Untrustworthy Wikipedia and the Digital Revolution

9 July 2021

The following is a 2019 article written by Paul Craig Roberts that is spot-on. Don’t trust what you find on the Internet without cross-checking with other verifiable sources. Red text is my input.

Yesterday (10 April 2019), a reader alerted me to the fact that I am being smeared on Wikipedia as a “vocal supporter of the current Russian government and its policies.” The reader also reports that an article in the Daily Beast calls me a “Putin worshiper.” The reader says that he tried to edit the Wikipedia entry without success, and he urged me to give it my attention.

I do not know whether the person who wrote my Wikipedia entry intended to smear me or is merely uninformed. However, dissenting voices do get smeared on Wikipedia. It is an ongoing problem for many of us. For years readers and people who know me would make corrections to my Wikipedia biography, but as soon as the corrections were made, they would be erased, and the smears reinstalled.

The problem with Wikipedia is that it is an idealistic approach based on the belief that truth is more likely to emerge when everyone has a voice than when explanations are provided by a select group of experts or peers. This idealistic approach is not without merit. Moreover, it works very well with subjects and people who do not have ideological opponents or are of no threat to those intent on controlling explanations.

The problem arises when a subject or a person is controversial and is especially the case if the person’s arguments disprove or dissent from official explanations. In The Matrix in which we live, truth-tellers are unwelcome to those who control the explanations in order to advance their agendas. Until truth-tellers can be silenced or completely censured, the practice is to discredit them with smears. Thus, I and many others have been described as “conspiracy theorists” for reporting factual information that contradicts the official and unproven explanation of 9/11, anti-Semites for criticizing Israel’s mistreatment of the Palestinians and influence over U.S. foreign policy, and as “Russian agents” or “Putin stooges” for keeping the record straight about Ukraine, Syria, and Putin’s effort to avoid military conflict with the West.

And now, the big tech outfits like Facebook, Google, and Twitter are doing it. These bastards hide the truth by pulling videos on YouTube, banning Facebook pages, deleting Tweets, or, ultimately, closing/deplatforming the accounts of truth-speakers. As of 7 July 2021, President Trump began a class-action lawsuit, which will hack back into this forest of censorship by these deep state platforms. We’re not talking about measly millions of dollars here, not even billions. We’re talking about a class-action lawsuit involving TRILLIONS of dollars. That’s enough to kill off these treasonous outfits for good. 

In the pre-Internet age, it was difficult to smear people. Newspaper editors would allow letters to the editor to correct factual mistakes or to provide a different interpretation of a collection of facts but shied away from smears. This doesn’t mean that smears never happened, but not with the abandon of the Internet era.

Open works in process like Wikipedia, Internet comment sections, and social media are ideally suited for smearing people and broadcasting the smears worldwide prior to any correction of them. Thus, the digital revolution has been a godsend to government agencies such as the deep state CIA, State Department, Mossad, the Israel Lobby, corporations, and other private interest groups, ideological movements such as neoconservatism and Identity Politics, and politicians, all of whom have agendas that are furthered by controlling the explanations. Welcome to George Orwell’s 1984.

As money is the highest value for many people, there is an unlimited supply of people who can be hired to smear those who challenge official explanations. These paid bastards are called shills. A smear can start in a comment section, move to social media, and from there to a website and on to Wikipedia.

It is truth-tellers who are smeared, people such as Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, and whistleblowers whose messages are inconvenient for powerful private and government interests.

Smears are effective. There is no shortage of gullible and uninformed or misinformed people. They take a smear at face value and avoid the person or idea smeared. If the script-reading robot-like newscaster on TV says so, then it must be true. That’s what the brainwashed TV watchers think. They never ask questions because it hurts their brains. Despite the extreme clarity of Julian Assange’s orchestrated persecution, many see him as a “rapist escaping justice,” “Russian spy,” and “a blackmailer of governments and people.”

In short, mud sticks better than facts. That is why I am not optimistic about the future of truth in the digital age. Many see the digital age as the era when truth will flourish. I understand their case. Their belief is not without merit. But the digital age is also an age in which lies can flourish because, unlike the print age, they can be so easily spread.

Consider, for example, the description of me as a “vocal supporter of the current Russian government and its policies” and a “Putin worshiper.” I am a well-known critic of the Russian government’s neoliberal economic policies. Michael Hudson and I have jointly criticized the Russian government’s neoliberal economic policies and demonstrated that they are harmful to Russia’s economy. I am known also as a skeptic of Putin’s policy of turning the other cheek to Washington’s and Israel’s aggressions. I appreciate and admire Putin’s enormous self-control, but I have expressed concern that Putin’s unwillingness to put down a hard foot fails to turn away wrath and instead encourages more aggression that sooner or later will result in thermonuclear war.

The Russian government is aware of my position, as is the Russian media where I am often interviewed. My position is also clearly expressed on my website, which is read internationally. So why does the Daily Beast and Wikipedia misrepresent my position?

Wikipedia and comment sections can work only if commentators are responsible people who are carefully monitored by knowledgeable and responsible monitors. But this takes us back to peer-reviewed explanations that Wikipedia was created to avoid.

Historically, messengers are killed, so truth-tellers have to expect smears or worse–Julian Assange was arrested this morning inside the Ecuadoran embassy in London. Humankind is fallen. Governments do evil. The most evil is done to those who oppose evil. Truth cannot be told without cost to he who tells the truth.

When I speak of truth-tellers, I am speaking of people whose motive is to tell the truth. Truth is their agenda. I am not saying that truth-tellers are infallible and always right. I am saying that they strive to be. They do not intentionally write falsehoods and mislead.

Truth is not opinion. It is pointless to tell a truth-teller that you disagree with him. You can present a case that his facts are wrong. You can present a case that there is a better explanation of the facts.

In my experience, when most people say they disagree, they mean that they prefer another explanation that is more congenial to their feelings and emotions. For example, many Americans believed the preposterous Russiagate fib because they dislike Trump, just as today conservative talk radio has adopted the official explanation of 9/11 because it can be used against the outspoken female Muslim member of Congress. The facts have nothing to do with either belief. In both cases, the facts are resisted because the truth is not as emotionally comforting or as useful for the agenda at hand as the lie.

I have no objection if readers undertake to monitor and correct the account presented of me in Wikipedia. It will be an ongoing process and will require the commitment of many of you. Those behind the attacks on me have a lot of money and a lot of hirelings, and they can erase your work as soon as you finish.

The digital revolution and the control mechanisms it provides makes it far more likely that we will end up in a locked-down dystopia than would ever have been possible in the print age. But the digital revolution represents perhaps an even greater threat to humanity. It is making humans redundant.

What are humans to do when everything is automated? Artificial intelligence is a huge threat in the wrong hands, just like a kitchen knife is when in the hands of a murderer. Handled correctly, A.I can be a good thing. If the tech nerds have their way, we soon won’t be allowed to drive cars.

What will humans do when there is no need for their labor? Boston Dynamics, a Waltham Massachusetts company, has come up with a robot that replaces warehouse workers. The prediction is that 40 million more Americans will be shoved out of the workforce by robots over the next ten years. But that happened years ago at British dockyards when containers came in, and robots took over the work of the seemingly forever on-strike dockworkers.

Has anyone thought about who will be employed and have the money to purchase the products of robots? No doubt we will be promised all kinds of new and better jobs like we were promised to take the place of the offshored manufacturing and professional service jobs. The promised jobs never showed up. And no, this is not a Luddite argument. Everyone can’t be employed designing robots to replace humans. Could it be that those who ‘think’ they’re in control of the planet saw this coming and went down the Eugenics route to kill billions of 'useless eaters,' hence the Covid jab plandemic? The answer seems to be YES.

Each warehouse will rush to increase its profits by laying off employees, and none will consider the aggregate effect on consumer demand for the products in the warehouses. Will the warehouses have to give back their gained profits in taxes to support the unemployed? Will the warehouses have any profits if people haven’t income from jobs with which to buy the products in the warehouses? Does the robot age mean profits have to be socialized in order to sustain human life?

An intelligent approach to technology would be to focus on technology that enhances human performance, not on technology that eliminates the need for humans.

At Stanford University technology has emerged, or is emerging, that permits real-time changes in the movements of a person’s mouth as he speaks in order to broadcast a message different than the one the speaker is speaking. The mischief possible with this technology is unacceptable. Television could destroy any unwelcome politician or leader by showing him delivering a message designed to destroy him. If people catch on, it would mean the end of televised speeches as no one would believe any speech unless they were present in person. Is the Biden character on TV real? Or is that CGI TV script?

People already find it challenging to comprehend reality. The emergence of technology capable of falsifying reality in real-time presages a future in which fact and fiction become indistinguishable. The unintended consequence of this technology may well be the death of truth.

After reading Paul’s article, you might think that maybe there’s nothing true anymore in the media. That’s exactly right. The mainstream media has lost ALL trust. Truth is hidden because it affects the wealth of certain individuals with POWER. Truth is hidden in sciences like astroscience because if it were known, then the gravity-centric paradigm with all those black, infinite, and invisible astronomical things will collapse. Peer-reviewing in sciences that deal with untestable things that are ‘too far away or that happened a long time ago’ is corrupt to the core. Want some free energy and a pollution-free planet? Then turn off the TV and discover the truth away from the textbooks of deceit. But you won’t find it on untrustworthy Wikipedia. As stated in the X-Files: the truth IS out there. You have to find it, but you'll know when you do because it’ll be so obvious that no more questions will need asking.