Eight months ago I was offered a link to an MBOX from one of Beth Bogaert’s Cicada 3301 associates in order to figure out why they told everyone that WikiLeaks “cooperated” with their now-defunct group. I’m still waiting and based on the messages below it sounds like these guys used Cicada 3301, a puzzle that the media heavily reported as a CIA recruiting tool, to infiltrate Assange and use him to build up their own clout.
And yes, we know, we know. This entire shit show is Thomas Schoenberger and Trevor Fitzgibbon’s fault because ya’ll have exactly zero autonomy, responsibility, or fault in any of this, including both Cicada 3301 and Shadowbox.
Operating on about five brain cells, you blindly went along for the ride, defrauded a U.S. federal agency to obtain the Cicada 3301 trademark, ran pro-Trump disinformation ops on the American public when it worked in your favor, ran maliciously vile operations against independent journalists to cover up your lies, and ran social engineering campaigns that inferred you were working with Assange—with exactly zero evidence produced that shows you actually were.
If this story is true, that Assange was “cooperating” with Cicada 3301 (per the above DMs from a Cicada 3301 member other than Schoenberger and someone Bogaerts follows on Twitter), then perhaps the sketchiest part about this entire three-ring monkey act is that not one of you were subpoenaed nor were your emails and DMs with regards to Assange’s “cooperation” and leaking ya’ll Vault 7 information through Fitzgibbon. Pretty strange, don’t you think?
But hey, let’s not get hung up on the details. Let’s just keep our fingers crossed that former members of Cicada 3301 like @ATafoyovsky and Bogaerts will back this bullshit up publicly. Come on, just say it: WikiLeaks and Assange were involved with Cicada 3301, your pro-Trump disinfo operations, and were completely compromised by Schoenberger and Fitzgibbon so no one should ever leak to them again.
In fact, Assange should be extradited for that alone. I mean, how dare he work with a rapist (isn’t that what Jesselyn Radack told the Department of Justice) and a convicted stalker!
Personally, I hope he’s released just so he can enlighten us as to how this all went down and how much he enjoyed “cooperating” with Cicada 3301 members like Schoenberger and Bogaerts via Fitzgibbon so they could run ops on his behalf. It’ll be the event of the century!
Imagine Assange finally coming clean about this especially in light of the fact that Ray Johansen, Bogaerts, members of Anonymous, Jesselyn Radack, @ATafoyovsky, and others have spent years persuading both domestic and foreign audiences that Schoenberger and Fitzgibbon are evil incarnate, they work with Erik Prince and pretty much planned the ENTIRE January 6th coup attempt, and have infiltrated everything including Courage Foundation, WikiLeaks, and the entire U.S. intelligence apparatus.
Based on the narrative these people have pushed for years, Assange’s “cooperation” with Cicada 3301 clearly means that he was compromised by these monsters in 2017. It’s sad though to realize that he’s this level of stupid as has been pointed out about ten billion times by the the wonderful people mentioned above, and that Cicada 3301 took advantage of his deteriorating mental state as described by expert witnesses during his extradition trial.
But enough of the pity parties, let’s celebrate! This will definitely help his public image now that everyone knows he was involved—sorry, cooperating—with Cicada 3301 a.k.a. leaking information to them about Vault 7, and that ya’ll were saying this was true less than 8 months ago.
It will also help Assange’s image because, don’t forget, despite their public (and dishonest) denial about Cicada 3301 in an effort to keep their hands clean, @AnonScandinavia was involved via Bogaerts (if not directly and with others) and ran a pro-Trump, Cicada 3301-themed, Warren Flood disinfo op on the American public in 2017. I bet Assange was 100% on board with that! Maybe it was his idea, who knows! It’s all very exciting.
@AnonScandinavia was also the FIRST ONE to bring Qanon freak Tracy Beanz into the WikiLeaks support community and give her a platform (oh wait, am I raining on @ATafoyovsky and Bogaerts’ “let’s blame everyone else and bury our involvement” campaign?). But this, too, will boost Assange’s image (especially if he suggested it!) despite the fact WikiLeaks publicly denounced Qanon.
Clearly Assange privately supported it as evidenced by his “cooperation” with Cicada 3301, @AnonScandinavia (who brought Tracy Beanz into all of this), Fitzgibbon, and others. Maybe @ATafoyovsky can make one of those nifty little charts where everyone that Bogaerts hates is shown as working together in some massive, evil conspiracy. I think it would make it easier if everyone could see how Assange is directly tied to Qanon.
I mean, that’s what ya’ll are saying, yes? In 2020, didn’t you guys plant in both the media and academia that Schoenberger was running Cicada 3301 and he started Qanon? You know, HBO, TED, Vice, Michigan State etc. etc.
Yup, you sure did.
And now ya’ll are saying after you started planting those stories that Assange was “cooperating” with the founder of Qanon via Fitzgibbon? It makes perfect sense now that @AnonScandinavia told the world in February 2017, that Assange was compiling the videos of Schoenberger’s Qanon minion, Tracy Beanz. What blows the mind is that these people are finally admitting that Schoenberger was telling the truth all along. He was working with Assange!!
Very important side note: I want to point out that @AnonScandinavia’s hashtag above about “#WikiLeaks compiling” Tracy Beanz’ videos wasn’t meant to social engineer you into falsely believing that they were working with WikiLeaks and Assange, it was to prove to you that they were by releasing this kind of inside information. They’re clearly inside the inner, inner, inner circle of WikiLeaks and they were nice enough to let everyone know that Assange was 100% on board with promoting Beanz. Duh.
Unfortunately, when Bogaerts’ pro-Trump disinfo and defamation campaigns started being unraveled in The Rabbit Files, her bestie, AnonScan, quickly deleted their old account in an attempt to get rid of this kind of delightful evidence that shows they were involved in the entire operation. Don’t delete, be proud, AnonScan! You helped run disinfo ops with the King of Qanon on behalf of Assange and WikiLeaks, what an honor!!
Unfortunately, some people like myself (I have since come to my senses) have had the audacity to point out that whole nasty business about @AnonScandinavia admitting in Twitter DMs that they were working with far-right Nazi prom queen, SheliJ, during the same 2017 time period when they were also running the pro-Trump, Cicada 3301-themed disinfo op and WikiLeaks was “cooperating” with Cicada 3301.
SheliJ a.k.a. Ravagiing a.k.a. O Sweet Savage was recently exposed for basically working with the FBI via the company, Exeintel, which was allegedly using case information from the agency to boost the company’s reputation. Gotta make that money, amirite?
Here’s SheliJ wearing an Atomwaffen mask:
But must we be so judgmental? I mean, on the exact same day in April 2019 that FBI agent, Jayson Chambers, filed Exeintel as a company, @AnonScandinavia was crying online to The Jester that SheliJ was still their friend.
There’s nothing wrong with being friends with Nazis, flirting with them online in the name of taking down some jihadists on behalf of a CIA-controlled op called #OpISIS, or directly working with them (and U.S intelligence) as long as you’re wearing an Anonymous mask.
There’s also nothing wrong with Assange “cooperating” with this group of far-right sympathizers who operate under the guise that, well, they’re not. We needed a juicy and uplifting story like this. I hope Cicada 3301 will let us know when they’re going to hold that presser and release the evidence that WikiLeaks and Assange cooperated with Cicada 3301 in 2017, only to be compromised by them later. Oof. Maybe they’ll do it after Trump announces his 2024 presidential run. Fingers crossed!!
*This is strictly a peak sarcasm opinion piece but all screenshots and DMs included or mentioned are legitimate
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 firstname.lastname@example.org 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.