Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land.

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Apr 16, 2019 8:36 am

Julia Davis

#Russia's state TV: Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova, is appalled at those who say that Julian #Assange is not a journalist.
Zakharova asserts that Assange worked as a journalist for Russia Today (RT).

An interesting take from the Foreign Affairs Ministry.

Yet Assange put out a document saying that it's false and defamatory to say that he worked for RT. ... wikileaks/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby stickdog99 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:47 pm

Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

I mean, some of my best friends have worked for RT and Al Jazeera.

(because those are the only media outlets that will air their non-centrist views)
Posts: 4522
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby RocketMan » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:53 pm

The idea that Assange's days during the last seven years were filled with leisure, free time and fun is grotesque. And also a part of the project of dehumanizing him.

In fact, seven years in PRISON would probably have been easier, as there is exercise and sunlight and proper medical care. ... perty.html

Assange Arrest - Part 1: 'So Now He's Our Property'

If 'journalism' meant what it is supposed to mean– acting as the proverbial 'fourth estate' to challenge power and to keep the public informed – then Julian Assange and WikiLeaks would be universally lauded as paragons. So would Chelsea Manning, the brave former US Army whistleblower who passed on to WikiLeaks more than 700,000 confidential US State Department and Pentagon documents, videos and diplomatic cables about the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The most infamous example was 'Collateral Murder', a video clip filmed from a US helicopter gunship, showing the indiscriminate killing of a dozen or more Iraqi civilians, including two Reuters journalists, in 2007. Shockwaves reverberated around the world, to the deep embarrassment of the US government and military. Today, Manning is incarcerated in a Virginia jail, and Assange is locked up in the high-security HM Prison Belmarsh.

In 2013, Manning was given a 35-year prison sentence for daring to reveal brutal US abuses of power. This was commuted by President Barack Obama in 2017, two days before he left office, and Manning was able to go free. However, last month she was called to testify against WikiLeaks before a secret grand jury in Virginia. Recognising that this had clearly been set as a trap to incriminate both her and Assange, she refused to answer questions:

'I will not participate in a secret process that I morally object to, particularly one that has been used to entrap and persecute activists for protected political speech.'

And now Assange, after almost seven years of political asylum in cramped quarters in Ecuador's embassy in London, and in fading health, has been literally dragged out of what should have been a safe refuge, contrary to international law, and placed at the mercy of UK and US power.

Sean Love, a medical doctor who examined Assange while he was in the embassy, was clear that the WikiLeaks co-founder had suffered badly while in asylum, and would carry that suffering with him for the rest of his life:

'Assange does not leave behind the physical and psychological sequelae of his confinement at the embassy. The harms follow him; they are irreparable. The inhumanity of his treatment and the flagrant denials of his universal rights by Ecuador and the UK are unconscionable.'

He also countered the scurrilous propaganda that Assange had behaved badly while in the embassy:

'Never did I witness Assange having poor hygiene or discourteous behavior toward embassy staff. His suffering was readily apparent, yet he was always pleasant, professional; admirable characteristics under extreme and punitive circumstances.'

Fidel Narvaez, former consul at the Ecuador embassy from the first day Assange arrived, on 19 June 2012, until 15 July 2018, said that the claims smearing Assange's behaviour in the embassy were 'absolutely false, or distorted, or exaggerated'. Narvaez added that:

'whenever I was in the room with Julian, there was always an attitude of respect, of mutal respect, always, from all the diplomatic and administrative staff towards Julian and from Julian towards them... I challenge any member of the embassy staff to cite an occasion when Julian ever - ever! - treated them with a lack of respect.'

Narvaez says the atmosphere may well have changed after he left when, he believes, Moreno's regime tried to make life 'unbearable' for Assange in the embassy.
Last edited by RocketMan on Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Apr 16, 2019 12:57 pm

stickdog99 » Tue Apr 16, 2019 11:47 am wrote:Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course.

I mean, some of my best friends have worked for RT and Al Jazeera.

(because those are the only media outlets that will air their non-centrist views)

I link to Al Jazeera all the time

I agree with you but I'm not sure who to believe Assange or Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Maria Zakharova...well actually I tend to believe Assange on this one ...wondering why Maria gotta say that

It is false and defamatory to suggest that WikiLeaks “works with RT” or “works with Russian State media” [in fact, only once, for one publication in 2012, was RT part of a consortium of nearly two dozen re-publishers of WikiLeaks’ series on the private surveillance industry, the SpyFiles].

here is a working YT
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:08 pm


“Yesterday’s report proved (Assange) is a monster, not a journalist, and I hope that’s not lost in the ongoing debate around his recent arrest.”

On Sunday evening, the Washington Times published a lengthy retraction and apology

Pro-Trump Conspiracy Peddler Jerome Corsi Apologizes to Seth Rich’s Family

Mueller Report finds Seth Rich murder conspiracy theory disinformation campaign by Julian Assange
"Robert Mueller’s report gives Seth Rich’s family final absolution in their quest to let the American people know that their son had nothing to do with the DNC email leaks,” Brad Bauman, a former family spokesman, said.
Author: Scott Broom
Published: 1:38 PM EDT April 19, 2019
Updated: 1:38 PM EDT April 19, 2019
WASHINGTON -- The Russian government was the source of stolen emails published by WikiLeaks, not murdered Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich, according to the Mueller Report.

The report finds that conspiracy theories about Rich's murder on the streets of Washington July 10, 2016 were intentionally planted by indicted WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Assange's lies suggesting Rich was the source of the thousands of stolen Democratic National Committee emails and that he was murdered by a mystery Democratic party operative were "designed to obscure the source of the materials that WikiLeaks was releasing" the report said.

The Mueller team said evidence directly linking the thefts to the Russian intelligence agency GRU are proof Rich was not the source.

"The file-transfer evidence described above and other information uncovered during the investigation discredit WikiLeaks's claims about the source of material that it posted," the Mueller team wrote.

The report adds: "After the U.S. intelligence community publicly announced its assessment that Russia was behind the hacking operation, Assange continued to deny that the Clinton materials released by WikiLeaks had come from Russian hacking."

Meuller's team described the Seth Rich conspiracy theory promoted by Assange as intentional "dissembling about the source of Ssolen materials," to hide Assange's sources in Russian intelligence.

Rich's murder remains unsolved. Metropolitan police believe he was shot during a street robbery.

Fox News seized on the conspiracy theory after reporter Malia Zimmerman claimed that President Donald Trump had seen a preview of her reporting and was personally demanding that Fox publish her story immediately, according to lawsuits surrounding the case.

Fox was forced to retract the story and is being sued by private investigator Rod Wheeler who says Zimmerman and Fox fabricated quotes to make it appear he had inside information that Rich was the source of the stolen DNC and Hilary Clinton emails published by WikiLeaks.

“This is incontrovertible proof that there was nothing that Seth said or did," Brad Bauman, a former spokesman for Rich's family, said. “This affair was nothing but a disgusting attempt to hide the Russian involvement at the expense of Seth Rich’s tortured family.”

"Robert Mueller’s report gives Seth Rich’s family final absolution in their quest to let the American people know that their son had nothing to do with the DNC email leaks,” Bauman said. "Assange did untold damage to a grieving family in order to try and hide his work with Russian intelligence to destabilize American democracy. In the process he misled hundreds of thousands of Americans who are just trying to make sense of our country in difficult and complicated times. Yesterday’s report proved he is a monster, not a journalist, and I hope that’s not lost in the ongoing debate around his recent arrest.” ... 36ee70c675

The Seth Rich conspiracy theory needs to end now
The Mueller report confirms that the late DNC staffer had absolutely nothing to do with leaked emails later shared by WikiLeaks.

Jane CoastonApr 19, 2019, 3:50pm EDT

Mary Rich, the mother of slain DNC staffer Seth Rich, gives a press conference in Bloomingdale on August 1, 2016.
Michael Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post/Getty Images
Special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, released on Thursday, raises a lot of new questions — but in one section, in just under 320 words, it answered another one, putting to rest one of the most harmful political conspiracy theories in recent memory.

The report definitively disproved the notion that a Democratic National Committee staffer named Seth Rich was the source of leaked DNC documents later published by WikiLeaks, and that his July 2016 murder came as the result of his decision to leak those documents to WikiLeaks.

This wasn’t true, although Trump associates like Jerome Corsi, Roger Stone, and countless others, have argued vehemently for years that it was. And WikiLeaks, and its founder Julian Assange, knew it.

On July 10, 2016, shortly before the DNC emails were released, Seth Rich was shot to death about a block from his home in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC, in what police believe to be a botched robbery attempt.

As made clear multiple times over the last three years by journalists and investigators, even by some of Trump’s closest confidantes, the 44,000 leaked DNC emails made public 12 days after Rich’s murder were stolen by hackers associated with Russian intelligence outfits. And as the Mueller report details, these hacks resulted in DNC emails and documents being shared widely. WikiLeaks, founded by Julian Assange in 2006, published both stolen DNC emails and the results of a later hack of Hillary Clinton campaign chair John Podesta’s emails in 2016.

But Rich’s murder became a focal point for conspiracy theorists, egged on by Assange himself, who, as Mueller’s report details, repeatedly and falsely implied that Rich had been the source of the DNC emails. Assange even told then-Republican Rep. Dana Rohrabacher that he had “physical proof” that the hack was an “inside job.” The implication was that the leaks were from Rich, who was then, according to conspiracy theorists like Kim Dotcom, murdered because of them.

From the Twitter account of Kim Dot Com, January 25, 2019.
On page 48 of the Mueller report, the special counsel’s office is clear about what really happened. The evidence showed that Wikileaks got the DNC emails and Podesta’s internal documents from Russian hackers, but WikiLeaks and Assange repeatedly lied on national television and implied Rich was involved:

Beginning in the summer of 2016, Assange and WikiLeaks made a number of statements about Seth Rich, a former DNC staff member who was killed in July 2016. The statements about Rich implied falsely that he had been the source of the stolen DNC emails. On August 9, 2016, the @WikiLeaks Twitter account posted: “ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder ofDNC staffer Seth Rich.” Likewise, on August 25, 2016, Assange was asked in an interview, “Why are you so interested in Seth Rich’s killer?” and responded, “We’re very interested in anything that might be a threat to alleged Wikileaks sources.” The interviewer responded to Assange’s statement by commenting, “I know you don’t want to reveal your source, but it certainly sounds like you’re suggesting a man who leaked information to WikiLeaks was then murdered.” Assange replied, “If there’s someone who’s potentially connected to our publication, and that person has been murdered in suspicious circumstances, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the two are connected. But it is a very serious matter ... that type of allegation is very serious, as it’s taken very seriously by us.”

From special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, page 48.

From special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, page 49.
In short, Seth Rich had absolutely nothing to do with how WikiLeaks got leaked DNC and Podesta emails. Yet both WikiLeaks and its founder repeatedly argued the contrary, despite the Rich family’s desperate pleas for them and others pushing the theory to stop.

In a statement provided to Vox by Seth Rich’s brother, Aaron (who is also pursuing lawsuits regarding the conspiracy theory) said of the Mueller report:

“The special counsel has now provided hard facts that demonstrate this conspiracy is false. I hope that the people who pushed, fueled, spread, ran headlines, articles, interviews, talk and opinion shows, or in any way used my family’s tragedy to advance their political agendas—despite our pleas that what they were saying was not based on any facts—will take responsibility for the unimaginable pain they have caused us. We will continue to pursue justice for Seth’s murderers, as well as those who used his murder to advance their personal or political agendas by advancing false conspiracy theories.”

And Brad Bauman, a former spokesperson for the Rich family whose own role in the case became grist for conspiracy theorist websites like Infowars, said in a statement to Vox:

“Assange did untold damage to a grieving family in order to try and hide his work with Russian intelligence to destabilize American democracy. In the process he misled hundreds of thousands of Americans who are just trying to make sense of our country in difficult and complicated times. Yesterday’s report proved he is a monster, not a journalist, and I hope that’s not lost in the ongoing debate around his recent arrest.” ... ler-report

The Mueller report’s biggest mystery
What did Mueller find out about Trump associates and email leaks?

Andrew ProkopApr 19, 2019, 4:05pm EDT

Special counsel Robert Mueller.
Alex Wong/Getty
Were any Trump associates involved in the dissemination of emails stolen by Russian hackers?

The answer, according to special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, is ... redacted.

The section of the report that discusses this topic is one of the most heavily redacted in the entire 448-page document — making this one of the biggest loose ends remaining in the Mueller probe that’s important for understanding what happened during the 2016 campaign.

One reason for these redactions is that this discussion clearly involves longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone, who was indicted in January for lying to Congress and attempting to tamper with a witness. Stone has a trial scheduled for later this year, and court rules say prosecutors shouldn’t release information that could prejudice the trial’s outcome. Many of the “Harm to Ongoing Matter” redactions likely refer to Stone.

Stone’s indictment documented that, after WikiLeaks posted DNC emails, he tried to get in touch with Julian Assange and get ahold of their future releases. It presented some evidence he learned the group had leaks related to John Podesta coming — but the indictment didn’t attempt to tell the full story on what exactly Stone knew or how he knew it. Mueller’s report likely does explain what his investigation found out about this, but we can’t yet read it.

Now, we know Mueller decided not to bring charges against any Trump associates regarding the hacked emails. That could mean that nothing significantly untoward happened here. But it also leaves open other possibilities — that something happened that was shady but not criminal or that there wasn’t enough evidence to bring charges or that Mueller just flat-out isn’t sure. The answer is under those black bars.

The (unredacted) details in the Trump campaign/leaked emails section of the report

Mueller makes clear there was a Russian hacking operation that stole leading Democrats’ emails and documents, and we know much of that material was posted online by either Russian cut-outs or WikiLeaks. Volume I, Section III of Mueller’s report describes all this in great detail.

But that section includes a subhed called “Trump Campaign and the Dissemination of Hacked Materials.” The first subsection of it appears to relate to WikiLeaks, but even its title is redacted.

Mueller opens this section by writing: “The Trump Campaign showed interest in WikiLeaks’s release of hacked materials throughout the summer and fall of 2016,” and then redacts the rest of the paragraph and a subsequent “Background” paragraph. These redactions likely relate to Stone, since Mueller’s indictment of Stone describes his contacts with Trump campaign officials about WikiLeaks.

Then there’s a subtopic called “Contacts with the Campaign about WikiLeaks.” Much of the details here are redacted too, but there are enough unredacted bits to make clear that it describes what Rick Gates, Paul Manafort, and Michael Cohen told Mueller’s investigators about Trump, WikiLeaks, and Roger Stone.

For instance, this is clearly about Cohen’s allegations — made publicly in congressional testimony in February — that he heard Stone, on speakerphone, tell Trump that he’d spoken to Julian Assange and that there would be a massive email release soon.

There’s also material from cooperating Mueller witness (and former deputy Trump campaign chair) Rick Gates, who, for instance, said that he heard Trump take a phone call, and that after it, “Trump told Gates that more releases of damaging information would be coming.”

Following that, there’s a lengthy and mostly redacted section that includes material about Jerome Corsi — the author and conspiracy theorist whom Stone had asked to “get to Assange and get ahold of the pending WikiLeaks emails,” and who responded days later with an email referencing “Podesta.” (John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chair, had been hacked by the GRU, but that wouldn’t become public knowledge for two more months.)

An intriguing bit here is that an associate of Corsi’s, Ted Malloch, told investigators that Corsi told him around that time “that the hacked emails of John Podesta would be released prior to Election Day and would be helpful to the Trump Campaign.”

Then there’s a section about how, shortly after the Washington Post published the “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump bragged about grabbing women by their genitals, WikiLeaks began publishing the Podesta emails.

Corsi has publicly claimed Stone knew about the tape in advance and urged him to get word to WikiLeaks to time the Podesta release with that in mind. However, Mueller writes in the report that he investigated Corsi’s allegations about that day but found “little corroboration” for them.

After that, there is a section about Donald Trump Jr.’s Twitter DMs with WikiLeaks, but that’s entirely unredacted and has no new information.

Mueller may have explained why he didn’t file charges on this

There’s another relevant part in the report about this — though we can’t read it. Toward the end of Volume I, Mueller has a section explaining his prosecution and declination decisions — why he decided to charge certain people and not others. In it, he explains his charging decision about ... someone who’s redacted.

The only unredacted bit in that section is a footnote that explains what it’s about: “the post-hacking sharing and dissemination of emails.” So this is certainly about the publication of the emails. It may be about Stone, or even Julian Assange. But the next two full pages about it are blacked out.

Mueller’s summary paragraphs about this topic

Finally, to get a sense of the big picture and how important Mueller considers his findings, it’s useful to take a look at the places in the report where he tries to summarize this matter — even though they are redacted. Here’s one:

That first redaction is clearly about Stone, because that’s in his indictment. The second redaction apparently refers to events between July and October 2016, so it could refer to Stone’s efforts to get in touch with Assange around that time. That is: This stuff is important and worth mentioning in a top-line summary.

Here’s another summary paragraph on the topic of the hacking. After a clause about how the investigation “established” the Trump campaign displayed interest in the WikiLeaks, the rest of that sentence — seemingly about something else the investigation established — is redacted:

At the end of the above excerpt, Mueller writes that he did charge the hackers, but then redacts the next sentence. That redaction could be his explanation for why he didn’t charge Stone (or Assange).

Finally, here’s one more summary paragraph:

These redactions again mainly seem to be about Stone. But here, Mueller writes that “the investigation was unable to resolve” something that is redacted about “WikiLeaks’s release of the stolen Podesta emails on October 7, 2016.” So this may be an admission that the special counsel’s investigation failed to get to the bottom of whatever happened here.

When will we be able to read this stuff?

If most of these redactions do relate to Stone’s pending trial, it could be a while before they’re officially revealed. That trial is currently scheduled to begin November 5.

But there are a few other ways we could conceivably learn of that information beforehand. The first is through lawsuits: Various media organizations plan to sue, hoping judges might order a less redacted version of the report released.

The second way is through leaks. The Justice Department has said they plan to show a less-redacted version of the report to key members of Congress, so if there are interesting disclosures there, they could leak out.

For now, though, one of the biggest mysteries from the 2016 campaign remains a mystery. ... -wikileaks
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:47 pm

answering question from the Re: The Russian Conspiracy as RI subject thread


reasons why I do not care for Suzie, why I don't care for what Suzie Dawson's argument is

Bill Clinton's 500k Russian speeches and Hillary Clinton selling Russia 20% of US uranium was also noted from the start. The fact is, there was no hack, it was a leak, has proven that beyond any shadow of a doubt, Kim wasn't lying, Seth was the source...

Kim wasn't lying, Seth was the source...
. really? Have you seen his proof of that Suzie?

Leaked Twitter DMs from early March 2016 clearly show that WikiLeaks was overly cautious about her.
WikiLeaked: Over 11,000 messages from private WikiLeaks chat released ... -released/

trump tower was not wire tapped Suzie :roll:

tell her
there is no evidence that donations to the Clinton Foundation from people with ties to Uranium One or Bill Clinton’s speaking fee influenced Hillary Clinton’s official actions. That’s still the case.

use of “us” in the first tweet. the Intercept article never mentioned her name or even hint that she might have been put on a spy list.
Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 7.10.53 PM.png

after years of claiming that she had been targeted she openly admitted she has absolutely no idea if she’s been spied on or not...if some one has proof post it because I have not seen any

does she still believe Seth Rich leaked the emails?
Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 7.36.52 PM.png

Assange Smeared Seth Rich to Cover for Russians
With Assange behind it, the Seth Rich hoax moved into the almost-mainstream, spawning a quickly-retracted report on Fox News, and a series of “investigations” by Assange ally Sean Hannity. It also wreaked havoc in the lives of Rich’s surviving family, particularly his anguished parents who later begged perpetrators of the charade “to give us peace, and to give law enforcement the time and space to do the investigation they need to solve our son's murder.” ... r-russians

Assange hurt the Rich family he knew Seth did not "leak" the emails but said nothing

she sites Jim Jordon (apologist for the trump crime family) that's enough for me..

Being Honest: Considerations of a Julian Assange Supporter
What is it about the new year that inspires us to commit to new resolutions like working out, losing that extra weight, spending more time with family, being more organized, and showing kindness to strangers? Well, first of all there’s nothing wrong with wanting a fresh start to improve ourselves and the world around us and second, sometimes nothing says “thank God,” like having last year’s failures and frustrations behind us and new possibilities on the horizon.

Last year was spent riddled with anger and disappointment over Julian Assange’s situation as well as the disconcerting turn that the WikiLeaks activist community took; legitimizing dubious characters, bolstering Trump and his alt-right loyalists, suppression of speech, attempts to humiliate activists and fellow supporters, and, often times, silent complicity in all of it. Looking back, it seems almost obvious that these tactics hindered the effectiveness of the “Free Assange” movement and its capacity to grow and provide significant public pressure to ensure his safe passage and freedom.

There are a myriad of possibilities why this happened including, perhaps, a paralyzing fear over losing supporters, a quantity over quality attitude, desperate attempts to stay non-partisan, doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, and an increasing reluctance to surrender perceived (and coveted) hierarchal footing in the movement by long-time supporters.

How much any of these issues affected the campaign to build a legitimate and unified support base for Assange remains to be seen but shortcomings in the community have given rise to a number of opportunists and trolls. Furthermore, supporters have simply tossed their morals aside and common sense left the building a long time ago.


Suzie Dawson
Suzie Dawson came onto the activism scene during Occupy Auckland, part of the Occupy Wall Street movement against corporate greed and inequality that started in New York on September 17, 2011. According to a member of Occupy Auckland, Dawson became an asset to the group after she showed up one day at the campaign’s media headquarters with “computer paraphernalia” in hand. It was during this time period that she started to actively claim she was being targeted and illegally surveilled by the government.

According to a November 13, 2016 interview, she was “aggressively targeted” for her work and several attempts were made to kill her and her children. Additionally, in an effort to break up the Occupy movement, the government forced her to sell her New Zealand home but not before they poked holes in her ceilings, sewed “things” into the seams of her clothes, stole her cellphones, and set up cameras throughout the house.

She’s received death threats over the course of the last seven years, faced banking blockades, and was targeted by former hacker-turned-FBI snitch Sabu after he pursued a sexual relationship with her online. At one point, Dawson concluded that the New Zealand government must have used PRISM, an NSA program first exposed by Edward Snowden, to illegally spy on her.

However, without any evidence to support any of these claims, Dawson’s stories sound more like the fantastical chicanery of a fraudster or the delusional ramblings of someone who desperately needs to take a break from activism. According to one online user,

“It is like drug-addled science fiction writer Philip Dick who was paranoid that the FBI were out to get him. He applied for his file. The only thing in it were letters he’d sent to the FBI offering to spy on other writers for them.”

Dawson eventually fled New Zealand with her two children to Berlin, Germany and then sought temporary asylum in Russia on September 29, 2016. During the November 2016 interview, she noted her uncertainty about whether or not Russia would approve her asylum request, “I’m sitting here now not knowing if I’m going to have a country in six week’s time to live in.”

Kim Dotcom wearing a Nazi helmet at the 2004 Gumball Rally 27/03/2014 |
Kim Dotcom
In mid-2017, Dawson was appointed the leader of Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party, a New Zealand political party founded in 2014. However, she denied the role three months ago and according to, the New Zealand Electoral Commission deregistered the party on June 12, 2018, because membership “had dropped below the 500 required for registration.” Perhaps that was the reason behind Dawson’s denial.

She was also introduced on the Jimmy Dore Show as the “former leader” but “current president of the Internet Party,” fifteen days later although no one else is mentioned on the party’s website except Dawson and there doesn’t appear to be an official statement announcing that she stepped down from the position.

As for Dotcom, I wrote about his criminal background previously including the fact that he’s been convicted multiple times for essentially stealing money from innocent people and that at one point he became a paid snitch for a copyright lawyer. And yes, you read that correctly. A paid snitch for a copyright lawyer. And despite what Dotcom professes, it doesn’t appear that this leopard has changed his spots.

For example, in 2014, this multi-millionaire tweeted, “One of my former staff couldn’t have kids. I gifted 25K for IVF & gave them a child. Now they are suing me for 130K coz I’m a bad employer,” in reference to Dotcom’s failure to pay his staff their wages after financing a fertility procedure (how do you feed or diaper said financed baby without a paycheck?). He’s also called his staff “minions,” for, again, wanting to get paid, and in a video posted on Youtube via (which may or may not be a sketchy source), he can be overheard threatening another staff member over employees suing him.

But more recently, you probably remember him for his very public 2017 announcement that he has evidence proving Seth Rich was WikiLeaks’ DNC source. Dotcom’s promise to release said evidence was broken as fast as he made it but that hasn’t stopped the MAGA…er, Mega crowd from eating this stuff up and regurgitating it, much to the detriment of Seth Rich’s grieving parents.

And yes, I get it. Dotcom has been a victim of illegal government surveillance and is facing extradition to the United States but that is in no way synonymous with him being one of the good guys. Ted Bundy once told the judge that his constitutional rights were being violated in prison and the judge agreed but that doesn’t mean he should have been the poster child for human rights. And with an extradition case hanging over his head perhaps he’s doing exactly what he’s always done—looking out for Dotcom.

Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 7.53.52 PM.png

It took Dotcom almost a year after Seth Rich’s murder to mention him and maybe he thought he could use the story as leverage in his case, to promote his projects and the failing Internet Party, or to speak to the U.S. government without suspicion. Or maybe he just enjoys pushing the government’s narrative that, “WikiLeaks gets people killed,” and WikiLeaks into a corner about their sources. And maybe someone should ask him about his whereabouts when James Comey landed in New Zealand on April 23, 2017. After all, he is a Hillary Clinton fan.

And yes, it’s possible that he only said he liked Hillary in order to help his case which is exactly the point: What else has Dotcom been willing to do to stop his extradition to the U.S.? And if that’s not what happened in the video above then it’s concerning that he sounds like a school boy who lost his two best friends over a court case.

Two years before Dawson, Dotcom, and Elizabeth Lea Vos started #Unity4J, Dawson tried to start another grassroots movement called “JA4ME.” In an article published on March 25, 2016, Dawson, using her online handle, “Endarken,” wrote about how she felt compelled to start a global movement that would help end Julian Assange’s arbitrary detention and so she (and others?) started a website and pushed the hashtag #JA4ME.

The movement was legitimized for a short period of time by the more prominent Assange support accounts on Twitter despite the fact that no one seemed to be terribly familiar with Dawson or her background. Leaked Twitter DMs from early March 2016 clearly show that WikiLeaks was overly cautious about her.

WikiLeaks: “We need to avoid a repeat of AKAWACA with JA4ME

WikiLeaks: “There are certain similarities in the psychological profiles of the women behind both.”

WikiLeaks: “ For example”

Emmy B: “Re ja4me it is simply too early to say, WL is right to be cautious, strongly motivated people are so creative, and this has sprang out of nowhere and going 100 miles an hour.”

WikiLeaks: “We love the campaign, but if there is no overt structure there is a covert structure. A lot of ‘leaderless’ rhetoric is psycological [sic] cover for people who are very concerned about power gradients. This sensitivity to power can come from a desire not to be bossed around, but it can also come from another place. The first step to power is to stop others having power over you. The second step is to have power over others. In this case there are key assets such as twitter and the domain registration. Someone has these credentials and whoever does can exercise their person [sic] whims….Twitter, DNS, bank accounts etc, in this way create power problems, turning ‘leaderless’ movements into FBI movements, e.g Sabu.”

Emmy B: “Bad vibes coming my way from my lady Saviour, may I be wrong may I be wrong!”

Emmy B: “*Sigh* Suzie Dawson just sent me the most bizarre message.”

Emmy B: “never mind”

Emmy B: “I asked her to link up with a friend and she started questioning who my friend follows and is followed by, not the friendliest!”


It’s unclear what happened to this “global movement,” but it is clear that when Assange’s communications were cut two years later, Dawson became the community’s rising star because apparently no one, at any point in time, has ever dealt with what appears to be a power-hungry, attention-seeking narcissist before or cared that she might be.


On March 27, 2018, Ecuador cut off Julian Assange’s communications including phone calls, visitors, and access to the internet. The government accused him of failing to comply with a 2017 written agreement not to interfere in Ecuador’s relations with other States, more specifically Spain and Catalonia, but in reality this agreement never existed.

The following day, @BellaMagnani tweeted this out at 8:35 am EST using the hashtags #FreeAssange and #ReconnectJulian:

“I’d suggest whichever ones [hashtags] you decide to use you include #Ecuador. Help them to counter external pressure to isolate #Assange. #FreeAssange #ReconnectJulian

Ten minutes later Dawson tweeted,

“Kim Dotcom and I are about to launch an online vigil for supporters of Julian Assange from around the world to congregate and advocate for the immediate restoration of Julian’s human right to communication.

We will be using the hashtag #ReconnectJulian

Stay tuned for details”

Dawson, Dotcom, and Vos then held an emergency online vigil protesting Ecuador President Lenin Moreno’s decision. All in all, the event raised quite a bit of awareness and if you check out the #ReconnectJulian hashtag from March 28, 2018, it received a large response.

Less than a month later, on April 23, 2018, it was reported that the “ReconnectJulian” campaign took over Assange’s Twitter account and if there’s any confusion as to what role Dawson and her associates played in the campaign, there shouldn’t be.


Screen Shot 2019-04-19 at 7.57.08 PM.png

Besides Dawson’s obvious enthusiasm to let people know she was behind #ReconnectJulian, her “one-off” event comment clearly demonstrates she doesn’t have a firm grasp on how to run a campaign. Using a hashtag that defines exactly what you’re trying to do—and is successful—only to replace it shortly thereafter is not only ineffective, it confuses and loses supporters. Advocates for Assange should keep things simple, consistent, and stop trying to fix something that’s not broken.

But the more obvious concern here is if Dawson, Dotcom, or Vos were given access to Julian Assange’s Twitter account and for those that don’t remember, there was no “legal campaign” expressly running the account at the time. Concerns were posted on Twitter but they went unanswered. As of today, exactly how many people and who were given access to Assange’s account and personal DMs since his communications were cut remains unknown.
As mentioned previously, rather than sticking with a popular hashtag, Dawson decided to dis-unify the community with a new one a mere four days after #ReconnectJulian was created. The new hashtag, #Unity4J, is identical to Dawson’s earlier #JA4ME in that she deliberately left out Julian Assange’s name.

There are other similarities, as well. The use of a purple, white or black/grey color scheme that was used for both JA4ME and her political party, Internet Party, has been used for some of Unity4J’s promotional material. And like JA4ME, Unity4J encourages the same fruitless tactics (although the effort by well-meaning individuals should always be applauded) to save Assange like using chalk on sidewalks, lighting candles, and having JA4ME/Unity4J days while presumably carrying signs or chalking sidewalks with a hashtag that in no way distinguishes who anyone is supporting.

Unity4J also encourages their followers to sign up on their Discord channel using their name and email address but that’s not as bad as how far Dawson’s JA4ME took it which encouraged supporters to send in a 300 x 300 picture of themselves along with their name, title, and occupation. Sketchy? AF.

The movement has also organized countless vigils on Youtube, averaging approximately 500 views per video. And yes, they have interviewed some good guests, even some great guests, but based on the 321 videos that are on the #Unity4J Youtube channel, 258 of them (80%) have even lower viewship. This is what some might describe as an “echo chamber,” or a glaring indication that a large number of individuals don’t want anything to do with this movement.

Despite what appears to be a less than enthusiastic response to joining #Unity4J, prominent Twitter accounts including WikiLeaks and whoever controls Assange’s account promoted (exhaustingly) Dawson, Dotcom, and Vos’ movement over the course of the last ten months—except Anonymous Scandinavia who may have more common sense than everyone else combined. But low viewership is the least of Unity4J’s problems.


On November 20, 2018, Anonymous Scandinavia posted a video with the following message:

“What will happen, when people at some point in the future, will find out, that they were indeed misinformed by the very individual who asked them to BELIEVE? A #PONI with a background story being nothing but a LIE!”

The video included two QR codes one of which revealed the date “September 29, 2016,” the other, a screenshot:

The screenshot was taken from a document via the Law Library of Congress entitled, “Refugee Law and Policy: Russian Federation,” and it explicitly states that if you file for temporary asylum in Russia, your application will be decided within 3 months. Don’t like congressional libraries? The UN Refugee Agency has its own documents online for those seeking asylum in Russia which also state that “a decision on Temporary Aslyum” will be made within three months of an application.

Suzie Dawson applied for temporary asylum on September 29, 2016, so she should have received a decision by the end of December 2016 (approximately). And don’t forget that during her November 2016 interview, she stated that she didn’t know if she was going to “have a country in six weeks” because she knew at the time of the interview there were only six weeks remaining for Russia to make their decision about her application. The interview took place approximately six weeks after she applied leaving six weeks left until Russia was required to make their decision bringing the total to three months.

As most of you know, it would be shocking if Dawson had been given temporary asylum in Russia at the end of 2016 – early 2017, because she’s spent over two years telling people that she can’t get a job in the country due to the long asylum process. She’s used Russia’s slow-processing time, her own children, legal fees, and Julian Assange via the Unity4J movement to solicit funds from the general public. She’s even gone so far as to ridiculously claim she was forced to hire “full time childcare/domestic help” in order to keep working her long Unity4J hours. She then demanded that donors only use Bitcoin because of a government/Deep State-ordered banking blockage against her.

[smartslider3 slider=4]
Two weeks ago this information was posted on Twitter with virtually no response. When Anonymous Scandinavia posted their video back in November, eleven people liked it while only nine retweeted it. This is a grossly pathetic commentary on an activist community that preaches about truth and transparency night and day. Of course there’s always the possibility that things are not as they seem and Dawson is always welcome to address what appears to be an enormous exception made in her asylum case by the Russian government.


Suzie Dawson, unfortunately, isn’t the only person who appears to have used Julian Assange’s political imprisonment for personal gain. Take @AngelFox71, a Twitter user who has gone by a myriad of online handles over the years and who recently managed to pull off a weeks-long publicly-funded trip to London this past December under the guise of going to the Ecuadorian embassy to “protect Julian.” Once she arrived, she spent the entire trip begging her followers to send more money because she couldn’t afford her medication, amongst half a dozen other things.

As a safety tip, if you can’t afford a trip to London, let alone a trip to London without your medication, don’t go. As a personal side note to this story, I had to eat a plane ticket to London this past fall because a shitty management company raised my rent 60% after I protested their initial 30% hike. Sure, I could sue them for retaliation if I could afford an attorney but I can’t. Any saved funds I had went to finding a new place and moving costs. Life happens. Do the best you can and stop expecting everyone to pay your way especially under the guise of helping a political prisoner. It’s gross. Do better.

As for Angel, she’s also spent time privately bad-mouthing the very person she said she was going to London to protect along with one of Assange’s closest associates, animal-rights activist Pamela Anderson. Anonymous Scandinavia not only called her out for trying to smear Ms. Anderson but also for making deliberate statements to suit an agenda, prodding close associates of WikiLeaks for information, and using bots and sock accounts on Twitter.

And yes, Anonymous Scandinavia (@AnonScan) has been on top of all of this and yet even they can’t escape my frustration despite that fact and that they’ve been my favorite, their videos make this crappy world a better place, and their Twitter feed is a wealth of information. They recently tweeted this below but my guess is that @FrancisJeffrey7 is not on their list despite the fact that he used to troll supporters for donations and once told a generous benefactor who was no longer able to donate that his wife was going to die and it was entirely the benefactor’s fault.

@AnonScan continues to promote @FrancisJeffrey7’s campaign via a video they made asking people to assist him which, in this case, means through donations. The video is still on their Youtube channel. Because of this endorsement I donated to Jeffrey twice and then was hounded by him to donate more money as were others. I felt guilty and agreed to donate for a third time but bowed out at the last minute after being instructed by Jeffrey to call a random hotel, lie to the manager, and then send my banking information to one of the hotel’s employees. Sketchy? Again, AF. He was incensed that I had changed my mind.

Shortly thereafter, evidence seems to show that the Twitter account @Pizzaital, which is an account that @AnonScan retweets and only one of seven that they still follow, was either given access to @AnonScan’s Protonmail or they hacked my Protonmail account, lifted screenshots I had sent, and posted them online (which isn’t terribly surprising since one of @Pizzaital’s sock accounts told me they run the @AnonScan Twitter account). One of the screenshots contained personal information and the tweets that @Pizzaital sent out with them were “liked” by Jeffrey which, again, isn’t terribly surprising since the two of them have been publicly communicating via Twitter since before the @AnonScan account even existed.

@Pizzaital, who spent months reminding me that they were also @AnonScan’s girlfriend, likely didn’t make their troll list either despite the lifted screenshots and doxing, their attacks on supporters, the fact that they inexplicably trolled me for over year with a multitude of sock accounts (see “Trolls“), their continued support of Laura Poitras who screwed Assange over in “Risk,” the fact that they think the Freedom of the Press Foundation is still the cat’s meow after they pulled donations for WikiLeaks last year, and their attack on long-time activist and Assange associate Randy Credico whom @AnonScan has supported from the get-go. I mean, if we’re going to get all judgey and stuff.

UPDATE: It should be noted that two weeks ago and likely in response to my post, “Being Honest: Considerations of a Julian Assange Supporter,” @Pizzaital publicly stated that she “can’t hack or crack,” meaning she didn’t hack my protonmail account. That, of course, in no way answers if/how she got a hold of my emails, if it was her that publicly posted them, or even if she’s telling the truth. Regardless, her recent clarification should be noted.

And no, I have no idea why after all of this time, after all of the unprovoked insults, and after reporting me to Twitter, she suddenly thinks it’s “very nice” that I’m a fan of the @AnonScan account. But at least she stated that “the whole truth will eventually come to light!” and regardless if that’s her way of taking a jab at me, I’m hoping she’s right when it comes to a multitude of current, on-going events. — END UPDATE —

So, despite the fact that @AnonScan has been one of the few accounts with enough nosser to call people out for using Julian Assange for their own benefit, even they’ve legitimized and promoted what appears to be a swindler along with a woman (maybe) who seems more like Alex Forrest in a “Poitras for Prez” t-shirt than anything else. And while there’s this guy in London that we’re all supposedly trying to save, unhinged supporters are lifting my emails, so-called activists like Angel, Dawson, and the one in the video below are grifting people out of money, we’re using a hashtag that literally doesn’t have Assange’s name in it, and nobody bats an eye. Totally normal stuff.


When Dawson and her cohorts went live on Youtube with their first Unity4J vigil, the co-founders applauded themselves for their “non-partisan, non-political” approach despite the fact that Assange’s situation is anything but non-political and that his arrest, extradition, and prosecution by Trump’s administration would be a direct threat to the U.S. Constitution, free speech, free press, and journalists everywhere. And despite Unity4J’s claims, the movement is not nor has it ever been non-partisan. On the contrary, Trump supporters have been given a free platform without any pushback whatsoever.

Not only that, Dotcom, one of the co-founders of Unity4J, has repeatedly tried to reinforce the idea that Julian Assange is responsible for getting Trump elected to office—a statement that plays directly into the hands of Assange’s enemies and members of the general public who want someone to blame.

You might remember Class Conscious’ article, “The Dead End of ‘Uniting’ With Fascists to Defend Julian Assange,” which was published on August 7, 2018, and was the first of its kind to call out Unity4J for what it really is: “A campaign built on unity with fascists…”

When the article first came out people lost it and it’s quite possible that Dawson’s head exploded. She demonized it along with its author Davey Heller and then encouraged others to do the same. She also used the same tactics that most alleged supporters use when confronted on issues they desperately want to ignore like, “You’re dividing the community,” and “They obviously work for the government.”

This approach to delegitimize Davey’s article along with Dawson’s stunning lack of respect for free speech and a free press are best illustrated by the tweets below where she tried to smear Class Conscious and its members as intelligence agents.

She then tried to humiliate Davey into behaving himself by dragging Assange’s mother into the mix, “Julian’s mother has repeatedly stated that she wants politics left at the door and people to unite.” That wasn’t the first time nor was it the last that Dawson weaponized Ms. Assange to keep people in line, as if none of us are allowed our own opinions. Many have also speculated that Dawson had access to her Twitter account and was writing her own tweets from it and blocking people.

Dawson went on to say that all of the guests who participate in Unity4J online vigils “set aside ideology for this one event and cause,” and that’s simply not the case no matter how many times she repeats the lie.

On October 20, 2018, Class Conscious ran another article stating that they “rejected the perspective that ‘unity is the ultimate act of resistance,’ when it means standing with those helping to cultivate a deadly, fascist base within the U.S. and globally.” Individuals mentioned as “hired, fascist demagogues” have all been guests, if not hosts, during Unity4J vigils: Cassandra Fairbanks, Lee Stranahan, Ross Cameron, H.A. Goodman, and Jack Posobiec.

The article argues that the “ruling-class…needs a movement to prevent socialist revolution,” and that there is a “paucity of revolutionary left-wing leadership around the world” leading to what we’ve all seen happening around the globe: The rise of fascism.

Stranahan was a lead reporter for the far-right website, Brietbart News, Jack Posobiec is the embodiment of the far-right, Fairbanks works for the far-right website Gateway Pundit, and all of them including H.A. Goodman are staunch Trump supporters despite the fact that his administration is slowly trying to murder Assange. This is surely the very definition of insanity, yes?

Class Conscious also pointed out that Fairbanks endorses the German fascist party “Alternative fur Deutschland,” and her social media account shows that she inexplicably finds it amusing and quite the revolutionary act to support the government nowadays. She’s a fan of Brownshirts sympathizer Roger Stone who has done nothing but lie about WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, and long-time activist and supporter, Randy Credico. She’s also one of the main figures behind #Unity4J.

The question at this point is if this is the hill WikiLeaks and its prominent supporters want us all to die on, the fascist, alt-right hill? Because once you fill your base with Nazis and fascists there’s no going back. No one says, “Hey, let’s join that great cause and, oh, don’t mind the Nazis and fascists,” except Nazis and fascists.

WikiLeaks, as well as prominent WikiLeaks-associated Twitter accounts, have been pushing Trump supporters and alt-right sympathizers for the last ten months (again, except @AnonScan) because maybe they believe at this point that any support is good support (it’s not) and that they’re immune to certain public scrutiny (they’re not). And maybe they think that if they push out pro-Assange messages from a range of political camps, it keeps their overall message non-partisan (it doesn’t). I mean, maybe we should all try that and when the fascists come for Assange and take over the country, don’t blame us. We were just trying to be supportive and “non-partisan.”

It’s come to the point where one has to seriously consider who is actually looking out for Assange. When prominent accounts don’t care that they’re pushing Unity4J members’ far-right agenda, it’s deeply disconcerting. And if Dawson is legit, if her movement is legit, then why haven’t these Twitter accounts or CourageFound or anyone else besides Dawson’s Unity4J sycophants reported on the danger she’s faced for seven years? She claims that the government tried to kill her and her children multiple times and she’s a journalist. Isn’t this right up everyone’s alley? Why is WikiLeaks ignoring this while retweeting Unity4J—a movement which gives Trump’s agenda a platform that includes shutting down free press and locking up journalists? Better yet, as an alleged targeted journalist, why would Dawson allow a pro-Trump agenda in her movement?

Almost two weeks ago, long-time supporter @BellaMagnani posted this tweet:

What’s stunning about this is that the WikiLeaks community is so utterly blind to the very people they themselves have propped up, pushed, and promoted that they don’t even realize that the “quality” of some of the people they’ve legitimized are barely a grade, if any, above Siggi Thordarson.

If Assange, god forbid, is ever extradited to the U.S., is the plan to continue pushing Trump and Roger Stone supporters, racists, fascists, grifters, trolls, and a mega-millionaire who has been convicted several times for stealing money from innocent people and has a history of snitching, as leading advocates for Assange? It’s a serious question.

Long-time supporters have to put their fear of losing supporters aside. If the alt-right wants to support Assange, you can’t stop them. But you can stop promoting them in order to grow a more healthy, sustainable, and democratic movement that goes beyond Julian Assange to fight a corrupt oligarchy that oppresses the masses by suppressing speech, terrorizing the press, supporting monetary and racial inequality, capitalism, paramilitary forces, and even dictatorship.

As Class Conscious wrote, “It is extremely disorienting that figures such as Lee Stranahan are platformed and given equal respect as the likes of Chris Hedges and Daniel Ellsberg within #Unity4J. The working-class cannot effectively fight fascists if these wolves are allowed to dress up in sheep’s clothing of defending Assange and ‘fighting the establishment’ – hiding amongst real progressive voices.”


When it comes to Unity4J, there are probably dozens of supporters, if not more, who have been targeted privately or online for simply asking questions or voicing their concerns. Members have also called for the doxing of anyone they think is trolling Unity4J and threatened and shamed those who dare to question Dawson’s background while Dawson, herself, has assailed talented and ballsy journalists like Abby Martin, Whitney Webb, and radio host Randy Credico. She once went so far as to accuse @AnonScan of “grooming” Credico. Like, what kind of activist universe am I living in?

And it’s not just Unity4J. Take for instance when I asked uncomfortable questions about Dawson and Kim Dotcom’s backgrounds on Twitter. @GreekEmmy’s response was essentially that I shouldn’t challenge other supporters’ opinions (whether or not someone has been convicted of a crime or was granted asylum is not an opinion) and then demanded that I untag her from a Twitter thread she herself joined.

Then there was the question of whether or not Ecuador had removed Assange’s bed and turned off the heat at the embassy. While trying to get clarification, @GreekEmmy responded to my confusion with, “Over the years I have heard many supporters demanding minute details about JA’s life at the embassy, particularly as I stood outside the buildings during our vigils,” because apparently her horse is high enough to accuse me of “demanding minute details” like an Assange-obsessed fan girl (I don’t know, should we call the gas or electric company and have them shut off your heat, Emmy? Is that minute enough for you?) because of her close association with WikiLeaks and her activism outside of the embassy.

And let’s not forget the “break-in at the embassy” story that was published by Consortium News, an indie news outlet that is currently partnering with Unity4J. On November 3, 2018, they published “Break-in Attempted at Assange’s Residence in Ecuador Embassy,” but not before Dawson hinted about it on October 31, 2018, and released a press release the day before. She’s quoted four times and appears to be the main source for the story

“Lawyers for Assange confirmed to activist and journalist Suzie Dawson that Assange was awoken in the early morning hours by the break-in attempt.”

“They confirmed to Dawson that the attempt was to enter a front window of the embassy.”

Dawson also mentioned scaffolding that had been erected in front of the embassy,

“The combination of the obscuring of the street-facing surveillance cameras and the installation of surveillance equipment pointed into instead of away from the Embassy, is alarming.”

“The Ecuadorian government had to have given permission for the devices to be installed as they are flush up against the embassy walls on government sovereign territory.”

First, about that scaffolding in front of the embassy that Dawson described as essentially a death trap for Assange. It was erected at least three weeks prior to Dawson’s hysteria.

And just to be clear, I’m not suggesting that scaffolding shouldn’t be a concern. Of course it should be. The issue is why didn’t supporters who are at the embassy every week say anything about the scaffolding prior to Dawson’s Unity4J announcement? Better yet, why didn’t WikiLeaks or his attorneys make a statement or send out a tweet about the scaffolding and break-in? Did everyone sit on a story so Dawson could report it?

After tweeting once again about my confusion, @GreekEmmy stated that “JA mentioned the attempted Embassy break in on Monday 29 October during his testimony at protective legal action court hearing. Native Spanish speakers read this in Spanish language press.” She then sent me a link to one article that reported Assange had said, “at 04:00 in London, unknown persons would have tried to enter the Ecuadorian embassy.” However, the translated article also reported that Assange had confirmed his source for Vault 7, which obviously never happened. After some back and forth, another Twitter user told me,

“@jimmysllama hi! Your DM’s aren’t open, but Bella [@BellaMagnani] asked me to fwd: JA did NOT out a source in his Quito testimony. The article is not transcribing properly – he said the US was *seeking to prosecute* an ALLEGED source and sentence them to 135 years.”

There’s so much going on with all of this. First, who are these lawyers that confirmed this to Dawson? Second, besides relying on second-hand confirmed information from unnamed legal sources, it appears we now have to rely on native Spanish speakers who hopefully follow the news. Third, if one translated source is all we have available and part of that translation is wrong, why are we assuming the rest is correct? Again, a simple statement from WikiLeaks or Assange’s attorneys would clear this up.

And why was Bella trying to DM me the information that Assange never confirmed his source? How is this a secret and wouldn’t that be something you would want the general public to be crystal clear about? Furthermore, she knows my DMs are open to her and yet that wasn’t the first time she’s dragged third parties into the drama in order to get my attention. This level of ridiculousness is frustrating and unnecessary.

My other point of frustration is why wouldn’t WikiLeaks want to clarify and amplify what Ecuador is doing to Assange i.e. turning off the heat, removing his bed? @BellaMagnani pointed out that Assange nor his lawyers can speak out without risking his asylum because A.7 of Ecuador’s special protocols that Assange is now forced to live under, states that visitors (which would include attorneys) must follow the “requirements established in section 2 of this Special Protocol.”

However, I pointed out that section 2 of the Special Protocol is about the rules visitors must follow in order to visit Assange and that it doesn’t mention anything about anyone speaking out about his conditions or otherwise.

Bella disagreed and thought that “section 2” referred to “B. Communications” in the document. Section “B. Communications” contains ten subsections and is exactly what it sounds like. It dictates Assange’s restrictions with regards to electronics, devices, and communications including Ecuador’s demand that he “comply scrupulously with the conventional and customary norms of diplomatic asylum…especially, the prohibition to carry out activities that could be considered as political interference in the internal affairs of other States,” or he risks losing his asylum.

So essentially what Bella was pointing out is that Assange has to “comply scrupulously” with the section “B. Communications,” requirements as do his lawyers (and any other visitors). That would mean that both Angela Richter and Cassandra Fairbanks both broke Ecuador’s Special Protocol by visiting Assange and then writing articles about the conditions Ecuador is forcing him to live under.

However, if you read through the document and insert all ten subsections of “B. Communication” into every place is says “section 2,” it doesn’t sense. For instance, 3. under part A. reads,

“After the second visit…he must only present the Identification Card indicated below, along with the information contained in the letters (f), at the entrance to the Embassy, (g) and (h) of section 2 of this Special Protocol.

If you look at the document, “B. Communications” doesn’t even have a (g) and (h) because (g) and (h) are a reference to “A. Visits” under which (g) is “Suggested date and time for the visit to Mr. Assange” and (h) is “Approximate duration of the visit.”

Another example is 8. under part A. which reads,

“The person in question will only be able to enter the Embassy after filling out the form that will be delivered to him at the entrance door, with the information included in section 2 of this Special Protocol…”

If I’m missing something here, I’m all ears because it doesn’t make sense that a visitor has to fill out a form at the embassy’s front door “with the information included” in B. Communications. What does make sense is Ecuador making visitors fill out a form with information that includes their name, cellphone and social media information, etc. that’s found in 2. under “A. Visits.”

Thus, it doesn’t appear that Ecuador has tried to restrict what Assange’s attorneys or WikiLeaks can communicate, say, on Twitter about his conditions. That’s not to say that wouldn’t be pushing the envelope because it might since a U.S. boot-licking dictator is now running the country. But what’s really the difference between WikiLeaks making a statement to clarify what’s going on with Assange’s conditions vs. retweeting articles that are derogatory about Ecuador?

At the end of the day, I still don’t know if the embassy was broken into, if the heat was turned off, or if they took Assange’s bed.


For the last ten months (or longer) some of you stood silent even though you knew that @AngelFox71 was a two-faced grifter and a liability to the movement. Many of you knew fellow supporters were being trolled, harassed, and lied to but you didn’t speak up. When legitimate activists and journalists like Abby Martin and Randy Credico were attacked, you did nothing to support them. When reasonable concerns were raised about Julian Assange’s conditions, they were met with scorn and belittlement. And when Dawson’s background and the recruitment of Trump supporters and alt-right sympathizers became a concern, you not only remained silent, you promoted them.

Silence is complicity and regardless of whether or not some of this stuff is some sort of socially engineered game to sniff out enemies, aren’t we better than this? For the sake of Julian Assange’s safety and freedom, journalists around the world, whistleblowers, free press, free speech, truth, transparency, and even ourselves, can’t we do better?


Anyone who made it this far is probably plotting my demise or at the very least is in the process of writing a scathing rebuttal. In the meantime, there are two important things to remember: One, the views expressed here are my own. I didn’t consult with anyone before publishing and I certainly welcome comments, suggestions, questions, evidence to the contrary, corrections, and rebuttals.

Second, some will probably question why I’m writing on this subject instead of focusing on other things and the answer is simple: Like so many other people, I’m part of the community that supports Julian Assange and for lack of a better quote, “I just want my high school to be a nicer place.” And if history has taught us anything it’s that there has always been someone who wanted to use Assange for their own benefit, or worse, betray him to the very people and governments that want to hurt him. It pays to be vigilant.

As for some of the supporters I’ve mentioned in this article whom I’ve voiced my frustrations, my apologies but I’ve tried to address most of the issues in this article, if not all of them, in tweets, posts, or even in private, all to no avail. However, my frustration with how the community has operated in the last ten months or so is not meant to be a reflection on @GreekEmmy’s tireless efforts outside of the Ecuadorian embassy in London. If you ever visit London, you’ll always have an Assange supporter to stand with and that’s a testament to her dedication to the cause. It’s just, can we take the attitude and suppression of speech down a notch? And that goes for everyone, including myself. More open dialogue and less stifling of speech will only make the community stronger, I promise.

And despite the two lunatics that @AnonScan has promoted, they have done nothing but support Assange while keeping the masses interested, educated, and entertained with their videos and timeline. In fact, they’ve put an enormous amount of time and energy into it. But sweet Jesus, take down that video on your Youtube channel that promotes the J9 campaign. It’s unseemly. And yes, I realize my opinion doesn’t account for much (but it should).

As for @BellaMagnani, there’s virtually nothing she’s not familiar with when it comes to Assange’s history and I can’t remember ever seeing her publicly attack or smear legitimate supporters. In fact, there’s no other supporter on Twitter that goes more out their way to educate people than her. But sometimes that’s hard to remember when I’m forced to choose between retweeting really good information or refraining from doing so so that I’m not promoting an alt-right, fascist hashtag that was started by someone who possibly and pathologically lied about her past and current situation.

The same can be said about WikiLeaks and maybe concerns in the community can be taken more seriously in the future. Or not. I mean, I wouldn’t write this ridiculously long-winded post if I wasn’t looking at the big picture or didn’t care about Julian Assange’s well being, the community, and long-time supporters who have been a bridge between the general public and Assange, so yeah. You’re kinda killing me, WikiLeaks.

As for Unity4J, Dawson, Dotcom, Angel, Fairbanks, the alt-right, Pizzaital, and Jeffrey, well… I have nothing more to say.


No seriously, it’s a new year so let’s do better. Last month I promised to work out more, lose that extra weight, spend more time with my family, be more organized, and show more kindness to strangers. I want a fresh start to improve myself and the world around me because I spent way too much time last year angry and frustrated instead of positive and productive. I’ve also resolved to be more active publicly when it comes to Assange because there’s only two words you should remember this year if you want to help him: “Go outside.”

This year we should be spending our time planning non-violent protests outside embassies, consulates, and media outlets at least once a month. I know that Class Conscious has been very active in planning events and perhaps they would be willing to throw their hat in the ring to help. The U.K. deserves the most pressure because Assange’s inability to receive safe passage rests solely on their shoulders. Personally, I’m willing to drive from D.C. to Chicago or anywhere in between to protest and that’s a promise. Maybe I’ll write some more articles about Assange’s plight but I would prefer to write some more articles about the protest I just attended.

I mean it. Let’s put a little octane in this puppy and move this thing into offensive high-gear this year instead of always waiting on the bench. Remember how amazing Vault 7’s pre-publication campaign was and how many people it drew in? That’s exactly what we need: More offense, less defense. There’s nothing positive about regurgitating a lie over and over again on Twitter in order to debunk it when it’s much more entertaining to stand in front of a media outlet with a microphone and a camera in hand when the editor walks out.

I have no doubt that we can garner enough support to pressure governments into freeing Assange with hitting the streets, using the monumental, trailblazing things Assange and WikiLeaks have accomplished, a hashtag that makes sense, and the drive to fight an oppressive establishment and every bit of corruption and power it stands for. And no, that doesn’t include Nazis, WikiLeaks, so drop that Unity4J shiz you’re selling in your shop. It’s a new year, let’s do better.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Last edited by seemslikeadream on Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:58 pm

SLAD, on a personal level, how do you experience the (IMO rather extraordinary) co-incidence of Assange now in custody and without a public communication channel being maligned (rightly, IYO, I should think) at the same moment by Moreno, Mueller and much of the world media? Ostensibly for different reasons and yet undeniably quite well-coordinated. Or no? I know I have a totally different view from you but, in a friendly way, I wonder how this doesn't give you pause.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:05 pm

Thank you for being civil with me, there are a couple people here that do not agree with what I post and they believe the I do not have the right to my own opinion ....silly little gossipy school girl smears is just ridiculous....I mean where are we? Someone needs to grow up

can I say this first


Barrett Brown went to jail

Chelsey Manning went to jail

Reality Winner went to jail

Terry James Albury went to jail

everyone that spread the vicious lies about Seth Rich have apologized..except Assange, Suzie and Dot

This is despicable. "Julian Assange not only knew that a murdered DNC staffer wasn’t his source for thousands of hacked party emails, he was in active contact with his real sources in Russia’s military intelligence unit months after Seth Rich’s death." ... 9871498240

I think we just have a different opinion about Assange...I do not wish him harm but he deliberately caused harm to the Rich family...why did he do that? What did Seth ever do to him?

Did you know Hannity (STATE RUN TRUMP TV) Assange good friend deleted all his tweets about him? Why would he do that? They were such good buddies

trump loves Wikileaks!

5 hours after trump asked Russia if your listening get Clintons emails ....they showed up 5 HOURS!

NOW trump doesn't know WikiLeaks

Less than an hour after the Access Hollywood tape WikiLeaks revealed that it had received 50,000 of Podesta’s emails. It released 2,050 initially. It, too, shared the news via Twitter.

Russian Hackers Went After Hillary Clinton's Emails 5 Hours After Trump 'Joked' About It
Russia really was listening, according to the Mueller Report. ... ers-trump/

maybe you should look at this

WikiLeaked: Over 11,000 messages from private WikiLeaks chat released ... -released/

I guess the leaker doesn't like to be leaked on ...nice guy???


Emma Best (U//FOUO)
#Assange's account blocked me then made this false statement while dead naming me, because neither he, his representatives or anyone at #WikiLeaks is transphobic at all.

5:41 AM - 30 Jul 2018

After Emma Best published the WikiLeaks chats, the publisher’s founder Julian Assange revealed Best’s name assigned at birth (what trans people refer to as their “deadname”). After doing so, Twitter temporarily suspend Assange’s account until he deleted the tweet.

Trans Journalist Publishes Over 11,000 WikiLeaks Chats With Queerphobic, Pro-Trump Comments
A trans writer named Emma Best recently published over 11,000 messages from a private WikiLeaks chats between the Wikileaks Twitter account and about 10 different WikiLeaks supporters. They contain homophobic and transphobic comments and show that WikiLeaks wanted Donald Trump to win the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. The WikiLeaks chats have since been mentioned by Newsweek and other mainstream press outlets and may exacerbate the tension surrounding WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange’s continued residence at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

The WikiLeaks chats mainly show efforts between the “secret info” publisher and its supporters to coordinate public relations on Twitter following negative press. Emma Best redacted some identifying information on the chats to protect the identities of non-involved third parties, but other active participants in the WikiLeaks chats are identified.

After Emma Best published the WikiLeaks chats, the publisher’s founder Julian Assange revealed Best’s name assigned at birth (what trans people refer to as their “deadname”). After doing so, Twitter temporarily suspend Assange’s account until he deleted the tweet.

Julian Assange’s Twitter account also accused Best of releasing the chat logs in retaliation for WikiLeaks refusing to hire her. But Best tells The Daily Dot that’s a lie. “[WikiLeaks] decided to get transphobic and make shit up about me having wanted to work for them,” Best says.

Best writes, “At various points in the chat, there are examples of homophobia, transphobia, ableism, sexism, racism, antisemitism and other objectionable content and language [in the WikiLeaks chats]. Some of these are couched as jokes, but are still likely to (and should) offend, as a racist or sexist joke doesn’t cease to be racist or sexist because of an expected or desired laugh. Attempts to dismiss of these comments as ‘ironic’ or ‘just trolling’ merely invites comparisons to 4chan and ironic Nazis. These comments, though offensive, are included in order to present as full and complete a record as possible and to let readers judge the context, purpose and merit of these comments for themselves.”


Julian Assange Shows His True Colors: “Jewish Conspiracy” Against WikiLeaks

Assange and Jermas/"Shamir"
COMMENT: Evidently feeling the heat, WikiLeaks chief Julian Assange has shown something of his true nature–not the altruistic “warrior for truth” that he represents himself as being. In an article in Private Eye (UK), Assange posited a Jewish conspiracy against WikiLeaks, reacting to criticism of his selection of a celebratory anti-Semite, Holocaust denier and intimate of the Swedish Nazi milieu Joran Jermas, aka “Israel Shamir.”

Defending this overt fascist, who has stated that “It is the duty of all good Christians and Muslims to deny the Holocaust,” Assange initially blamed the bad publicity the group has received over this Nazi on a “Jewish conspiracy.” Considering that The Guardian (UK) was one of his targets in that rhetorical flourish, the comment is as ludicrous as it is offensive and revealing–The Guardian is fiercely anti-Israel.

Assange echoed the substance of his remarks about Jermas/”Shamir” in an article in The New York Times.

“Report Says Assange Complains of Jewish Smear Campaign” by Ravi Somaiya; The New York Times; 3/1/2011.

EXCERPT: . . . . He was especially angry about a Private Eye report that Israel Shamir, an Assange associate in Russia, was a Holocaust denier. Mr. Assange complained that the article was part of a campaign by Jewish reporters in London to smear WikiLeaks.

A lawyer for Mr. Assange could not immediately be reached for comment, but in a statement later released on the WikiLeaks Twitter feed, Mr. Assange said Mr. Hislop had “distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase.”

The Private Eye article quoted Mr. Assange as saying the conspiracy was led by The Guardian and included the newspaper’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, and investigations editor, David Leigh, as well as John Kampfner, a prominent London journalist who recently reviewed two books about WikiLeaks for The Sunday Times of London.

When Mr. Hislop pointed out that Mr. Rusbridger was not Jewish, Mr. Assange countered that The Guardian’s editor was “sort of Jewish” because he and Mr. Leigh, who is Jewish, were brothers-in-law. . ... nt-page-1/


Barrett Brown

Assange gave password to Trump Jr. Password was already kind of public anyway. It’s not significant except to show that Assange was trying to impress Trump people and develop a relationship. All of that has been public since the convo came out, which was when I broke with Assange
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:30 pm

I've seen all or almost all of this material. But my concern is less about Assange the individual than the degree to which his current predicament, to my eye, is clear evidence of occult wilfully hidden or semi-occult hidden coordination.
Last edited by liminalOyster on Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:35 pm

do you know about this thread?

I don't know if this link is in that thread

I'm kinda more worried a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government at the moment...

maybe we should work together on connecting the mob with the occult :)

if I have time I'd be up for it but that's not what your Russian thread is about is it?

chump does have a very good thread here
Trump Dumpf

just found these haven't watched it yet

Occult researcher Théodore Ferréol explained the rise of ‘meme magic’, in parallel with the rise of Donald Trump, to

“I think meme magic is going global,” Ferréol told me. “And I think that believing in meme magic is a motivational key to success.” According to him, creating a meme of Clinton and a cat is not the same thing as building an entire mythology around Pepe. “These people are channeling power.”

“For me, Trump is not only the new president,” Ferréol said. “He’s the new Slender Man.” ... -the-hunt/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby liminalOyster » Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:42 pm

Oh yes. Lots and lots there to explore but, no, I meant only the mundane sense of hidden organs of power. Bo-ring, I know.....
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
Posts: 1759
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby RocketMan » Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:21 am

Occult just means hidden.

It still eludes me how anyone who sees themselves as critics of unaccountable, secret power structures can go along with this disgusting propaganda/psyops campaign against Assange. ... 49fd677cac

Have you ever noticed how whenever someone inconveniences the dominant western power structure, the entire political/media class rapidly becomes very, very interested in letting us know how evil and disgusting that person is? It’s true of the leader of every nation which refuses to allow itself to be absorbed into the blob of the US-centralized power alliance, it’s true of anti-establishment political candidates, and it’s true of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.

Corrupt and unaccountable power uses its political and media influence to smear Assange because, as far as the interests of corrupt and unaccountable power are concerned, killing his reputation is as good as killing him. If everyone can be paced into viewing him with hatred and revulsion, they’ll be far less likely to take WikiLeaks publications seriously, and they’ll be far more likely to consent to Assange’s imprisonment, thereby establishing a precedent for the future prosecution of leak-publishing journalists around the world. Someone can be speaking 100 percent truth to you, but if you’re suspicious of him you won’t believe anything he’s saying. If they can manufacture that suspicion with total or near-total credence, then as far as our rulers are concerned it’s as good as putting a bullet in his head.

“He’s not a journalist.”
“He’s a rapist.”
“He was hiding from rape charges in the embassy.”
“He’s a Russian agent.”
“He’s being prosecuted for hacking crimes, not journalism.”
“He should just go to America and face the music. If he’s innocent he’s got nothing to fear.”
“Well he jumped bail! Of course the UK had to arrest him.”
“He’s a narcissist/megalomaniac/jerk.”
“He’s a horrible awful monster for reasons X, Y and Z… but I don’t think he should be extradited.”
“Trump is going to rescue him and they’ll work together to end the Deep State. Relax and wait and see.”
“He put poop on the walls. Poop poop poopie.”
“He’s stinky.”
“He was a bad houseguest.”
“He conspired with Don Jr.”
“He only publishes leaks about America.”
“He’s an antisemite.”
“He’s a fascist.”
“He was a Trump supporter.”
“I used to like him until he ruined the 2016 election” / “I used to hate him until he saved the 2016 election.”
“He’s got blood on his hands.”
“He published the details of millions of Turkish women voters.”
“He supported right-wing political parties in Australia.”
“He endangered the lives of gay Saudis.”
“He’s a CIA agent/limited hangout.”
“He mistreated his cat.”
“He’s a pedophile.”
“He lied about Seth Rich.”

Wow! That’s a lot! Looking at that list you can only see two possibilities:

Julian Assange, who published many inconvenient facts about the powerful and provoked the wrath of opaque and unaccountable government agencies, is literally the worst person in the whole entire world, OR

Julian Assange, who published many inconvenient facts about the powerful and provoked the wrath of opaque and unaccountable government agencies, is the target of a massive, deliberate disinformation campaign designed to kill the public’s trust in him.

As it happens, historian Vijay Prashad noted in a recent interview with Chris Hedges that in 2008 a branch of the US Defense Department did indeed set out to “build a campaign to eradicate ‘the feeling of trust of WikiLeaks and their center of gravity’ and to destroy Assange’s reputation.”
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby RocketMan » Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:12 am

That Johnstone article is extremely useful & comprehensive, but this bit at the end is especially relevant after the Mueller report and the exceedingly stupid Daily Beast hit piece about Assange/Russia:

Robert Mueller, who helped the Bush administration deceive the world about WMD in Iraq, has claimed that the GRU was the source of WikiLeaks’ 2016 drops, and claimed in his report that WikiLeaks deceived its audience by implying that its source was the murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich. This claim is unsubstantiated because, as we discussed in Smear 4, the public has not seen a shred of evidence proving who was or was not WikiLeaks’ source, so there’s no way to know there was any deception happening there. We’ve never seen any hard proof, nor indeed anything besides official narrative, connecting the Russian government to Guccifer 2.0 and Guccifer 2.0 to WikiLeaks, and Daniel Lazare for Consortium News documents that there are in fact some major plot holes in Mueller’s timeline. Longtime Assange friend and WikiLeaks ally Craig Murray maintains that he knows the source of the DNC Leaks and Podesta Emails were two different Americans, not Russians, and hints that one of them was a DNC insider. There is exactly as much publicly available evidence for Murray’s claim as there is for Mueller’s.

Mainstream media has been blaring day after day for years that it is an absolute known fact that the Russian government was WikiLeaks’ source, and the only reason people scoff and roll their eyes at anyone who makes the indisputably factual claim that we’ve seen no evidence for this is because the illusory truth effect causes the human brain to mistake repetition for fact.

The smear is that Assange knew his source was actually the Russian government, and he implied it was Seth Rich to throw people off the scent. Mueller asserted that something happened, and it’s interpreted as hard fact instead of assertion. There’s no evidence for any of this, and there’s no reason to go believing the WMD guy on faith about a narrative which incriminates yet another government which refuses to obey the dictates of the US empire.
-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Apr 20, 2019 11:58 am

Here's what I get out of reading all of this.

Political activists, like hippies, are intensely social comparative creatures, continually worried about their perceived pecking order. Their focus on personalities allows the political movements they try to foster to be easily disrupted and even causes them to spontaneously fracture.

None of this means that we should not fight all efforts to criminalize the actions of those who tells us about our leaders' criminality.
Posts: 4522
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Assange Amazing Adventures of Captain Neo in Blonde Land

Postby RocketMan » Sat Apr 20, 2019 12:04 pm

It really is quite amazing how successful the effort has been to keep this singular, undeniable fact from the conversation:

Assange sought asylum from Ecuador precisely for fear of extradition to the US, not Swedish or UK legal proceedings. The US immediately requested extradition after Assange was (in contravention to international law) hauled out of the embassy. In 2012 it was considered positively kooky to suggest that the US would move to extradite Assange and his fear was considered an excuse to escape rape charges.

"Sealed indictment" equalled "conspiracy theory".

Fucking unbelievable.

-I don't like hoodlums.
-That's just a word, Marlowe. We have that kind of world. Two wars gave it to us and we are going to keep it.
User avatar
Posts: 2781
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:02 am
Location: By the rivers dark
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests