Craig Murray and Caitlin Johnstone Have Just Explained that Wikipedia is a Deep State Psyops — So Take a Look at Wikipedia’s Entry on the Douma “Gas Attack”
Originally published May 20, 2018
A website that I hadn’t heard of previously, Wikipedia.fivefilters.org, has recently revealed that an entity going by the name of “Philip Cross” has been working 24/7 to insure that Wikileaks entries dealing with political affairs reflect the perspectives and concerns of our Deep State masters.
https://wikipedia.fivefilters.org/
How remarkable that this “individual” is so committed to keeping us informed of the “True Truth” that he/she has perfected the art of going entirely without sleep.
The great whistle-blower Craig Murray has published an insightful essay amplifying this revelation, and the initimitable Caitlin Johnstone has highlighted this issue in her most recent essay:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/...
https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/wikipedia-is-an-establishment-psyop-c...
This rang a bell with me, as I had recently examined the Wikipedia entry on the “Douma chemical attack”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douma_chemical_attack
The part that I found most intriguing was their discussion of “Media Commentary”:
CBS journalist Seth Doane also traveled to Douma on 16 April, where a neighbor reported a choking gas that smelled like chlorine. A man took him to the alleged site of the impact and showed where the remains of a missile rested.[65] Eliot Higgins, a citizen journalist and blogger investigating the Syrian civil war,[66][67] concluded based on geographical, video, and open source evidence that the chlorine gas was dropped by helicopters coming from Dumayr Airbase.[68][69] Military officials in London, Paris and Washington also insisted the attacks came from Dumayr.[70]
The Guardian reported testimony from several witnesses that medical personnel in Douma have often been coerced into denying the existence of a chemical attack, with themselves and their families allegedly being threatened by the Assad regime if they offer any public testimonies.[71] The Guardian described Russian state media as “pushing” two lines; that they have spoken to witnesses denying the occurrence of any attacks, and that they have found chlorine filled canisters in Douma “used for rebel attacks later blamed on the regime.”
Russian officials′ statements were interpreted by Nic Robertson of CNN as an indication that the chemical attack in Douma had been planned by Russia in advance as an asymmetric warfare tactic in response to reactions by the West after the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal.[72]
What a shame that Wikipedia couldn’t be bothered to mention the reporting of Robert Fisk , 7 time winner of Britain’s Press Awards Foreign Reporter of the Year, who was one of the first journalists to report from Douma following its fall to the Syrian army.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-rob...
Nor could Wikipedia find the space to cite the on–the-ground video reporting of Preston Sharp, from the U.S.’s One America Network, who interviewed numerous randomly chosen citizens of Douma, as well as the medical staff of the only functional hospital in the city.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iD9C9koRmro&t=2s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9w8j-avq_0&t=615s
It must surely be a remarkable coincidence that Fisk, a liberal/progressive war correspondent of high renown, and Sharp, who works for a conservative TV network that typically supports Trump, both appeared to “push” the same “lines” as the Russian state media.
As to the intrepid Seth Doane of CBS, as well as Britain’s Guardian, I have commented on their Douma reporting in this previous Medium essay:
https://caucus99percent.com/content/your-viewing-pleasure-hilarious-pres...
Suffice it to say that I characterize this reporting as “hilarious”.
I confess that I haven’t yet caught up with the deep insights of CNN’s Nic Robertson, but who among us is perfect?
Comments
Forget relatively isolated incidence of ebola and measles.
Brainwashing is the current American disease of pandemic proportions. Not as potentially physically fatal as ebola or measles, but dangerous nonetheless.
Who would have guessed
Wikileaks has been pre-empted by the authorities? Steering the truth away from our virgin minds. Think the horse already left the barn on that one.
It's universally all under control
Australia one of the many amerikan bitches
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlUQMH19BkQ]
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
Did you scan the version history?
What I like about Wikipedia is the ability to scan previous document versions. Did you see any signs of scrubbing?
F the F'n D's
FWIW, (1) readers should be able to track edits
to each a wikipedia article and the Talk page for an article enables readers to see any discussion about any edit. (2) Any reader should be able to become an editor.
Of course, someone editing a wiki article for the pure love of accuracy is never going to be able to keep up with edits by someone being paid to edit. However, editors should be able to do some trash talking on the Talk page of the article.
But, as my prior post bewailed, our brains are constantly the targets of the mind laundries of the US. They are numerous, varied and evil.
The title of this essay is misleading
Wikipedia is not a PsyOps. It is an honest attempt at making crowd-sourced information available. The problem is that the powers that be will not miss an opportunity to mislead, hence Phillip Cross and resultant misleading crap. For most subjects Wikipedia is pretty good, but for politically sensitive subjects it is suspect. However, it is pretty easy to become an editor and undo some of the crap. It will be hard to match the resources of the CIA or whomever the conglomeration of people (and probably machines) that calls itself Phillip Cross, but we can still irritate them by editing pages to reflect the truth.
Or just irritate them
I was amused to encounter, in an article about a Trump project in NYC, the following description:
“'''Riverside South''' is a shithole urban development project.....”. Alas, the meaningful word has since been removed.
Any Wikipedia entry is
Any Wikipedia entry is subject to revision by any user at any time. This doesn't have much effect on simple, factual scientific/ literary/ cultural entries but it wreaks havoc with political/ social subjects that might affect the balance of power. Years ago I learned that some rightwing think tanks had rooms full of eager young volunteers typing away at keyboards revising Wikipedia entries to favor their agenda and smear their opponents.
I suppose if our side were as eager as theirs to control the flow of information, we could counter them. And I now must qualify "our side" to mean small-d democratic, populist, anti-corporate progressives.
I still use Wikipedia for encyclopedic information and find it fairly easy to detect embedded bullshit. To counter the latter, there is a new blockchain-based encyclopedia called Everipedia that is currently popular with progressives, although I haven't seen evidence that it cannot be messed with by political operatives.
Lurking in the wings is Hillary, like some terrifying bat hanging by her feet in a cavern below the DNC. A bat with theropod instincts. -- Fred Reed https://tinyurl.com/vgvuhcl