An Apology to Christine Assange

After review of Diana Johnstone’s piece, The Lynching of the Charismatic Geek, we agree that the assertions regarding Christine Assange are unnessarily provocative. While Ms. Johnstone was making a point about the nature of counter culture eccentrics against the mind numbing conformity required to maintain the world’s largest police state, we see how her portrayal can be used in service to the enemies of peace.

Mrs. Assange has been through enough heartache and horror to last several lifetimes. We in no way wish to add to this burden. Further, we at stand unequivocally with Julian Assange, WikiLeaks and Chelsea Manning. The article has been pulled. We humbly apologize.


Angela Keaton
Randolph Bourne Institute

12 thoughts on “An Apology to Christine Assange”

  1. I challenge ANYONE to present the receipts for the “charge” of “rape” against Julian Assange, by the two women he had consensual sex with. What they went to the Magistrate for was a demand that Julian take an STD test. Period.
    The question was asked and answered, the matter concluded when US operatives went to Sweden to force the Law to reopen the women’s issue, then naming it “rape”.

    That this is not common knowledge is a testament to the propaganda machine alive and well in the US.

  2. I didn’t notice anything objectionable about Diana Johnstone’s piece but it did not restrict its criticism to officials and governments.

    I think it matters that destroying Assange’s reputation was made much easier because what should have been his allies easily dropped him. The australian journalist Mark Davis gives a good idea of how the journalists at the Guardian found it easy to distance themselves from him and damage his reputation. And reputation is a major form of protection. If your reputation goes bad few people want to help you. It is a collective thing , not just a state thing.

    He deserves his reputation back.

  3. Diana Johnstone’s literary piece was about Julian, not about his mother. is, of course, within its rights to remove the article if it so wished. However, I do contest the assertion that her brief reference to the mother could be used “in service to the enemies of peace”.
    Let’s be serious. The enemies of peace have no interest whatsoever in Mrs Assange.

    1. Oh, I’m sure the enemies of peace will use (have used) anything that might work as a smear of Julian Assange or anyone associated with him.

  4. What is there to apologize about in the Johnston article?
    What has happened to ???

    What is this telling us? This looks and smells dirty.

  5. After review of Diana Johnstone’s piece, The Lynching of the Charismatic
    Geek, we agree that the assertions regarding Christine Assange are
    unnessarily provocative.

    Weak. and Randolph Bourne Institute should have the intestinal fortitude to allow it’s readers decide for themselves.

    By acting as judge, jury and censor and Randolph Bourne Institute debase themselves.

    A claim that some ones mother went from husband to husband and was/is eccentric is not a provocative statement.

    Julian needs as much help that can be mustered in his defense. Every article/report that is published and remains posted helps spread word of his plight.

    Julian’s life is on the line for having the temerity to speak/print the truth on a great many issues from war crimes to public corruption. It would be nice if the editors at and their benefactors at Randolph Bourne Institute could find some intestinal fortitude and at the very least be willing to publish and stand behind authors like Diana Johnstone.

    If and Randolph Bourne Institute think they can turn the tide of forever war without upending the applecart or offending the delicate sensibilities of those in opposition they are sorely mistaken.

    The time for niceties/pleasantries has long past.

    The time for mass nonviolent civil disobedience is upon us – all Americans who are sick and tired of our sons/daughters being used as cannon-fodder to further a criminal political establishments stillborn wars for profit/power must demand congress act.

    How many more lives must be destroyed?

  6. The one introductory sentence that you apparently did not like “His mother went from husband to husband, from theater to cult, always on the eccentric margins, while the boy’s natural father was left behind” was deleted on Canada’s website and elsewhere but was not censored by other sites (where I found it after some searching) – sites where the author’s freedom of expression is for more important than any editor’s social sensitivities. I suggest that you should have let Diana Johnstone defend her inclusion of that phrase in the comments section instead of imposing your Victorian morals to protect Assange’s mother from suggestions that she might have brought him up in somewhat less than a stable, standard household. Information is power, for those dedicated to the truth. Here’s the uncensored version for those with a bit thicker skins than yours:

Comments are closed.