Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Wikipedia - A CIA / NSA Front Exposed
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > General Discussion
Joel Leyden
I agree with the below article except for the attacks on the US that state that US democracy is a fake.
I support the CIA, NSA and all other US Intel organizations. Their job is to protect us - protect democracy and freedom as we know it. Protect us from fanatical Islamic terrorists who vote via suicide bombs. But what I do object to is sloppy work. That the US State Dept was used by US Intel to push Wikipedia is about as transparent as the mineral water that we drink.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display....evecer0.7082025

The next time you witness an "out of process" delete by Jimbo Wales or Danny Wool - just remember where it is coming from.
Democracy on Wikipedia? Give me a break :>

Wikipedia and the CIA
Saturday, April 15, 2006
How US Intelligence Can Embed in Wikipedia, Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens
by Dr Les Sachs


Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the Internet

Fake Wikipedia Biography of Bush Donor Patricia Cornwell

Absurd Wikipedia "Budget" - the Giveaway of CIA-NSA Funding?


Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda operations against US citizens.

This has significance far beyond the particular instance here of false statements and propaganda, that have been maintained on Wikipedia in order to cover for a wealthy donor to the President George Bush family, and to try to sabotage American legal reform and a critic of the US empire.

What we are facing, is that Wikipedia may already be the ultimate Trojan horse of US government intelligence operations. Via this one overwhelmingly dominant website, the thousands of nameless agents at CIA and NSA headquarters, can now deceive and defraud millions of US citizens and much of the rest of the world as well. These agents can smear and attack those who challenge the government; they can easily launch lies and propaganda on this powerful web forum that can falsify anything and undermine almost anyone.

To give you a quick proof of how fake Wikipedia is, let's consider the case of major Bush donor and weird right-wing celebrity author Patricia Cornwell. Cornwell is an old pal of the Bushes since the early 1980s.

Take a look on the web for the well-documented "Patricia Cornwell Biography: Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness". Here you find a pretty juicy set of legal cases and scandals collected from court documents and print media like Esquire and Vanity Fair. Then take a look at the totally fake biography of Bush's friend Cornwell on Wikipedia - Here, most of the facts of Cornwell's fascinating life are not even mentioned, and a good chunk of the Wikipedia entry makes a slanderous attack on the author who wrote Cornwell's real biography above. At the time of this writing, the Wikipedia attack on the biographer uses a fake "internet source" for a phony story about a court case, not telling you that this deceptive Wikipedia "source article" is from Cornwell's own publisher who is a party in the legal case being described.

The CIA and intelligence guys are very interested in Bush's friend Cornwell, and not because they like her books (which one federal judge once colorfully described as "a load of crap"). The CIA guys want to hide the truth about Cornwell, and to smear any critics, because the things Cornwell has done with US judges, are a scandal with the potential to rock the US government to its foundations. The Cornwell entry has become a good example of how Wikipedia has become a US government propaganda mechanism.

Despite all the lies and fraud on Wikipedia, this bogus online "encyclopedia" is today the most dominant reference source in the English speaking world. It is far more influential than many people realize or imagine, thanks to the power of the internet.

Wikipedia is based in Florida, where President Bush's brother Jeb has been Governor, and where the Bushes managed that nice little game in 2000 that led to America's judges making G. W. Bush the President even though the other guy won the election. The rise and growth of Wikipedia is simultaneous with the current Bush regime.

Here's another quick way to give you an idea what is going on. Think of some country you know very little about. Punch up the name on an internet search engine. Two things will tend to pop up quite high on the list: "Wikipedia" and the "CIA Fact Book". Hmm. Are you starting to feel the connections here?

By its own boasting, Wikipedia is one of the most consulted websites on the planet. But the content of Wikipedia - and any lies or fraud or propaganda in that content - are multiplied many times over, because Wikipedia in turn becomes the source for millions of other web viewings under many other names, under all a number of Wikipedia license agreements or other kinds of borrowing. Places like answers.com ape the Wikipedia content. The CIA loves it - all that free slander and propaganda, multiplied over and over.

In this particular case, someone who acts like a CIA-backed operative is one "W. Guy Finley", who operates on Wikipedia as one of the central "Wikipedia advocates" - the people who are supposed to help you, when someone else is publishing false things about you. They are the sort of "Wikipedia lawyers" in that strange little world, and they turn out to be as nasty, devious and worthless as lawyers in the US usually are, and just like real lawyers, the "Wikipedia advocates" kiss up to the rich and the powerful.

The fake Wikipedia "democracy"

Much like the United States itself, Wikipedia pretends to be a "democracy". They proudly trumpet: "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!" And something like that happens, but it is an illusion. You can likely right now jump onto the computer, go to the Patricia Cornwell page, and put in a few real facts about the life of Bush's friend Patricia Cornwell, and delete some of the lies put there by Cornwell's staff or the CIA guys.

But then - you know what happens a little later? Cornwell's staff members (she has over 125 million dollars, she can afford them) or the CIA guys, quickly delete your material and put things back the way they were, unless you said something really ass-kissy that they like and want to keep.

Much like America itself, the fake "Wikipedia" democracy, turns out to be rule by the rich and the strong and the devious. Some of it is sheer manpower - Other things being equal, Wikipedia articles tend to be controlled by those who have the time and staff to maintain the pages the way they want.

And no one has more staff available, than the several US intelligence agencies, with their multi-billion dollar propaganda budget, who can afford to have thousands of employees at secret, anonymous locations, trolling Wikipedia to keep things up the way the government wants.

How are conflicts handled on Wikipedia, when several people keep editing a page, when it's you in conflict with the CIA guys? It's a complex question of procedure combined with bullying. Wikipedia works like a cult. There are lots of bizarre little rules or "Wikiquette", some of them self-contradictory. Only the remote Lords of Wikipedia are really masters of the system, and this is all to benefit the rich and powerful.

There are various conflict-resolution procedures, and there are sets and hierarchies of Wikipedia "administrators" and "volunteers" who often hide behind screen names. It is an extremely hidden process, and they make it very difficult to contact the leaders, or to find out how the place works or what is going on. People involved are a mixture, partly of some naive volunteers and eager beavers, who don't realize they're part of a very sleazy government operation, and a likely quite large coterie of operatives at intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA, who may be the truly powerful "Wikipedia volunteers".

Does this mean that most of Wikipedia is written by the government, or supervised by it? No, not at all. A lot of Wikipedia, most of it in fact, the CIA guys don't care about. For articles about pottery in 7th century France, or ancient geology in the time of the dinosaurs, the Lords of Wikipedia are perfectly happy to let college professors, hobbyists or just plain average people put up material and bicker about it. The vast majority of Wikipedia content falls into this category.

Indeed, it was part of the genius of Wikipedia that they could enroll millions of people in helping to create this CIA-backed vehicle. It is much more powerful and legitimate-seeming, if people get used to looking things up on Wikipedia, if they go there to read helpful things about Beethoven or Tibetan rugs. The somewhat legitimate content, makes it much easier to sell the propaganda placed there in specific CIA-backed cases, like with Bush's friend and donor Patricia Cornwell.

Wikipedia's power also derives from the short attention span and laziness of the average person. To get an impression of something or someone, people jump on the internet and google or search. Then, for their quick initial view of a person or topic, they often jump onto Wikipedia. If Wikipedia smears someone, that person is pretty well smeared, factual or not, and people usually will not investigate any further.

Wikipedia gives way to a feigned moderation in cases of accepted public "controversy", like with articles about President Ronald Reagan or President Bill Clinton. Such famous people have "differing views" about them in the major media, and lots of people try to add material. So the Lords of Wikipedia move the page to a sort of "neutral compromise" of "well established" material. It's not that you get the real truth, of course. What you get is a neutral mish-mash of facts as allowed by the major corporate media. Not too bad perhaps, but often not very illuminating, either.

If criminals are being publicly charged and indicted, if the corporate media has made a big story over the indicted executives of Enron, or some lobbyist facing federal charges, Wikipedia will always tend to go along with the big corporate media. But that's not where the deep trouble with Wikipedia lies.

One problem of course is that Wikipedia will tend to ban and suppress some key information, on the grounds that it is controversial and not "neutral". The Lords of Wikipedia are "neutral" when they want to be, at other times they are glad to engage in libel and slander and fraud, and then they call that "neutral" too.

A real grave danger of Wikipedia - and very obvious evil of it - comes out with regard to the "U" class of political criminals in America. These are government or corporate criminals who have political connections, but are so far Un-indicted, Un-investigated and Un-known to be criminals, thanks to a cover up by America's mainstream media.

Bush's friend the author Patricia Cornwell, is exactly this kind of class "U" criminal. People know her name, they know she sells lots books, but most of the public knows very little about her, despite the fact that her crimes and scandals and sleazy behavior are nearly all in the public record. Cornwell funds the US politicians and she is good friends with US government agents, and the reward for her gifts is that the media won't report on what happens with her. The big media are in collusion, and the small media are afraid they will get nailed by bribed US judges.

So the media don't talk about how Cornwell and her lesbian lover Irene Shulgin were frolicking at Kennebunkport with the current President Bush, and how Cornwell gave the Bush family a $1 million gift then, handing the money to the President's mother, Barbara Bush (the wife of the previous President Bush). The media know that story, they have a witness, but they don't tell. That's because the government wants to deceive all those starry-eyed Christian voters, who might not have thought so well of Bush or Cornwell, thinking about that lesbian romping and the money flowing, all on the Bush family estate.

Contrary to what you might guess about celebrities, the media will indeed hide many things about celebrities who have good political connections. If the government is not prosecuting them, and they are truly politically connected, the media will join a cover-up of celebrity crime.

As is well understood now, in the US and is much of the world, the public view of reality is shaped by a small handful of media corporations, whose ownership is intermixed with the other large multi-national corporations who control much of the world economy. The control is very effective. Most of the stories you would want to hear, do not make it onto CNN. You need to dig, and dig deep, on the internet, to really know what is happening in the world.

And that goes triple for any crimes connected to the US judges and courts and lawyers. No subject is more taboo in the US than the crooked US legal system: how so many innocent people get sentenced to prison or have their rights taken away, how people everywhere in America are robbed and betrayed by judges and lawyers and the system. It is all taboo, very taboo indeed.

The cover-up of America's phony legal system, is one of the most central Big Lies about the US. That cover-up is a priority for US intelligence agencies, hence the CIA interest in covering up for Bush's friend Cornwell.

It goes far beyond the desire merely to cover-up for Bush, though there is plenty of that impulse in the CIA and intelligence agencies, where the Bushes have held sway ever since George H. W. Bush was CIA Director several decades ago.

The intelligence agencies know that to maintain the world image of America as a "democracy", it is important that the world, and the US citizens who haven't yet been victims, never know the truth about the crooked and bribed US judges. The CIA wants to help make sure that people don't think about the big corporations controlling the courts, and how America's gulag of 2 million prisoners is actually the biggest slave labor program since Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

And to cover up for the legal system, they need to cover up for Bush's friend Patricia Cornwell. As part of the 2000 election campaign for Bush, Cornwell bought a fake court proceeding with a US federal judge to ban a writer's freedom of speech. This "show trial" was so fake it is almost hilarious, with the proof of federal crime lying around in broad daylight.

The federal judge bought by Cornwell was appointed by Cornwell's friend the first President Bush. The judge then picked his own friends to pose as the lawyers of the victim, and as part of the fake trial they invented a fake "Freedom Works Foundation", a so-called "first amendment civil rights charity foundation" that did not exist at all. The judge and his friends put this Cornwell-funded fraud in writing, in court documents and on the internet.

With this fake trial, they banned a writer's freedom of speech, thinking they would make him silent about Cornwell and Bush and about the fake trial. Now, however, they realize they should have killed the writer instead.

Today, the writer is safe in Europe, a political refugee from the US government, writing articles like the one you are reading right now, exposing the fraud of the US legal system.

Patricia Cornwell is a few inches away from getting indicted for these crimes involving US courts and judges, but the US corporate media will not say a word unless the government moves first. And the government won't move unless the media moves.

And it's the job of the CIA and Wikipedia, to help try and make sure the public doesn't know about Cornwell and her crimes. The CIA and Wikipedia would like to smear and slander the writer who was Cornwell's target victim, to try to stop people from reading his words, to try and prevent him from becoming better known as a critic of the corrupt US empire.

The plight of Wikipedia victims

When you get victimized on Wikipedia as a political target by well-connected crooks, you quickly find out how hard it is to do anything or contact anybody on Wikipedia, how difficult it is to get any redress. Your complaints are often just ignored, as they get passed around to the CIA-type-guys who really control Wikipedia.

And unlike the genteel controversies on Wikipedia, where they have a dispute between two college professors who are writing about baroque music, you find they quickly get nasty and venomous and slanderous about you if you are a political target. The Wikipedia goons do their best to create an image of you as someone who is self-interested, a rule-breaker, a destructive vandal, someone not using good "Wikiquette".

Meanwhile, the crooks and goons and CIA guys on Wikipedia all pat each other on the back and congratulate each other, as fellow Wikipedia people in good standing.

You can change the false material they have written about you, but the Wikipedia goons just change it back, and quickly start charging you with "vandalizing" Wikipedia.

There's all sorts of tricks they use to make it hard for you to make any complaint. There's a Wikipedia "rule" against threatening people with legal action. So they allow wealthy criminals to slander you and tell lies about you, but if you talk about their legal liability - Whoa! They start to jump in and condemn you, for violating the Wikipedia rule of mentioning the law.

They even make it hard for you to figure out where to complain. There's one spot that tells you, if you've been a victim of libel, contact the "help desk" - but there's no link there to the help desk, or any clear way to find it.

When you go to places you think you might make a complaint, you suddenly find there is a rule posted about how this is the wrong kind of place, you shouldn't post complaints here - but still no indication of where to go.

On Wikipedia, when you do make complaints, they basically end up getting reviewed by the same people who are putting up the false material about you in the first place. Just like in the American legal system, where complaints about judges get smothered by the judges themselves.

You find that the people on Wikipedia, reflect the power realities and corruption of American society generally. The Wikipedia "volunteers", whether they are CIA guys, or regular idiots who are part of the cult of Wikipedia, all kiss up to the power structure, which they can easily see by (1) whether you are contacting them yourself, or whether a powerful lawyer is doing so for you; and (2) what else they can find out about you by googling your name.

If you are well-connected, rich, powerful, Wikipedia will instantly adjust things for you. If they feel they can ignore and abuse you, even the little dumb Wikipedia volunteers tend to follow the lead of the mighty unseen Lords of Wikipedia, and they will ignore you and sneer with contempt at you.

Wikipedia also offers the "Wikipedia advocates" who are supposed to "represent" you, but these can be guys like W. Guy Finley of 'Dynascope' - which even sounds like a CIA front. Finley acts like an employee of a CIA-backed intelligence agency contractor, there to deflect and ignore what you have to say. With regard to complaints about the libel and slander against Cornwell's biographer on the Patricia Cornwell page, Finley's response was the laughable suggestion that the victim try and contact film maker Michael Moore to get the Cornwell scandal exposed first.

The Wikipedia guy's message was clear - if the big corporate media will get involved, then Wikipedia will play along. Otherwise, Wikipedia will continue with false information and slandering, the way the CIA would play it.

In the Patricia Cornwell page attacking Cornwell's biographer, they linked to an "online reference source" for the Cornwell slandering, a false and deceptive article by a Pace University law professor, Rosario or also Roy John Girasa, writing under contract for Pearson - Penguin, Cornwell's own publisher, which has been named in filings with US judges as a partner in Cornwell's crimes and in the very legal matter Girasa was describing.

Needless to say, the Wikipedia slandering did not disclose the conflict of interest in citing a Cornwell source that was both Cornwell's publisher, and also a named party along with Cornwell in the same case.

Wikipedia - a bogus organization and budget


One of the most powerful and dominant media organizations in the world today, the stated budget and organizational description of Wikipedia that you find, is laughably preposterous. Really quite absurd.

Like much of America's CIA-backed operations since the 1970s, Wikipedia does its work under the friendly face of a "non-profit foundation". As you browse the online Wikipedia documents about itself, you realize how bizarre and unlikely is the picture they are painting for you.

Here is this enormous media organization, with over a million separate web pages, being accessed constantly and at immense volume around the world, and printing huge amounts of controversial material which raise continual legal questions, and having an enormous management apparatus in place.

But then you see the numbers. Just two full-time employees, it says in a description of a center node of the Wikipedia empire. Two? Yup, that's all. There's an annual budget of about one - just one - million dollars. And much of that for equipment, it says.

What they present for a legal budget, would not even pay for one lawyer to read the e-mails about all the legal issues that arise out of Wikipedia.

There is a tiny board of directors, looking as if a collection of friendly hippie-type personalities. The rest are all "volunteers".

Yeah, right. "Volunteers" by the thousands, joining in a very complex management scheme, and somehow this whole giant worldwide propaganda machine is running, a machine which somehow never seems to have many expenses except for a few fancy pieces of computer gear.

It seems as if the CIA really over-did it with this particular fake front of Wikipedia "budget" and "organization". The storefront is too tiny to really be connected with the elephantine operation behind it.

Another way that you can see that Wikipedia has government backing, is that with its officially tiny funding and almost no claimed legal budget, it really would have been shut down a long time ago for legal expenses. It's very clear that Wikipedia is a government-backed operation to the highest degree, or otherwise the judges and lawyers would not be keeping away from it.

In fact Wikipedia is one of those organizations that deserves to be sued and shut down immediately, it's such a monstrous fraud and deception today, such an invitation to government mind control in the future. Who knows the number of people whom it has already slandered and harmed amid those 1-million-plus CIA-backed Wikipedia web pages.

And it's all right there in Florida where the Bushes can keep an eye on it.

Contacting Wikipedia

It's very, very hard to contact Wikipedia, or even to figure out who to contact or how to contact them. The CIA likes things that way. Attempts were made to try to talk to Wikipedia for this article, but of course the Wikipedia people didn't really want to chat about these things - that's not how CIA guys like to play it.

Here's some contact info for Wikipedia. To start with, an actual phone number! But press inquiries only, they say. Even when you're doing journalism about them, though, they may not reply to you, unless you are big corporate media on good terms with US politicians.

Wikipedia press phone number, 'Danny', no last name: +1 727 231 0101

Wikipedia "founder": "Jimbo Wales": jwales@wikia.com

Wikipedia "advocate": "W. Guy Finley": wgfinley@dynascope.com

Other Wikipedia e-mail addresses that will also likely ignore you unless you are powerful and have good political or media connections:

Wikipedia libel help desk: helpdesk-l@wikimedia.org

Wikimedia support team: info-en-u@wikimedia.org

Wikipedia information team: info-en@wikimedia.org

http://bannedinamerica.blogspot.com/2006/0...telligence.html
JohnA
It's difficult to know where to begin. There are so many holes in the article, so many classic signs of paranoia that its difficult for most of us to not reject the proposition outright.

Nevertheless Wikipedia is clearly a sitting duck for propagandists of all kinds. It's very prominence combined with poor control of who gets to edit what, means that propagandists from both ends of the political spectrum from Marxists and anarchists to neo-Conservatives and fascists, from every fundamentalist religious belief, from every ultranationalist and every single-issue obsessive would immediately focus on Wikipedia to promote their belief systems over everyone else's.

The administrators on Wikipedia face a Sisyphian struggle especially when Wikipedia is supposedly run on "consensus", an idea which as soon as you examine it, breaks into a million pieces. Add in the arbitrary actions of WP:OFFICE and you know you're on to a losing battle.

I've written about this phenomenon myself on my blog here. In a sense, I'm relaxed because historically, utopian edifices like Wikipedia have always fallen suddenly, if not necessarily completely.

My suspicion is that once someone sues Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia and gets as far as Discovery, then Wikipedia will start to fall apart. It is that eventuality that the Foundation are most concerned about.

At the moment, Wikipedia is still very popular and it seems that nothing can stop it, but they said the same thing about Enron...
EuroSceptic
Jawn, next conspiracy theory please
Jonny Cache
What's the dope on Wikipedia "advocate" : "W. Guy Finley": wgfinley<at>dynascope<dot>com, as I do notice that name on the Citizendium List, for example, here.

Jonny cool.gif

P.S. I don't have to tell you guys how much this feeds into my guy-related conspiracy theory, do I?

P.P.S. Remember Remember the Fifth of November ...
I've been wondering when we'd get something worth putting on the Calendar.
JohnA
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 2nd November 2006, 3:45pm) *

What's the dope on Wikipedia "advocate" : "W. Guy Finley": wgfinley<at>dynascope<dot>com,
as I do notice that name on the Citizendium List, for example, here.

Jonny cool.gif

P.S. I don't have to tell you guys how much this feeds into my guy-related conspiracy theory, do I?

P.P.S. Remember Remember the Fifth of November ...
I've been wondering when we'd get something worth putting on the Calendar.


..which causes me to conclude that inviting people to start an encyclopedia on the Internet is a really bad idea.
Somey
QUOTE(Jonny Cache @ Thu 2nd November 2006, 9:45am) *
What's the dope on Wikipedia "advocate" : "W. Guy Finley": wgfinley<at>dynascope<dot>com,
as I do notice that name on the Citizendium List...

Presumably that would be User:Wgfinley. There doesn't seem to be anything special about him, so in all probability, he's the guy who originally pissed off the author of the above conspiracy theory in the first place. It could have been as innocent as a minor spelling correction, the way some people are these days...

He's only made 17 minor edits since May 27th, when he wrote this on his user page:
QUOTE
I'm on a hiatus from Wikipedia for an undetermined time, parts of the philosophy have just come to irritate me and I think I just naturally go through cycles of contributing and creating and then get frustrated by the drama and leave for a bit and then come back when I'm recharged. So, as of now, I'm recharging.

His most significant activity since then was an argument about the crash of American Airlines Flight 191.. Beyond that, I think you'd have to go back pretty far to find whatever incident in the past led to his being mentioned in this particular diatribe... It might make for an interesting Sunday afternoon project, but I sorta doubt it!
Jonny Cache
Thanks for the e-leg work. Veronica Mars -- or in my case, Nancy Drew -- would be proud.

Gosh it was eerie reading about AA 191 again. I knew, very incidentally, a couple of people on that one.

Jonny cool.gif
Joel Leyden
QUOTE(EuroSceptic @ Thu 2nd November 2006, 1:56pm) *

Jawn, next conspiracy theory please


Next question.
Who has the time to edit Wikipedia?
Certainly no one who is working full time!
So who are the "volunteers" making Jimbo and Danny wealthy?

The unemployed, the retired, the handicapped .... and some students who would be better off studying and or enjoying life before they work 9-5.
And US Intel.

One must think who are these editors: Slimvirgin, DejahThoris, Woggly and others who respond 24/7?
Are they addicted to Wikipedia - a digital black hole - for which they rush to create and edit articles?

In exposing US Intel activity at Wikipedia one needs to look no further than those who are editing articles which directly pertain to US security - China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Israel.

You will find the same editors making every effort to censor many of us at every twist and turn.
Don't call that intelligence, label it arrogance, it goes with their job description.

As far as "conspiracy" is concerned, no way.
A few years back I "ID"ed US Mil Intel (The 5th Signal Command, located in Mannheim, Germany) in Europe which was tracking my Web activity.
I published an article about these guys - again because they were sloppy.
Within days their IP address disappeared along with their Website.

Their Website is back up.
Why?
What purpose does it serve to provide any information to our enemies?

Website???
A US Intel unit having a Website (other than the CIA) disclosing where they are and what they are doing in CyberWar communications is ..... dumb.

Conspiracy? If the CIA and the NSA were not highly active behind Wikipedia, then we really have a problem ;>
It's not as if the CIA, NSA and Mil Intel are protecting Jimbo and Danny Wool's lucrative jobs, for which they are, it is how sloppy and transparent their work is that truly bothers me.

Time to check the article on China ....... ;>
Jonny Cache
Fiends, Rosebuds, Countryparsons ...

Neither lend me nor borrow me your ears, for I come not to praise conspiracy theories but to bury them!

From the beginnings of recorded history, all governments have always engaged in mass quanta of mass propaganda. Indeed, recorded history itself is largely the accumulated sedimentary strata that get laid down from the distributional alluvia of one strategic memorandum after another that is all that remains of the "Propaganda Of Victors" (POV), with occasional scattered inclusions of "foreign" material that is inadversantly left over from ragged reliquary remnants of the more Beautiful Losers (Leonard Cohen, q.v.) -- rhetors, pause significantly or otherwise to take a breath here -- that survives only because the "Victors Of The Ephemeral Reign" (VOTERs) were too oblivid to recognize what it was really saying.

Sadly, I never have that problem ...

Jonny cool.gif
Jonny Cache
Now, I know what your sayin' -- But Gee, Jawny, propaganda is a whole nuther ballpark from deliberate dis-&-mis-information. But there again, governments have always reserved the rite in time of war to lie to their enemies -- and when are we not at war anymore? -- and who is not potentially an enemy anywho? So there's always gonna be a whole lot of what governments would probably call "collateral dumbage" or "friendly flaming" -- if governments were in the habit of being cute -- goin' on in that World Wide Water Closet (W3C) that we now call the Webya.

No doubt about it ...

Jonny cool.gif
Olivier Besancenot
Please, that old garbage about how there are a few crazies who cancel each other out and most Wikipedians and the leaders are sane and reasonable, please, do you expect us to believe that?

The power in Wikipedia rests in Jimbo Wales. We know where he stands - he's a millionaire, he ran the Ayn Rand mailing list for years, he says that "[conservative economist Friedrich] Hayek’s work...is central to my own thinking about how to manage the Wikipedia project."

Then he appoints lieutenants like JayJG, who can't even win an election after his appointment and has to be re-appointed by Jimbo, who is a rabid Zionist and POV pusher extraordinaire.

Wikipedia's founders have an agenda. Period. This board is part of the revolution against that. Criticism is a good starting point, and how scared Jimbo and his lieutenants are of us and criticism they can't control is proof of that. But I hope we can move to the next step, an alternative to Wikipedia.
nobs
Wow. I actually read this piece (God knows why).
QUOTE(Joel Leyden @ Thu 2nd November 2006, 12:59am) *
It goes far beyond the desire merely to cover-up for Bush, though there is plenty of that impulse in the CIA and intelligence agencies, where the Bushes have held sway ever since George H. W. Bush was CIA Director several decades ago.
The author, for NPOV purposes, needs to read Bush vs. the Beltway : How the CIA and the State Department Tried to Stop the War on Terror, by Laurie Mylroie, (who, acording to her wiki bio, was an "advisor on Iraq to Bill Clinton in his 1992 campaign for President.")

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/11/the...ar_on_bush.html

___________

On another note, while researching some of this garbage I noticed this primea facia error: Wikipedia has the Director of Central Intelligence confused with the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Hence, Souers and Vandenberg are listed as the first two "Directors of the Central Intelligence Agency". Hillenkoetter's wiki bio states,
QUOTE
was the third director of the post-WWII U.S. Central Intelligence Group (CIG), and the first director of the Central Intelligence Agency,
but who gives a crap. Nitpickers like me get booted out. Maybe there is something to these efforts to rewrite history and spread disinformation....
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.