Nimrod’s Tool: Assange and the Reflexive Chaos of the Soros Empire

“I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do.” –George Soros

In the Hebrew Bible, Nimrod was the son of Kush, and the great-grandson of Noah. Though everyone else had been wiped out by flood, Nimrod was said to be a king in Shinar, which would be in the fertile alluvial plain of Iraq, if I understand correctly. There must have been a population explosion somewhere along the way? We’ll go with it…we need lots of people in this story because those would be the people who, on Nimrod’s commission, constructed the Tower of Babel.

Yahweh is said to have observed this tower, reaching into the sky, and threw the people into chaos by confounding their speech. The confused residents could no longer communicate, which destroyed the value of their home as a place where people dwelled in cooperative prosperity. This resulted in a diaspora as people had to find other lands and make more babies with whom they could share their own speech/language.

A parallel tale is told in both Greek and Roman mythology, which was rendered to text in Ovid’s Metamorphoses, a fact that chills my spine, just a bit. To this day, we colloquially refer to somebody who accumulates power only to use it foolishly, with disastrous consequences, as a Nimrod.

Is George Soros the Nimrod of our era?

No. Soros seems to believe himself to be the higher power, or at least an alien in metaxy, aiming himself at the Tower of Babel. Except the difference between Yahweh of the Old Testament and Soros is that Soros can measure his operational success in dollars. I can’t speak for Yahweh’s motivations, aside from the scripture where he seeks to punish hubris. I’ll go with punishing hubris. Seems like a credible motivation for a wrathful Old Testament God.

Those who want to understand Soros more completely may now want to take the time to listen to James Lindsay break down Soros’s alchemy of reflexivity. Richard Pope’s hypothesis on Soros as a construct of the British Empire is also worth soaking up—particularly in light of the common theme of color revolutions.

Next, we can move forward assuming that you’ve rolled your eyes appropriately at the Anti-defamation League’s (ADL) pressurized suggestion that any critique of Soros is motivated by general ill will toward semitic people (some of whom are Jewish)—a suggestion so stupid that one must wonder if the ADL is not set up to protect Jews, but to provide billionaires of questionable motivations or behavior with humanitarian shielding.

Since this is approximately as absurd as saying that an attack on Fauci is an attack on Science, I’ll move on…

Now, let us examine the connections between Soros and Assange while assuming that my limited research time may not be sufficient to unearth all of them. While Soros’s Open Society Foundation (OSF) does not seem to have directly funded Wikileaks or Assange, the OSF poured millions into organizations that did—sometimes in concert with government funding. Before detailing these financial ties, we should note that the OSF is named/inspired by Karl Popper’s book The Open Society and its Enemies. Given that Popper advocated for peaceful democracy, pushed back against moral degeneracy, and lamented Platonic (and Theosophical) philosophy as motivated out of chaos, we might construe this to be something between “misdirection” and “a sick joke.” However, Popper did seem to favor social engineering.

The current President of the OSF is British diplomat Baron Mark Malloch-Brown. Malloch-Brown has served as Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations where he handled the Oil-for-Food Programme, Vice President for External Affairs at the World Bank, and an election campaign expert whose work on the 1986 election in the Philippines might be described as “regime change engineering” and whose online profile as Chairman of electronic voting machine maker Smartmatic disappeared after the 2020 U.S. elections.

Pro tip: If you find yourself wondering, “Who is working with/against whom?” [anytime or] while reading this article, shift away from the illusion of partisanship and ask, “Who is working to engineer chaos [at the Tower of Babel]?”

Also, follow the money. The OSF funds or funded the following organizations that fund or funded Wikileaks:

• The Center for Investigative Journalism (CIJ) is based at the School of Journalism at Goldsmiths’ College, which was established by one of the twelve Livery Companies (medieval guilds turned Crown corporations) at the City of London. This is one of the few places where you can earn a graduate degree in occult magic (as advertised by The Guardian). Now deceased WikiLeaks Director Gavin MacFadyen founded the CIJ in 2003 after which it attracted funding from Goldsmiths, the University of London, the Ford Foundation, the Potter Foundation (money from the London computing giant Psion), the OSF, and others. In 2009, the CIJ helped form the Bureau for Investigative Journalism (TBIJ) in London, which works hand-in-hand, as MacFadyen often did, with the BBC. MacFadyen produced many documentaries on topics in American history that appear on the surface as critical, but, as with the Tobacco Master Settlement, look more like managed protection in hindsight.

• Nawaat bills itself as an “independent” collective blog despite being heavily promoted by Google and EFF while being funded by a long list of power players that includes the OSF. Google News Initiative? SouthSouthNorth? Voices for Just Climate Action?
• Privacy International (PI) is the sort of name you can’t hate, assuming you’re the sort of person who assumes that “charities” promoting “rights” are acting in the benefit of somebody other than “the usual suspects among power players.” The London-based organization was founded by a London School of Economics director and fellow lauded by the EFF. Much of their messaging is framed in terms of the UN’s human rights declaration. PI has been funded by the OSF, the Ford Foundation, the Red Cross, Mozilla Foundation, and others.
• CIPER is a “nonprofit” alternative media digital journalism organization. CIPER and similar organizations are often created by journalists of aligned ideology who then go straight to the OSF to ask for funding—because they know they will receive it.
• Transparency Toolkit is another name that sounds like a fuzzy kitten you just want to cuddle. The fact that terrorist organizations don’t use names like this lets you know exactly how you’re being manipulated. Transparency Toolkit is funded by OSF and a long list of government organizations that definitely want the world to be more transparent. They promise!

This is why we need betting markets, broadly: I’d like to know the odds of a significant file release (leak) on the CIA’s relationship with George Soros. Ahem.

Note that I had to search through dozens of articles beyond Wikipedia to track down evidence of some of these funding associations, despite these relationships being at least newsworthy in a world in which Soros is pretty upfront about wanting to manipulate elections and the directions of governments.

Attributes of these organizations that suggest alignment with globalist and United Nations goals:

• Ford Foundation funding,
• (Mostly Western) government funding,
• Consistent reference to the UN’s declaration on human rights [largely crafted and promoted by families that profited from drug trafficking and war making],
• Luminate funding, which is itself funded by the Omidyar Group,
• Constant references to “climate change.”
• Constant references to “sustainable development.”

None of this strongly suggests anything like Wikileaks working for George Soros. What it does mean is that Soros likely understands the work Wikileaks is doing, and wants to support it. This is why it is important to understand how Soros works to support chaos that aligns with his interests.

A discerning reader might just ask if these organizations provide a credible honey trap for whistleblowers not aligned with the Anglo-British Globalist Empire.

Reminder: General Wesley Clark spoke pretty plainly after 9/11 about U.S. plans to redraw the map of the Middle East and Africa. If the connection is “Arab nations”, then we are talking about North Africa. It would be naive not to connect this to the Arab Spring.

Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, finishing off with Iran. What’s an extra nation or few along the way, if the clustering achieves the primary goal? There are more than seven nations whose siphon pumps to the IMF and World Bank can be rewired, right? Or is the largest goal to change regimes into those loyal to the UN-centric NWO initiative? Or do they feed into one another?

We have a model fit between these plans and the actions of Wikileaks in Africa.

Wikileaks played an interesting role in the Arab Spring (in North Africa) that looks uniquely sculpted, but only possible for a player working with, but designed not to look like intelligence. Before the Arab Spring…just before…was the Tunisian Revolution. But even before that, we should talk about the riots that began in Kenya in late 2007.

From what I’ve gathered, most people with strong opinions about Wikileaks are unfamiliar with its roots in Kenya. The Wikileaks.org domain was registered to ‘John Shipton’ in Nairobi in October 2006. John Shipton is Assange’s father whose role in the Wikileaks story is generally obscured. Interestingly, Wikileaks shared a P.O. Box and address with Mars Group Kenya, an organization partly funded by the UK’s Department for International Development. Mars Group Kenya founder Murithi Mutiga now serves as Program Director, Africa for the International Crisis Group, a Soros-funded NGO.

In August 2007, Wikileaks made its first waves when it published the Kroll Report, a dubious set of documents that had been secretly held for several years (before the existence of Wikileaks). Kroll Associates UK Limited is a private intelligence firm headquartered in London. The report made allegations of corruption and fraud, but were ultimately published with unexplained gaps, and without fact checking. Many journalists complained that ordinary journalist ethics had been bypassed.

But the report had a chaotic impact on Kenya. Some “mainstream” sources piled on the leak with statements of “perception” about election fraud that cast blame in the direction of both major political blocs, but still with no proof more solid than a U.S.-funded exit poll. Fighting broke out all over the nation with more than 1100 people losing their lives, thousands injured, tortured, or raped, and 600,000 more displaced. Assange sees the crisis as an advertisement about how Wikileaks changed the result of an election.

We may next note that the U.S. supported the incumbent candidate, while the UK supported the challenger. As Richard Pope reported, the OFS funded some of the protest activities. Is this politics over who will control what share of the world when the “stakeholders” set up the next global financial era?

I’ll stop here and wonder aloud—were I a powerful organization like Google that wanted to express power in the form of nudges and controlled alignment or misalignment of action potential in order to induce regime change, would I want to test that power myself, or run a proof of concept through an organization managed by a technical mind distant enough for plausible deniability?

Assange’s friendly nemesis, Pieter Zaitko, might be the right link to examine. Zaitko and Assange were well acquainted in the hacker community. And while Assange worked for NASA, Los Alamos, and Sematech, Zaitko worked with DARPA and Google, specifically on countermeasures to the sort of operations Assange had begun managing through Wikileaks. For that service, Zaitko was awarded the Order of Tor by military intelligence. This seems like precisely the sort of relationship chain that U.S. intelligence would foster in order to gain practical knowledge of technical information warfare. This fits with the funding of Assange’s education, which wound its way into Harvard.

When chaos broke out through more North African nations, Google elevated marketing executive Wael Ghonim to be the publicized hero, shifting eyes away from Assange for a time. Ghonim played down talk of what can be summarized as “revolution by social media,” which might raise more questions from the public about the powers held by Big Tech behemoths [and their visible or invisible partner arms].

During these early years of Wikileaks, whether in support or debate of Wikileaks, Google undoubtedly raised the profile of both Wikileaks and Assange. Despite the existence of a large hacking/hacktivist community, in a rapidly changing world with new young all-stars emerging all the time, Google focused on Assange and CEO Eric Schmidt took the time to meet with him—the transcript of which was famously leaked. Schmidt also wrote Assange’s New York Times (NYT), and clumsily co-authored the story about Assange being a Russian asset. Because Schmitt definitely doesn’t have more important things to do with his time. The NYT also gave Assange a great deal of attention, and no attention is bad attention in the media game—so long as the story never gets too deeply dissected.

Finally, let’s take a look at Soros investments during the Plandemonium.

Alphabet Inc. (Google) currently sits atop Soros’s portfolio. GOOG more than tripled in price over the past five years, and Soros is piling more cash into the Big Tech firm that definitely doesn’t sell or profit from the ability to destabilize nations with information warfare. Definitely not. Nobody is saying that. Nobody thinks that. Why would anything even suspect that?

One way or another, GOOG outperformed the broader markets over the past five years.

Lots of supporting links here: https://roundingtheearth.substack.com/p/nimrods-tool-assange-and-the-reflexive