As I stated weeks ago on Twitter, for me, the Depp v. Heard case was never about two celebrities or their status in Hollywood. Rather, I found the case to be an important if not vital legal fight that had the potential of exposing yet another vile white woman who had long gotten away with manipulating the world with her lies. And I say this with activism in mind.
This article is about recognizing women like Amber Heard and their toxic behavior, specifically within activist communities such as the WikiLeaks/Assange support community and the so-called “truth and transparency” movement. That doesn’t mean that other activist groups couldn’t learn something from the case and how these types of women poison movements. They can and they should.
This article isn’t meant to deflect from men like Johnny Depp who had the courage and determination to face his abuser, the press, and his detractors to bring us the truth, or Phil Hartman, another actor who was abused by his wife until she eventually killed him. Trust me, I see and hear the pain, and I’ve realized just how dangerously far the #MeToo pendulum has swung.
So yes, I’m writing this article in honor of Johnny Depp’s win and to remind everyone that men can be abused, too, and even killed by women. But, the following is also a reminder that men are not their only victims nor does the abuse always happen in private.
Sometimes the abuse and defamation is a very public affair perpetrated BY women AGAINST women, a very real phenomenon that no one wants to address and happens much more frequently in the activist community than anyone is willing to admit.
It is high time that we stop this nauseating charade that manipulative white women who have been caught repeatedly lying are somehow still worthy of our trust, more so than marginalized women or those who actually tell the truth. Common sense alone dictates that this is simply not the case.
What does appear to be the case is that white women, especially privileged ones, are more often than not able to escape punishment and public scrutiny for their manipulative, abusive behavior.
America has a long and sordid history of privileged white women sending black men (and even children) to their death with false allegations of sexual harassment and assault. Have we already forgotten about Emmet Till?
Have we also forgotten that the majority of accusers during the Salem witch hunt were white women? Have we forgotten the role that white women played in the January 6th insurrection? Have we forgotten the role white women played in electing Donald Trump? Have we forgotten the role white women played in Pizzagate and Qanon?
And have we forgotten, or did we chose to ignore, how abusive white women can be in activism?
Suzie Dawson is a long time female activist who was widely promoted by the WikiLeaks community after Assange’s communications to the outside world were severed. Dawson was so highly promoted by the community that whoever runs Assange’s old Twitter account tried to privately bully me into silence after exposing Dawson’s entirely manufactured background that she uses to grift for money.
She is a prolific liar and con artist who usually uses tactics like, “Oh, you must be a fed and an instigator since your opinions don’t match ours,” and “The only people who would dare to question my lies must be JTRIG agents.” And every single one of her lapdogs have bought into this disgustingly abusive behavior for years despite the fact it’s very effective at destroying the reputation of innocent people who expose uncomfortable truths.
Kitty Hundal and the myriad of other women who acted as Dawson’s attack dogs
Hundal and numerous other female activists (you know who you are) disparaged and attacked a number of journalists/activists, including Davey Heller from the socialist organization, Class Conscious, after he exposed and criticized Suzie Dawson’s pro-Assange movement (#Unity4J) for inviting fash and Trump supporters like Cassandra Fairbanks and Jack Posobiec into their movement.
These same women also targeted me and another online user for reporting on the inconsistencies and propaganda coming out of the WikiLeaks camp and/or documenting Dawson’s well proven lies, all of which should be red flags to any semi-intelligent activist.
Sometimes I quietly laugh to myself when I see some of these same so-called “truth movement” activists now criticizing the very things they crucified us over four years ago.
These women’s tactics usually consisted of mob attacks, liking each others’ defamatory tweets so that Twitter’s algorithms would pick them up, and delegitimizing journalistic work they found threatening by telling everyone that we were feds and/or JTRIG agents. Again, this is a very effective tool to tarnish or even ruin someone’s reputation in an activist community and WikiLeaks supported the entire thing with their silence.
A female WikiLeaks activist and insider from a Greek political family that used to be drunk on her own imaginary power until new activists showed up and put an end to her ten-year reign of terror. She spent almost the last decade bullying activists, suing them, and defaming them if they dared to ask a single question that wasn’t covered on the Assange Cult Membership forms.
GreekEmmy’s favorite tactics include suing people who don’t tow the line, hijacking other activists’ events or keeping activists she doesn’t like out of events, contacting well-known people within the support community and feeding them outright lies about activists she hates and/or can’t control, filming and doxing activists who won’t conform to the cult’s rules, and keeping a Stasi list of activists and journalists that she wants everyone to blacklist. And yes, I made it on her list 😉
Like Assange’s old Twitter account, @DefendAssange, some say that Assange’s fiance, a white, privileged female now worth over $30 million, is also behind this account. I have no idea if that’s true but what I do know is that this account likes to privately contact journalists they think are vulnerable to pressure with re-writes of their articles that are 100% favorable to Assange. The account also gives activists private, fake, and negative psych diagnoses to bully and shame them into “behaving.”
Once, after I wouldn’t bend to the movement’s wishes, the account publicly claimed that I had significant help with a series about the history of @WikiLeaks that I wrote. It was a completely fabricated lie and after I publicly called the person behind the account a “cunt” for blatantly trying to undermine my work and reputation, female supporters like GreekEmmy cried and acted like the victim.
I mean, ya’ll should really invest in a tissue company. In mirror like fashion to Amber Heard’s behavior, these delicate flowers can dish out the defamation, harassment and manipulation 24/7 but god forbid anyone fight back against the lies and deception.
Radack is a privileged white woman and whistleblower attorney who has been terrorizing a guy since early 2016, after she falsely accused him of raping her—and AFTER she used him to further her career. Just like Amber Heard.
Radack also filed a TRO against him just like Amber Heard, and she lied in it…just like Amber Heard. And then she kept tweeting and/or spreading these lies…again, just like Amber Heard.
She changed the date of the attack just like Amber Heard, and she employed her friends and associates to back her up and terrorize the guy, as well (her one friend still posts death threats), and then she and her friends social engineered the activist community and media into spreading her lies…just like Amber Heard.
She was sued twice for defamation because she literally has no self control; she was sanctioned by the court for said lack of self control; she settled in both cases rather than testifying under oath; and despite being an attorney with some expectation of professionalism, she’s obsessed with degrading men on Twitter by constantly making statements about their small, flaccid penises.
So, either Radack is a whore or she believes that she’s entitled to defame, demean and emasculate any man she so chooses.
Can you imagine the outcry if a feminist was falsely accused of a sex crime? Can you imagine Radack’s outcry if a man demeaned her on Twitter by talking about her genitalia?
I’m not trying to be raunchy here, I’m pointing out THE SICK REALITY of how these privileged white women operate and perhaps I’ll start calling Radack “Big Vagina” since this appears to be perfectly acceptable. I mean, I’m just following the low standards that Radack herself has set.
The bottom line is that Big Vagina continues to lash out and defame anyone who won’t play her game (“They’ve all work for my rapist to attack me,” seems to be the standard line), and she has spent 6 years dragging her false allegations into the activist community which she then uses to social engineer and divide.
This, while she MALICIOUSLY continues to destroy a man’s life to the point where I honestly believe she wants him completely destitute so she can watch his children go hungry—perhaps wishing that their childhood will turn out as cruel as her own.
Bogaerts is an Assange supporter and wealthy white woman who collects over $130,000/year from oil giant, Schlumberger (or at least did as of 2017 according to her own court filings), and has used some of that money to bankroll larpers and a reputation warfare firm. Emails show that she was interested in integrating military tactics and PSYOPS into the company model.
She has spent the last 4 years lying to hide her involvement in this company, as well as at least one Seth Rich conspiracy operation played out on the American public, Cicada 3301, and helping Radack terrorize the same guy she falsely accused of raping her.
She has also spent the last 4 years polishing an online persona of victimhood and accusing everyone who calls her out on her endless lies as being super mean and working for her ex—just like Amber Heard accused dozens of witnesses of being on Depp’s payroll, including, laughably, the LAPD.
She has also spent the last 4 years trying to muddy the waters by commingling her messy personal problems with the Assange support community despite the fact her relationship problems that stem from her PR firm and Cicada 3301 have literally nothing to do with it. Maybe you should ask her why she does that.
She also perjured herself in court just like Amber Heard did and she used the U.S. judicial system as her own personal platform to push false narratives and defamation while trying to shut down every else’s speech—again, just like Amber Heard.
In fact, she not only perjured herself in court multiple times, she lied to a U.S. federal agency to fraudulently obtain a trademark.
And regardless of whatever spin, lie or new defamation campaign Bogaerts sells to her audience, documents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office don’t lie.
Bogaerts and her associates have also spent years defaming the same guy Radack has, and she’s put out some doozies about him. Here’s a short list:
She lied about him working for the CIA.
She lied about him starting a company AFTER she started hers to steal clients (he started his first, corporate filings also don’t lie unlike Bogaerts).
She lied about having a loan agreement with him.
She lied about him threatening her family.
She also lied about her involvement in the “Who Spoofed the Seth Rich Files” incident, a pro-Trump/pro-Assange disinfo campaign run against the American public on social media.
She lied about her involvement in her own PR warfare firm and she lied about when she first heard about/got involved with Cicada 3301. She also lies about her face FFS by using software and/or apps to make herself appear model-esque because she knows attractive white women tend to be believed more so than unattractive women.
She actually manipulated one photo to the point where she looks like a 20-year old despite being an almost 50-year-old smoker. To put it mildly, it appears that she’s gone to great lengths to social engineer her audience and the WikiLeaks community.
In addition, she has falsely accused a myriad of journalists for crimes such as computer intrusion and other activities that they had absolutely nothing to do with. This would naturally be considered a red flag to any normal activist unless, of course, you’re in the WikiLeaks support community, one of the more toxic and deranged places on earth.
This short list of abusive behavior stemming from toxic female activists is in no way exhaustive and it doesn’t include abuse apologists like Assange’s fiance, Randy Credico, @AnonScandinavia, and Ray Johansen.
So, if you find yourself in an activist community being gaslit, manipulated, social engineered, or lied to—or you’re watching one of the community’s hailed leaders do it to others—you should run the other way because no one should be treated like that even if they stamped Julian Assange’s name all over the lies and abuse.
Also note that toxic female activists are known for dividing communities, creating drama, making it all about them, and playing the victim while accusing the very people who exposed their lies as the perpetrators. The last two are such common tactics used in the Assange support community that I can’t believe I have to actually point them out.
And just like Amber Heard, it doesn’t matter how much evidence you have against them, they simply deny it, pretend it doesn’t exist, or they twist the story. They are the most cowardly individuals you’ll ever meet for refusing to own up to their own words and actions.
You could literally have them on video shooting someone and their response would be, “No, I didn’t” and then they would carry out a decades-long defamation and terror campaign against you. When finally cornered with the crime of gunning someone down, they would simply badmouth the victim, claiming that it was their fault.
But the good news is that the people have spoken and toxic females aren’t so acceptable anymore. Make no mistake (and ignore the media trying to politicize this case), Johnny Depp’s win is a victory for all of us that have been defamed, bullied, intimidated, lied to, used and abused, falsely accused, stalked, terrorized, and/or harassed by vile, manipulative women, especially in activism.
As a last word, I am begging my audience to be responsible with the Depp v. Heard verdict. Believing all men—or all women for that matter—is such a sexist and dangerous stance to take. When the pendulum swings all the way to the right, the Harvey Weinsteins of the world are not only protected, they’re vindicated in the press. And as we’ve seen with the MeToo movement, the pendulum has long swung the other way where innocent men are targeted, defamed, and destroyed.
Harassment, abuse and rape should never be dictated by mob mentality operating on the level of a 7th grade mean girl. It should be about the evidence put forth especially when it indisputably proves that someone is a chronic liar, abuser, and/or manipulator, regardless if they’re a man or a woman.
What matters is putting aside your prejudices and recognizing that sometimes that white snowflake isn’t as angelic as she portrays herself.
Yes, I have already seen toxic women trying to take advantage of the Depp v. Heard case to further marginalize and demean men. Put simply, I’ve seen bushels of bullshit posted online to keep their endangered and toxic game alive.
I’ve also seen documented male abusers embrace the Depp v. Heard case, painting themselves as poor, helpless things victimized by virtually every woman on the internet. Yes, this is disturbing, wrong, and sadly pathetic but folks, it’s OKAY and here’s why: You will never stop every bad apple from taking advantage of a system, a workplace, or even a movement by dangerously swinging the pendulum the other way.
You will never weed all of them out because they will always manipulate whatever system you put in place. But you can call them out publicly without swinging the pendulum wildly in the other direction where the Harvey Weinsteins of the world are vindicated in the press.
You can also remind people that we are innocent in this country until proven guilty and that everyone should look at the evidence in each case rather than blindly believing one side’s claims. If someone makes an accusation, demand that they produce evidence. If they don’t, if the evidence can be easily debunked, or it’s something Amber Heard would submit in court meaning it’s not evidence or proof of anything at all, call them out and warn others. The exceedingly long trail of victims these types of people leave behind, including children, isn’t funny.
Would you think it was funny if it happened to you?
On that note, this is one more thing we have to thank Johnny Depp for: His warning. He exposed the falsehood, “White women can’t be abusive, nor do they lie,” and proved that not only can they be abusive, some of them lie like it’s their job. He also validated the unpopular belief that white women can and sometimes do manufacture evidence and that they run defamation campaigns despite what white culture wants you to believe.
This is what Depp laid bare in a quiet Virginia court room for everyone to see, and the myth that is white feminine innocence is his warning, one that you should heed.
Disclaimer: Ten thousand more pages of disclaimers to follow.
If you were mentioned in this article because your associate(s) did or said something stupid/dishonest, that’s not a suggestion that you did or said something stupid/dishonest or that you took part in it. Of course, some may conclude on their own that you associate with stupid/dishonest individuals but that’s called having the right to an opinion. If I’ve questioned something that doesn’t make sense to me, that’s not me spinning the confusing material you’ve put out. That’s me trying to make sense out of something that doesn’t make sense. And if I’ve noted that you failed to back up your allegations that means I either missed where you posted it or you failed to back your shiz up.
If I haven’t specifically stated that I believe (my opinion) someone is associated with someone else or an event, then it means just that. I haven’t reported an association nor is there any inference of association on my part. For example, just because someone is mentioned in this article, it doesn’t mean that they’re involved or associated with everyone and everything else mentioned. If I believe that there’s an association between people and/or events, I’ll specifically report it.
If anyone mentioned in this article wants to claim that I have associated them with someone else or an event because I didn’t disclose every single person and event in the world that they are NOT associated with, that’s called gaslighting an audience and it’s absurd hogwash i.e. “They mentioned that I liked bananas but they didn’t disclose that I don’t like apples. Why are they trying to associate me with apples???” Or something similar to this lovely gem, “I did NOT give Trish the thumb drive!” in order to make their lazy audience believe that it was reported they gave Trish the thumb drive when, in fact, that was never reported, let alone inferred.
That’s some of the BS I’m talking about so try not to act like a psychiatric patient, intelligence agent, or paid cyber mercenary by doing these things. If you would like to share your story, viewpoint, or any evidence that pertains to this article, or feel strongly that something needs to be clarified or corrected (again, that actually pertains to the article), you can reach me at email@example.com with any questions or concerns.
I cannot confirm and am not confirming the legitimacy of any messages or emails in this article. Please see a doctor if sensitivity continues. If anyone asks, feel free to tell them that I work for Schoenberger, Fitzgibbon, Steven Biss, the CIA, or really just about any intelligence agency because your idiocy, ongoing defamation, and failure as a human is truly a sight to behold for the rest of us.
If I described you as a fruit basket or even a mental patient it's because that is my opinion of you, it's not a diagnosis. I'm not a psychiatrist nor should anyone take my personal opinions as some sort of clinical assessment. Contact @BellaMagnani if you want a rundown on the psych profile she ran on you.
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information purposes only. While we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information contained on the post for any purpose. The owner of this blog makes no representations as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or found by following any link on this site.
The views or opinions represented in this blog do not represent those of people, institutions or organizations that the owner may or may not be associated with in professional or personal capacity, unless explicitly stated. Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual.
The owner will not be liable for any errors or omissions in this information nor for the availability of this information. The owner will not be liable for any losses, injuries, or damages from the display or use of this information.