Doubting Thomases 211

I have been quite amused to receive some – well actually rather a lot of – rather aggressive tweets and other social media messages from people who believe Julian Assange is dead, and are therefore outraged I had supper with him on Friday. This seems to me the ultimate in concern trolling – to pretend to adore someone so much that you are angry and upset to find the object of your adoration has not been killed or kidnapped. There are youtube videos alleging that Julian is dead which together have attracted millions of viewers. It is a peculiar kind of cargo-cult.

We now have the situation where people who had never heard of Julian a year ago are demanding that he must be visited not by long-term associates, like John Pilger and myself, but by a “trusted person”, by which these new devotees mean someone Julian has never seen before, probably working for Rupert Murdoch. Best of all are the demands for photos with a sock on the head or a newspaper. To pander to these silly demands would be a never-ending task, and merely spark a new round of craziness – “that sock on his head is photo-shopped”, “that was a double at the window”. It is not a game in which I have any interest. Undoubtedly some of it is stirred up by security services anxious to muddy the water about the authenticity of Wikileaks’ work. But most of it is from decent and genuine but misguided people.

I have been visiting Julian since before Jane from Idaho heard of him, and the purpose of visiting him is not to provide comfort to Jane from Idaho. If my word does that, fine. If she does not want to take my word, also fine. But if people could at least research who John Pilger, Yanis Varoufakis and myself are before deciding we are a CIA plot, that would be helpful. Stopping the aggressive and insulting tweets would be nice too.



New Book: Sikunder Burnes: Master of the Great Game – by Craig Murray

Liked this article? Please share using the links below. Then View Latest Posts

Allowed HTML - you can use: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

211 thoughts on “Doubting Thomases

1 2 3
  • Madeleine Love

    But not one outsider will understand why you didn’t take a small vid while there, talking current events, with a newspaper, and posting it, if 99.99% assurance is what you intend to give.

      • Madeleine Love

        Brian, I’m not sure what you intended to say by that comment.
        I’m not sure who you mean by “These People”.

          • Madeleine Love

            So I think you’re saying that you *know* ?Craig and consider (on that basis) that I should credit the superficial message of his piece above as fact?
            And I think you’re saying that this assurance of yours should carry weight with me?
            But could you really be thinking it would do so? Even on the simple concept that *knowing* someone is a basis for credit, we fail at that same hurdle I apparently fail at with Craig, since I don’t *know* you – not even your name.

          • John Spencer-Davis

            There are two witnesses. Yanis Varoufakis and Craig Murray both say they dined with Julian Assange on 25th November.

            If you think two witnesses are both lying, why should photographic or video evidence satisfy you? Both can be faked.

          • Madeleine Love

            John Spencer-Davis
            If you’re directing your November 30, 2016 at 00:33 comment at me…
            Re your “If you think two witnesses are both lying” <- this is your construct, not mine.
            As such I can't address your logic or conclusions.
            In the November 28, 2016 at 04:34 post above I said that outsiders will find it difficult to understand why a video/newspaper/current events snippet wasn't taken and posted.
            In the November 28, 2016 at 04:51 post below I represented my most optimistic view, being "certainly his “friends” are involved in a conspiracy of restricting and managing information in respect of him". I can think of many reasons for doing so, both positive and negative.
            If you want to take discussion further, probably best to frame a challenge to my actual words.

        • John Spencer-Davis

          You asked Brian Fujisan if he meant “that I should credit the superficial message of his [Craig Murray’s] piece above as fact?”

          Apologies if I was mistaken, but I took that to mean that you do not credit Craig Murray’s message as fact: and therefore that you do not believe that he had supper with Julian Assange at the Embassy on 25th November. Does that express your construct better?

          I therefore pointed out that the matter does not rest on Craig Murray’s word alone. Yanis Varoufakis also confirms that he dined with Julian Assange on that night. Which increases the credibility of Craig Murray’s account. Does it not?

          If the testimony of two separate witnesses does not satisfy you, why should anyone assume that a short video would satisfy you? Even if it satisfied you, doubtless there are many people out there who would denounce it as a fake. Craig Murray would be no further forward. So why bother?

          • Madeleine Love

            Re John Spencer-Davis, November 30, 2016 at 08:33
            My November 30, 2016 at 00:15 post to Brianfujisan was an abstract exercise in discussion of his thought processes/logic – he’s rather cryptic.

            But on my thoughts – there is a broad gap between not crediting an assurance, and accusing an author of lying. I could read the words of Craig & Yanis in a number of ways that would credit truthfulness, yet still not offer assurance. Indeed I think it’s odd for Craig to think that strangers would credit the superficial reading on nothing more than a two paragraph penned assurance. As a science-type I would expect to provide data to support claims made. As a science reader I would never credit the claims of an ‘expert authority’ without scrutinising the data/references (viz my last 15 years). Even if the PR agents of a company like Monsanto produced a second ‘expert’ to support the claims of first, the case is no stronger if there is still no data (viz Yanis). In fact, two is quite a small number. GMO/Investor PR interests recently cobbled together 117 nobel prize winners to sign a ludicrous statement on “Golden Rice” – a trojan horse product that has been in-development-and-about-to-save-the-world for three decades. After nearly a century of Bernays we’re getting quite good at identifying and processing pitches and propaganda. We’re in the data-age.

            For me the case of Assange’s location/life/freedom is open. But because the idea of torture (as I am sure Assange would be if he were to be captured/handed-over/self-surrendered) is beyond aborrant, and because I would like to financially support the work of wikileaks, I am really very anxious for information on the security (or otherwise) of each.

            It’s very odd to me that you would suggest that a genuine live-Assange video/current paper/current events would not be a valuable piece of data to the people. Are you playing a doubt-game?

          • John Spencer-Davis

            Do you believe that Craig Murray and Yanis Varoufakis had supper with Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy on the evening of Friday, 25th November, 2016, or don’t you?

          • Madeleine Love

            Re: John Spencer-Davis November 30, 2016 at 15:13

            Sorry 🙁 & 🙂 I’m the wrong person for that question.
            I don’t think I’ve ever “believed” anything in my life.
            Life to me is a swirl of probabilities – I act/credit on thresholds of certainty (but usually couch).
            As such I tend to find holes in solid brick walls.

            Regarding your interest in my views…
            Most simply, I weigh…
            On the basis that satisfactory (for most) proof of Assange’s life would have been very simple – I regard a clam that Assange is in his former place in the Embassy as unlikely; However this is mediated by the fact that I can think of multiple motivations for not providing this proof by those who would claim to visit him as “friends”. I regard it as beyond a threshold of certainty that these friends are involved in a conspiracy of restricting and managing information about Assange. I think this conspired action is cruel and already having some detrimental impacts; however, time may eventually show that it has served Assange/wikileaks/global good.
            Regarding the quality of the assurances made by Craig & Yanis – I’d say, in general, the open-worded assurances of high profile political/diplomatic people I didn’t know well would typically get a low-weight of relevance in the consideration in the absence of data. I think I’d give a higher weight to the evidence of an unknown drunk on the street.
            Regarding Pilger – being Australian I have many decades of experience with his works; I’ve seen a bit of very recent anomolies that tell me to be skeptical about the data he offers on Assange at this time.

            Spellcheck *abhorrent in comment above

          • Kief

            Madeleine; I would appreciate your input on the email episode which resulted (using many metrics) in the Trump presidency.

            I understand the objective publication of any and all docs WL receives without prejudice or bias as a principle. What I don’t understand is the selective prosecution of same. IOW’s what objectivity can we expect when a clearly subjective act against Hillary Clinton?

            Are they publishing everything they receive without bias in that process?

            Has Assange become a detriment to the principle?

          • Madeleine Love

            Re Kief, November 30, 2016 at 23:27

            Re “…the email episode which resulted (using many metrics) in the Trump presidency”
            I don’t know what your metrics are but I lean to a view that Trump was the publicly preferred candidate long before the emails were released. Wikileaks tweeted to articles that both claimed and denied their impact on the election outcome. On Nov 13 Wikileaks tweeted out a July 2016 article by Michael Moore on why Trump would win. Moore’s analysis (except for one statement) was exact to my view, matching what I’d seen through the public’s (social) media – my rare views of the establishment’s mainstream media showed an utterly divorced parallel universe.

            Having talked down the impact it’s difficult to engage on the next of “selective prosecution”. Wikileaks says it promises “maximum impact” for the risks taken by sources. “Impact” shouldn’t be inferred to mean “election changing” – rather that people would read and learn how high level power operates at a time when an election brings focus to these issues. I’d say the US Republican & Democratic political parties are sufficiently adept at their extreme power games to make a ‘Wikileaks effect’ largely redundant. The Democrats had covertly collected some very deflating statements from Trump; it may be that Trump’s Republicans had found a way to springboard off one phrase from the emails in a last week action to enrage the evangelicals out to vote – “Spirit Cooking” was huge on twitter – one phrase with traumatic visuals. The volume of documents are for historians.

            Re Assange as a detriment to the principle…
            One learns to recognise, and have sympathy and adjust for, the Assange lens in reading the Wikileaks tweets and statements. Sometimes I consider I’ve read the panic of fear for his life in the emphasis and angle in his statements. This is very separate from the authentic documents that are published through the wikileaks vehicle. I have drawn great reward from the wikileaks releases, knowing better how the world works and how to act. I wish Assange (rightly and justly) had no fear for his life – I would like to see the tone and emphasis relax into that of an urbane publisher.
            Hearing of Assange’s death wouldn’t stop me donating to wikileaks, if I had confidence that the wikileaks vehicle wasn’t compromised.

  • Madeleine Love

    And as for Pilger (whom I recall a UK judge describing as a “peripatetic Australian” in 2010, denying his surety for Assange), there are many explanations, and anomolies as well. For example, his “INSIDE THE INVISIBLE GOVERNMENT: WAR, PROPAGANDA, CLINTON & TRUMP” was first posted to the date of 17th October. An assurance of Assange’s wellbeing at that time was not especially useful. However when the article went very public the date was changed to the 27th October, creating an impression in many that Assange had survived the period most in question.
    Perhaps Assange is OK, and perhaps he isn’t – but certainly his “friends” are involved in a conspiracy of restricting and managing information in respect of him.

      • Madeleine Love

        I’ve been following Assange’s work since 2010, others at MADGE for longer, when he was still haunting Melbourne (his last permanent address). See twitter @MadeleineLove and @MADGEAustralia (which retains the “free bradley” ribbon).
        Shallow-information personal assurances of Assange’s residence at the Embassy and wellbeing are not helpful, in the circumstances.

        • Paul Barbara

          @ Madeleine Love November 28, 2016 at 05:45
          Madelaine Love (AKA ?????), if you don’t have faith in Craig, why the f**k are you pestering people on his blog?

          If you want to believe Julian Assange is dead, fine. Put an Obit in the Times, and send some flowers to the Embassy.
          The same goes for any other ‘doubting Thomases’ or ‘doubting Darlings’.

          • Madeleine Love

            Madeleine Love, also known as Madeleine Love
            And you are?
            Re “pestering”? Brian responded cryptically my comment, and continues in that style. I would say the reverse applies.
            I came to the blog via @CraigMurrayOrg. I suppose that was his purpose of tweeting a link to the article.
            I commented, to be helpful, seeing that the author purported not to understand why people outside his(?) “Assange inner circle” would not draw comfort from his personal assurances.

      • Macky

        “Give us all a break and go find some other conspiracy to go on about.”

        You mean like PizzaGate/Spirit Cooking, (which may or may not be connected with Assange’s current incommunicado).

  • Lisa Townsend

    Hi. I am a single mum with a 16 year old geek son from Julian’s home town. We are all genuinely worried for him as a person.

    Seriously, considering the forces he is exposing, there is NOTHING in this to reassure us. To say it is concern trolling is plain wrong.

    We all love and support Julian.
    I don’t think this will help at all. Not enough.

    • Madeleine Love

      Lisa, I’m Australian too. Are you doing anything like contacting your local member/s or foreign minister or attorney general? I don’t know why there isn’t a lot more discussion about reinstating his passport, bringing him home and protecting him from these awful forces. It’s like both major political parties are belonging to the worst forces – I haven’t heard much from the Greens – leaving it to Pauline Hanson to speak out.

  • Daniel Jackson

    Don’t see why you’re so dismissive of this whole thing. Boo hoo you’re getting some bad press, who knows you might not deserve it – time will prove that to me. But there’s a world of people like me who are anxious beyond comprehension that the man is not alive, and that the pillar of freedom we had is lost. Everything points to the contrary, and as you will see in Wikileaks post responses, not a single person is trusting one word from any Wikileaks feed until we see Julian, regardless of how you or anyone else feel about it, that is the very bottom line. You’ve worked far too hard on your disarming semantics here for me not to be suspicious. Put up or shut up.

    • Paul Barbara

      @ Daniel Jackson November 28, 2016 at 06:24 (and all ‘concerned’):
      ‘not a single person is trusting one word from any Wikileaks feed until we see Julian, regardless of how you or anyone else feel about it, that is the very bottom line’
      Ever considered that might be the object of the scare?
      Instead of having a ‘I don’t believe Craig Murray’, and ‘I want to put my hand in the wounds inflicted on poor Julian’ attitude, why not read Craig’s (non-fiction) books, and then come back to us?

    • Kief

      Not everyone has romantic expectations from Assange. He’s just a man. Don’t put your trust in such people.

      Trust the ideas. they are bullet-proof. Too much focus is put on flawed individuals, full of the same unseen motivations as the rest of us.

    • michael norton

      I imagine Julian has been keeping his head down in the final stages of the U.S.A. presidential elections.
      The Donald is not installed.
      Obomba this has more to do.
      Keep your head down a bit longer Julian.
      Clinton may yet take the helm.

      • michael norton

        If The Donald met with an unfortunate incident
        xthat incapacitated him from taking the helm, does that mean that Clinton, then gets her chance grasping the levers of power?

        • michael norton

          I can understand that once The Donald has pledged his troth, if he were to become incapacitated, his deputy dog would take the helm.
          If it was assumed he would be the POTUS but dropped dead before he had become the new leader of the free world, it might return to the electoral college,
          for eXtra thinking through.

      • Paul Barbara

        @ michael norton November 28, 2016 at 08:39
        ‘Clinton may yet take the helm.’

        ‘Don’t bother closing the hatches, Dive! Dive! Dive!’ (‘I’m on my last legs. and I’m taking y’all with me!)

  • Paul Barbara

    A friend told me Alex Jones is worried about Julian, so I sent Alex a reassuring note with Craig’s relevant blog on it.
    I’m sure he will accept Craig’s and John’s assurances.

    But enough of this baloney; a handful of contemptable treasonous Congressmen have just pushed through a Bill about sussing out a ‘No Fly Zone’ in Syria!!!
    ‘US House Seeks Syria-War Escalation’:

    And based on a proven fraudster’s ‘evidence’, just like they accepted a similar fraudster’s ‘evidence’ about Chemical Weapons trucks and Uranium ‘Yellow Cake’ in Iraq:
    ‘The Caesar Photo Fraud that Undermined Syrian Negotiations’: ermined-syrian-negotiations/

    As they say, ‘you couldn’t make it up’, but the MSM and Sheeple lap it up!!!

    • Alan

      “Well a quick Twitter search fails to come up with anything”

      Nothing new there then 😉

      Craig, maybe you should take a photo of J reading Sikunder Burnes to silence the doubters. J spends his days in the embassy reading CM would then become the headlines 🙂

      • Phil Ex Frog

        “Nothing new there then”

        As you seem to suggest otherwise I will point out I don’t doubt that Craig met with Assange and Varoufakis as he says he did. I do suspect he inflates the encounter to promote brand Murray but that’s another matter.

        My point was that Craig complains of attacks that do not seem to exist. Exactly the behaviour he judges others for. Perhaps you are another commentator untroubled by making stuff up.

      • Kief

        Or holding a current newspaper for ‘proof of life’

        Why does this sound so odd? Oh yeah. We are in the Trump Age. Facts and logic are no longer needed commodities .

    • Jim

      Indeed, and the impression Craig seems so inordinately proud to boast to the world is that Varoufakis was visiting the Embassy with the sole aim of ‘having lunch’ and discussing matters of great import with himself and the Sainted Julian. No mention of the proposed Ecuadorean referendum on tax-havens which might have been the real reason for his visit, and which he Tweeted about on the day.
      Varoufakis may have shared a polite bite to eat with the pair of them during his visit, but the only confirmation he gives of such a meeting is a curt ‘I confirm’ in response to a tweeted question.

      • craig Post author


        Yanis arrived at the Embassy late evening. Nobody was there except Julian, a security guard and I. It is perfectly possible he had been at the Embassy earlier in the day for discussions of the kind you posit – I do not know, he did not mention it. But it had nothing to do with his evening visit. He came to see Julian, and did not know I was there till he arrived.

        I have no idea why you want to insinuate Yanis was only accidentally having supper there. It was actually he who bought the food and brought it with him.

        • Jim

          Craig :
          Yanis Tweeted about the proposed Ecuadorean referendum on tax-havens, he was visiting the Embassy that day also, so it would make sense that was the reason for his visit.
          Frankly I don’t believe your account Craig, just as I don’t trust your statement regarding the purported strong condemnation of Putins regime you claim to have made on RT…you’ve provided no video evidence to back this up.
          Varoufakis’ curt two word affirmative tweet suggests to me some degree of regret and embarrassment to have been caught publicly having been in the company of the pair of you.

          • craig Post author

            You have a tremendous knack for hitting on the diametric opposite of the truth, Jim. As we left we agreed the content of our conversation had been confidential but that I would blog it had happened to reassure those worried about Assange’s health. Yanis specifically insisted I would tell people he was there. He could have just not answered that tweet if he did not want to confirm.

            He appeared – albeit by video link – with Julian and I on the WikiLeaks Brexit Club through the night referendum broadcast. Google it. This is not a new association. Or do you believe that is fake too?

          • Jim

            I watched the incredibly tedious Wikileaks Brexit club broadcast Craig,even you must admit it was a dismal effort?
            Again, your account of Varoufakis’ actions and statements doesn’t have the ring of truth. Why the purported keenness to disseminate to the world knowledge of this meeting, but simultaneous desire for confidentiality of the conversation?
            You still haven’t answered the point about your claimed strong condemnation of Putin on RT.

        • K Crosby

          This is another Running Blind attempt to waste peoples’ time Craig. That said, everyone knows that Julian is living on a ranch in Arizona with Elvis, Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin….

    • Brianfujisan

      i can’t understand that Shap Ears… in my meetings with Craig he is real.. And Clark,, And Squonk.. And Nevermind,, and his Wife

      i Know some history of the Blog, how hurt you were. i Hope you are well

  • Alcyone

    Craig: “But most of it is from decent and genuine but misguided people.”

    Yes that pretty much sums up the World. Unfortunate for our Type Zero Global Civilisation that even most well-meaning people are genuine nutters of a full spectrum of shades and colours. Where is there clarity of thinking, leave alone self-knowledge, leave further alone Wisdom, in this world?

    At any rate, since you met a post-multi-year-Swedish-prosecutor-interview-awaited Julian and he was buoyed by recent ‘events’, that is a good sign. The Great Chess Game continues, it’ll be interesting to see the Swede’s next move.

    Btw, can anyone provide perspective of the Ecuadorian political dynamics pending elections etc.?

    PS On the previous thread Craig I asked you why were/are you engaging with the Julian Safety Brigade at all, when you know they are emotionally unstable?

  • johnf


    Are you still alive, or is this a conspiracy of two dead people to fool the gullible?

    There are probably lots of other dead people out there, too. Maybe I’m the last person left alive. Most of the time I think I’m alive. Since I’m surrounded by dead people though its very difficult to confirm this.

      • Alcyone

        Continue to engage with the brain-dead and you will soon be dead, brain-wise of course.

        99% of the world is sleep-walking through life, that is how we got here, so what’s new?

        • Brianfujisan

          99% of the world is sleep-walking through life, that is how we got here, so what’s new?

          Don’t Agree Alcy.. You and I know it’s much more complex than that

          the Act of Typing, let alone the thought… But yes.. Imagination is missing Big time.

          • Alcyone

            Brian, we have made it complex. It wasn’t in The Beginning and since neither is The Source, it really need not be.

            If we don’t clean our windows, do not expect to be able to see with clarity. Our antennae only pick up and transmit white noise. Stop being romantic and look at all the shit here.

            I like to keep it simple. I need my sleep but I also need to be awake else I’ll be just another dead man walking. Psychological death and the you can live. Btw your sleep timings have always been a mystery to me. How does it work?

      • Carolyn

        Created an account just to say that was funny. I feel that way every day lately. Anyway, it’s good to read you have seen him. The hysteria is almost to the point that if Julian appeared in the flesh they would call him a CIA clone. You won’t win with that crowd.

      • Ba'al Zevul

        Cue Runciter:


        (Philip K Dick: Ubik )

  • whatisis

    I like how you are distorting everything from the actual of ‘people are outraged that you had dinner with Julian and didn’t bring back proof of life.’ I particularly like the words “peculiar kind of cargo-cult.” Good wordsmithing.

    I also suspect that your fake ignorance and misunderstanding the situation of the game in which you purport no interest is in fact the opposite of the truth. I think you are playing a game of let’s get interest in Julian off the charts. If so. Well done it’s working a treat.

    Early Merry xmas and happy new year to Julian from me.

    • Republicofscotland

      “Pressure was growing on Scottish Labour yesterday after its attack on the SNP over MPs’ expenses backfired when the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) admitted it had published incorrect figures.

      Former SNP leader Alex Salmond joined calls for Scottish Labour to issue a retraction after its “bogus” attack as the correct figures showed that SNP MPs cost less and work harder than their predecessors.”

      I agree totally Fred the unionist lies must stop.

      • fred

        I think there is a big difference between quoting official figures which weren’t accurate, if it happened, you never know with the National, and just making things up.

  • Anon1


    It’s the same when you don’t post for a while. Your cult followers think you’ve been droned by the CIA.

  • Macky

    @Craig, As usual you come across as smug, condescending & patronising towards the people concerned about Assange; I suppose it must hurt your ego that some people don’t trust you, but that’s life, accepting it without be snidely arrogant might be a start in the right direction to countering this distrust.

    Anyhow on the plus side, the more people kick-up a storm about this, the quicker Assange will get his internet back.

    • craig Post author

      When I give people helpful information, and they respond by calling me a liar, I think I am entitled to contempt for them.

      • Macky

        Is feeling “contempt” for people because they don’t trust what you say rational, or even reasonable, especially considering they don’t even know you ?

        • craig Post author

          Because it is not rational for people to doubt me when I say I met with somebody with whom I have had a well documented and easily verifiable relationship for years, with no evidence I am lying or even potential motive why I should.

          • Macky

            Have you not heard, we are in “Post-Truth” times, nothing can be accepted at face value, especially when there are apparent discrepancies occurring with the WikiLeaks twitter account; your attitude still stinks.

          • Matt

            While I understand your contempt Craig, I disagree when you say it’s not rational for people to doubt you. Sadly we live in a world where pretty much everything we’re told is bullshit. Not everyone who reads your blog knows your background, and some of those who do will still doubt your sincerity because the world we live in has moulded an army of paranoid keyboard warriors. A lot of people know you as a “former ambassador”, which basically translates to “worked for the government”. It doesn’t surprise me that there are people out there who think you’re part of the system. It’s unavoidable when you have such a background and present yourself as a voice on the internet.

            Yes, these people are misguided. But it’s not their fault. Your contempt is better directed at the ruling elite, and the corporate media. These are the people to blame for the doubt that some people here have in you. These are the people who made us all paranoid.

            fwiw, if it turns out you’re full of shit, I’m never reading another blog again. I have faith in your sincerity. Most of us who read this blog daily have faith in you. But you’re fooling yourself if you think you can win the trust of everyone.

            Thanks for the update regarding Julian, I personally am happy that he is well and in good company.

          • Macky

            “Takes all sorts, I suppose.”

            Indeed, some even believe that “overall” the British Empire was a force for Good.

          • Matt

            I don’t think there’s many people who would use the term “nice guy” to refer to Putin. I speak favourably of him, relative to Western leaders, yet I wouldn’t use that term. I don’t doubt he’s a cruel man.

            I don’t think he’s a pizzza connoisseur, though.

  • nevermind

    Thanks for the info on Assange, I suppose he is waiting for the Swedes to digest what he has said. All this talk about having diner and not a hint of what was served, was it Roo steaks and Fosters or Souvelaki and Retsina?….:)

    Anybody so seriously concerned about JA’s state of affairs the moment he’s incommunicado can always try and write him a letter, or come to London, wave at him from below the balcony.

    Just because you blog about an evening out with him dopes not make you responsible for calming the jitters of some twitters twattering.

    I’m sure that Julian can find a way of communicating with the outside via proxy’s and this visit should be taken as such, those who don’t believe you and rather align alongside/spread conspiracy theories about JA should keep away from computers for a while, it focuses minds on real life.

    • MJ

      “wave at him from below the balcony”

      Chance would be a fine thing. He used to appear regularly but has not done so for several weeks. Not surprisingly this has led to speculation that he is no longer in the embassy. He only needs to appear again and all speculation will cease. It’s not about trusting Craig, it’s about wanting better evidence, which JA can provide very easily.

      • nevermind

        I’m sorry to have suggested waving at him from below the balcony, I did not want to give the expression here that I believe he is safe.
        After the revelations and email releases during the last presidential race, with a specially vindictive candidate having once urged to ‘drone him’, I can understand that he does not want to appear in public for a while.

        Waiting to see whether internet provisions will be restored and whether Sweden’s interest have changed since Trumps immaculate inception/election.

  • Herbie

    Wasn’t it Wikileaks itself which first encouraged concerns over Julian’s whereabouts?

    And having generated much speculation, now the job is done.

    Even the barely interested now know he’s incommunicado.

    That’s the point I suppose. To emphasise his inncommunicadoness.

    I mean, who’d have known he was supposed to be missing in the first place had they not made an issue of it.

  • Ranza

    I find it amusing that you decided to write a blog post about it instead of simply snapping a picture or making a short video with you and Julian. I believe that many are rightly concerned in authenticity of wikileaks (at least their twitter account, example: ), so help from you (using simple means I’ve just mentioned) would be much appreciated and helpful in settling down the status of various alleged conspiracy theories.

    Ask yourself how noble of you is to ridicule the people who don’t have the opportunity you have?

    • nevermind

      Ranza, please explain why you think its Craigs job to calm the ‘truly concerned’? Can they not find somebody else? such as the postman or the pizza delivery boy?
      Are you going to pay Craigs flight to London and back and should he make time just to deflate your overblown concerns?

      • Macky

        “Nevermind has a beautiful Mind” LOL !

        What’s with all the rudeness, especially to new people posting here for the first time ?!

        Doubt if they will be back thanks to the efforts of some favour-carrying regulars.

        • J. R. Tomlin

          Or maybe we ‘favour carrying [sic] regulars’ think that on his own blog Craig, with his history, should be given the courtesy of NOT being called a liar.

          • Macky

            You’re very unseen before “regular” ! 😀

            a) People asking for evidence to ease worrying anxiety is not the same as calling Craig a liar.

            b) Being rude is not just bad manners, but counter-productive, as it’s get people’s back-up & can make them even more suspicious.

          • Kief

            ” Being rude is not just bad manners, but counter-productive,”

            Holy shit. Did you say that without any self-awareness, whatsoever?

          • Macky

            Kief; “Holy shit. Did you say that without any self-awareness, whatsoever?”

            I’m always very aware , which is why my responses are measured both against the civility, and the known track record of the commentator; I would never be rude to a civil first time Poster here, unlike Nevermind, who obviously lives up to his name by neverminding; it’s amazing how irrational & self-debasing people can act out of blind loyalty.

        • nevermind

          Macky, since when did I ever rival you in rudeness. My questions are vexing and not designed to appeal to flowers, so keep on the carpet, nobody can rival you.

          • Macky

            Whetever I am rude or not does not excuse you being rude, especially to a new commentator here, who posted perfectly civil comments.

            Your “questions” were not questions, just snide attempts to ridicule, but you’re right that you could never rival me in anything worth rivaling.

      • Madeleine Love

        It isn’t Craig’s job to calm the ‘truly concerned’.
        But his laughing at and deriding of the ‘truly concerned’ from his claimed position of insider says there’s a bit of black heart there.
        I can think of several reasons for concealment of information on Assange.
        I can’t think of any for derision of the ‘truly concerned’.

  • michael norton

    If somebody could smuggle in paper and pen to Julian, he could then write a note, sign it,
    saying he is being held against his will but not yet been waterboarded, then he could make a paper concorde and fly it out
    of the window into the arms of his adoring fanatics.

  • Daniel Jackson

    If I call the embassy today, and politely ask for the pleasure of Mr Assange’s company in exchange for some stimulating conversation and cake, what would they have to say to This?

      • Kempe

        No, stupid people get an idea planted in their heads and then refuse to shift it. Even if you took them into the embassy and introduced them to the man in person they’d claim he was a double, a stand-in or an android/hologram. It’s impossible to reason with these idiots.

  • Republicofscotland

    The so called demise of Mr Assange, is so very Mark Twain like.

    It sounds to me as though, those who don’t particularly like or agree with Mr Assange, and his methods have used the old Scots tactic of “murmuring.”

  • Kief

    No doubt Julian is fine; just licking his wounds from ‘recent events’ and lying low as Libertarians do.

    • Herbie

      More likely he’s keeping quiet whilst the Swedes are making their determinations.

      Like a sub judice thing.

      Or the Ecuadorans have asked him to keep quiet whilst they work out how the world looks after Trump’s win.


      He’s certainly made quite a big noise about remaining silent.

          • Herbie


            There’s so much fuss about his whereabouts that he can prove he’s held to whatever terms have been asked of him.

            His inactivity, I suppose.

            That’d be the most obvious explanation, given his peculiar circumstances.

  • RobG

    I reckon that JA has been kidnapped by the lizard creatures who control the universe (the time travel stuff might be why he sounded so strange on that audio interview he gave the other day); but joking aside, and as I always say, in a mass surveillance society the integrity of everything is open to question (because people can be so easily coerced and blackmailed into doing/saying anything).

    The easy way to stop the ‘doubting Thomases’ is to get rid of the mass surveillance and become a partially open society again.

    But of course that won’t happen, until the plebs reach breaking point…

    • Kief

      Heh. I think I can cobble some anecdotal evidence that Assange is regularly visited by the Greys.

      It seems his abduction(s) have produced some cooperation… lol

  • ObviouslyShill

    I wish these people would take a look in the mirror and realize that they have turned into what they claim to hate, anda re doing the work of the intelligence agencies (that they claim to despise so much), for them.
    They have effectively turned concern for Assange into a full blown campaign to discredit Wikileaks and anything published after October.

    It doesn’t help that the ‘movement’ is now mostly composed of the type of conspiracy theorists who are willing to believe the most outlandish theories (as long as there is a conspiracy angle), but are unable to accept simple facts that contradict their narrative.

    It’s no surprise that a lot of them had little to no interest in Wikileaks prior to there being a chance of a huge conspiracy where shadowy figures work with unbelievable technology to create fake recordings and fool us all, of course there are voice actors too, and friends and loved ones are either ‘compromised’, under duress, or the one I see the most “under a gag order” otherwise they would come out and confirm everything they suspect.
    Oh, and if you disagree with them, then you’re a shill. You’re on someone’s payroll, you work for Correct The Record and you’re running ‘psyops’ to try to confuse and trick the public, but they’re onto you, because they’re the good guys, and the good guys are never wrong, so that must mean everyone else is part of the conspiracy. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Anyway, sorry for rambling. I’m just somewhat annoyed that I fell for their BS for a while, so I understand that some of the people are doing it out genuine concern, but it’s gotten ridiculous and anyone who doesn’t see that it’s become this negative campaign against Wikileaks should really reconsider.

    • Herbie

      Can you just outline what the conspiracy is supposed to be?

      Assange is incommunicado for some reason. He’s not normally so.

      So the top level assumption should be that his silence is something to do with recent events. A contractual obligation of some sort.

      The Swedish thing most likely. But Trump a possible too.

      What’s the big deal.

      And anyway, if he’s released he may want to evade those like media and others who’ll be trying to find out his forwarding address.

      • Kempe

        ” Assange is incommunicado for some reason. He’s not normally so. ”

        The Embassy cut off his internet access a while back. Was it ever restored?

      • RobG

        In those final weeks before the US presidential election, some heavy duty stuff was released by Wikileaks (all verified as genuine e-mails).

        I’ve no idea if Assange is still alive, or is still, to all intents and purposes, a captive in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. What I am pretty sure of is that some heavy players are gunning for Assange. All this recent rollocks from the MSM about ‘fake news’, and, in the UK, about football players being sexually abused, is a blatant attempt to divert attention from the quite shocking stuff that came out in the final Wikileaks Podesta e-mails.

        This level of cover-up shows that we live in a totally closed and insane society.

        There is no morality. There is only mammon.

        • Kief

          ” What I am pretty sure of is that some heavy players are gunning for Assange. ”

          Comments such as this make me think you are not a serious person. Surely you understand that Assange is precious cargo based on ‘recent events’.

          His power play or rather ‘benign’ actions wrt to the US election gives him more air to breathe than he has sniffed for several years. He’s their darling now.

          • RobG

            I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.

            Amongst other things, the Wikileaks releases showed that Bernie Sanders was diddled out of the presidential nomination (which makes the entire presidential election null and void), it shows that Hillary is well aware that ISIS is funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, and that Hillary Clinton is totally corrupt, and thus unfit for office.

            Further, the Wikileaks releases during the final weeks of the presidential election pointed towards horrendous stuff that the Presstitutes and the army of troll vermin on the internet are still trying to cover-up.

            It’s a measure of how compromised this board is that I won’t talk about it directly here.

            And you egits think you live in ‘the free world’.

          • RobG

            You didn’t answer any of my points, Kief, all of which posed huge questions, huge questions that somehow never get answered in these completely wacko police state societies that we now have to suffer.

            I’m sure you’ll be straining at the bit to tell us all about the next twerrorist attack, and how new laws must be passed to restrict civil liberties in order to save us from the ‘twerrorists’.

            It’s older than bread, and all you lot are going to be held to account; mark my word.

1 2 3

Comments are closed.