Back Channel 17 and Suzie Dawson: Double Whammy Clown attack on Q-Anon?

Written by: John White   May 30 at 10:30am


Julian Assange, Wikileaks and Q-Anon.Are claims real, or distraction?

Recently both a regular Wikileaks contributor, Suzie Dawson, (quoted by the Wikileaks twitter account), and the Backchannel 17 Twitter account (now taken down, apparently by their own choice) have made fresh attempts to “debunk” Q-Anon, in the case of Dawson, or claim to be Julian Assange, in the case of Backchannel 17, both narratives that attack and undermine Q-Anon.

It is unclear what Julian Assange’s position is on what is being said: but it’s a dangerous assumption to think Wikileaks always speaks for Julian Assange… an assumption Q-Anon’s enemies will try to exploit…


Wikileaks quoted a tweet from long time associate Suzie Dawson,

Here is what Dawson had to say about Q-Anon…


Suzie Dawson:

“I referred to Q-Anon as a pied piper operation. What I mean by this, is that the operation exists to round up people that are otherwise dangerous to the deep state (because they genuinely oppose it), usurp time and attention & trick them into serving its aims”

Wikileaks re-tweeted this with the comment:

“This analysis, unfortunately, appears increasingly correct”


Now I initially responded:

Why? Because the deep state wants the Obama administration arrested? I spot that word “MAY” in that statement. Meaning this isn’t known and is speculation: or, its sideways mouth talking, which I never respect from anyone. Wikileaks has something to say about Q-Anon? Let them say it, but going to need something better than “may”, If people follow Q-Anon because it appears to suit their aims: isn’t that equally true of WikiLeaks? Many of those supporting Wikileaks now would not have done in the early days when its main target was the Bush/Cheney administration and US War Crimes in the War on Terror.

If WikiLeaks had damaging information on Trump, they would be just as likely to release it as damaging information on Clinton. Note, even those who were promoting the idea Julian Assange would be a star witness vs Clinton also thought Wikileaks would then shut down. I hardly think so.

Julian Assange started Wikileaks and for a time was its undisputed king and master, but that was years ago. WikiLeaks has got along as its own network for many years now. Recently it’s had to continue without Julian Assange at all, what with him being incommunicado with no internet inside the Ecuador embassy: or at least that’s what we are told.

A lot of the Wikileaks network comes from techno-anarchists or Net Freedom activists, people who tend to put their principles first above all else. That is laudable in itself but does create its own problems. For the Trump administration, WikiLeaks as an ally of convenience: at best, and an enemy of the UK and European states. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”: makes friends become enemies once mutual foes are dealt with. I’m personally in no way against WikiLeaks. But I am realistic about how the situation really is.


But then I went digging deeper.

Turns out some think Suzie Dawson has got personal access to post from the WikiLeaks twitter account. This tweet could therefore be her quoting and agreeing with herself, something of a classic dodge to lend credibility to an argument.

Dawson is a journalist, formerly from New Zealand and now an applicant for political asylum in Russia.

This is her main website

An article discussing her application for asylum:

Dawson is also associated with Kim Dot Com, controversial founder of MEGAUPLOAD, and is a former leader of the New Zealand “Internet Party”, that was funded by Kim Dot Com.

She does have a habit of rubbing people up the wrong way. An article slamming how Dawson responds to critics:

Back in December Dawson got into a spat with Barret Brown, founder of the “Pursuance Project”. She started to make accusations she was being victimised for her association with Julian Assange and became seen in the group as an abrasive and disruptive influence. Here Brown discusses the decision to sever Dawson’s ties with his organisation.

Now there are some Anon’s that think its all theatre that Assange is still in the Ecuador embassy and he was in fact extracted. Back Channel 17 is pushing the date 11th June, claiming it will contain some big reveal. Principally they claim “Back Channel 17  is really Julian Assange”, even ending their tweets JA before  they shut their account.

But there was this Anon’s comment regarding the relationship between WikiLeaks and Assange that I do think is worth consideration:



“I will post this from someone very close to this situation … I have asked for information on this and this is his reply ………………………………………………………………..Wikileaks comp?

Big time. Bought out & compd. They detest Q Intel; they pretend to fight for JA’s freedom while milking money out of dupes. They want access to JA as a hostage to keep their wallets lined. When was the last time they leaked actual intel? They dont give a sh*t abt Ja or You.

So that WikiLeaks’s lawyer’s tweet in reference to BC17 was false? She is in on it?

False Information, yes. False Intent? Impossible to say if she even understands the scope of what is happening. Team is kept at a distance. No visitors. Etc. Very easy to convince and co-opt good intentions. More likely misled and fighting honestly for a cause unknowingly corrupted

6/11 is the Date the sh*t blows open once and for all. Right before the North Korean Summit. It seals the deal for POTUS war on corruption and is the end of the “Witch Hunt”. Gonna Be a big speech thing from Assange about Russia and HRC etc. Gonna be Good. Bring popcorn.”


And this is born out by an enigmatic tweet from the Wikileaks twitter account a month ago (which was swiftly deleted), which seems to directly pose an implied question as a vital choice: Assange OR Wikileaks?

This is food for consideration, certainly. But how credible is all this?

Assange was seen as a nightmare by some in WikiLeaks in the time before his exile. Check out the film “Fourth Estate” for how Julian Assange struggled with an organisation that would not always back him…

When it comes to information, whether it comes from Q or WikiLeaks or anyone, including the mainstream paper, it matters if the information is good. If the information is good, it matters in its own right, whatever its source: a principle Wikileaks itself is based on. But just because the message is good should never be a de-facto trust in the messenger. People are fully able to share truth but still have their own agenda. EYES ON ANONS!

Then we turn to this extensive twitter thread from Suzie Dawson laying into Q-Anon.


I had a good look at this. Like every other hit on Q, there is no shizzle on the sausage. It’s a lot of what-about-ery, and a few things are clear:

1) Suzie Dawson has no faith. In anything. She especially slags David Icke and the actual concept of the Great Awakening. While a nihilistic world view is not uncommon, it shows Dawson has no time for working together as a citizen’s movement to achieve change. To her, she’s a hero, Wikileaks are hero’s. Everything else is corrupt. And a mindset like that doesn’t take well to competition.

2) Dawson gives no credence, even for a moment, to the idea Q-Anon could be real. She has no awareness of the Q-Anon proofs. She is dismissive and mocking of Q-Anon, and linked a video she scornfully presented as “the best proof of Q”, from an unloader I had never heard of that was over 6 months old: therefore, concerned only with the first few weeks Q-Anon was posting. Hardly demonstrates a deep familiarity with the material.

4) Because Dawson totally discounts the idea Q-Anon could be operating under the Aegis of POTUS, her claims about the “Deep State” not going after Q-Anon like they did Assange/Snowden are invalid, in fact, ludicrous. Her criticism Q-Anon does not publish classified information is self-defeating: when has Q-Anon ever said he would publish classified information? If anything, this increases, not decreases, Q-Anon’s credibility and establishes Q-Anon is not a cyber-anarchist looking for fame. But it goes further than that. After starting her debunk suggesting Q isn’t real, she then complains about Q because Q IS real, and references the Q group attached to the NSA that ran/runs the hunt for Snowden. At this point I wonder about the balance of her reason. She’s the hero for being involved in the leaking of information, some of it classified. What does she expect to happen? Fine, decide some laws need to be broken and make the moral choice to break them: but also take responsibility and don’t play hard done by because you can’t live with your choices.

5) Dawson’s main objection is she doesn’t like what Q-Anon says about Snowden. But Suzie Dawson has something else in common with Snowden: she is in Russia, not New Zealand, and actively claiming political asylum. This could matter, in that Russia gave asylum to Snowden on the basis he was a whistle-blower. Q-Anon has suggested Snowden may have had two motives, a public and a private one, and the private was espionage to help America’s enemies, using public support for him as a whistle-blower as cover. Because of Dawson’s position as an applicant for Russian Asylum, Q-Anon’s position on Snowden, if borne out, could be internationally damaging to Russia, make the Russian state either look foolish or complicit in assisting a spy (Q-Anon further points to links between Snowden and China). Therefore, Dawson has a personal stake in defending Snowden that may go beyond objective truth, and into self-serving narrative.

6) Dawson’s criticism technique seems rather pied piper itself. If I was Mike Pompeo I would probably consider her a Russian Intelligence asset. There is a price for asylum, and it’s called not insulting, and showing loyalty to, one’s hosts…

Summarising this, there are real questions about Dawson, her attitudes, and since she threw herself on the mercy of the Russian state, whether she is compromised. Her debunk of Q-Anon sounds authoritative, it’s prolific and verbose. Yet this comes across as using elaborate language to bamboozle with assumed intellectual authority.

However, Dawson’s not speaking for Assange: she’s got no more contact with him than anyone else. She’s speaking for herself, and she is afraid, because Q-Anon is after Snowden (and seeking to prompt him to “do the right thing”) and she is very close to Snowden. Her argument fails because it’s WHOLE premise is false. Q-Anon is a REAL insider: something Dawson herself cannot claim.


I will admit to a personal *groan* to see Back-Channel 17 creating another narrative to distract attention. Its recent tweets have been widely shared, even refenced in a tweet by celebrity Roseanne Barr.  This was also the same tweet that had the response from Wikileaks quoting Dawson, which some think was posted by Dawson herself on her own account, and then used her access to the Wikileaks account to magnify. Could this be a one-two move with Back Channel 17 and Suzie Dawson both looking to diminish/misdirect Barr’s public support of Q-Anon?

The evidence suggests it’s a strong possibility.

Back Channel 17 is the ONE outfit Q-Anon has actually named AND called out as fake.



Back Channel 17 published a graphic trying to claim it was part of Q, and sent by Q, to pass over further information on Twitter.

On April 18th, Q quoted this graphic and directly called out Back-Channel 17 as FAKE.

On April 12th, Q did an experiment where an “Injection” was made into Twitter. This temporarily lifted the ghost-ban and Q asked Anon’s to go post like crazy, obviously monitoring the analytics. The chill factor on Twitter for targeted accounts is a good 90% reduction, and taking part in meme posting that night, I certainly noticed a massive difference, quickly achieving over 100,000 impressions when normally I struggle for 5000.

But that night, Back-Channel 17 also started, and they tried to claim that THEY were “the Twitter injection”, entirely false. Not only that but they were caught out doctoring Q images to distort their meaning. They were eviscerated for this by SGT Report, see here:

Who are Back-Channel 17? Q’s post November 9th 2017 points the way:



I also strongly recommend this video from “Truth and Art TV”

“Julian Assange is Q Psyop: Dismantled in 20 minutes!”

So considering all this, its amazing really that there is anyone left to give BackChannel17 the time of day, but this is disinformation, and like all forms of con and deception, it’s based on either telling people what they want to hear: or telling people what they want to fear. Either way, the emotional reactions leave people open to potentially being mislead.

People like simple narratives and combining Q-Anon with Assange simplifies a complex picture in a way people find satisfying: so human psychology being taken into account, its not so hard to see how Back-Channel 17 has managed to cause disruption during a period where Q-Anon himself has been quiet for over a week. Not the first time this has happened: The claims Clinton was about to be arrested, or that the HRC Sex-Tape was about to be released, are other LARPS Clowns have played misleading away from Q-information.

As for the claims Backchannel 17 is really Julian Assange…

1) No evidence, from a proven fake source.

2) Irrational. Assange has no internet connection. If he did, would he be messing about posting as Back-Channel 17 and not using his own twitter?

3) Chances are, despite hopes to the contrary, that Assange is still a prisoner in that embassy in London, under threat of being black-bagged by the UK state if he sets foot outside. Backchannel 17 are stealing and exploiting his name, and credibility, when Assange is unable to refute them.

In the light of this, I trust people can reconsider their positions on both Suzie Dawson and Back-Channel 17, see past this confusion, and regain focus on what is important:


And as we stand with POTUS, Q-anon stands with us. NOT the other way around. Just as it should be…

God Speed Anon’s!

John White.

#Qanon #wwg1wga


A final comment from an Anon inviting self-reflection:


John White