Julian Assange says "Jewish" conspiracy behind WikiLeaks smear campaign

[oberliner]

Source: Salon

According to a column in a British magazine, Julian Assange complained that he believes a "Jewish" conspiracy is bent on smearing WikiLeaks. Private Eye, a print magazine know both for satire and original reporting, printed a column penned by editor Ian Hislop today that details a Feb. 16 phone conversation between Hislop and Assange.

While discussing a WikiLeaks associate in Russia recently accused of denying the Holocaust, Assange told Hislop that the story represented a larger conspiracy organized by the Guardian newspaper in order to deny his organization of Jewish donations and support. In a reproduction of the Private Eye column -- which is currently only available in print -- Hislip attempted to reason with Assange:

(Assange) went on to say that we were part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship -- all of whom "are Jewish".


Read more: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/01/assange_jewish_conspiracy_guardian_wikileaks

[Orrex]

1. Now that you mention it, I've never seen Assange and Charlie Sheen in the same place

Coincidence?

[Tuesday Afternoon]

3. heh

now that you mention it you owe me a new keyboard :spray:

[Orrex]

11. I blame the Jews

They're legendary for their mystical keyboard-destroying powers.

[Confusious]

85. joooooossssssss! nt

[oberliner]

5. Jews, Jews, Jews, Jews, Jews!

From The Atlantic:

The headline above was produced by the Instamash-Bloginator3000, a device, invented by Israeli scientists working in the Jewish settlement of Neve Manyak, that can reduce thousands of blog posts to a single thought. And it also corrupts Iranian centrifuges! I plugged 3,000 of my blog posts into this wonder machine, and this is the headline that came out!

No, no, I kid! (I kid because I love.) There is no Jewish settlement named Neve Manyak. The headline above actually refers to the disproportionate interest drunks and lunatics take in Jews and their meddling and mysterious ways. In the last several days, we've had Charlie Sheen angrily outing his producer, Chuck Lorre, as "Chaim Levine"; Glenn Beck accusing Reform rabbis of conspiring to build a Muslim caliphate (or something); John Galliano drunkenly praising Hitler (advice to Galliano's lawyer: Tell the press your client was referring to another Hitler, maybe a hitherto-obscure designer of hats); the Iranian regime complaining that the 2012 Olympic logo secretly spells out the word "Zion" (they're wrong, of course; the logo secretly spells out "Mark Spitz is Jewish, and Jason Lezak is Too, So Go Drown Yourselves in the Caspian Sea)); and now, Julian Assange is arguing that The Guardian -- the English-language newspaper least friendly to Israel on Earth -- is engaged in a Jewish-dominated conspiracy to smear him.

One of the great advantages of being Jewish -- and there are many (we invented both ethical monotheism and whitefish salad, after all) -- is that though there are only about 14 million of us on the whole planet (18 million before World War II, Mr. Galliano), people can't stop talking about us! It is very exciting to be a part of so many different fantasies.


http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/03/jews-jews-jews-jews-jews/71896/

[Hissyspit]

18. You're quoting the guy who argued for the link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda?

One of the Bush pro-war cheerleaders?

Here's the original article:

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/03/01/assange-goes-off-deep-end-blaming-jews-and-guardian-in-private-eye/

As a former reporter, it's worthless. I used to do telephone interviews. I did ACCURATE transcribing, getting direct quotes when I could. This is he said/he said stuff. The Private Eye article is pretty much CRAP. The Salon headline is CRAPPIER. If you want to know why, read the Salon article by Glenn Greenwald, which is what you probably should have posted instead of Jeffrey Goldberg crap: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/01/assange/index.html

"So let's survey what we have: Ian Hislop is making uncorroborated assertions about his conversation with Assange, while Assange is vehemently denying his claims. Despite this he-said/he-said conflict -- which no known evidence can remotely resolve -- this is how The New York Times presented the story to its readers in its headline today:

I have no idea whether Assange said some, all or none of what's attributed to him by Hislop. In my multiple interactions with him, I've never detected even a smidgen of such sentiments; that doesn't mean he didn't say these things: it merely means what it means. But The New York Times also has no idea whether Assange said any of this, yet they categorically announce in their headline -- as though it's a proven fact -- that Assange "Complain of a Jewish Smear Campaign."

Here's Goldberg on the Iraq War:

There is consensus belief now that Saddam could have an atomic bomb within months of acquiring fissile material. ... The administration is planning today to launch what many people would undoubtedly call a short-sighted and inexcusable act of aggression. In five years, however, I believe that the coming invasion of Iraq will be remembered as an act of profound morality.

[oberliner]

30. You're quoting a consistent Obama and Democrat basher?

Anyway, I'd love for Assange to actually come out and say what he actually said. Did he say anything about Jews? Did Hilsop just make that up entirely? What were the misstatements and what were the accurate ones, if any?

[Hissyspit]

36. Yes, Greenwald holding our government to high standards is EXACTLY like

Goldberg pushing the Bush war lies and getting 100,000s killed.

REALLY?

As GREENWALD points out in the article, we probably will NEVER know what was said.

[oberliner]

89. This is a Democratic message board isn't it?

One of the two is on the record as saying he did vote for Obama and the other is on the record as saying he did not.

Care to guess which is which?

[No Elephants]

158. Greenwald is a Dem basher?

[backtomn]

155. So, you know for a fact that his did NOT say this.......

....that his problems are a Jewish conspiracy ?? Prove it !! How are your "interviews" different from this one??

Even the article that you mentioned above said that they don't know whether this was said or not said.....same as the things you claim he has said or not said.

But.....for your information.....I don't automatically believe that this is what he said, but I believe that Assange is an absolute loser. Even if I support his Wikileaks mission, I don't support this man......at all. We can (and should) separate the man and the mission.

[amandabeech]

61. Mr. Galliano has been fired, thank heaven.

I am a dyed in wool the part-WASP gentile from the the Great Lakes sticks who didn't know that the Jews (I didn't realize that Dr. Bloom, my dermatologist in the big city might have been Jewish--I just thought that he had a funny name--I referred to him as Dr. Blossom) were the same as the ancient Hebrews until I went to college.

There have been times when I've thought that my Jewish friends and colleagues were a little paranoid, although understandably so given their history, culminating in the Holocaust.

But when this kind of idiocy inevitably becomes evident, I realize that they have every reason to be very concerned TODAY.

[Hissyspit]

72. In each of those incidents that Bush war cheerleader Jeffrey Goldberg sites,

the comments are documented and verifiable and their meaning clear, EXCEPT for the Assange example.

Goldberg has connected Assange to those other verifiable "drunks and lunatics" unjustifiably and purposely.

[IamK]

20. Hitler was born in Australia (not Germany) just like Assange... a coincidence?

I don't remember seeing any photos of Hitler as a boy with any Kangeroos... a vexing problem...

[madmax]

32. Hitler was born in Austria not Australia...

[Hissyspit]

38. I think it was a joke.

[madmax]

55. Oh, duh lol :blush: I'm 90 watts short of 100W. nt

[24601]

136. Lay off Charlie - he's gotta rest up so he can play Libya's K-Daffy

in the movie. What a natural fit.

[Old Troop]

163. Oh, well played sir!

[Ian David]

2. I would give this more credence if it wasn't public knowledge he's the target of a smear campaign.

And even if he DOES hate Jews, it doesn't mean the rest of his work is without merit.

[ClarkUSA]

4. Assange has officially jumped the shark: Alleged rapist of women AND accused anti-Semite.

Not to mention his truly creepy dating profile.

[Hissyspit]

14. Actually, no it's not "confirmed." It's gossip.

A bad article from someone who is paraphrasing what Assange supposedly said quite a while after the conversation, badly misrepresenting what anyone can make out of the conversation.

WikiLeaks response:

"Julian Assange said "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction. That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the UK than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right. WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" - where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely inorder to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

[ClarkUSA]

35. The New York Times and Salon beg to differ. It's gone beyond mere "gossip" I'm afraid.

Read more: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4753132&mesg_id=4753229

[Hissyspit]

40. So?

Shitty journalism at the New York Times. Who'd a thunk? They've already altered their original headline. Wasn't good the first time?

I was referring to the original Private Eye article, anyway. The article sounds like gossip. Bad friend mad at you recalling a conversation you had and misrepresenting it, intentionally or not.

[ClarkUSA]

43. Assange does not deny making reference to the person in question being Jewish.

So that puts much doubt on your proof-free claim that it's merely "gossip". Thus the original Private Eye article is apparently not "gossip" either.

Assange is an egotistical control freak and a creep whose behavior in and outside the bedroom and dating sites, casts a long shadow. Even his former workmates have made very public complaints about him in British newspapers I've read.

[Hissyspit]

Jeez.

You don't get it, do you? Deliberately?

Gossip can have pieces of truth in it. It's the crap that's not true that's the problem.

I'm not defending Assange's personality. I don't have to.

[ClarkUSA]

59. So you're the arbiter of what's "crap that's not true" while the NYT and Salon are not?

I get it just fine: you have zero proof that it's "gossip" and Assange is an anti-Semite by virtue of his comments, which he has not denied making:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4753132&mesg_id=4753277

Are you "deliberately" ignoring this fact?

[Hissyspit]

74. Yes. I am the arbiter of crap that's not true when based on the SIMPLEST of journalistic

standards, which I have been practicing for decades.

I'm not ignoring any fact. Which comments has he not denied making? The ones that MAY BE true comments? Or not? And maybe that are not taken out of context? ? And are not necessarily anti-semitic? But we'll probably never know because it's he said/he said, and not much above the level of gossip or hearsay? The ones that Hislop left out? What part of this: "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase..." don't you understand? Could Assange be lying? Sure! Who else could be lying?

As I said in another post, there are many cases of people being recorded and witnessed revealing themselves as anti-semitic bigots. As best as I can tell, this ain't one of them. I've had plenty of conversations with people where those conversations were repeated and sounded like what I said except for the parts where it COMPLETELY misconstrued what I was really saying.

Say whatever you want in response. I'm going to bed.

[Hissyspit]

56. dupe nt

[2banon]

73. Correction.. Assange Does Indeed Deny any such statement...

Note in the following quote these words: " 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word".

"Julian Assange said "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word.

reposting for full context:

WikiLeaks response:

"Julian Assange said "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction. That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the UK than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right. WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" - where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely inorder to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

[No Elephants]

159. Why must you interject facts? They only get in the way of an argument.

j/k

[No Elephants]

165. Pls. see Reply 164.

Assange may or may not be slime, but your arguments do not stand up to even a little examinatio.

[2banon]

NYT said it, so it must be true!

Yeah.. Hello Judith Miller.. howzit going these days? rumor has it that you're working for Fox, and I also heard you and cheney had this thing goin'on during those heady days.. you two would sneak off to his hotel room (and fox would be already turned on the tv)while you and dicky boy snuck in a tweener.. was it good for you? NYT thought it was good for them.. so long everybody's gettin' some.. that's the main thing, right?

[2banon]

75. deleted duplicate

that was weird.

[Posteritatis]

129. They're all still citing the same tabloid, though. (nt)

[ReggieVeggie]

22. confirmed by satire?

and when do liberals judge people on their dating profiles?

[muriel_volestrangler]

29. The division between the satire and reporting in Private Eye is always clear

It has a good record of investigative reporting (eg it ran the article that inspired the UK Uncut movement, exposing the deal done by the government to let Vodafone off paying billions in tax), and this is part of that section.

[EFerrari]

27. Apparently, we really do have the media we deserve.

lol

[brentspeak]

70. Hard to imagine how low the IQ of someone gullible enough to believe this obvious smear n/t

[sabrina 1]

137. Got any proof that any of this is not just more lies by a known liar?

A liar who helped get this country into a war that killed over a million people?

I'd love to see it, if you do. If not, anything this creep has to say is and always will be, suspect, and that is putting it mildly.

[No Elephants]

160. Being the target of allegations and accusations equals having officially jumped the shark?

[joeybee12]

6. Note that he's really blaming the Guardian and not "the Jews"...all media

liberal and right-wing are mad at Assange because he deos what they're too cowardly to do.

[pnwmom]

28. No, he's mad at the Guardian because they "stole" from him

the U.S. government files that he'd obtained from . . . whomever.

He's mad at the Guardian because they went ahead and published them without his approval, after a second source also leaked the files to the Guardian.

[Hissyspit]

47. Oh, yes. The false hypocrisy claim.

Assange is a hypocrite because he stole the cables (no, he didn't) and then is mad because the Guardian stole them from him (no, he's mad they broke their agreement). Whether Assange should be mad or not, and whether even if he is, he should have made an issue of it, it's not hypocritical. You are making a false equivalence, which is essentially another of the smear campaigns.

[pnwmom]

62. Of course he's a hypocrite. He's complaining about leaks from his own organization,

even though he's leaking documents that belonged to other organizations.

(The Guardian justified publishing the documents without his consent because they had also received copies of the documents from an ex-Wikileaks staffer.)

[JDPriestly]

67. One thing I have never been able to figure out about Wikileaks

is whether it is really organized in the usual sense or whether maybe it is some sort of loosely affiliated group of people. I don't think that has been discussed much less clarified in anything I have read about Wikileaks.

[No Elephants]

161. Hissyspit nailed it: false equivalency. wikileaks is not a government

keeping stuff from taxpayers who support it.

[defendandprotect]

77. In quick scan, even IF report were true, Assange is complaining he's cut off from Jewish DONORS

and their SUPPORT --

in order to deny his organization of Jewish donations and support.

There is a peace loving, liberal Israeli/Jewish population --

and they are always well-feared in the right wing world -- as other liberals are!

And there is the right wing world -- and Israel, of course, has it's own right wing/

hawkish Jews/Israelis!! Same nation -- totally different people!!

Pece loving Israelis have been buried by the Netanyhu hawks -- and their

warmongering and warmaking!!

[RandySF]

7. Well that does it for me

Whatever merit he deserves for revealing the truth about US foreign policy, I can't stand a bigot of any stripe.

[Orrex]

10. What about un-striped bigots?

[Hissyspit]

15. And you just automatically believe what ONE person says someone said

not a direct transcript, not direct quotes, but a phone conversation from memory, easily misrepresented, about someone who clearly is ripe for smear campaigns?

"Julian Assange said "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction. That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the UK than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right. WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" - where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely inorder to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

[CrawlingChaos]

19. +1000

[EFerrari]

25. You could usefully spend more time reading more critically.

This story is bs.

[oberliner]

34. The story is not BS

Assange does not deny making reference to the person in question being Jewish.

Why he would bring that up is anyone's guess.

What's yours?

[Hissyspit]

42. Keep trying.

[oberliner]

90. Not trying anything - just asking a question

Curious to know what he might have meant and what he actually said. Did anyone's "Jewishness" even come up in this conversation? If so, why?

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. 'Jewishness' came up because of the Russian Wikileaks associate who seems anti-semitic

and that was whom Private Eye wrote about 2 weeks ago, and why Assange phoned Hislop to complain. The man is Israel Shamir (among some other names he writes under), and, as well as referring to that article from index on Censorship, Private Eye pointed out Shamir was convicted in France in 2008 for inciting racial hatred against Jews (Private Eye said he was born in the Soviet Union, and is himself Jewish).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra%25C3%25ABl_Shamir&ei=kVVuTbacFM-4hAepj_U7&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCAQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522L%2527autre%2BVisage%2BD%2527isra%25C3%25ABl%2522%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26hs%3DAe8%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official%26prmd%3Divns (translation of French Wikipedia page; references to the book and trial in France seem to turn up on highly partisan, or even racist, sites, so I'm not going to attempt to find a respectable, neutral one)

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

Since the article was about the anti-semitism of Shamir, and his association with Wikileaks and Assange, the subject was there in the conversation right from the beginning.

[oberliner]

132. Thanks for that info

Shamir is a pretty nasty character.

[No Elephants]

164. Nonsense.

Simply identifying someone as Jewish means nothing. Not denying means nothing. For that matter, denying means nothing. However FWIW, Assange did deny. See Reply # 73.

[sabrina 1]

139. And, other than the known liar making this charge,

what other proof is there of him being a bigot? Please do not use the moron quoted in the OP, everyone knows he's a liar. If you're basing your 'that does it' on his word, then you must believe that Saddam had WMDs and was in league with Al Queda. Even the least educated person about the ME had to know what a lie that was, except for Fox viewers of course who are a completely separate species of human being.

[No Elephants]

162. A headline means someone is a bigot?

[aquart]

8. Looks like a Malfoy.

'Nuff said.

[onehandle]

9. And there it is. I've said it before, he needs to be removed as the titular face of WikiLeaks.

Check please.

[WheelWalker]

171. Agreed. +1

[Arctic Dave]

12. What is with the qoutations everywhere?

Does anyone in "media" print the actual discussion or do "they" all cherry pick.

[oberliner]

13. It's paraphrased from a telephone conversation

There does not seem to be a verbatim transcript or recording of the remarks.

[Hissyspit]

16. It's from one article from one guy from memory.

Wikileaks response:

"On Tuesday 1st March 2011, @wikileaks said:

Because WikiLeaks has some Jewish staff and enjoys wide spread Jewish support, its staff have frequently been smeared by its opponents, political or competitive, as being agents of the Mossad or of George Soros. These smears are completely false. A good overview of some of the allegations can be here:

http://humanityinchaos.com/MediaSpam.html

A Washington intelligence firm was recently exposed as being behind a $2M plan to destroy WikiLeaks reputation and target supportive journalists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/12/us/politics/12hackers.html

The intelligence firm was referred by the US Department of Justice.

But smears against WikiLeaks cross the geopolitical spectrum. Ian Hislop, editor of the weekly satirical current affairs magazine Private Eye, recently wrote an article "as much as he could remember", about an off the record conversation with Julian Assange who complained that a previous article, appearing in Private Eye, was based on falsehoods spread by opponents and calculated to undermine WikiLeaks strong Jewish support. The problems stem from a November the 1st, 2010 legal dispute with the Guardian, which were trigged by the actions of one particular journalist, David Leigh. Leigh deliberately, and secretly, broke an agreement signed by the Guardian's editor-in-chief stating that 1. the Guardian was not to publish WikiLeaks cables 2. the Guardian was to keep them confidential. 3. the Guardian was to not store them on an internet connected computer system. Leigh had previously shown himself to be a competent journalist, but secretly broke all elements of the contract. On being notified that the German news weekly Der Spiegel was writing a book (in German) that would expose this breach, Leigh attempted to cover his actions, first by laundering an distorted version of the events through a friend at Vanity Fair then by writing his own book, which he had published through the Guardian. WikiLeaks has not previously covered this or many other process and reputational issues, due to the opportunity cost of removing writers from our core mission which has never been more important.

Mr. Leigh has since continued to shore up his own power position by spreading malicious libels, targeted at WikiLeaks principle support bases. A brief look through the focus of Leigh's Twitter account http://twitter.com/davidleigh3 shows the sort of game in play. Although the damage done to the Guardian's reputation by these actions is an ongoing concern to many Guardian staff, Leigh is perceived, by them, wrongly or rightly, to be protected through his marriage to the sister of the editor-in-chief, Alan Rusbridger.

Julian Assange said "Hislop has distorted, invented or misremembered almost every significant claim and phrase. In particular, 'Jewish conspiracy' is completely false, in spirit and in word. It is serious and upsetting. Rather than correct a smear, Mr. Hislop has attempted, perhaps not surprisingly, to justify one smear with another in the same direction. That he has a reputation for this, and is famed to have received more libel suits in the UK than any other journalist as a result, does not mean that it is right. WikiLeaks promotes the ideal of "scientific journalism" - where the underlaying evidence of all articles is available to the reader precisely inorder to avoid these type of distortions. We treasure our strong Jewish support and staff, just as we treasure the support from pan-Arab democracy activists and others who share our hope for a just world."

END"

[sabrina 1]

140. Thank you for providing FACTS. But I think with some people here

your are probably wasting your time. This is the U.S. where the smear campaign against Wikileaks is ongoing and as we see from the cables, the U.S. has much to hide which is now out in the public domain and has and will have a serious impact on our foreign policy, thankfully as it badly needed to be exposed.

Some people want to believe the worst of Assange, and do little to verify anything negative that is said about him, because that might interfere with what they want to believe.

The CIA promised a smear campaign against him, and it looks like they intend to keep their word and it also looks like they know how quickly some people will accept any lie they spread around. After all over 70% of Americans bought the lies about Iraq, and the last poll I saw showed that a huge number of Americans still believe those lies despite the fact they are now known to have been lies.

So don't expect those that want to believe the worst about Wikileaks to let any facts interfere with their knee jerk reaction to every smear that comes along.

I have learned one thing since Democrats gained a majority. The left is not much different from the right when they perceive any threat to their team. They will simply react and close their minds to any kind of reasonable argument. Sad because I used to think the left was different.

[Smarmie Doofus]

45. A pity. n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. Remember it is what Hislop recalled Assange saying, some time after

So even he admits it's just the best he can do as what the conversation was; Assange disputes a lot of it: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/92hou2

So perhaps quote marks are appropriate here.

[Babel_17]

21. In regards some of the MSM giving automatic credence to this

"Did IQs just drop sharply while I was away?"

Glenn Greenwald once again exposes the lack of critical thinking/outright bias:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/03/01/assange/index.html

"I have no idea whether Assange said some, all or none of what's attributed to him by Hislop. In my multiple interactions with him, I've never detected even a smidgen of such sentiments; that doesn't mean he didn't say these things: it merely means what it means. But The New York Times also has no idea whether Assange said any of this, yet they categorically announce in their headline -- as though it's a proven fact -- that Assange "Complain of a Jewish Smear Campaign." Whether that actually happened is very much in dispute, and -- unlike the "torture" controversy, where it was established by decades of case law and the U.S.'s own pronouncements that Bush officials authorized torture -- the NYT has no basis whatsoever for resolving this dispute in favor of the accuser. While the body of the article does note Assange's denial, the whole story is told from the perspective of Hislop, and the headline constitutes a baseless NYT endorsement of his version."

[Mimosa]

23. Charges of rape, anti-semitism and even worse were predictable

Assange and his organisation have interfered with the program.

I recall reading, a little over a year ago, that Israel was behind Wikileaks.

[EFerrari]

24. He didn't say that but he is the new Hugo Chavez.

lol

[oberliner]

31. The new Hugo Chavez?

That's a bit of a stretch.

[Hissyspit]

52. Why?

All the time on DU: "Hugo Chavez said this! What an ass!" "Yeah, he's an ass!" "Um, he didn't say it, or it's not verified in any particularly good way and probably originated from a source with a questionable agenda." "Uh, he's still an ass!"

[EFerrari]

66. Exactly. A personality to attack en lieu of an issue. n/t

[EFerrari]

65. Not at all.

:)

[oberliner]

91. Hugo Chavez is not really relevant to this at all

Neither directly nor metaphorically.

[bemildred]

81. Julian Assange ate my cheeseburger.

And he crushes puppies for fun.

[EFerrari]

83. Julian Assange eats in his car.

:)

[24601]

135. This its. I take it, tied to the sex charge...nyuk, nyuk.n yuk... n/t

[pam4water]

26. Seem like the thread and the article are mis-titled.

[oberliner]

33. That was how Salon titled it - the NY Times, incidentally has changed its version of the title

Now it's:

Assange Complains of Jewish Smear Campaign

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/02/world/europe/02assange.html

When you click on the link, you can see the old title on top that uses the word "conspiracy" - the new one doesn't.

[Hissyspit]

39. That title

is not much less shittier. The fact that they changed it says something, too.

[BenzoDia]

37. The Guardian has gone above and beyond in supporting Wikileaks, the Afghan Diaries, the Iraqi War

Logs, and the U.S. Embassy cables.

Wikileaks owes the Guardian big time for the best-in-class coverage.

[reorg]

84. A Wikileaks associate from Russia begs to differ

The Guardian's Sleazeball Hacks and Plagiarists
Cable Cooking and the War on Assange

By ISRAEL SHAMIR

The latest chapter in the quest for open government finds our embattled knight holed up within the grey brick Georgian walls of Ellingham Hall while the dark forces outside attempt a disorderly checkmate. The British courts have long debated whether to pack Julian Assange off to the star spangled torture chambers of Guantanamo, but have finally settled on simply extraditing him to the man-eating Nordic Amazons of Sweden, pending appeal. Meanwhile the chessboard has become crowded with ex-employees, ex-lovers, and ex-friends who compete among themselves to cast mud upon his memory. The same newspapers he enriched with headline stories gleefully prepare his epitaph, for no good deed goes unpunished among the masters of discourse. This is a very lonely time for our trusting hero, as yesterday’s oaths are traded for cold cash, and intimate confidences are betrayed.

(...)

These two young orcs cooked up more than hobbits. They are members of the Guardian gang that is responsible for cooking up the Wikileaks cables so that they are suitable for general consumption. But The Guardian adds more than a pinch of salt to their unwholesome pottage: they add misleading headlines (knowing that the majority of their readers do not read beyond the headlines), they censor, redact, and finally they frame the cables with the prose necessary to twist them to The Guardian’s political agenda. ...

Read much more at: http://counterpunch.com/shamir02252011.html

[muriel_volestrangler]

94. Israel Shamir is the anti-semite who is at the bottom of all this

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_Shamir and follow the links. The first Private Eye article was about him, and Assange phoned Hislop to complain that he published it.

[reorg]

99. Yes, it's about what he wrote, but to call him an anti-semite is simply false

I cited his article to show what this is all about. Read what he wrote about Wikileaks and The Guardian and you'll understand why certain parties have to resort to slander.

[muriel_volestrangler]

103. No, calling him an anti-semite is simply true

Here's Searchlight, the leading anti-fascist publication in Britain:

Jermas/Shamir himself is no stranger to conspiracy theories. When he visited Norway in 2001, he made the laughable claim in the mainstream newspaper Adresseavisa that many Jews received text messages warning them to get out of the World Trade Centre in New York before the terror attacks of 11 September.

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

Or this:

On February 23, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for a man going by the name of Israel Shamir. “Israel Shamir” is, in fact, a Swedish-domiciled anti-Semite also known as Jöran Jermas.

The gist of Shamir/Jermas’s speech at the meeting can be gleaned from its title, “Jews and the Empire”. It included observations such as: “All the parties are Zionist-infiltrated.” “Your newspapers belong to Zionists . . . Jews indeed own, control and edit a big share of mass media, this mainstay of Imperial thinking.” “In the Middle East we have just one reason for wars, terror and trouble — and that is Jewish supremacy drive . . . in Iraq, the US and its British dependency continue the same old fight for ensuring Jewish supremacy in the Middle East.” “The Jews like an Empire . . . This love of Empire explains the easiness Jews change their allegiance . . . Simple minds call it ‘treacherous behaviour’, but it is actually love of Empire per se.” “Now, there is a large and thriving Muslim community in England . . . they are now on the side of freedom, against the Empire, and they are not afraid of enforcers of Judaic values, Jewish or Gentile. This community is very important in order to turn the tide.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article378140.ece

Holocaust denial:

And last January, the Iranian government announced it would hold a conference on the Holocaust. It said it intended to invite academics such as German neo-Nazi Horst Mahler and the Israeli journalist and Christian convert Israel Shamir, both of whom are Holocaust deniers.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,2262352,00.html

And this is Shamir writing on his own site:

If anything, the conference proved that the holocaust dogma is a basic tenet in the great world-embracing brainwashing machine of mass media described by Noam Chomsky as “the manufacture of consent Stalin could only dream of … whose discipline, and uniformity, are really impressive”. This media syndicate is the enemy of free people everywhere, and it carries on a relentless war against Iran and other independently-minded nations.
...
Iranians had a good reason for organising the conference. The Holocaust is indeed well integrated in the prevalent discourse as a justification of (rich and powerful) minority rights over (oppressed) majority needs. But its success and its integration show that the mass media machine is well integrated and concentrated in philosemitic, mostly Jewish hands.

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng6.htm

He's anti-semitic. There's no doubt.

[reorg]

107. You can cite all bad journalism you can find

but it won't change the factual statements he made about The Guardian's treatment of the cables:

... they add misleading headlines (knowing that the majority of their readers do not read beyond the headlines), they censor, redact, and finally they frame the cables with the prose necessary to twist them to The Guardian’s political agenda.

He is no doubt a polemicist, a provocateur, and doesn't seem to care one bit what people might think of him. He is writing about a lot of topics. In some of them, he certainly doesn't hold back with his opinions about Israel and Jewish pressure groups. But, in the traditional sense of what "anti-semite" means, he is not one. Nor is he a Holocaust denier.

[msanthrope]

109. Um, he claimed that the Jews in the WTC all got texts telling them to leave before the planes hit.

That makes you an anti-Semite.....(you might try reading the links murielv provided.)


"Jermas/Shamir himself is no stranger to conspiracy theories. When he visited Norway in 2001, he made the laughable claim in the mainstream newspaper Adresseavisa that many Jews received text messages warning them to get out of the World Trade Centre in New York before the terror attacks of 11 September."

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6

[reorg]

112. Bullshit. This rumor was reported by Haaretz

and was frequently cited here. What did Shamir actually say about it? Uh, guessed it, you don't know.

[msanthrope]

115. Searchlight Magazine is a well-respected publication. You may

not choose to beleive them, but the Google exists, and all who wish to, may google the name Israel Shamir, or Joren Jermas/Jermer, and read his writings for themselves.

[reorg]

120. IOW you cannot answer my question

I told you where the story came from, an Israeli newspaper.

But I agree, everyone should read Mr Shamir's articles themselves to know what he says. Maybe, if you find what he said about the text messages, you can get back to us and tell why "Searchlight" considers it anti-Semitic.

[msanthrope]

149. Please cite said Israeli newspaper, and the story. Thank you. n/t

[reorg]

157. see #125 below n/t

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. He calls 'the Holocaust dogma' 'brainwashing', and you don't think he's a Holocause denier?

You're beyond hope. He is classically anti-semitic - he claims that Jews are in control of much of the Western media, and push a Jewish agenda. He hosts holocaust denying articles like this on his website, and calls the author a friend.

And what you quote from him (a) is nothing for or against him being an anti-semite, and (b) is not 'fact' - it's clearly opinion (it's not a 'fact' that Guardian writers 'know' most people don't read beyond their headlines - that's highly unlikely, since The Guardian has a relatively intellectual readership). And it's not 'fact' that they mislead, censor, redact, frame or twist - again, that's subjective.

[reorg]

117. So, is Norman Finkelstein also anti-semitic IYO?

Are you, perhaps, a little biased here? Shamir is not the only one to have pointed out that the Holocaust has been used or abused to justify certain policies that are not necessarily right or would otherwise be so vigorously supported.

And yes, it is fact that The Guardian misled, censored, redacted and framed in their reporting about the cables. He cites several examples verbatim.

What I found most egregious is that The Guardian criticized Assange/Wikileaks' recklessness for leaking the news about the Zimbabwean Prime Minister Tsvangirai cooperating with the Americans on the sanctions, agreeing with them in private while denouncing them publicly ... when in fact it was The Guardian journalists themselves who reported this story and published the cable. Not to mention their participation in the smears of Assange (and Shamir).

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. In what way do you think I'm biased? (nt)

[reorg]

123. Biased against middle-aged intellectuals with strong, unpopular views?

Or maybe you are not a friend of pungent polemics? Or perhaps against what they say.

[muriel_volestrangler]

126. I'm against people who describe the historical facts of the Holocaust as 'dogma' and 'brainwashing

and who have a very long record of anti-semitism. Shamir has said

I think it is every Muslim's and Christian's duty to deny the Holocaust, to reject this belief, just as Abraham and Moses rejected the idols. Any person who confesses to God should deny the Holocaust.

http://www.israelshamir.net/Swedish/Interview_Omar.htm

We have seen many examples of his anti-semitism. It's ridiculous to try to deny it.

[reorg]

130. he is attacking the *dogma* of the singularity

of the Holocaust, see the reply in the same interview, prior to the one you quoted:

"The Holocaust is a way of saying that Jews are special. They are not like other people. Jewish life is special, jew's death is special. Holocaust reflects the Jewish mentality, one judeocentric worldview. Millions of non-Jews died, but who cares? The only victims that matter is the Jews."

He does not deny it happened, he does not deny the mass murder and genocide. What he seems to be getting at is the use of the term Holocaust as a symbol for the singularity of the suffering of the Jews. That's not very popular, but it's also not necessarily anti-Semitic. Great minds, like Chomsky, are sharing this view, if I am not mistaken.

Personally, I think his rhetoric is somewhat over the top here and he obviously doesn't care if his polemics is being misinterpreted by people who only read quotes without context.

[muriel_volestrangler]

131. He hosts articles saying there were no gas chambers

He claims Jews control the media. He's a classic anti-semite.

[reorg]

134. yeah, some of these leftists are really taking it too far with all that free speech stuff

I don't know who "controls the media", but I think I know what a "classic anti-Semite" is, perhaps better than you.

[leftynyc]

153. He IS an anti-semite

and a holocaust denier. Those that don't take those things into account are fools.

[BenzoDia]

95. "...to the star spangled torture chambers of Guantanamo"?

"Man eating Nordic Amazons of Sweden"?

I'll stick with the real journalists for now, thanks though.

[Smarmie Doofus]

41. Right. Sounds just like him. NOT. unrec

[Freddie Stubbs]

44. Is Helen Thomas working as his speach writer?

[Hissyspit]

48. Did you read any of the rest of this thread?

Or any of the original article? Or any of the WikiLeaks response? Or...

Never mind.

[ClarkUSA]

49. No, John Galliano must've found a new calling now that Dior has fired him.

[Hissyspit]

53. Um, not even close to being applicable.

In any number of ways.

[roamer65]

46. He's certainly not on the Mossad's favorite list.

[rosesaylavee]

50. No one uses that phrase anymore do they? So obviously an attempted smear.

They got nuthin.

[ReggieVeggie]

51. How is this anti-semitic?

"Assange told Hislop that the story represented a larger conspiracy organized by the Guardian newspaper in order to deny his organization of Jewish donations and support. "

In order to deny Jewish support of his organization. Where is he saying what the OP suggests he's saying?

[Ken_Fish]

54. This part may be an issue...

Hislop adds that Assange went on to claim that Private Eye was "part of a conspiracy led by the Guardian which included journalist David Leigh, editor Alan Rusbridger and John Kampfner from Index on Censorship – all of whom 'are Jewish'".

"I pointed out that Rusbridger is not actually Jewish, but Assange insisted that he was 'sort of Jewish' because he was related to David Leigh (they are brothers-in-law)," writes Hislop.

[defendandprotect]

78. ...but Assange is complaining about being cut off from Jewish donations and support -- !!!

in order to deny his organization of Jewish donations and support.

from the article --

[KoKo]

58. We know that "J Street" has been attacked by the NeoCons and any liberal Jews who

support Assange may be under attack because some might have affiliation with "J Street." Plus Jewish support for "freedom" and for "truth out" are well known. However there is a split that has developed with the dissention between the younger "J Streeters" and some who support Likudist or conservative policies allied with the NeoCons.

[defendandprotect]

80. Exactly -- war by Jewish right wing on Jewish left wing --

When Nixon armed right wing/Fundi-hawk Israelis -- it buried peace-loving

liberal Israelis -- and the murder of PM Rabin by the right wing seems to

have permanently buried them!!

[McCamy Taylor]

57. Next they will claim Assange is sacrificing babies to Satan.

Threads like this are why the unrec feature was made.

[closeupready]

143. Yep, the lies about Assange just keep coming.

nt

[krabigirl]

60. I just read that this is bs and that he denies saying that. However, what a perfect smear.

If tptb cant assassinate him, just paint him as anti-Semitic. Then he will fade into obscurity.

[ClarkUSA]

64. John Galliano also denies he said anything anti-Semitic, too.

As in Galliano's case, I guess the only definitive way would be to catch Assange saying this on tape.

In the meantime, there's that rape trial: http://www.thinq.co.uk/2010/9/6/wikileaks-calls-assange-step-down/

[EFerrari]

69. In other words, you have nothng but some desire to trash Assange.

Lame.

[ClarkUSA]

127. In other words, you have nothing but some desire to defend Assange no matter what he's accused of.

Lamer.

[Hissyspit]

71. He's not been charged with rape and there is no trial.

There are extradition hearings. And, yeah, Galliano said things on tape, with multiple witnesses. Much worse things than what this somebody said Assange said and that that somebody told us what Assange said meant. Let me know when the Assange tape shows up. The association with Galliano is ludicrous.

[ClarkUSA]

128. Only because he's too gutless to face questions and charges in Sweden.

It's very clear that he broke Sweden's liberal laws on rape. If he's so innocent, then why doesn't he go to Sweden to face questioning?

[No Elephants]

168. No, the crime of which he has been accused is not rape.

And what in hell is so "liberal" about making a man a criminal if he is unlucky enough to use a condom that happened to allegedly break?

[No Elephants]

166. So, why did you post in Reply 43 that failure to deny meant so much?

[EFerrari]

68. Yup.

[defendandprotect]

79. Good to hear -- is there an article up -- where did you hear this?

[hulka38]

63. It's a shame that people believe this garbage. n/t

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NoodleyAppendage]

76. The Honey Pot Operation is failing, so they now try the Anti-Semite Bomb. n/t

J

[avaistheone1]

86. P R E C I S E L Y !

k&r:kick:

[robcon]

87. Precisely????? So you think he didn't claim a Jewish Conspiracy?

All I can say is - what lengths won't you go to defend the scumbag?

[ReggieVeggie]

97. Did he?

He's already made the statement that the claim of what he said in the article is wrong

[bemildred]

100. Well, you aren't going to believe him are you? He's an anti-semite!

:sarcasm:

[closeupready]

145. LOL

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

105. yup

and it's by the same people I trust least on this site.

[The Flaming Red Head]

111. No shit, you read my mind

And the ones that didn't like him before still don't like him (nothing new) and are absolutely miffed at the rest of us because their little subterfuge isn't working.

[closeupready]

144. Yep.

nt

[canetoad]

82. Private Eye is the grandaddy of The Onion

Only a hundred times funnier and more subtle.

If the story came from PE, you can trust it just like you trust the Onion.....

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. it's split in two - satire, and investigating reporting

eg Paul Foot was a major contributor to the latter. This is in the serious bit.

[Hissyspit]

98. Real question is should this be in the serious bit?

Pretty lousy journalism. As serious as this conversation seems to have been, it looks impossible to know what was really being said by Assange. Go back and read it again. It's practically worthless. A defense attorney listening to this as testimony would tear it apart.

[bemildred]

101. It is typical of the nebulous drool that one sees in smear campaigns.

If it were made clear, it might become actionable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

102. Well, it was write about it as remembered, or not write about it at all

Hislop felt Assange didn't have good reasons for attacking the earlier article, and thought it worth telling readers that Assange would attack an article he hadn't actually read, with, as Hislop saw it, an accusation that some Jewish people were ganging up on Assange by drawing attention to the dodgy Wikileaks associate, with the purpose of decreasing Jewish donations to Wikileaks.

Who cares about a defense attorney? This isn't about a court case.

[KurtNYC]

88. All that info at his disposal and "he believes..." Hmmmmm.

The claim is Assange, after collecting thousands of documents and tons of data, is now just going to be paranoid and take guesses ?!

I'm not buying it. Seems like more of the smear. This shouldn't be about Assange anyway -- facts have no owner.

[fascisthunter]

104. wow... going that low to discredit Assange

and by doing so, you make a mockery of real actual anti-senitism. Just admit it, you don't like what the guy is doing, nor do you like transparency in government.

[The Flaming Red Head]

106. He's not Holocaust denying, he's being denied donations

He Loves Jewish, Irish, African, Asian, Egyptian, etc and all their beautiful donations. Money knows no race, nationality, ethnicity, or religion. He is worried that smear tactics are being used to separate him from his minions. But you can turn this dime in any direction you choose, but so can I.

Other than my hero Greenwald; Salon has not particularly been in favor of Assange, as a matter of fact they (other than Greenwald) have been down right nasty,
especially Mary Elizabeth Williams, the bitch.
www.search.yahoo.com/search?fr=yhs-avgb-chrome&type=yahoo_avg_hs2-tb-web_chrome_us&p=Mary+Elizabeth+blast+Julian+Assange+on+Salon

[msanthrope]

108. So Assange used an anti-semite to smear a rape victim. Classy.

Let's not forget, fellow posters, that Mr. Israel Shamir is the SOLE SOURCE of the claim that Anna Ardin is a CIA plant, as breathlessly reported by http://my.firedoglake.com/kirkmurphy/2010/12/04/assanges-chief-accuser-has-her-own-history-with-us-funded-anti-castro-groups-one-of-which-has-cia-ties/">FIREDOGLAKE and Counterpunch. This claim comes SOLELY from an article written by Mr. Shamir.

Now, we find out that Assange and Shamir are connected--so much for independent journalism, right????

Now, let us recall that I have previously posted about Mr. Shamir--specifically, that:

"Jermas/Shamir himself is no stranger to conspiracy theories. When he visited Norway in 2001, he made the laughable claim in the mainstream newspaper Adresseavisa that many Jews received text messages warning them to get out of the World Trade Centre in New York before the terror attacks of 11 September."

http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=6


Great--an anti-Semite is who is smearing Assange's rape victim. Perfect. I wonder if Assange paid him, or if he doing it for free.

[reorg]

114. LOL

He didn't claim she was a "CIA plant", merely cited her documented links to anti-Castro groups that are known to be CIA-connected. I myself pointed this out here, days or weeks before Mr Shamir wrote about it.

As to the story about the text messages, it was reported by Haaretz one or two days after the attacks. That news story was online for several months at least. It may have been false, a rumor, or whatever. But why would you say it is "anti-semitic"?

[msanthrope]

116. Are you really questioning why accusing Jews of getting texts telling them to leave the WTC

before the planes hit is anti-Semitic?

Really?

[reorg]

118. It was not an accusation, it was a news report in the Israeli paper Haaretz

And I asked you why you consider this report anti-semitic. Apparently, you don't have an answer to this.

[cali]

121. evidence. as in a link. provide it.

[reorg]

124. for what?

If you are looking for the Haaretz story, you should be able to find it. Not at their site anymore, probably, but there are websites dedicated to the documentation of the news and theories about the attacks. You may get lucky searching the DU archives, as I said, it was repeatedly discussed.

[bemildred]

125. Here:

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579

[ieoeja]

146. Nothing in that article says they are Jewish. (nt)

[bemildred]

150. Thanks for clearing that up. nt

[msanthrope]

148. Thank you for proving my point---Shamir made up the rumor about Jewish workers all on his own.

not only does NOTHING in the article say these workers were Jewish, NOTHING in the article indicates these workers were ANYWHERE near the WTC...

So, Shamir himself was the only one to make such a claim.

[bemildred]

151. I was supplying evidence that there was such a story in Haaretz.

I have no interest in defending Shamir or his theories.

I have always thought that the interesting point in that story, which I have some skepticism about, was that somebody purportedly had foreknowledge of 9/11.

[reorg]

156. You really are a genius

Israelis working in an Israeli firm that contacts the Israeli security services ... you are correct, the article doesn't state they are Jewish. Shamir must be an anti-Semite to assume they were (if he did, nobody has cited here anything he said in this respect).

"Odigo reported that, two hours before the September 11, 2001 attacks, two of their employees who were working in an Odigo office in Herzliya Pituah, a city near Tel Aviv,<1> received a hostile English electronic instant message non-specifically threatening them that a terrorist attack would happen.<2> They did not mention this to their employer until after they heard reports of a terrorist attack in the United States on the news, after which they informed the company's management. One of Odigo's New York offices was then situated under a kilometer away from the World Trade Center complex."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odigo_Messenger

[No Elephants]

169. Untrue. I heard the rumor as to Jews years ago, both directly from tourists

visiting the U.S. and on tv. It was very widespread abroad.

[Taverner]

110. Ah fuck...well Julian, we knew you well...

Buh bye

[xchrom]

122. It's now a 2fer on DU. Rape and anti-semitism.

The two things an innocent can never really recover from.

[Occulus]

138. Note, it is only the most credulous of DUers who buy either claim.

And no, that was most certainly not a compliment to them.

[Behind the Aegis]

173. LOL!

:rofl:

[The Straight Story]

133. Now of he said Christian,C street, Fundie - DU'ers would be hugging him

How does that work?

[Vidar]

141. "Oh, the protestants hate the catholics, And the catholics hate the protestants,

And the hindus hate the moslems,
And everybody hates the jews."
-National Brotherhood Week,
Tom Lehrer

[No Elephants]

170. Not so true anymore. Neo theos of all stripes have united and they all hate secularists.

[closeupready]

142. I don't believe that for one second.

nt

[Geoffrey_Lebowski]

147. So he is *maybe* apparently based on hearsay

And the reportage of some semi-satirical magazine ...

The roughly 1,000,000,000th person in world history to believe in some sort of conspiracy perpetrated by one or more Jewish people.

This is some kinda news, boy.

[robcon]

152. I don't understand why you don't believe it for "one second."

He's clearly paranoid... why wouldn't he find some group to blame?

[closeupready]

154. This is hearsay from a source I've never heard of before today.

As to being clearly paranoid, sometimes they really ARE out to get you, and I do think that applies to Assange.

[crim son]

167. That wasn't smart.

If it's true he said that, it was really dumb.

[No Elephants]

172. Hislop paraphrases Assange's words about Guardian and several Jewish

critics of Assange. Some ambiguous statements with no direct quotes result. And everyone debates if Assange is or is not anti-Semitic, even though Assange had quickly retracted "the Jewish thing."

Meanwhile, in over 150 posts, no one even mentions this tidbit, which IS in quotation marks and is relatively unambiguous (and unretracted):

"The WikiLeaks founder went on to complain about the Guardian editors, saying they "failed masculinity test" and "behaved like gossiping schoolgirls."

No one in the media seems to have noted it either.

Some forms of bigotry are more unremarkable than others, I guess.