Two days ago, WikiLeaks announced Julian Assange’s return to Twitter after an 8-year absence that stemmed from the Ecuadorian government shutting off his communications inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in late March 2018, and his subsequent arrest approximately a year later. Two minutes later, the Julian Assange account confirmed the announcement:
The only other tweet he’s posted since then is this one:
Out of the billions of tweets floating around in the Twittersphere, this is the one he chose to respond to. After eight years sans social media, the second thing he did on Twitter was post about his “defense campaign,” and to this day, no one knows what that is or who was behind it, aside from the people behind it.
Before Assange’s great announcement next week, or whatever it is he’s doing, let’s take a stroll down memory lane for all the folks at home who have since forgotten what a ghastly hellscape the Free Assange movement was back in 2018 (and still is).
The day after Ecuador cut Assange’s communications, the @BellaMagnani account (which some say Assange’s wife, Stella, controls) responded on Twitter using the new hashtag #ReconnectJulian. 15 minutes later, Kim Dotcom and Suzie Dawson also used it to promote a #ReconnectJulian livestream that was broadcast later that day.The livestream included speakers Dotcom, Dawson, Elizabeth Vos, Cassandra Fairbanks, Raymond Johansen, John Kiriakou, Trevor Fitzgibbon, HA Goodman, and more.
The #ReconnectJulian campaign continued until the end of May 2018 (sort of), when the individuals behind it (Dotcom, Dawson, Vos, and Bella Magnani) changed the name to Unity4J:
Meanwhile, Assange’s Twitter account remained dormant until April 22, 2018, when it was announced that his “campaign” was now controlling it. The account’s information stayed the same, and no one mentioned a “legal campaign,” or anything “legal,” for that matter, being involved.
The person(s) behind the account announced it via a tweet that included the hashtag #ReconnectJulian, leading supporters and news outlets to believe that the individuals behind that campaign were now running Assange’s account.
Did anyone from WikiLeaks ever clarify what was happening and who was running his account? God no. That would require transparency.
After this “campaign” started tweeting from the account, some Twitter users believed that Assange’s internet connection had been reconnected. It’s still unclear what anyone hoped to gain by doing this rather than creating a new support account.
On May 3, 2018, the account’s bio information changed. It said the “legal campaign” was running it, and, eight years later, no one knows what this is either.
Was there a licensed attorney running the account? What happened to the #ReconnectJulian campaign? Did Dawson, Dotcom, or Vos ever have access to the account and his DMs? If not, then who did? It’s basically insane that no one besides a handful of us questioned this, especially in a so-called activist community where clinical paranoia seems to be one of the qualifications for admittance.
The “julianassange” handle didn’t change during this period, but the name changed on May 18th to “Julian Assange (tweets by #FreeAssange campaign),” while the bio still read that it was being run by “legal campaign.”
After Unity4J’s first livestream on June 2, 2018, the name changed again. Assange’s profile picture was removed, his full name was stripped from the account name, and it now read “#FreeAssange! (tweets by campaign),” while the bio still said it was being run by “legal campaign.”
By October, the account was promoting Unity4J ad nauseam, while the movement promoted Trump supporters like Jack Posobiec and Cassandra Fairbanks. Dawson was also heavily grifting for money, asking people to send her bitcoin for things like a full-time babysitter so she could spend her time putting together YouTube livestreams.
A month earlier, the socialist group Class Conscious published an article titled “The Dead End of ‘Uniting’ With Fascists to Defend Julian Assange,” which was the first of its kind to call out Unity4J for what it really was: “A campaign built on unity with fascists.”
When it was first published, Dawson and members of Unity4J lost their minds. She demonized it, fed-jacketed the author Davey Heller, and then encouraged everyone to do the same. In fact, fed-jacketing is one of Dawson’s favorite pastimes, as it is for most WikiLeaks supporters, including what may be Assange’s wife (@BellaMagnani), and their unbridled paranoia that everyone who disagrees or criticizes them is a JTRIG agent is unrivaled:
Talk about fed tactics. Unity4J members either lack common sense or expect others to forgo their own when it comes to safety, informants, infiltration, and red flags. Perhaps they’re not familiar with Brandon Darby, Sabu, Michael Windecker, Mark Salerno, Enrique Tarrio, Greg McWhirter, the SpyCops inquiry, or have deliberately chosen to ignore the tactics that actual government assets used. No normal activist community operates like this: Follow our leader’s rules, which include supporting pro-Trump fascist assholes, or risk being smeared as a troll, or worse, a fed:
While Unity4J harassed, bullied, and smeared the reputation of fellow activists, indie journalists, and bloggers, the “campaign” that was controlling Assange’s Twitter account privately demanded to know what “my beef” was with Dawson:
According to Assange’s recent tweet, the person who contacted me was a member of his “defense campaign.” However, they introduced themself as a “member of Mr. Assange’s legal team,” and, as a member of his legal team, they inexplicably thought it was appropriate to squash dissent over Unity4J and Suzie Dawson—the same woman that Assange questioned years prior because of her “psychological profile”—by privately intimidating supporters into silence.
On what level is any of this normal? Did I speak with a licensed attorney? Was it Assange’s wife? According to convicted criminal and whistleblower attorney Jesselyn Radack, it was. However, Radack has also been lying about her background, so take her opinion with a grain of salt.
I’ve closely followed a few criminal cases, in particular the James Holmes theatre shooting and the Boston bombing, and I cannot fathom one of the defendants’ attorneys or members of their legal team privately trying to intimidate me for questioning one of their clients’ supporters and her alleged fraudulent activities.
How does one even process how bizarre, unprofessional, trashy, and weird this is? As I wrote in a previous article, “If the individual’s claims are true that they are part of Assange’s legal team…it’s possibly one of the most preposterous things I could imagine happening. And yet…it happened.”
On the last day of October 2018, WikiLeaks announced that the “free Julian Assange legal campaign” took over Assange’s account the same day his comms were cut back in March, so there’s that bit of news everyone probably forgot. The handle was also changed to @AssangeDefence “for clarity,” which provided no clarity whatsoever.
By January 2019, the account name read “Defend Assange Campaign” and the bio read, “Account run by the legal campaign to free Julian Assange.”
Three months later, a public meeting was held in London by a group called “The Julian Assange Defence Committee,” which was led by Emilia Butlin, a long-time WikiLeaks supporter who is currently employed by a company that operates under the umbrella of GB Global, a global supply chain network and UK defense and government logistics contractor.
After this public meeting, another member of Unity4J, Charlotte Gracias, tweeted, “@DefendAssange account and Unity4J all combined to share info and organise events.” Sorry, did I forget to mention they changed the handle again to @DefendAssange?
So, it appears that Assange’s “defense campaign,” which may or may not have included licensed attorneys from his legal team, his wife, and members of Unity4J, decided to unite with Unity4J, a movement that was founded by a woman whose psychological well-being was questioned by Assange (Dawson), a multi-convicted criminal and snitch (Dotcom), and a journalist who worked for a Pizzagate truther (Vos).
WikiLeaks, on the other hand, denied any relationship or connection to Unity4J, other than gratitude for their work.
One year earlier, on March 3, 2018, the person(s) running the @AnonScan Twitter account said that they had promised Assange they would “remain silent” and “lay off” Unity4J co-founder, Kim Dotcom, but that promise was “only in force until Julian is out.” When AnonScan made these comments, Assange still had access to the outside world.
A little over a month later, after the Ecuadorian government cut Assange’s communications, the Bella Magnani account confirmed that this conversation took place between AnonScan and WikiLeaks (Assange was still in control of the WikiLeaks account and still had access to the outside world when it supposedly took place):
To summarize, in mid-March 2018, if not earlier, Assange instructed the people controlling the AnonScan account to refrain from publicly criticizing Dotcom. In fact, if this actually happened, it was probably sometime in 2017, when Dotcom was running his Seth Rich grift with the help of Dawson, because this is what AnonScan said on August 25, 2017, before later stating that their “friend” was Assange (Schmitz is Dotcom’s real name):
Approximately ten days after AnonScan mentioned their alleged promise to remain silent about Dotcom, Ecuador cut Assange’s communications at the embassy. WikiLeaks later announced that the “Free Julian Assange Legal Campaign” had taken over his Twitter account that same day. The day after his communications were cut, Dotcom, Bella Magnani, Dawson, and Vos created the #ReconnectJulian campaign.
In April, the Bella Magnani account confirmed that WikiLeaks (Assange) told the people behind the AnonScan account to keep their mouths shut about Dotcom. Four days later, it was announced that a “campaign” was now running Assange’s Twitter account. This was the same announcement that made it sound like the same people behind #ReconnectJulian were running his account.
In early May, the account was controlled by his “legal campaign,” but by the end of the month, it changed to “tweets by #FreeJulian campaign,” while still being run by “legal campaign” (???).
In early June, right after #ReconnectJulian morphed into the fashy, fed-jacketing, JTRIG-paranoid freak show known as Unity4J—led by none other than Dotcom and Dawson—the account read, “#FreeAssange! (tweets by campaign).”
Long story short, Assange’s tweet the other day about his “defense campaign” means absolutely nothing aside from him legitimizing what was possibly the most fundamentally disturbing activist movement in history. The fact that he chose this subject over any other after returning to social media makes it even more interesting. There’s probably nothing else he could have said or done that would have been more WikiLeak-ish, other than asking people to donate to his wife’s new GoFundMe.
Post Disclaimer
This is an Op-ed article. The information contained in this post is for general information, education, and entertainment 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.
Links are provided as a convenience and for informational and educational purposes only; they do not constitute an endorsement or an approval by the operator of any of the products, services or opinions of the corporation or organization or individual. We bear no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of the external site or for that of subsequent links.
The operator of this site is not a professional such as an attorney or medical doctor. Information on this site should NOT be seen as any kind of advice including, but not limited to, legal, medical, tax or emotional advice. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. All liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all the contents of this site or website are hereby expressly disclaimed.
Comments, reviews, and other user-generated content reflect the opinions of the individuals who post them. The operator of this site does not endorse, support, verify, or agree with comments, opinions, or statements posted by users, unless explicitly stated. We are not responsible for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of user-generated content.
Any views or opinions are not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or individual. The information provided on this site and webpage is not intended to encourage, organize, or facilitate harassment, bullying, or doxxing against any individual, organization, company or corporation. We strictly condemn all forms of online harassment, threats, and targeted attacks. Readers are expected to interact respectfully and engage in civil discourse.
This site or webpage may contain copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We believe this constitutes a “fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. If you are the copyright owner of content that appears on this website and would like it removed, please contact jimmysllama@protonmail.com.
Beşiktaş Tavan Su Kaçağı Tespiti Sıva altı boru kaçağı için endoskopik kamera kullandılar. Çok etkileyiciydi. https://www.serahrose.com/?p=1758