Michael C. Moynihan | December 14, 2010

Last week, I wrote that the widely-linked article positing that the
CIA was behind a Swedish woman’s accusation of rape against Julian
Assange was authored by a Russian-born, Swedish-domiciled, multi-
aliased anti-Semite and Holocaust denier currently writing under the
name “Israel Shamir,” a.k.a. Adam Ermash or Jöran Jermas. The broader
point had little to do with the efficacy or morality of WikiLeaks—
there are plenty of debates available on the narrower issue of
government transparency; this isn’t intended to be one of them—but was
concerned with how ideology and confirmation bias (WikiLeaks is a good
thing, therefore Assange must be defended, and the CIA has done bad
stuff in the past so—cui bono?—Assange’s accuser must be a Langley
asset) can lead mainstream media figures into the fever swamps of
Internet conspiracy theory.

It is worrying enough when journalists, either by accident or design,
consort with vulgar figures like Shamir. But it has now been revealed
that Israel Shamir, when he is not accusing Assange’s accusers of
setting CIA honey traps, works with WikiLeaks in an official capacity.

According to reports in the Swedish and Russian media, the broad
strokes of which have been confirmed by a WikiLeaks spokesman, Shamir
serves as the group’s content aggregator in Russia, the man who
“selects and distributes” the cables to Russian news organizations,
according to an investigation by Swedish public radio. In the
newspaper Expressen, Magnus Ljunggren, an emeritus professor of
Russian literature at Gothenburg University, outlined Shamir’s close
ties to WikiLeaks and his position “spreading the documents in
Russia.” (The article is illustrated with a picture of Assange and
Shamir in an unidentified office.)

During an appearance on Echo Moskvy radio, Yulia Latynina, a reporter
at the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta, wondered “What does it
mean that Assange is allowing himself to be represented by an
extremist?” Latynina also found that the Kremlin-friendly paper
working with Shamir to promote the WikiLeaks material had already
published “outright lies” Shamir claimed were supported by leaks.
According to Latynina, Shamir faked a cable related to Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s speech to the United Nations, which
supposedly showed collusion amongst those who walked out of the talk
in protest. That he would invent such a cable is perhaps unsurprising,
considering Shamir has previously written an encomium to the “brave
and charismatic leader” of Iran.

So let us quickly recap the foulness of Shamir’s political views. As I
noted last week, he has called the Auschwitz concentration camp “an
internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US
internment centre in Guantanamo),” not a place of extermination. He
told a Swedish journalist (and fellow Holocaust denier) that “it’s
every Muslim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust.” The Jews, he
says, are a “virus in human form” and the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion is real.

But wait, there’s more!

The Swedish media has identified Shamir’s son, a disgraced journalist
named Johannes Wahlström, himself accused of anti-Semitism and
falsifying quotes, as a WikiLeaks spokesman in Sweden. Indeed,
Wahlström has authored stories based on the WikiLeaks material for the
newspaper Aftonbladet and is credited as a producer on a recent
Swedish public television documentary about the group.

But while being the son of a famous Holocaust denier is perhaps only
suggestive—Wahlström is surely not responsible for his father’s many
sins—his celebrations of his father’s work in print and his
contributions to Shamir’s website suggest ideological affinity.*
Indeed, in 2005 Wahlström wrote a story for the leftist magazine
Ordfront arguing that Swedish media, not known for being friendly to
the Jewish state, was in fact being manipulated by Jewish interests on
behalf of the Israeli government.

Three of the journalists interviewed for the story—Cecilia Uddén,
Lotta Schüllerqvist, and Peter Löfgren—claimed that Wahlström
falsified quotes, leading the magazine to withdraw the story and issue
an apology. Heléne Lööw, a historian of fascism and European neo-
Nazism, commented that the Wahlström story contained all the “elements
that one would find in a classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.”

A member of Ordfront’s editorial board, writing in the newspaper
Dagens Nyheter, lamented that the piece was ever published, citing
Wahlström’s “close working relationship with Israel Shamir,” without
pointing out just how close the two were.

Wahlström and Shamir, father and son, are the WikiLeaks
representatives for two rather large geographic areas. According to
Swedish Radio’s investigation, Wahlström is the gatekeeper of the
cables in Scandinavia, and “has the power to decide” which newspapers
are provided access and what leaks they are allowed to see. (At the
time of filing, Wahlström had yet to respond to an email request for
comment.)

In Russia, the magazine Russian Reporter says that it has “privileged
access” to the material through Shamir, who told a Moscow newspaper
that he was “accredited” to work on behalf of WikiLeaks in Russia. But
Shamir has a rather large credibility problem, so Swedish Radio put
the question directly to WikiLeaks spokesman Kristinn Hrafnsson.

Swedish Radio: Israel Shamir…Are you aware of him? Do you know him?

Kristinn Hrafnsson, Wikileaks spokesman: Yes. Yes, he is associated
with us.

SR: So what is his role?

Hrafnsson: Well, I mean, we have a lot of journalists that are working
with us all around the world. And they have different roles in working
on this project. I won’t go into specifics into what each and
everybody’s role is.

SR: Are you aware of how controversial Israel Shamir is in an
international context?

Hrafnsson: There are a lot of controversial people around the world
that are associated with us. I don’t really see the point of the
question.

SR: Are you aware of the allegations that he is an anti-Semite?

Hrafnsson: I have heard those allegations…yes, yes. [Pause] What is
the question really there?

SR: The question is, do you that that would [sic] be a problem?

Hrafnsson: No, I’m not going to comment on that.

Strip away the caginess and the obfuscation—remember, no one is
allowed secrets but WikiLeaks—and Hrafnsson, who took over spokesman
duties when Assange was jailed last week, confirms that WikiLeaks
chose Shamir to work with their Russian media partners. After its
investigation, the Swedish Radio program Medierna concluded flatly
that "Israel Shamir represents WikiLeaks in Russia."

The forthcoming splinter group, OpenLeaks, led by WikiLeaks veterans
tired of Assange's dictatorial style and obsession with being the
organization's public face, claims to not be motivated by a particular
set of political beliefs and promises to be transparent about its own
operations and finances, something which WikiLeaks has been
consistently—and credibly—attacked over. For those who think that
leaking is, generally speaking, a positive thing, they should welcome
an organization divorced from the ridiculous and amateur figure of
Assange.

It's necessary for an organization like WikiLeaks, which claims to be
creating new types of journalism (we do "scientific journalism,"
Assange declared triumphantly), to adhere to the basic principles of
journalism. When asked about Shamir, Hrafnsson ducks and weaves,
pretending that he is, like Assange, just a “controversial” figure,
not an anti-Semite and semi-literate Holocaust denier with ties to
both the extreme right and left and a well-documented penchant for
lying.

So let’s treat the WikiLeaks organization like the journalists they
insist they are, and ask the question put forward by Novaya Gazeta
reporter Yulia Latynina: Out of all the competent journalists who are
sympathetic to the WikiLeaks mission, why have Wahlström and Shamir—
one a disgraced journalist, the other an extreme racist—been trusted
with the largest intelligence leak in history?

* - Soon after this piece was published, Wahlström told Swedish public
radio that his "father is what I would call the Swedish equivalent to
Salman Rushdie," noting that he is a "very polemical" person, which
must contain both the most profane comparison and biggest
understatement of the year.

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

[Complete article with all reference links]
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/1...ange-employees

Chas. Chan wrote:
Michael C. Moynihan | December 14, 2010

Last week, I wrote that the widely-linked article positing that the
CIA was behind a Swedish woman’s accusation of rape against Julian
Assange was authored by a Russian-born, Swedish-domiciled, multi-
aliased anti-Semite and Holocaust denier currently writing under the
name “Israel Shamir,” a.k.a. Adam Ermash or Jöran Jermas. The broader
point had little to do with the efficacy or morality of WikiLeaks—
there are plenty of debates available on the narrower issue of
government transparency; this isn’t intended to be one of them—but was
concerned with how ideology and confirmation bias (WikiLeaks is a good
thing, therefore Assange must be defended, and the CIA has done bad
stuff in the past so—cui bono?—Assange’s accuser must be a Langley
asset) can lead mainstream media figures into the fever swamps of
Internet conspiracy theory.

Israel Shamir is a well spoken Israeli who criticizes some official
policy whic apparently got him on Moynihan's **** list. Or are there 2
of them?

On 12/15/2010 8:51 AM, Chas. Chan wrote:
Michael C. Moynihan | December 14, 2010

Last week, I wrote that the widely-linked article positing that the
CIA was behind a Swedish woman’s accusation of rape against Julian
Assange was authored by a Russian-born, Swedish-domiciled, multi-
...

I believe ALL the documents wikileaks is disclosing are true and
accurate. While Julian Assange should be given credit for a worthwhile
public service, it is the documents which are of true importance.

Julian Assange is more of a patriot than a lot of Americans I share this
country with. Hopefully, he will give more the courage to become
whistleblowers and provide legal American citizens with much more
information we can use to make sound decisions.

A major problem is with our public servants, representatives, senators,
president, etc., calling themselves "our leaders." The damn delusional
fools are nothing more than our public servants, and treasonous ones at
that. We need to get rid of these imbeciles and get some honest public
servants in office who will take their orders from the only legal and
valid government of the USA -- we the people!

Regards,
JS

On Dec 15, 10:51*am, "Chas. Chan" wrote:

Assange's Extremist Employees - Why is WikiLeaks employing a well-known Holocaust denier and his disgraced son? Options

Michael C. Moynihan | December 14, 2010

[Complete article with all reference links]
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/1...ange-employees


Olbermann, Assange, and the Holocaust Denier - When you want to
believe, you'll believe anything.

It now seems that the smears in the Julian Assange rape case are
bidirectional, from the exceptionally flimsy charges accusing the
WikiLeaks boss of being a sexual predator to the increasingly loud and
incoherent conspiracy theories suggesting that his two accusers are
working on behalf of the CIA.

Before Assange was remanded to custody in the United Kingdom, awaiting
a possible extradition to Sweden to face multiple sexual assault
charges, his most credulous supporters switched tactics, from
attacking the overly broad Swedish conception of rape to suggesting
one of his alleged victims moonlights as an American agent;
downshifting from Camille Paglia to Three Days of the Condor.

Here’s how an evidence-free, innuendo-filled personal attack on a rape
accuser trespasses the mainstream political debate. On his Twitter
feed, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann (162,000 followers) links to a
rambling blog post arguing that Anna Ardin, the Swedish feminist who
accused Assange of rape, is an anti-Castro activist with connections
to CIA front groups.

Elsewhere on the Internet, NYU professor [911 "Truther"] Mark Crispin
Miller,

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2015
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Mark_Crispin_Miller

the popular liberal website FireDogLake, Bianca Jagger

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/p...asp?grpid=7372

and The First Post (a British news website “brought to you by The
Week”) all circulated the charges without an ounce of skepticism.

I have previously written that, knowing what we know about the charges
Assange faces (which is admittedly not that much), it seems likely
that he’s a victim of both an overzealous Swedish prosecutor and a
culture that embraces an exceptionally broad definition of sexual
assault. But this isn’t enough for the conspiracists and paranoiacs,
who see Assange as the torchbearer for transparency, the world’s only
hope for crippling American power. If American intelligence could
dream up COINTELPRO, they could surely convince a pair of left-wing
political activists to lure Assange into a “honey trap,” right?

So what’s this evidence of CIA perfidy that Olbermann finds so
convincing?

A few clicks in and one comes to an article posted on Alexander
Cockburn’s far-left website Counterpunch

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=1065
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/g...asp?grpid=6444
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Alexander_Cockburn

by the writers Israel Shamir and Paul Bennett (more on them in a
moment) positing that because Ardin, who wrote a master’s thesis on
the Cuban opposition movement, visited the "Ladies in White"—a group
comprised of female relatives of jailed Cuban dissidents—while
conducting research in Havana, and the vile extremist Cuban exile Luis
Posada Carriles (who was once employed by the CIA) went to a Miami
protest on behalf of the Ladies in White, it follows that Ardin is
therefore connected to the CIA. Got that? In 2007, the Ladies in White
were presented with the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought from the
European Parliament, raising the tantalizing possibly that Ardin is
also an agent of Brussels.

Olbermann is sufficiently convinced that this connection merits your
attention. This odious type of guilt-by-six-degrees-of-separation is
so strained, so unbelievably lunk-headed, that normally I would
suggest that it best be ignored. But when Olbermann spreads this
poison, and when a mainstream liberal website like FireDogLake gets in
on the act, it’s worth forcefully debunking.

Shamir scoffs at the idea that Ardin “is often described by the media
as a ‘leftist,’” suggesting her mildly critical remarks about the
Castro dictatorship expose her as a reactionary (I previously outlined
her politics here). But reading her writings on Cuba, it’s clear that
while she isn’t a Castro hagiographer (how could one be, especially a
self-identified feminist?) ,Ardin persists with some fairly
conventional left-wing views of the regime. “Since the 1959 revolution
and communist takeover,” she has written, “healthcare and education
are free, there are few or no starving or living on the street, and
largely needn’t worry about violence or robbery. But salaries are
extremely low.” Indeed, she sees a moral equivalence between the
United States and the Cuban dictatorship, sighing that “The social
democratic opposition—Corriente Socialista Democrática Cubana—is
trying to show that there is an alternative between the only two
clearly presented, extreme alternatives: either Castro and his gang
govern Cuba or the USA does.”

So who is Israel Shamir, Counterpunch's resident intelligence
correspondent?

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2457

Alternately known as Jöran Jermas and Adam Ermash, Shamir is a fringe
writer who has devoted his professional life to exposing the supposed
criminality of “Jewish power," a paranoid anti-Semite who curates a
website full of links to Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi sites, defenses
of blood libel myths, and references to the Protocols of the Elders of
Zion. Ali Abunimah, Hussein Ibish, and Nigel Parry have warned their
fellow Palestinian activists to avoid contact with Shamir, citing his
frequent forays into the sewers of Jew-hatred. The British anti-
fascist magazine Searchlight (along with its Swedish sister magazine
Expo) showed that Shamir is a “Swedish anti-Semite” who has repeatedly
lied about his past, not a truth-telling Israeli dissident.

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/i...mplate&story=6

Spend a few minutes on Shamir’s website and here's some of what you'll
learn: Imprisoned neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel is a “German political
prisoner of Zion”; Maria Poumier, a French Holocaust denier whose work
Shamir publishes, claims that the “Nazi-jewish H[olocaust] was just a
civil war between European brothers”; Shamir himself believes that the
Holocaust “narrative is Jewish, it belongs to Jews, and it has no
meaning but as manifestation of Jewish supremacy.” Shamir also asserts
that the pro-Nazi historian David Irving “was sentenced [to prison]
for denial of Jewish superiority,” warning his readers of “Jewish mind-
control on a world scale.” On the Auschwitz death camp, Shamir says
that “The camp was an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross
(as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo).”

Shamir's co-author on the Assange piece, a nonentity called Paul
Bennett, is new to the crackpot scene, it would seem, though one gets
a sense of his intellectual rigor from a review he contributed to
Amazon.com denouncing Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s classic Gulag
Archipelago as “100% pure reaganaut (sic) political propaganda.”

http://www.amazon.com/Gulag-Archipel...1?pageNumber=7

You get the idea.

I suspect if confronted, Olbermann would argue that he was unaware
that the article’s author was a spittle-flecked anti-Semite and
Holocaust denier. And I would believe him. But here is Olbermann’s
(completely justified) attack on Fox News' Glenn Beck, after the wild-
eyed host quoted the long-forgotten anti-Semite Elizabeth Dilling on
his radio show. Beck later backtracked, claiming that he was unaware
of Dilling’s anti-Semitic, pro-Nazi connections:

[Beck] held up and praised a book supposedly outing communists in
America called "The Red Network," written by Elizabeth Dilling in 1934
and said, "this is a book—and I’m getting a ton of these—from people
who were doing what we’re doing now. We now are documenting who all
these people are. Well, there were Americans in the first 50 years of
this nation that took this seriously, and they documented it."

Oops. Elizabeth Dilling also was an anti-Semite, a supporter of
Hitler. She blamed the Second World War on the Jews….Beck says she
was, quote, doing what we’re doing now. Ruh-roh. But Beck has now
explained it all away. Elizabeth Dilling was a rabid anti- Semite, pro-
Nazi, doing what you’re doing now? "I don’t know, because I didn’t
look it up.”

Olbermann is right, of course. But see how easy this game is? Israel
Shamir is Olbermann’s Elizabeth Dilling. And by helping enter this
absurd conspiracy theory into the bloodstream of the left-wing
blogophere, Olbermann has assisted in promoting the sinister views of
an unreconstructed anti-Semite.

The attacks on Ardin show how, with the help of a mainstream figure
like Olbermann, easily falsifiable personal attacks are like a game of
telephone, becoming mangled truths for the partisan shock troops. One
blogger writes that it “turns out that the guy (sic) who accused him
may have been a CIA agent.” Over at the Daily Kos, a “diarist” writes
that “Not only is she NOT a leftie she is an extreme right wing CIA
operative of some type.” That Ardin works for a left-wing political
party and confesses that were it not for their accommodating policy
towards Castro she would defect to the former communists
(Vänsterpartiet) makes little difference. Why let the truth intervene
when one can defend Assange and blame Washington in one fell swoop?

It is interesting to note that the Swedish media, which can always
find column inches for a conspiracy theory involving those mustache-
twisting, cat-stroking boffins at the CIA, have said almost nothing
about the Ardin-as-CIA agent smears. Because they know a thing or two
about Shamir’s credibility (he lives in Stockholm) and chuckle at the
idea that Ardin, a deeply ideological social democrat who once advised
her blog readers on how to wreak revenge on uncooperative former
paramours, is an American intelligence asset.

Postscript: One more bit of misinformation that requires
clarification. Olbermann, who seems happy regurgitating anything
repeated on a lefty blog, writes that “The term ‘rape’ in Sweden
includes consensual sex without a condom.” No it doesn’t. I confess,
though, that when I wrote about the condom story a few months back—in
a defense of Assange—I quoted the Guardian’s bowdlerization of the
condom claim but failed to clarify that this “consensual, unprotected
sex is illegal” meme is nonsense.

Update: Keith Olbermann tweets "If the author of that article is a
holocaust denier, I repudiate him and what he wrote, and apologize for
retweeting the link."

Michael C. Moynihan is a senior editor of Reason magazine.

[Complete article with all reference links]
http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/0...olo/singlepage

Julian Assange

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/i...asp?indid=2499
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Julian_Assange