Royal Hunt of
replies to the Guardian
shrilled thus about me: “WikiLeaks's spokesperson and conduit in Russia …
Israel Shamir, a Jew who has converted to Orthodox Christianity and passionate
antisemitism… has been exposed in the Swedish media as an anti-semite and
The Alexandrian Greek poet Cavafy
wrote that “For some people the day comes, When they must say the great Yes Or
the great No.” When I chose the great Yes, I ceased to be a Jew. I knew that I
would never be left in peace by the Christ deniers and their henchmen, the likes
of Brown. I don’t mean to complain: in Maimonides’ day, renegades like me were
quickly and permanently silenced; in our more enlightened circumstances, I am
merely smeared and misquoted. If my desire to come to Christ is “antisemitism”
for Brown, so be it.
It is enough to mention that this
notorious Church-hater Andrew Brown is the man who luridly
insinuated the Pope is gay. Andrew Brown has been
described as “The Guardian’s resident moron”, and with good reason.
Only a moron would reduce my metaphysical rejection of Golgotha/Auschwitz
equation to a blanket denial of the horrors of war. I always enjoy discussing my
views, but not with people who completely ignore the subtleties and nuances of
I do not delude myself that my
reputation merits this kind of attention from such an important English
newspaper. I realize that it is just another attempt to smear Julian Assange,
this time by association with me. For the record, I am not a member of Wikileaks,
not a spokesman, just a friend.
The “Swedish media” to which Brown
refers is the notorious Expressen, the Swedish version of British Sun,
and it just happens to be the newspaper that triggered the Assange witch-hunt.
Normally you’d look for a more legitimate news source, but when the game is
afoot perhaps passion overrides prudence. Thus begins The Guardian’s
Royal Hunt of Julian Assange.
I have never seen simple facts
more twisted and distorted than in the
article published by The Guardian on December 18th
- and I’ve seen some beauties. This is trial by media in the best tradition of
Pravda 1937. The article’s author Nick Davies wrote years ago in his
Flat Earth News that the practice of journalism in the UK is "bent"; now he
has proven it beyond a doubt by his own writing.
His bias is as subtle as a blow to
the head. There is no room for doubt: Assange never committed rape. The day
after the alleged rape, the alleged victim boasted to her friends in a twitter
that she had a wonderful time with the alleged rapist. The complete story has
published and is available with a simple Internet search. Nick Davies
clearly performed a cruel hatchet job. But was publishing the article a simple
case of bad judgement by The Guardian, or the beginning of a smear
Two days later, we noted The
second attack. So, Mr Assange, why won't you go back to Sweden now? The
answer is not so very hard to find. As Ms. Bennett surmises, Julian has nothing
to fear from Sweden. Here is a question for Ms. Bennett. If Swedish authorities
were primarily concerned about prosecuting Julian for rape, why have they
attached a special condition to their demands of extradition, specifically
reserving the right to pass him on to US authorities? You see Ms. Bennett, the
US has invented a special treat called Extraordinary Rendition, and this
is not something I would wish upon even Andrew Brown.
I’ll count the Brown attempt to
smear Julian by association with me as a third attack. "Once is happenstance,
twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action", as James Bond in
Goldfinger put it neatly.
Has American patriotism infected
the trenches of The Guardian, or are these reporters simply following
orders? The answer can found be on amazon.co.uk. It seems that The
Guardian has decided to destroy Wikileaks once it is has been squeezed dry.
The Moor has done his work, the Moor may go. Understanding full well that
the Wikileaks crew cannot be tamed or subverted, The Guardian is
accepting pre-orders for a book called
The Rise and Fall of Wikileaks. It’s not quite released yet; they have
still to arrange for the fall.
Suddenly the smear campaign
acquires a rude economic logic. But it doesn’t end there.
has accepted the US State Department cables. They have agreed to analyze and
publish them. Yet they have turned their Wikileaks-based reports into a source
of misinformation. The headlines often declare that Wikileaks is the source of
the rumour! For instance, one of the headlines, published on
December 18, 2010 said:
fortune estimated at 9 billion USD”.
This is a very misleading
headline. Wikileaks never made an estimate of Lukashenko’s wealth. Read the
entire article, and you will find that it was nothing more than a US embassy
employee who had heard a rumour and transmitted it to the State Department, and
that “the embassy employee couldn’t verify the sources (sic!) or accuracy of the
information”. A corrected headline would read:
“Wikileaks reveals: US
diplomats spread unverifiable rumors about Lukashenko’s personal wealth.”
prefers to make it appear as if it was Wikileaks that made the claim, and leaves
it to our imagination to supply the secret bank statements that would verify the
Let us suppose that one day
Wikileaks will publish cables transmitted from the Russian Embassy in Washington
to Moscow Centre. Shall we expect to see published in The Guardian this
WikiLeaks: The Mossad behind
Isn’t it more likely we would be
soberly told that “Wikileaks reveals that Russian diplomats in Washington report
the persistent rumors on Israeli involvement in 9/11”?
Because of this careful sabotage,
more and more people are saying that Wikileaks is just a tool of the State
Department, or CIA, or Mossad. Perhaps that is what The Guardian wants.
Perhaps The Guardian thinks it has outclassed, outmanoeuvred, and
outsmarted the Wikileaks crew. I would rather place my bet on Julian Assange. He
is smart, and he has a mind of a first-class chess player. He has many surprises
up his sleeve. It is possible that The Guardian will have to rename their
book The Rise and Rise of Wikileaks.