There are no untouched, untainted institutions anymore.
Everything in our society has been consumed by leftist politics.
You know Hollywood is pushing Democratic propaganda down your throat 24/7. You know the media is. You know academia is. You know Big Business is. You know Silicon Valley is.
But you thought you could at least trust Wikipedia to give you neutral information.
You thought–hoped–that the left hadn’t corrupted Wikipedia. You figured that because anyone could edit Wikipedia pages it would be more or less impossible to turn into a Democratic Propaganda organ.
At least you can find neutrality on Wikipedia. The left hasn’t yet gotten to Wikipedia.
“A report in Huffington Post recently revealed the case of Wikipedia editor Ed Sussman, who was paid by media clients such as NBC and Axios to help diminish critical material. Paid editors operating in a similar manner to Sussman have worked on behalf of CNN contributor Hilary Rosen and the CEOs of Reddit and Intel, among other clients.
Other conduct by Sussman not covered by the Huffington Post shows him authoring fluff pieces for NBC executives and getting his proposed changes approved by another paid Wikipedia editor.
The report by Ashley Feinberg detailed former journalist Ed Sussman’s work as a paid Wikipedia fixer for clients such as Axios, NBC, and Facebook. Sussman did this work through the firm WhiteHatWiki, which he argues follows Wikipedia policies. Sussman disclosed his paid editing on Wikipedia and ostensibly worked within the rules by having other editors approve proposed changes.
However, Feinberg’s article noted several of Sussman’s requests involved removing or watering down potentially damaging material about clients, even when citing sources considered reliable on the site. Such removals would appear to violate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.
In one example Feinberg cited, Sussman requested changes to the page of Axios journalist Jonathan Swan regarding a false report he made last September claiming Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was resigning. A line noting the incident in Swan’s article was replaced with a paragraph hyping that Swan was “the first to report” Rosenstein’s offer to resign, despite the offer being refused. Sussman backed this spin with a New York Times article treating the incident as a failure of the Axios reporting model, a fact not mentioned in Sussman’s proposed edit.
We’re increasingly running out of places to turn. There is no escaping the left.
There is nowhere you can go where you won’t be bombarded with Democratic Party propaganda and brainwashing. You can’t escape it.
Wikipedia being corrupted by the left is particularly scary because while you can avoid cable news, modern Hollywood movies and a good deal of social media, most people cannot avoid Wikipedia.
Want to learn about, I don’t know, anything? Wikipedia.
Want to know about King Henry VII? You go to Wikipedia.
Want to know about the Mughal Empire? The Iranian Revolution of 1979? Chaos Theory? The Younger Dryas period? Wikipedia.
Want to know about a foreign politician whose name you’ve been hearing recently? You go to Wikipedia and read up.
Want to read up on crime statistics? Wikipedia.
But now even Wikipedia is feeding you leftwing propaganda. The left has now poisoned the well of Wikipedia, which represents basically the sum total of human knowledge.
That is an extraordinarily evil crime against humanity. I’m not exaggerating, either.
I have suspected this for a while because I spend a lot of time on Wikipedia. It’s hard to miss. What made me most acutely aware of the corruption of Wikipedia–and this will give you a sense of just how far-reaching and pervasive Wikipedia’s bias is–was my recent interest in the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx in Egypt.
To try to keep it brief, I’ve been watching a lot of videos on YouTube about the “true age” of the Pyramids and the Sphinx or the “true purpose of the Pyramids.” Lots of stuff by Bright Insight’s channel, as well as Joe Rogan, Robert Schoch, Brien Foerster and Graham Hancock. These guys’ arguments about the pyramids are generally written off derisively as “conspiracy theories” because they challenge the “mainstream consensus” that the Pharaohs built the pyramids in Egypt around 2500 B.C.
Basically their argument–these guys are geologists who study rocks and weathering–is that there’s a lot of evidence that the Sphinx is much, much older than the Dynastic Egyptians and could be as old as 80,000 years old, which would of course lead to the obvious question, “Then who the hell had the ability to build that thing 80,000 years ago? Certainly not the cavemen.” A possible explanation is that there was an advanced human civilization here on earth many tens of thousands of years ago, but was wiped out by some cataclysm and all that remains of it today are its stone monuments.
Also, there’s lots of theories that say the Pyramids are likely way older than 5500 years old, and others postulate that there’s no way the Pyramids were built to be tombs for the Pharoahs of Old because there are no hieroglyphics in them, they don’t resemble the actual tombs for the Pharoahs at the Valley of the Kings, and because of just how massive an undertaking it was to build those pyramids–all that for a dead guy?
Anyway, to make a long story short, a lot of these articles on Wikipedia denounce the “alternative theories” about the age/purpose of the pyramids as “pseudoscience” because it is rejected by the mainstream Egyptologists. Bright Insight talks about this specifically in a lot of his videos, although I can’t find the specific ones.
The point is, Wikipedia is pushing the Establishment Consensus on things as seemingly inconsequential and irrelevant as the Great Pyramids.
If they’re pushing Establishment Propaganda on subjects like that, the obvious question is how many additional topics are they pushing Establishment Propaganda on?