I think I have an idea for getting NPR to pay attention to folks like us - storm the Capitol (METAPHORICALLY, folks - metaphorically!!!) and make Congress defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thereby eliminating a partially hidden leg of support for NPR (and PBS).
I know, I know - “What about Masterpiece Theatre and Rick Steve’s Europe?” Make them go the way of Sesame Street. HBO saw the value of that show and bought it to broadcast on their network, right? With cable outlets and - ta-daaaaah - THE INTERNET, these programs are pretty much available to everyone in America, anyway.
Get rid of the CPB - it’s pretty much the liberal version of Radio Free Europe for Americans, now, and what purpose does it serve anymore?
Yes,I'm looking forward to the MAGA Rick Steves to come along. You will get all that cultural,anthropological,historical context plus where all the monster truck shows are! Win,win!!
> But the thing is—I’m using the words carefully here—the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t have an authority in the Wikipedia system: the website, its talk pages, the various bureaucratic structures. It just doesn’t have the authority to shut things down. So, if Big Pharma or their government representatives want to shut down a description of their research of a Covid-critical biochemist, I want to know how that happens. And I think the other people who are at work on Wikipedia, we want to know how that happens.
I can tell you how it happens. You try to update a wikipedia page, with carefully sourced facts, with information that should be out there. Then an army of other Wikipedia editors will overwhelm and bully you, reversing any edits that conflict with their narrative. To learn the real scoop on a wiki page, go to its Talk and View History pages which will catalog all this.
Examine the "Reliable Sources" that are acceptable to cite by Wikipedia to understand why it is difficult to provide viewpoint diversity in Wikipedia on current events.
Initially the Wikipedia page for "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" published by Matt Taibbi at 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 (Substack platform) was suggested for deletion, but on the "Talk Page" for "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" discussion ensued and the decision was to keep the page.
I made a Table of all the 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬, but it was deleted as not citable in Reliable Sources.
You all are giving us sunlight here. Dark corners need to be exposed. Maybe Wikimedia needs a makeover? Or at minimum, the general public needs you all to educate everyone on its machinations behind the scenes. Keep it up.
Anyone can edit. You can make minor changes after an hour tutorial. It takes some time to learn all the rules, but there are tutorials that help. If you have 500 edits you have access to databases at the Wikipedia Library. I suggest getting to know how Wikipedia works by starting with this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure
But that takes time! I was hoping someone here would lay out how Wikipedia is designed to work and how it's not being run properly, if that's the case.
There are "Talk" pages for every entry. That is where discussion takes place. You may need to have an account and log in. Here are instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing
There needs to be a whole Substack dedicated to covering interesting Talk pages. The things I’ve seen on some entries rivaled the raciest magazines at the supermarket with their stories… most of them probably entirely false, but still, every once in a while, you come across a little factoid hidden from public view that would be very, very inconvenient for it to be visible on the main article page…
Who are these "editors," and who or what gives them the authority to make permanent editions of entries? Is there any ultimate authority regarding published information or is it a free-for-all sort of situation?
Anyone can be an editor--or as they are sometimes called, "Wikipedians. It's crowd sourcing. There is a permanent record of every edit each person makes so you gain credibility with good citations and good faith.
Most people who edit have an interest they want to work on.
So entries that become permanent are so because a consensus of editors passes them? Or is there some buck-stopping highest authority that has veto power over edits?
The former appears to be a good formula for diversity of viewpoint that can allow factual entries contrary to some of the editors' political prejudices,, so what's gone wrong? Too many leftist editors (that's my guess)? Is this new Poobah Maher merely a figurehead? As CEO, what's she got to do with final edits, if anything?
Yes, but they are not really "permanent" because always subject to change. It's a matter of who has the motivation to edit. Are there more left than right editors? There isn't a set of statistics on that.
I mean good citations. My work is facts...like who won a book award. A person who adds opinions w/o citation would be seen as not reliable. So, no I do not think I am a problem.
The issue is not “citations “. It’s what citations are deemed credible and authoritative. I understand Substack is not so considered by the Lords of Wikipedia.
The rise, amongst our vast Leftist intelligentsia, of the concept of a 'Misinformation Expert' is beyond scary: "We’re talking about a kind of resurgent Maoism. 2024 is seeing a surge of chattering class agonising about how we citizens need legislation to protect us from a supposed epidemic of ‘misinformation’. I on the other hand, can think of nothing more chillingly Orwellian than the concept of a misinformation expert. Anyone with a grasp of man’s inherent epistemological limitations could not seriously entertain such a notion without choking on their hubris sandwich. This CBS News item manages it though......so cosily wrapped up is it in its own legacy-media self-satisfaction....." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
The even more scary thing is that there are now millions of Katherine Maher clones marching around in the Western world like groupthink Daleks. But I take this opportunity to also say Chris that it's absolutely brilliant how you have managed to dredge up her beyond-parody social media history. Well done!
National Public Radio (NPR, stylized as npr) is an American non-profit media organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with its NPR West headquarters in Culver City, California.[2] It serves as a national syndicator to a network of over 1,000 public radio stations in the United States.[3] It differs from other non-profit membership media organizations, such as the Associated Press, in that it was established by an act of Congress.[4]
I think it’s time. You, Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles, Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, the crew at the Baylon Bee and (heck) throw in Elon Musk to collaborate and maybe write some satirical musical theater about the times we’re living in. I am first in line for opening night tickets. Let’s do it! This ridiculousness needs to be chronicled and vilified with humor.
Seems to me that our 250+ year experiment is being unwound by evil and no one is noticing… if they even care. Seems that when a constitutional republic is treated as a democracy that it will devolve into mob rule… which is the “kiss of death” for society. We as a people (given the current trends) will migrate into a new dark age and given the technology the population will be culled (again over time). This will be a sterile society. Interestingly the classics will be stashed away and truth (though suppressed) will remain latent. There will always be a segment of society who will seek truth. This group will be the germ from which man will regain reason and back to a just, moral society. It’s going to be ugly and we’ve been here before. There is nothing new under the sun. In the interim… educate yourself and your loved ones. Push back at the local level. Support likeminded business and fight these bastards wherever possible. We’re not out but we are down. Pax
95% of the population live by mimesis. Truth is secondary to getting along in society. It is the 5% who care about truth and who go against the grain that advance us.
The elites and governments are trying really really hard to suppress free speech. Protecting it is paramount to maintaining liberty. Bless Chris Rufo and all of the other journalists and truth seekers on alternative media platforms working hard to save us.
I and hundreds of others were treated for advanced cancer by a Doctor who used highly unconventional but scientifically sound protocols.
Yet his Wikipedia site only presented negative information about him despite the efforts of his supporters and others to present an objective description of his remarkable work.
His work was clearly much too threatening to big medicine and big Pharma as his protocol did not rely on chemotherapy radiation or even pharmaceutical drugs.
This was perhaps 10 or more years ago but having experienced that I approach every Wikipedia article with the greatest of skepticism.
He hasn’t been paying attention if any of the current situation surprises him. When the term mRNA vaccine first appeared in the press in 2020, I looked it up on Wikipedia because my medical school training from decades before had not mentioned it. The entry was factual. It gave the history of research into the area, and credited Robert Malone as a key figure in developing it. It also pointed out that no mRNA vaccine had been approved for human use by the FDA due to concerns about potential adverse effects including autoimmune disease.
When Dr Malone publicly expressed concerns about rushing the untested technology out to the world at large with little evidence for safety or efficacy, within a couple of weeks the entry on mRNA vaccines had been radically changed. Malone’s name had been scrubbed. The developers from Pfizer and Moderna were credited with inventing it. No mention of potential problems.
I knew from that moment that no entry on Wikipedia was free of political bias and censorship. Regardless of who is responsible, it is no longer capable of neutrality.
No kidding. I saw some people discrediting Malone online, saying he didn’t really have as much influence or authorship as he was claiming.. that he was essentially taking advantage of this situation for his own gain and prestige. Kind of like a shrewd old man who was bitter and was treating it like sour grapes because he didn’t get the recognition he deserved. I’m not saying that is true, just that this is what he was framed as after the whole “mass formation psychosis” commentary. I didn’t really have a reason to trust or not trust him, but I did find it odd how his character was maligned liked that.. I couldn’t prove otherwise, so just left scratching my head over it.
There has been an organized coordinated effort to discredit him that is still ongoing. Mainly because he wants some accountability around the whole COVID affair, and he is calling out government lies and trampling of civil rights. But my point was the speed and thoroughness of his erasure from Wiki regarding mRNA as an example that woke me up to the extent of bias and censorship by “big tech.”
D.C. politicos really hated it because they used to be able to just lie to ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the New York Times, and that was it. No one was really calling them out on all the daily fabrications our "leaders" were pushing out to the public.
Wikipedia is trustworthy on many topics. However, on some topics there are barriers. I tried to edit about the "𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" by Matt Taibbi published at 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 (hosted at Substack). I ran up against the fact that because news outlets on Wikipedia's list of "Reliable Sources" did not cover the "𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" in any way that could be cited, I was not successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.
Examine the "Reliable Sources" that are acceptable to understand why it is difficult to provide viewpoint diversity in Wikipedia on current events.
It's like when some corporate senior manager addresses an all-hands meeting for a department and feeds everyone complete bullshit. They know that you know they're shoveling shit on your head, but they don't care because they have the power and your only option is to quit if you don't like it.
Thanks for your commitment to the truth. If the Republicans were serious they would defund NPR but we know that they aren’t. The speaker wants to fund the corruption in Ukraine and continue to illegal spying on American citizens and further fund the invasion of America I wonder what will rise from the ashes of the Republican Party.
Obviously true, but you have to first understand what it is to recognize it. Unfortunately it can be a difficult topic to grasp for many.
Explaining Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, as human self-estrangement, will elicit mostly blank stares. Substituting private property for white/sex/gender/normality into this equation, as the Western Marxists and Communists everywhere in our midst have done, makes understanding even more difficult. But it can be and is being done. Everyone can do their part, however small. I have learned a ton about it from James Lindsay and his New Discourses site, and whenever I can I try to impart what I have learned on others. I am white pilled and see the tide turning.
I find what Biden and the Federal Gov't are doing across a range of topics absolutely frightening...and with no explanation - no speech to the public - nothing. I have never felt so unsafe in my entire 67 year existence.
I’ve wondered about that.. I don’t really know much except it’s like DEI requirements.. but what does the DEI requirement look like? I mean what is the actually information they are asking for and what are they asking people to agree with, specifically?
We don't know. We don't know anything and they don't want us to know. Why has Biden let 9 million people illegally come into the country? It's putting crazy pressure on housing availability and cost and depressing wages of those in blue collar jobs. ANd what about the 50,000 Chinese who have arrived? Why won't Biden speak to his motives?
Certainly there must be some record of the DEI requirements in the government, like a picture snapshot, or something?
The immigration thing.. I've read it could be a few things such as census numbers and voting power related, and/or a belief in the "open borders" philosophy, aligned with the belief that American values are a fraud, and part of a deeply flawed system of abuse and oppression... so therefore, America as we know it is not worth preserving, in exchange for sanctimonious "critical social justice" policies around immigration, climate, gender, and race, etc. I wish we could get a snapshot of these backroom conversations.. like a recording, or something.. but they know to keep it "mum's the word".
They see America as corrupt and degenerate. They are the elite, and they know how corrupt and degenerate they are. They can’t believe the rest of us aren’t the same. I confronted a, at the time, soon to be ex partner. He was a crook. He said ‘well thank you Mr God!’ Which was pretty funny. He said ‘everyone is a crook, William. I am just better at it than all the rest of you.’ He said it as though he was not a step below the rest of us, but a big step higher. We are all crooks, he can out-crook us. Ergo he is better than us. Another woman, a chronic liar, saw her lying and getting away with it as proof she is smarter than everyone else. I suspect the crooks in DC have some similar rationalization.
Their DEI requirements crippled the CHIPs act that they lauded as a solution to reshoring chip production to the U.S.
They required the construction crews to meet DEI requirements, despite construction crews being 95% (probably more like 99%) straight white and Hispanic males.
Then they required the companies to have DEI compliance officers who would coordinate with the 200 person team of government parasites staffing the office for enforcing the CHIPs act.
Basically, the Democrats who wrote the CHIPs act were either incredibly stupid (quite possible), or they deliberately sabotaged their own bill so they could blast out fundraising emails to progressive idiots who will never work construction or in a cleanroom at a chip fab.
To date, exactly one facility has come online as a result of the CHIPs act, and the company who built it has already canceled plans to open further facilities. All the big chipmakers are diversifying out of Taiwan, but they're going to Germany, Poland, Spain, and other countries that offer subsidies without requiring the companies to hire a workforce that lacks the talent to make cutting-edge microchips.
Their DEI requirements crippled the CHIPs act that they lauded as a solution to reshoring chip production to the U.S.
They required the construction crews to meet DEI requirements, despite construction crews being 95% (probably more like 99%) straight white and Hispanic males.
Then they required the companies to have DEI compliance officers who would coordinate with the 200 person team of government parasites staffing the office for enforcing the CHIPs act.
Basically, the Democrats who wrote the CHIPs act were either incredibly stupid (quite possible), or they deliberately sabotaged their own bill so they could blast out fundraising emails to progressive idiots who will never work construction or in a cleanroom at a chip fab.
To date, exactly one facility has come online as a result of the CHIPs act, and the company who built it has already canceled plans to open further facilities. All the big chipmakers are diversifying out of Taiwan, but they're going to Germany, Poland, Spain, and other countries that offer subsidies without requiring the companies to hire a workforce that lacks the talent to make cutting-edge microchips.
No kidding.. how wild is that! You’d think there were more important things to do than sabotage your own country over DEI hiring requirements. It’s like the pinnacle of morality for these folks, a worthy hill to die on that supersedes all others.
The CHIPs act is just another piece of concrete proof that we're not governed by serious people who have any clue how to run a country in any direction but straight down.
Actually, I am not sure this is about marxism at all. It is about our human vulnerability to people who claim (in the most sophisticated ways) to be do-gooders and, damn, if you do not comply, then f u. The answer is de-funding gov and more freedom.
Larry Sanger, "It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore, because they’re not being hypocritical.'
I refer you both to the article by Gary Saul Morson, "The New Criterion" October 2019 issue on Leninthink. He says, "a true Leninist does not decide whether to lie. He automatically says what is most useful, with no reflection necessary...a true Bolshevik is not even a hypocrite." I believe this applies to Maher at NPR, Professor Gay at Harvard, and perhaps to President Biden as well.
I shout at commentators calling out a politician for hypocrisy. They don't hear me. They also don't understand Morson's point. To adjust to current times, we only have to replace words like "Leninist" with "Progressive" and 'Bolshevik (which means majority in Russian) with Democrat. Restated, "a true Progressive does not decide whether to lie. He [/She] automatically says what is most useful, with no reflection necessary...a true Democrat is not even a hypocrite." The word hypocrisy is meaningless.
Such an important discussion. Great job, Chris! Seeking the truth has become terribly more difficult and time consuming.
Doors are closing all around us, thanks for pushing some open.
I think I have an idea for getting NPR to pay attention to folks like us - storm the Capitol (METAPHORICALLY, folks - metaphorically!!!) and make Congress defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, thereby eliminating a partially hidden leg of support for NPR (and PBS).
I know, I know - “What about Masterpiece Theatre and Rick Steve’s Europe?” Make them go the way of Sesame Street. HBO saw the value of that show and bought it to broadcast on their network, right? With cable outlets and - ta-daaaaah - THE INTERNET, these programs are pretty much available to everyone in America, anyway.
Get rid of the CPB - it’s pretty much the liberal version of Radio Free Europe for Americans, now, and what purpose does it serve anymore?
Defund NPR
i dunno, even Rick Steve has been getting to be a little much on his travel advice with a touch of a "Greta" slant.
Npr tries to be subtle. Or is it subliminal. Sick of it.
Yes,I'm looking forward to the MAGA Rick Steves to come along. You will get all that cultural,anthropological,historical context plus where all the monster truck shows are! Win,win!!
It is way too much to ask, but Rick Steves being "unmasked" would give me a chuckle all the way to my deathbed.
> But the thing is—I’m using the words carefully here—the Wikimedia Foundation doesn’t have an authority in the Wikipedia system: the website, its talk pages, the various bureaucratic structures. It just doesn’t have the authority to shut things down. So, if Big Pharma or their government representatives want to shut down a description of their research of a Covid-critical biochemist, I want to know how that happens. And I think the other people who are at work on Wikipedia, we want to know how that happens.
I can tell you how it happens. You try to update a wikipedia page, with carefully sourced facts, with information that should be out there. Then an army of other Wikipedia editors will overwhelm and bully you, reversing any edits that conflict with their narrative. To learn the real scoop on a wiki page, go to its Talk and View History pages which will catalog all this.
Examine the "Reliable Sources" that are acceptable to cite by Wikipedia to understand why it is difficult to provide viewpoint diversity in Wikipedia on current events.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.
EXAMPLE:
Initially the Wikipedia page for "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" published by Matt Taibbi at 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 (Substack platform) was suggested for deletion, but on the "Talk Page" for "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" discussion ensued and the decision was to keep the page.
I made a Table of all the 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬, but it was deleted as not citable in Reliable Sources.
Example: Talk page at "𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Twitter_Files
You all are giving us sunlight here. Dark corners need to be exposed. Maybe Wikimedia needs a makeover? Or at minimum, the general public needs you all to educate everyone on its machinations behind the scenes. Keep it up.
Anyone can edit. You can make minor changes after an hour tutorial. It takes some time to learn all the rules, but there are tutorials that help. If you have 500 edits you have access to databases at the Wikipedia Library. I suggest getting to know how Wikipedia works by starting with this site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Adventure
But that takes time! I was hoping someone here would lay out how Wikipedia is designed to work and how it's not being run properly, if that's the case.
Yes, it does take time. But probably not more difficult than a video game.
Some cheeto-dusted editor with high authority will declare all the publications you used as non-authoritative sources.
Then they'll just ignore when some left-winger makes an edit using Time or Teen Vogue as sources.
Wikipedia needs some kind of mechanism for a neutral reality check, like community notes on X.
There are "Talk" pages for every entry. That is where discussion takes place. You may need to have an account and log in. Here are instructions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing
There needs to be a whole Substack dedicated to covering interesting Talk pages. The things I’ve seen on some entries rivaled the raciest magazines at the supermarket with their stories… most of them probably entirely false, but still, every once in a while, you come across a little factoid hidden from public view that would be very, very inconvenient for it to be visible on the main article page…
Who are these "editors," and who or what gives them the authority to make permanent editions of entries? Is there any ultimate authority regarding published information or is it a free-for-all sort of situation?
Anyone can be an editor--or as they are sometimes called, "Wikipedians. It's crowd sourcing. There is a permanent record of every edit each person makes so you gain credibility with good citations and good faith.
Most people who edit have an interest they want to work on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedians
I often edit atrocious punctuation and incorrect homophones (ex flair/flare) on Wiki
One site I like is the new page feed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:NewPagesFeed
I am sure that is happy hunting ground for you!
So entries that become permanent are so because a consensus of editors passes them? Or is there some buck-stopping highest authority that has veto power over edits?
The former appears to be a good formula for diversity of viewpoint that can allow factual entries contrary to some of the editors' political prejudices,, so what's gone wrong? Too many leftist editors (that's my guess)? Is this new Poobah Maher merely a figurehead? As CEO, what's she got to do with final edits, if anything?
Yes, but they are not really "permanent" because always subject to change. It's a matter of who has the motivation to edit. Are there more left than right editors? There isn't a set of statistics on that.
Here is an article about the Wikipedia community:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_community
"so you gain credibility with good citations and good faith"
You are serious? Then you are part of the problem. Wikipedia is just not authoritative.
I mean good citations. My work is facts...like who won a book award. A person who adds opinions w/o citation would be seen as not reliable. So, no I do not think I am a problem.
The issue is not “citations “. It’s what citations are deemed credible and authoritative. I understand Substack is not so considered by the Lords of Wikipedia.
That is something I would like to see changed. But at this point Substack is considered self-publishing.
The rise, amongst our vast Leftist intelligentsia, of the concept of a 'Misinformation Expert' is beyond scary: "We’re talking about a kind of resurgent Maoism. 2024 is seeing a surge of chattering class agonising about how we citizens need legislation to protect us from a supposed epidemic of ‘misinformation’. I on the other hand, can think of nothing more chillingly Orwellian than the concept of a misinformation expert. Anyone with a grasp of man’s inherent epistemological limitations could not seriously entertain such a notion without choking on their hubris sandwich. This CBS News item manages it though......so cosily wrapped up is it in its own legacy-media self-satisfaction....." https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
The even more scary thing is that there are now millions of Katherine Maher clones marching around in the Western world like groupthink Daleks. But I take this opportunity to also say Chris that it's absolutely brilliant how you have managed to dredge up her beyond-parody social media history. Well done!
The "mirror" shall be our salvation.
You need to check out Taibbi's piece on her version of the holidays: https://www.racket.news/p/new-npr-chief-katherine-mahers-guide . Funny stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR
National Public Radio (NPR, stylized as npr) is an American non-profit media organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., with its NPR West headquarters in Culver City, California.[2] It serves as a national syndicator to a network of over 1,000 public radio stations in the United States.[3] It differs from other non-profit membership media organizations, such as the Associated Press, in that it was established by an act of Congress.[4]
Congress needs to put an end NPR
Christopher,
I think it’s time. You, Bari Weiss, Nellie Bowles, Michael Shellenberger, Matt Taibbi, the crew at the Baylon Bee and (heck) throw in Elon Musk to collaborate and maybe write some satirical musical theater about the times we’re living in. I am first in line for opening night tickets. Let’s do it! This ridiculousness needs to be chronicled and vilified with humor.
It's time!
Maybe a Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland vibe: the ridiculous leading the clueless?
Call it “Me? Woke? - the musical “
"One Flew Over the Wokester's Nest"
Wonderful!
Seems to me that our 250+ year experiment is being unwound by evil and no one is noticing… if they even care. Seems that when a constitutional republic is treated as a democracy that it will devolve into mob rule… which is the “kiss of death” for society. We as a people (given the current trends) will migrate into a new dark age and given the technology the population will be culled (again over time). This will be a sterile society. Interestingly the classics will be stashed away and truth (though suppressed) will remain latent. There will always be a segment of society who will seek truth. This group will be the germ from which man will regain reason and back to a just, moral society. It’s going to be ugly and we’ve been here before. There is nothing new under the sun. In the interim… educate yourself and your loved ones. Push back at the local level. Support likeminded business and fight these bastards wherever possible. We’re not out but we are down. Pax
95% of the population live by mimesis. Truth is secondary to getting along in society. It is the 5% who care about truth and who go against the grain that advance us.
The elites and governments are trying really really hard to suppress free speech. Protecting it is paramount to maintaining liberty. Bless Chris Rufo and all of the other journalists and truth seekers on alternative media platforms working hard to save us.
So True ! So become a paid subscriber and give them the ability to even have a bigger impact .
I am. Also have bought merchandise.
I and hundreds of others were treated for advanced cancer by a Doctor who used highly unconventional but scientifically sound protocols.
Yet his Wikipedia site only presented negative information about him despite the efforts of his supporters and others to present an objective description of his remarkable work.
His work was clearly much too threatening to big medicine and big Pharma as his protocol did not rely on chemotherapy radiation or even pharmaceutical drugs.
This was perhaps 10 or more years ago but having experienced that I approach every Wikipedia article with the greatest of skepticism.
He hasn’t been paying attention if any of the current situation surprises him. When the term mRNA vaccine first appeared in the press in 2020, I looked it up on Wikipedia because my medical school training from decades before had not mentioned it. The entry was factual. It gave the history of research into the area, and credited Robert Malone as a key figure in developing it. It also pointed out that no mRNA vaccine had been approved for human use by the FDA due to concerns about potential adverse effects including autoimmune disease.
When Dr Malone publicly expressed concerns about rushing the untested technology out to the world at large with little evidence for safety or efficacy, within a couple of weeks the entry on mRNA vaccines had been radically changed. Malone’s name had been scrubbed. The developers from Pfizer and Moderna were credited with inventing it. No mention of potential problems.
I knew from that moment that no entry on Wikipedia was free of political bias and censorship. Regardless of who is responsible, it is no longer capable of neutrality.
No kidding. I saw some people discrediting Malone online, saying he didn’t really have as much influence or authorship as he was claiming.. that he was essentially taking advantage of this situation for his own gain and prestige. Kind of like a shrewd old man who was bitter and was treating it like sour grapes because he didn’t get the recognition he deserved. I’m not saying that is true, just that this is what he was framed as after the whole “mass formation psychosis” commentary. I didn’t really have a reason to trust or not trust him, but I did find it odd how his character was maligned liked that.. I couldn’t prove otherwise, so just left scratching my head over it.
There has been an organized coordinated effort to discredit him that is still ongoing. Mainly because he wants some accountability around the whole COVID affair, and he is calling out government lies and trampling of civil rights. But my point was the speed and thoroughness of his erasure from Wiki regarding mRNA as an example that woke me up to the extent of bias and censorship by “big tech.”
I’m old enough to remember a free and open Internet. But the Regime would not put up with that.
D.C. politicos really hated it because they used to be able to just lie to ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox and the New York Times, and that was it. No one was really calling them out on all the daily fabrications our "leaders" were pushing out to the public.
Wikipedia is trustworthy on many topics. However, on some topics there are barriers. I tried to edit about the "𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" by Matt Taibbi published at 𝐑𝐚𝐜𝐤𝐞𝐭 𝐍𝐞𝐰𝐬 (hosted at Substack). I ran up against the fact that because news outlets on Wikipedia's list of "Reliable Sources" did not cover the "𝐓𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫 𝐅𝐢𝐥𝐞𝐬" in any way that could be cited, I was not successful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources.
Examine the "Reliable Sources" that are acceptable to understand why it is difficult to provide viewpoint diversity in Wikipedia on current events.
I think what they're saying is more like "We're in control and we don't care what you think."
It's like when some corporate senior manager addresses an all-hands meeting for a department and feeds everyone complete bullshit. They know that you know they're shoveling shit on your head, but they don't care because they have the power and your only option is to quit if you don't like it.
Thanks for your commitment to the truth. If the Republicans were serious they would defund NPR but we know that they aren’t. The speaker wants to fund the corruption in Ukraine and continue to illegal spying on American citizens and further fund the invasion of America I wonder what will rise from the ashes of the Republican Party.
Maher represents Marxist control over speech and should be fired forthwith
Marxism is permeating the culture. Beware and fight it.
Obviously true, but you have to first understand what it is to recognize it. Unfortunately it can be a difficult topic to grasp for many.
Explaining Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, as human self-estrangement, will elicit mostly blank stares. Substituting private property for white/sex/gender/normality into this equation, as the Western Marxists and Communists everywhere in our midst have done, makes understanding even more difficult. But it can be and is being done. Everyone can do their part, however small. I have learned a ton about it from James Lindsay and his New Discourses site, and whenever I can I try to impart what I have learned on others. I am white pilled and see the tide turning.
I find what Biden and the Federal Gov't are doing across a range of topics absolutely frightening...and with no explanation - no speech to the public - nothing. I have never felt so unsafe in my entire 67 year existence.
I’ve wondered about that.. I don’t really know much except it’s like DEI requirements.. but what does the DEI requirement look like? I mean what is the actually information they are asking for and what are they asking people to agree with, specifically?
We don't know. We don't know anything and they don't want us to know. Why has Biden let 9 million people illegally come into the country? It's putting crazy pressure on housing availability and cost and depressing wages of those in blue collar jobs. ANd what about the 50,000 Chinese who have arrived? Why won't Biden speak to his motives?
Certainly there must be some record of the DEI requirements in the government, like a picture snapshot, or something?
The immigration thing.. I've read it could be a few things such as census numbers and voting power related, and/or a belief in the "open borders" philosophy, aligned with the belief that American values are a fraud, and part of a deeply flawed system of abuse and oppression... so therefore, America as we know it is not worth preserving, in exchange for sanctimonious "critical social justice" policies around immigration, climate, gender, and race, etc. I wish we could get a snapshot of these backroom conversations.. like a recording, or something.. but they know to keep it "mum's the word".
They see America as corrupt and degenerate. They are the elite, and they know how corrupt and degenerate they are. They can’t believe the rest of us aren’t the same. I confronted a, at the time, soon to be ex partner. He was a crook. He said ‘well thank you Mr God!’ Which was pretty funny. He said ‘everyone is a crook, William. I am just better at it than all the rest of you.’ He said it as though he was not a step below the rest of us, but a big step higher. We are all crooks, he can out-crook us. Ergo he is better than us. Another woman, a chronic liar, saw her lying and getting away with it as proof she is smarter than everyone else. I suspect the crooks in DC have some similar rationalization.
Their DEI requirements crippled the CHIPs act that they lauded as a solution to reshoring chip production to the U.S.
They required the construction crews to meet DEI requirements, despite construction crews being 95% (probably more like 99%) straight white and Hispanic males.
Then they required the companies to have DEI compliance officers who would coordinate with the 200 person team of government parasites staffing the office for enforcing the CHIPs act.
Basically, the Democrats who wrote the CHIPs act were either incredibly stupid (quite possible), or they deliberately sabotaged their own bill so they could blast out fundraising emails to progressive idiots who will never work construction or in a cleanroom at a chip fab.
To date, exactly one facility has come online as a result of the CHIPs act, and the company who built it has already canceled plans to open further facilities. All the big chipmakers are diversifying out of Taiwan, but they're going to Germany, Poland, Spain, and other countries that offer subsidies without requiring the companies to hire a workforce that lacks the talent to make cutting-edge microchips.
Their DEI requirements crippled the CHIPs act that they lauded as a solution to reshoring chip production to the U.S.
They required the construction crews to meet DEI requirements, despite construction crews being 95% (probably more like 99%) straight white and Hispanic males.
Then they required the companies to have DEI compliance officers who would coordinate with the 200 person team of government parasites staffing the office for enforcing the CHIPs act.
Basically, the Democrats who wrote the CHIPs act were either incredibly stupid (quite possible), or they deliberately sabotaged their own bill so they could blast out fundraising emails to progressive idiots who will never work construction or in a cleanroom at a chip fab.
To date, exactly one facility has come online as a result of the CHIPs act, and the company who built it has already canceled plans to open further facilities. All the big chipmakers are diversifying out of Taiwan, but they're going to Germany, Poland, Spain, and other countries that offer subsidies without requiring the companies to hire a workforce that lacks the talent to make cutting-edge microchips.
No kidding.. how wild is that! You’d think there were more important things to do than sabotage your own country over DEI hiring requirements. It’s like the pinnacle of morality for these folks, a worthy hill to die on that supersedes all others.
The CHIPs act is just another piece of concrete proof that we're not governed by serious people who have any clue how to run a country in any direction but straight down.
Actually, I am not sure this is about marxism at all. It is about our human vulnerability to people who claim (in the most sophisticated ways) to be do-gooders and, damn, if you do not comply, then f u. The answer is de-funding gov and more freedom.
Larry Sanger, "It is getting to the point where you can’t accuse people like Katherine Maher of hypocrisy anymore, because they’re not being hypocritical.'
I refer you both to the article by Gary Saul Morson, "The New Criterion" October 2019 issue on Leninthink. He says, "a true Leninist does not decide whether to lie. He automatically says what is most useful, with no reflection necessary...a true Bolshevik is not even a hypocrite." I believe this applies to Maher at NPR, Professor Gay at Harvard, and perhaps to President Biden as well.
I shout at commentators calling out a politician for hypocrisy. They don't hear me. They also don't understand Morson's point. To adjust to current times, we only have to replace words like "Leninist" with "Progressive" and 'Bolshevik (which means majority in Russian) with Democrat. Restated, "a true Progressive does not decide whether to lie. He [/She] automatically says what is most useful, with no reflection necessary...a true Democrat is not even a hypocrite." The word hypocrisy is meaningless.