks.

I always felt that the Assange-led half of Wikileaks was just a ruse, a CIA disinformation campaign. Whether that CIA campaign was by positive or nefarious forces, it was still CIA.

While the rest of Wikileaks may be legitimate since they never toed the line of Assange. And that other half of Wikileaks did not stop publishing docs when Paypal went after them, nor did they give into intimidation tactics. So for me, Wikileaks has always been half and half at best.


Note that above bizzare meeting is 2011, way before NSA disclosures.

To be fair, here is later article in which Assange claims to take Google to the woodsheds:


Here's from horse's mouth:

Back in 2011 I had a meeting with Eric Schmidt, the then Chairman of Google, who came out to see me with three other people while I was under house arrest. You might suppose that coming to see me was gesture that he and the other big boys at Google were secretly on our side: that they support what we at WikiLeaks are struggling for: justice, government transparency, and privacy for individuals. But that would be a false supposition. Their agenda was much more complex, and as we found out, was inextricable from that of the US State Department. The full transcript of our meeting is available online through the WikiLeaks website.

That visit from Google while I was under house arrest was, as it turns out, an unofficial visit from the State Department. Just consider the people who accompanied Schmidt on that visit: his girlfriend Lisa Shields, Vice President for Communications at the CFR; Scott Malcolmson, former senior State Department advisor; and Jared Cohen, advisor to both Hillary Clinton and Condoleezza Rice, a kind of Generation Y Kissinger figure — a noisy Quiet American as the author Graham Greene might have put it.

That Google was taking NSA money in exchange for handing over people’s data comes as no surprise. When Google encountered the big bad world, Google itself got big and bad.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!

So it still looks like Assange was CIA...

Whether he was positive CIA or not, whatever Assange was doing at the time wasn't truly 'grassroots' is the signal I get.

Why else would the State Department go to "HIM" alone and not his legal team, why single one person out?

Maybe he was trying to get out from under their pressure, and the lone-wolf version of Wikileaks he crafted was a way of getting back at them. It still doesn't explain why he kept inviting Schmidt back, as if there wasn't a worse globalist scumbag at the time than Eric Schmidt.

Can't personally comment

Unfortunately, I'm not personally in a position to make such call. Not necessarily agreeing or refuting you.

All I know is such Assange - Google technical conversations stuff, along with recent Glenn Greenwald - Pierre Omidyar controversy is making my head spin.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!

Maybe you need

a spin doctor. :)