356 Afghan Papers as Disinformation. Israeli training courses for Wikipedia editing

Afghan Papers as Disinformation. Israeli training courses for Wikipedia editing

(1) Suvurov's real name - Rozen (Jewish) or Rezun (Ukranian)?
(2) & (3) Stalin was anti Jewish?
(4) "Afghan documents leak to Wikileaks is disinformation" - nonsense
(5) Any clue why PMyers won't talk about Julian Assange ?
(6) Pentagon War on Wikileaks?
(7) Clarification on Afghan Papers as Disinformation
(8) Gilad Atzmon: Guardian report on Israeli training courses for Wikipedia editing
(9) The Guardian: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups
(10) Israel Shamir: Wiki, the Chaos Controlled; the role of British Trotskyist Roland Rance

(1) Suvurov's real name - Rozen (Jewish) or Rezun (Ukranian)?

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: 19.08.2010 03:40 PM

Suvorov's real name is Rezun, not Rosen, Russian/Ukrainian, not Jewish.

Comment (Peter M):

David Irving posted the Haaretz piece by Tom Segev on his website. A postscript by a reader says:

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/07/08/Stalins_warguilt.html

Postscript by reader Piers Mellor, Saturday, September 15, 2007:

I'VE just read with interest your recent update [above] regarding the Israeli military historian's conversion to the Icebreaker thesis about "Barbarossa" being a preventive strike. I suspect you may already know this, but as it's not mentioned on your site I thought I should point out that the real name of Viktor Suvorov is not "Bogdan Rozen" as given in the Ha'aretz article you link to, but Vladimir Rezun (Bogdanovich is the patronymic; Bogdan Rezun is his father's actual name). As far as I know, "Rezun" is not a Slavicized form of "Rosen" and Suvorov is not Jewish, though I've heard this claim made before by neo-Stalinist "National Bolshevik" types. An old article from the Tel Aviv University News, which can be found at www.tau.ac.il/taunews/96winter/russia.html, would appear to rule this out, even if the hysterical claims about "threats" are doubtless completely overblown and taken out of context. Suvorov also dedicated his 1982 work Inside The Soviet Army to ROA leader Andrei Vlasov, hardly the sort of thing a Russian Jewish author would be likely to do.

(2) Stalin was anti Jewish?

From: Paul Wright <pwright@prisonlegalnews.org> Date: 19.08.2010 12:51 PM

What evidence supports the claim that Stalin was anti Jewish?

Paul Wright, Editor
Prison Legal News
P.O. Box 2420
West Brattleboro, VT 05303
www.prisonlegalnews.org

Reply (Peter M.):

It's not that he was anti-Jewish; rather, that he stole the Jewish conspiracy, and blocked its re-emergence for about 27 years.

There's good evidence from
- Solzhenitysyn (Read ch. 22 of 200 Years Together http://www.ethnopoliticsonline.com/archives/ais/ais%20chapter22.html).
- Slezkine (http://mailstar.net/slezkine.html)
- Vaksberg's book Stalin Against The Jews.

(3) Stalin was anti Jewish?

From: Paul Wright <pwright@prisonlegalnews.org> Date: 20.08.2010 02:18 PM

I don't think Solzhenitsyn is very credible on these matters. Jews held prominent and powerful positions of power through the Stalin era, including Ilya Ehrenburg among others, last I heard the Red Army had over 300 Jewish generals at one point which is probably more than Israel has on any given day.

Reply (Peter M.):

How about coming up with some names? Ilya Ehrenburg was merely a writer. Name some really powerful Jews at the top.

Sure, Beria & Kaganovich were there, and Molotov and Voroshilov had Jewish wives.

Stalin always kept a few Jews around him, if only to show that he wasn't "anti-semitic".

But he moved against organized Jewish attempts at policy formation/agenda-setting, especially after the 1946 Baruch Plan and even more after he saw that the creation of Israel in 1948 had given Soviet Jews a higher allegiance.

I didn't only refer you to Solzhenitsyn; but also to Slezkine and Vaksberg, both being Jews who have written books on this topic.

Vaksberg specifically describes how Stalin got Jewish Generals out of the Red Army (p. 23).

Read the books. Quote them when making a point. You have to do research before announcing your opinion.

(4) "Afghan documents leak to Wikileaks is disinformation" - nonsense
From: Jeffrey Blankfort <jblankfort@earthlink.net> Date: 19.08.2010 01:25 PM

The suggestion that the Wikileaks leaks was leaked by the Pentagon and is disinformation is just pure stuff and nonsense and something that all too often I find on the otherwise interesting GR website.

Jeff

(5) Any clue why PMyers won't talk about Julian Assange ?

From: lenczner <atoyuma@yahoo.com> Date: 20.08.2010 07:48 PM
Subject: Any clue why PMyers won't talk about Julian Assange ?

The Aussie who's changing the world of whistleblowers

Written by Snoz
Tuesday, 08 July 2008 19:14

http://www.watoday.com.au/technology/the-aussie-whos-changing-the-world-of-whistleblowers-20080709-3c92.html?from=smh_ft

In the past year and a half, Australian-born Julian Assange and his band of online dissidents have helped swing the Kenyan Presidential election, embarrassed the US Government and sparked international scandal. ...

In February this year, the Swiss bank Julius Baer obtained an injunction against Wikileaks after it published documents purportedly showing shady offshore activities - including money laundering and tax evasion - allegedly supported by the bank in the Cayman Islands.

The web address wikileaks.org was briefly knocked offline as a result of the court decision but after a major backlash from the media and civil liberties lobbyists, the judge reversed the ruling on the grounds it was unconstitutional. ...

(6) Pentagon War on Wikileaks?

Unhinged at the US State Department and Pentagon

A War on Wikileaks?

Maximilian C. Forte

August 11, 2010

http://www.counterpunch.org/forte08112010.html

In the interest of full disclosure, I am one of Wikileaks’ many financial donors. I have downloaded their entire Afghan War Diary, and numerous other documents in the past, and I have shared them. I am also one of the critics of some aspects of the Wikileaks review process. Some might rush to conclude that this puts individuals such as myself in a difficult position. Not from our standpoint. Instead the difficult positions are owned by the U.S. State Department and Pentagon, whose emissions have been chock full of absurd assertions, twisted logic, while appealing to us with as much charm as that of a delinquent about to commit date rape: first the appeal to our good side (ethics), then the threat of destruction (prosecution).

The past week has seen a mounting cascade of legal threats against Wikileaks, launched first via the mainstream media, which along with its patron state is clearly smarting from the lash of uncontrolled information access. A Pentagon official reportedly exclaimed, with obvious joy: “It’s amazing how [Wikileaks’ Julian] Assange has overplayed his hand. Now, he’s alienating the sort of people who you’d normally think would be his biggest supporters.” In one step, three fallacies: one, that this story is all about Julian Assange, thus reducing the complex to the personal; two, that supporters of Wikileaks have become antagonistic toward what is an amorphous transnational movement without clear boundaries of membership or location; and three, the implication that support has shifted toward the Pentagon, as if it now has some sort of green light of legitimacy to commit any acts against Wikileaks that it wishes. It’s only at these big historical moments, with so much at stake, with everything seemingly up in the air, that one finds so many people who are so wrong about so much.

Let’s review the strategy of intended intimidation. The first step involved the military threatening its own — not in itself illogical, since the leaks emanate from within its ranks. However, the military threatened its own to avoid looking at what is now public. The Department of the Navy, in a message titled “Wikileaks Website Guidance,” issued the following statement as reported on August 5th:

“personnel should not access the WikiLeaks website to view or download the publicized classified information. Doing so would introduce potentially classified information on unclassified networks. There has been rumor that the information is no longer classified since it resides in the public domain. This is NOT true. Government information technology capabilities should be used to enable our war fighters, promote information sharing in defense of our homeland, and to maximize efficiencies in operations. It should not be used as a means to harm national security through unauthorized disclosure of our information on publicly accessible websites or chat rooms.”

A similar message was issued by the Special Security Office of the Marine Corps Intelligence Department addressed to ALCON (all concerned), which threatened to discipline offenders:

“By willingly accessing the WIKILEAKS website for the purpose of viewing the posted classified material—these actions constitute the unauthorized processing, disclosure, viewing, and downloading of classified information onto an UNAUTHORIZED computer system not approved to store classified information, meaning they have WILLINGLY committed a SECURITY VIOLATION. Not only are these actions illegal, but they provide the justification for local security officials to immediately remove, suspend ‘FOR CAUSE’ all security clearances and accesses. Commanders may press for Article 15 or 32 charges, and USMC personnel could face a financial hardship as civilian and contractor personnel will be placed on ‘Administrative Leave’ pending the outcome of the [criminal] investigation.”

The threat to military personnel is one thing, but it has been done in a manner that threatens a wide array of actors, which theoretically could include independent bloggers, journalists, university librarians, and scholars. Sumit Agarwal, the former Google manager who—take note of the military-new media complex at work—is now serving as the Defense Department’s social media czar, asserted to Wired’s Danger Room that many of us may be guilty of illegal information trafficking (as I said in my last article, we are all hackers now):

“I think of it as being analogous to MP3s or a copyrighted novel online — widespread publication doesn’t strip away laws governing use of those. If Avatar were suddenly available online, would [it] be legal to download it? As a practical matter, many people would download it, but also as a practical matter, James Cameron would probably go after people who were found to be nodes who facilitated distribution. It would still be illegal for people to make Avatar available even if it were posted on a torrent site or the equivalent. With minor changes to what is legal/illegal re: classified material vs a copyrighted movie, doesn’t the analogy hold? One person making it available doesn’t change the laws re: classified material. Our position is simply that service members ought not to use government computers to do something which is still completely illegal (traffic in classified material).”

Also on August 5th, the Pentagon issued an outlandish demand, so bizarre that it could not possibly be met with anything less than scorn. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell ordered Wikileaks to “return” all documents (which are not paper documents, but digital copies, of which countless copies now exist in circulation):

“These documents are the property of the U.S. Government and contain classified and sensitive information. The Defense Department demands that Wikileaks return immediately all version [sic] of documents obtained….Wikileaks’ public disclosure last week of a large number of our documents has already threatened the safety of our troops, our allies and Afghan citizens….The only acceptable course is for Wikileaks to return all versions of these documents to the U.S. government and permanently delete them from its website, computers and records.”

At the same time this indicates one of the main lines of argument that the U.S. would begin to pursue against Wikileaks in earnest, and it is by far the weakest: that the leaked records threaten the safety of its troops and allies.

Fox News was eager to dedicate its time and energies to looking for legal loopholes by which to hang Wikileaks. It demonstrated no such concern for the finer points of international law, let alone another country’s domestic laws, when it came to the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, here is Fox on Wikileaks’ trail in Sweden. On August 6th Fox was happy to have surfaced with this report: “But the law [protecting freedom of expression and the anonymity of sources] only applies to websites or publications that possess a special publishing license granting them constitutional protection, and WikiLeaks has not acquired the requisite paperwork.” Fox’s headline was “WikiLeaks Website Not Protected by Swedish Law, Legal Analysts Say”—no legal analyst was named or quoted in the article. The only reason Fox issued this piece is as part of an effort, combining old media, social media, and the national security state, to draw a tighter noose around Wikileaks’ collective neck. At a time when many “patriotic Americans” are publicly calling for Wikileaks’ people to be hunted down and shot, it is interesting to note that Fox is only too happy to reveal the name, location, and photograph of the person hosting Wikileaks’ server in Sweden.

On August 9th, the Wall Street Journal claimed to have obtained a letter from five human rights organizations that was critical of Wikileaks’ failure to redact the names of Afghan civilian informants in the records that were publicly released. The WSJ’s Jeanne Whalen, in language that is strikingly close to that of the unnamed Pentagon official quoted above at the start, wrote: “The exchange shows how WikiLeaks and Mr. Assange risk being isolated from some of their most natural allies in the wake of the documents’ publication.” This could be a problem for Wikileaks, insofar as Julian Assange has effectively conceded the argument in an interview with, among others, The Guardian: “If there are innocent Afghans being revealed, which was our concern, which was why we kept back 15,000 files, then of course we take that seriously.” The problem is that many such identities are revealed in the files that have already been released. Assange argues that the U.S. military is ultimately to blame for having placed Afghan civilians in danger, and for recording identities that could be revealed. He is not wrong there, and the U.S. was overconfident that its database was beyond any danger of leakage, which is obviously wrong. Perhaps not wanting to engage in cold, bitter irony, Assange did not choose to give back to the state the words it often gives us: “Mistakes were made. We regret all loss of innocent civilian life. Unfortunately, the enemy chose to embed itself in the civilian population.” Wikileaks, via Twitter, was correct in noting that not once since the recent leaks exploded into public has the Pentagon said it was sorry about all the Afghan civilians it killed, or that it would stop.

Now, on August 10th, we are told that the U.S. is urging all of its allies, especially those in NATO and with troops in Afghanistan, to crack down on Wikileaks. An unnamed American diplomat has stated:

“It’s not just our troops that are put in jeopardy by this leaking. It’s U.K. troops, it’s German troops, it’s Australian troops—all of the NATO troops and foreign forces working together in Afghanistan. [Their governments should] review whether the actions of WikiLeaks could constitute crimes under their own national-security laws.”

Some U.S. allies, such as Canada, are likely to bolt out of the gate to be the first to do so. The day after the release of the documents, Canadian Foreign Minister Lawrence Cannon insisted, at first, that he would not comment directly on the leaked documents, saying they had “nothing to do with Canada.” Yet, as if he had suddenly received an automated statement transmitted to a secret implant buried in his head, he said: “Our government is concerned, obviously, that operational leaks could endanger the lives of our men and women in Afghanistan.” Again, three absurdly contradictory elements bundled together: 1) we are not commenting on the documents; 2) the documents have nothing to do with Canada; and, 3) the documents could endanger our troops.

The latter point is likely to be how the U.S. will impress upon allies the need to collaborate in persecuting Wikileaks. The endangering of Afghan civilians cannot, clearly, be a point on which to prosecute a case against Wikileaks, because the irony would be too immense for even the U.S. to try to keep inflated and aloft. The safety of troops is not much less ironic—after all, it was the state that placed those troops in harm’s way, not Wikileaks—but it does play better with a home crowd that has been sufficiently conditioned to thirst for the blood of imagined “traitors.” The leaders of the chief national security state of the West increasingly sound like angry and desperate bloggers, promising the wrath of god and total vengeance—and it may be because, one, the state is increasingly powerless to deal with transnational, decentralized, non-state phenomena that can fight back on cyber terrain (and win), and two because that crowd of angry, righteous patriots is the one the state is playing to.

It would be amazing if the U.S. or an ally ever got to try a case against Wikileaks on the grounds that troops’ lives had been endangered. It would be a massive fiasco. The state would need to show—and not just assert, as it does now—exactly how any troops were actually endangered. Which of the rounds received from small arms fire in Afghanistan is a regular “insurgent” round and which one is a Wikileaks’ inspired round? In a war zone, how do you calibrate safety levels such that you can tell when, with Wikileaks, the danger meter went deeper into the red? And since Afghan civilians are already, all too painfully, aware of the damage done by U.S. and NATO forces, how can the release of these records do any greater damage? Did Afghans need a reminder, in print, in another language?

If the state fails to make any sense—not surprising—it is because it is has no intention of doing so. The state is appealing to something more visceral with all of this posturing: fear. It wants to strike fear into the minds and bodies of people working with Wikileaks, or anyone else doing such work, and anyone contemplating leaking any classified records. Fear is its greatest weapon of psychological destruction, with proven success at home. And in this case, the danger lies at home. The outcome the state hopes for is greater self-censorship and greater self-monitoring.

Bullying Assange, or worse yet, actually capturing him and imprisoning him, will only make Assange into an international hero, the Che Guevara of information warfare. For all those who may be “alienated,” or who expressed any criticisms, they/we would clearly pick Assange over the Pentagon any day. The U.S. does not want this to be publicly proven on a world stage, so our answers to the question of what the U.S. is up to, and why it seems to have become so utterly unhinged, have to lie elsewhere. I contend that it is fear promotion, as part of a campaign of global counterinsurgency on psychological and emotional levels, to which the best answer is a combination of further tactical innovation, and greater humor.

Maximilian C. Forte is a professor in anthropology at Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He writes at Zero Anthropology. He can be reached at max.forte@openanthropology.org

(7) Clarification on Afghan Papers as Disinformation - Peter M., August 21, 2010

I'm not saying that Julian Assange is a conspirator - although F. William Engdahl argued so at http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?aid=20580&context=va.

My view is that the Afghan Papers aren't the scoop they were announced to be; and perhaps that they were "fed" to Assange by Disinformation agents.

Compare the official reception to (a) the video of the Baghdad helicopter shooting of civilians (b) the Afghan Papers.

The US Government tried to cover up the former, but welcomed the latter. Obama was shown reading the Afghan Papers, & soon afterwards Hilliary started putting pressure on Pakistan for siding with the Afghan resistance.

An additional payoff was the Papers' assertion that Bin Laden is still alive - and thus useful to provide yet more pretexts for further interventions.

If the Afghan Papers really are a revelation, what news do they contain?

(8) Gilad Atzmon: Guardian report on Israeli training courses for Wikipedia editing
From: Sami Joseph <sajoseph2005@yahoo.com> Date: 21.08.2010 04:36 PM

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-united-against-knowledge.html

Gilad Atzmon: United Against Knowledge

Friday, August 20, 2010 at 8:00AM Gilad Atzmon

{visit the link to see the graphic showing intervention in Wikipedia)

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-united-against-knowledge.html

The Guardian reported today that two Israeli groups have set up training courses in subversive Wikipedia editing aiming to 'show the other side' of the Jewish State. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups>

Those who lend their pen to the Palestinian cause know about Wikipedia Jews, a term that was coined a few years ago. It refers to a bunch of rabid and crypto Zionists who constantly vandalise encyclopaedia entries to do with Palestine, Palestinian activists and Israeli atrocities. <http://encyclopediadramatica.com/The_Wikipedia_Jews>

According to the Guardian two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing".

Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to ‘rewrite’ and ‘revise’ some of the most “hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.”

The Wikipideia project is a phenomenal humanist and universalist initiative. Hence, it should not take us by surprise that its biggest opponents are tribal operators, amongst them Zionists, crypto Zionists and the so called ‘Jewish anti Zionists’.

One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, told the Guardian that publicising the new Zionist conspiratorial initiative might not be such a ‘good idea’. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground."

One may be surprised to discover that chief amongst ‘Wikipedia Jews’ is alleged ‘Anti Zionist’ Roland Rance. Rance, is a London based Jewish Marxist who spends most of his time peppering Wikipedia entries with Judeo-centric context. Roland Rance was also one of the leading opponents of Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR), probably the most successful Palestinian solidarity operation in the UK.

A snapshot of Rance’s relentless attempt to vandalise Israel Shamir’s Wikipedia entry last week, can be seen at the above link.

Wikipedia Jews have history behind them. According to the Guardian, in 2008, members of the hawkish pro-Israel watchdog Camera who secretly planned to edit Wikipedia were banned from the site by administrators. There is a war going on my own Wikipedia entry. More than once Wikipedia Administrators have been called in just to remove contamination by Rance and other Zionists.

The Wikipedia project is all about knowledge and the availability of knowledge. Is it a coincidence that political Jews in the right and in the left are united to subvert this project? I do not think so. Once again we come across what seems to be Zionist continuum. They are all united against knowledge.

Apparently The organizers of the Zionist Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel. I guess that by now we know who should be the candidate for the blue & white air balloon adventure.

(9) The Guardian: Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/18/wikipedia-editing-zionist-groups

Wikipedia editing courses launched by Zionist groups

Two Israeli groups set up training courses in Wikipedia editing with aims to 'show the other side' over borders and culture

Rachel Shabi in Jerusalem and Jemima Kiss

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 18 August 2010 20.52 BST

Since the earliest days of the worldwide web, the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has seen its rhetorical counterpart fought out on the talkboards and chatrooms of the internet.

Now two Israeli groups seeking to gain the upper hand in the online debate have launched a course in "Zionist editing" for Wikipedia, the online reference site.

Yesha Council, representing the Jewish settler movement, and the rightwing Israel Sheli (My I srael) movement, ran their first workshop this week in Jerusalem, teaching participants how to rewrite and revise some of the most hotly disputed pages of the online reference site.

"We don't want to change Wikipedia or turn it into a propaganda arm," says Naftali Bennett, director of the Yesha Council. "We just want to show the other side. People think that Israelis are mean, evil people who only want to hurt Arabs all day."

Wikipedia is one of the world's most popular websites, and its 16m entries are open for anyone to edit, rewrite or even erase. The problem, according to Ayelet Shaked of Israel Sheli, is that online, pro-Israeli activists are vastly outnumbered by pro-Palestinian voices. "We don't want to give this arena to the other side," she said. "But we are so few and they are so many. People in the US and Europe never hear about Israel's side, with all the correct arguments and explanations."

Like others involved with this project, Shaked thinks that her government is "not doing a very good job" of explaining Israel to the world.

And on Wikipedia, they believe that there is much work to do.

Take the page on Israel, for a start: "The map of Israel is portrayed without the Golan heights or Judea and Samaria," said Bennett, referring to the annexed Syrian territory and the West Bank area occupied by Israel in 1967.

Another point of contention is the reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – a status that is constantly altered on Wikipedia.

Other pages subject to constant re-editing include one titled Goods allowed/banned for import into Gaza – which is now being considered for deletion – and a page on the Palestinian territories.

Then there is the problem of what to call certain neighbourhoods. "Is Ariel a city or a settlement?" asks Shaked of the area currently described by Wikipedia as "an Israeli settlement and a city in the central West Bank." That question is the subject of several thousand words of heated debate on a Wikipedia discussion thread.

The idea, says Shaked and her colleauges, is not to storm in, cause havoc and get booted out – the Wikipedia editing community is sensitive, consensus-based and it takes time to build trust.

"We learned what not to do: don't jump into deep waters immediately, don't be argumentative, realise that there is a semi-democratic community out there, realise how not to get yourself banned," says Yisrael Medad, one of the course participants, from Shiloh.

Is that Shiloh in the occupied West Bank? "No," he sighs, patiently. "That's Shiloh in the Binyamin region across the Green Line, or in territories described as disputed."

One Jerusalem-based Wikipedia editor, who doesn't want to be named, said that publicising the initiative might not be such a good idea. "Going public in the past has had a bad effect," she says. "There is a war going on and unfortunately the way to fight it has to be underground."

In 2008, members of the hawkish pro-Israel watchdog Camera who secretly planned to edit Wikipedia were banned from the site by administrators.

Meanwhile, Yesha is building an information taskforce to engage with new media, by posting to sites such as Facebook and YouTube, and claims to have 12,000 active members, with up to 100 more signing up each month. "It turns out there is quite a thirst for this activity," says Bennett. "The Israeli public is frustrated with the way it is portrayed abroad."

The organisiers of the Wikipedia courses, are already planning a competition to find the "Best Zionist editor", with a prize of a hot-air balloon trip over Israel.

Wikipedia wars

There are frequent flare-ups between competing volunteer editors and obsessives who run Wikipedia. As well as conflicts over editing bias and "astroturfing" PR attempts, articles are occasionally edited to catch out journalists; the Independent recently erroneously published that the Big Chill had started life as the Wanky Balls festival. In 2005 the founding editorial director of USA Today, John Seigenthaler, discovered his Wikipedia entry included the claim that he was involved in the assassination of JFK.

Editors can remain anonymous when changing content, but conflicts are passed to Wikipedia's arbitration committee. Scientology was a regular source of conflict until the committee blocked editing by the movement.

Critics cite the editing problems as proof of a flawed site that can be edited by almost anybody, but its defenders claim the issues are tiny compared with its scale. Wikipedia now has versions in 271 languages and 379 million users a month.

(10) Israel Shamir: Wiki, the Chaos Controlled; the role of British Trotskyist Roland Rance

http://www.israelshamir.net/English/Eng37.htm

Wiki, the Chaos Controlled

By Israel Shamir

In the art of surveillance, there is a cunning ploy familiar to the readers of Le Carre: the target is followed by a clumsy gumshoe; he discovers he is being tailed, easily shakes the tail off and goes on, feeling secure and unobserved. Unbeknownst to him, there are other detectives who stick to him like glue and follow him to his perdition. Professionally it is called a “double tail”.

Apparently, some of us were duped by such a ruse in the peculiar affair of a Zionist plot to infiltrate Wikipedia. This powerful online encyclopaedia is ostensibly free and open: everyone can be an editor, can add or edit any entry. Editors remain anonymous; their true identity is hidden behind a nickname. This rule has a serious drawback: using this anonymity, a dedicated group can infiltrate the system by stealth, distort reality and create a false picture of the world in the eyes of billions. Apparently this script has been recently enacted.

Conspiracy? Yes. Jewish conspiracy? You bet! The damning email exchange was intercepted and published, revealing a radical Zionist plot to bend “Wiki.” A moderate leftist (some would call it ‘tame’) US-based pro-Palestinian site EI revealed that the radical-extremist Zionist organisation CAMERA called for “volunteers who can work as ‘editors’ to ensure” that Israel-related articles on Wikipedia agree with their right-wing-Zionist agenda. This effort was to be kept secret from the media and the public. Stealth and misrepresentation were presented as the keys to success. A CAMERA official advised the volunteers to sign up as editors for Wikipedia and afterwards to avoid editing Israel-related material for a while, in order to “avoid the appearance of being one-topic editors”. The orchestrated effort was to appear as if it were the work of unaffiliated individuals, and for this reason the editors were to avoid picking a user name that marked them as pro-Israel, or that let people know their real name. The emails taught Zionist apprentices how to act in the interests of Israel while using neutral language. The emphasis was on the long-run side of the operation: “This is a marathon not a sprint”, a Zionist instructor nicknamed ‘Zeq’ taught his apprentices in the email exchange.

The EI article about this revelation was quite sycophantic towards Wikipedia. It presented “Wiki” as an objective source at loggerheads with Zionist infiltrators, and even bordered on advertising: “Openness and good faith are among Wikipedia’s core principles. Any person in the world can write or edit articles, but Wikipedia has strict guidelines and procedures for accountability intended to ensure quality control and prevent vandalism, plagiarism or distortion. It is because of these safeguards that articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective.”

Still, it was not enough, and on the following day, 22 April 2008, EI updated this article with a triumphal and calming statement: “a plan by the pro-Israel pressure group CAMERA to skew Wikipedia in a pro-Israel direction appears to have collapsed after it was exposed by EI”. Zeq was dismissed, and anyway, fewer than a dozen of CAMERA moles were active at the time EI exposed the scheme. In short: everything is fine, Wiki is functioning well, and the Zionist scare is gone, thanks to fearless EI. And anyway, it was only a small operation by the enemies of freedom, and it is over.

Excuse me, is this an article, or a paid advertisement for Wikipedia? Did EI receive on the evening of April 21st an offer they could not refuse from the owner of Wiki? Only a Zionist can think that Wiki “articles on key elements of the Palestine-Israel conflict have generally remained well-referenced, useful and objective.” On the contrary, they are biased in the extreme; just read, for instance, the exceedingly hostile entry on Hamas, including its Talk, i.e. discussions of editors, deletions and corrections. It defines Hamas as “… best known for multiple suicide bombings and other attacks directed against civilians [best known to whom? To me it is best known as the ruling party of Palestine, and secondly, as a grassroots mutual assistance movement – ISH]… Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel [while all prominent Israeli parties have joined in the destruction of Palestine – ISH] … the organization is described by many as antisemitic.” Is that objective? Further the entry says, inter alia: “Hamas is considered by the US a terrorist organisation.” This is true, but not the whole truth. I personally added: “However, Russia refused to consider Hamas a terrorist organisation.” My addition was immediately removed by the ever-watchful Zionist case-officer. Hamas is terrorist, full stop.

Only a dishonest fool, or someone who never used Wikipedia, could think that plan of the Lobby “to skew Wikipedia in a pro-Israel direction appears to have collapsed”. The clumsy gumshoe was shaken off, for CAMERA is but a bunch of amateurs, extreme Jewish nationalists with some nuisance value. They do not represent the Jewish mainstream; but they do play a useful part: they make the mainstream appear moderate. Being hassled by CAMERA is like being hassled by the Klan – it proves nothing. They hassle everybody, even moderate Zionists and other fellow-philosemites whom CAMERA fanatics consider insufficiently zealous, such as Johann Hari, an English professional philosemite who recently boasted: “I have worked undercover at both the Finsbury Park mosque and among neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers to expose the Jew-hatred there; I went on the Islam Channel to challenge the anti-Semitism of Islamists, I received a rash of death threats calling me ‘a Jew-lover’’. Later he strayed farther afield and wrote about Israeli sewage pouring all over Gaza. Afterwards, he complained, “CAMERA said I am an anti-Jewish bigot akin to Joseph Goebbels.”

Now, when the amateurs are disgraced and gone, the professionals remain. Wiki is as partial to Jews as the Jewish Chronicle. The picture of the world it offers is being edited and shaped in full accordance with the general Jewish world view thanks to a group of permanent and devoted editors and arbiters.

Freedom to add and edit is just the bait attracting millions of unpaid contributors. If Wiki were truly free, provided that “ordinary people’ are in the vast majority, we could expect to find a democratic world view presented, not one not perverted by a biased minority; but the real Wikipedia does not work that way. The apparent chaos of Wiki is strictly controlled by a hierarchy of Agents Smith, who secure the Wiki matrix. They delete references to Jewish misdeeds, but emphasize every good deed by a Jew. Israel/Palestine is just one area in what is truly universal agenda. For instance, they block and remove attempts to mention the Jewish origin of the founder of the Satanist movement, one La Vey (originally Levy), though this explains his hatred towards Christianity. They insist on the inferiority of Poincare versus Einstein, of Jung versus Freud or Proudhon versus Marx. Every act against Jews is recorded; every act of Jews against goyim is blotted out from this organised memory of our generation. These editors can manage just fine, thank you very much, without amateur infiltrators.

Zeq has been banned for his indiscretions, but the man he wrote of so admiringly, whom he described as a role model to his apprentices (“work with him and learn from him”), an ideal,. effective Zionist Wikipedia editor called Jayjg, is still there. Jayjg is not just an editor; he is an arbiter -- what passes for a judge on the Wikipedia. He was appointed to that position by the site owner himself. He is an Agent Smith of the Wiki matrix. One can see his work in many, many entries: clever and unscrupulous, he is a master of the subterfuge and deceit.

Another, superior Agent Smith is Cberlet or John Foster (Chip) Berlet, the scourge of the web. He is acting under many names. He is a collaborator with the ADL, the Jewish thought police. Though he previously denied having any relationship to ADL, he admitted to Israeli Foreign Affairs that he “had had quite a cordial professional relationship with the ADL" and “had been doing research in cooperation with ADL”. The New York City Jewish newspaper "Forward" reported that Berlet transferred information from an FBI anti-Communist informer directly to ADL. Ace Hayes wrote: “John Foster “Chip” Berlet has been involved, over the past half decade, in attacking virtually every independent critic of the Imperial State that the reader can name.” His operation is financed by the Ford Foundation. Michael Collins Piper in his monumental book on the Kennedy assassination, Final Judgment, asserted that Chip Berlet is a CIA agent. Naturally, his own entry in Wiki is protected from editing. The Arbitration committee (those who hold the reigns of power on the Wiki) “admit to hero-worship of Cberlet’, I was informed by a prominent insider.

These men are discreet, they won’t babble about their devotion to the Jewish cause -- they hide it under the veil of bureaucratic expressions and abbreviations. Their supporting cast includes some Jewish “antizionists” like RolandR. This is actually British Trotskyite trade union apparatchik Roland Rance, who does not mind cooperating with convinced anti-Communist, CIA and ADL agent Berlet and with zealous Zionist Jayjg. So much for his antizionism and his socialism! He, and thousands of smaller wannabe Agents Smith do not need the starry-eyed arch-Zionists of CAMERA, they are already in.

The “revelation” by EI is nothing but a subterfuge, a “double tail” executed to increase our trust in Wiki. A similar “double tail” operation was performed last year, when Wiki announced it had found CIA-made edits on a few pages. Careful reading of that “revelation” was even more disappointing than that of EI. The worst discovered CIA edit of the President Ahmadinejad entry was an ‘added exclamation “Wahhhhhh!”, while “other changes that have been made are more innocuous, and include tweaks to the profile of former CIA chief Porter Goss and celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey.” This is ridiculous: the US secret services spend many billions per annum in their drive for domination of the Web. A recent report speaks of $30 billion allocated by the Pentagon for an “electronic Manhattan Project” in order to fight the Web. And they want us to believe that all these billions produced an exclamation “Wahhhhhh!”? Alas, it is just another “double tail” sting operation by the usual suspects.

2

The Wiki entries on Palestine/Israel are far from “well-referenced, useful and objective” as the dupes of EI claim. On the second thought, are they dupes, or willing collaborators? The top man in EI is Electronic Ali, as Ali Abunima is nicknamed, the man who began the witch hunt against “Shamir the antisemite”. He is the Arab front for various exclusively Jewish organisations for Palestine, who rather promote the Jewish cause and fight antisemitism. Such Jewish bodies like to have a compliant shabbesgoy (as Rosa Luxemburg called these guys) for a front, and Ali fits the bill perfectly. Even this article on Wiki makes some reference to ‘evil antisemites’.

In his attack on me, Electronic Ali acted together with the execrable Hussein Ibish, but since then, the thieves have fallen apart.[i] Another prominent EI person is, or was, Nigel Parry, a British antisemitism-fighter, their webmaster and probably also their case officer. Nigel Perry is an enforcer of Political Correctness and is Gatekeeper General of the permitted discourse on Palestine, keeping the line between hard Likud and the soft Peace Now. He proudly mentions many years of involvement with the Palestinian cause. Well, such guys are a good reason why the Palestinian cause looks the way it does.

Why, we could have One State, a single unified state in Israel/Palestine by now, but for these guys! Looking back, that was a possible development in 2001, sometime before 9/11, when my call for One State was heeded by many Israelis and Americans, and supported by major American newspapers. But then these men began their campaign to denigrate me and scared supporters away. “Shamir is discredited and marginalised”, they wrote with satisfaction. For them, it did not matter that together with me, they discredited and marginalised the idea of One State, the only possible peaceful solution to our conflict.

The final battle was fought on the Wikipedia site, where Ali-Ibish-Parry provided ammunition to Zionist Agent Smith Jayjg and ADL’s own Berlet, with the ADL-sponsored block of “antifascist” e-zines: British Searchlight, Norwegian Monitor, Swedish Expo, American Trotskyite Socialist Viewpoint et al. These formidable forces were counteracted by our wonderful friend Joh Domingo, a South African fighter against apartheid, and our French friend Omnivore. You can read the protocols of the battle on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel_Shamir. They decided to make me a Swedish neonazi impostor, instead of the Israeli writer I really am.

All the time this battle was going on, I lived in my Jaffa house, receiving endless visitors, giving numerous interviews, going to work, seeing people – but I might as well have been dead. I felt like Doc Daneeka, a character in Joseph Heller’s witty Catch-22, who was declared dead as the plane he was supposed to fly was downed. “I am alive!” he shouted. “Here we have a paper saying you are dead”, they replied. His wife “inherited” his property, he was stricken from the lists, they stopped serving him food, and even his friends and comrades looked askance when he appeared. This is the power of an official-looking document – or a webpage blue with hyperlinks. Thus I have learned the dreadful power of an encyclopaedia: it does not reflect the world, but rather creates the world. Wiki is linked to thousands of sites; whether you look at answers.com or at an Arab English-language site, you’ll be led to Wiki with its lies.

If an encyclopaedia says I am a Swedish neonazi antisemite, nothing can change it. I could scream all day long: “Look, here I am, in Jaffa” but they would reply: “Here we have an official paper saying that you are not”. I am very grateful to Joh Domingo for his superhuman efforts, but he could not overcome the Agents Smith. Neither could I. If tomorrow they decide to make you a little green man from Mars, they will succeed, too. And then, even your friends will look behind your back for your flying saucer.

A few days ago, I spoke to a group of Indian intellectuals in Delhi, and afterwards I received this touching letter from Come Carpentier, a French expat writer living in the Indian capital. He wrote: “I meant to thank you for these enlightening, balanced and always objective yet passionate words you spoke that evening...Listening to them dispels even better than reading you the reputation that you have been given by you-know-who as a firebrand defamer of Israel, holocaust denier, Nazi apologist and so on and so forth... Not to mention the rumours about your being a clandestine Swedish Far Right-winger infiltrated in the Holy Land by the international Islamo-Fascist Cabal!”

III

In a way, the pro-Jewish bias of Wiki is unavoidable bearing in mind Jewish positions in Western discourse, media and universities. Jews – even people of Jewish origin – are likely to correct discourse in a way that is flattering for them. They did it hundred years ago, they did it five hundred years ago. Provided they do it in only one direction, they constitute the only entity (besides the undermined Church and its Orders) capable of a marathon (in words of Zeq) -- capable of sustaining a long-run operation.

A hundred years ago, New York lawyer Samuel Untermeyer financed the first Scofield Reference Bible; since then, the Scofield Bibles are being republished in newer even more pro-Jewish editions and they bring in millions of Christian Zionists.

Joachim Martillo writes in his Judonia: “Jewish efforts benefit from organizational memory that does not exist in other lobbying situations. The longevity of Jewish Federation organizations can give Israel Lobbying efforts a generational aspect not seen elsewhere. For example, Israel Advocacy organizations worked for fifty years to delegitimize Arabists in the Foreign Service and State Department, and replace them with Israel-sympathetic personnel”.

Martillo erroneously connects this result with some specific pro-Israel organisation. The success of Zionism (and incidentally its crimes) is just the strawberry on top of the Jewish success cake. The Jews are engaged in the advocacy of Jews, and consequently they delegitimize Arabists, or priests, or independent historians who do not subscribe to the notion that Jews are special in a consistently beneficial way. Zionism is a result of Jewish pruning of history, and this pruned history is what we are all taught.

There are no Arab sheiks or Russian oligarchs or American oilmen ready to finance anything long-term of no immediate relevancy. They do not understand that practically every entry of an encyclopaedia, of every textbook, influences future generations. A correct entry on, say, Poincare or monotheism or the Persian invasion could save potential Zionists from their delusions of grandeur.

Wikipedia is a great idea for Jews: people of all nations from all over the world contribute their knowledge, and then this Summa is pruned in a way acceptable to the pro-Jewish gardeners. Despite its “free” image, Wikipedia is part and parcel of the immense Judaised media holding, and thus is as biased as any other publication of this group, from the New York Times (owned by Sulzberger) to Liberation (owned by Rothschild) to hundreds of Murdock papers.

Conclusion

Wikipedia is an important asset, like the New York Times, but both are in the hands of enemies of freedom. Sometimes good and truthful articles or entries are to be found in both, but these are specks of gold dust placed there to salt a dud mine. We certainly want to democratise both -- to make both really democratic and accessible. Until this is done, we should explain that both are tools of mind control not to be trusted or taken at face value. If Wiki wants to preserve some of its reliability, it must get rid of its Zionist enforcers. Not only of the CAMERA bumpkins, but of the hard men in black suits, the Agents Smith.