web analytics
Liberalism Mainstream media Wikipedia

On Wikipedia

The following is Metapedia’s lead paragraph of its article on Wikipedia.

WikipediaWikipedia is a far-left and Judeocentric, multilingual wiki project, censured by an internal bureaucracy of tribal editing clans to conform to a largely neo-Marxist and Zionist viewpoint. While the sheer multitude of articles means that some pieces fall outside of this paradigm, where it matters most Jewish ethnocentrism is enforced. The project was founded in 2001 by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger, with money obtained through the Bomis pornography ring. At present Wikipedia has around 16 million articles in 253 languages. While the Wikimedia Foundation which owns the project is based in San Francisco, California, the main Wikipedia servers are in Florida, with additional ones in Amsterdam and Seoul.

The personal philosophy of its founders emerged from a supposedly “libertarian” college student worldview of Rand and Hayek. As with free-market fanaticism in real life, this ideology contained within it, the seeds of Wikipedia’s own undermining. Drawn by the desire to control the flow of information transmitted to the masses, various editors of Marxist and Zionist political persuasions, were able to secure for themselves administrative positions, through persistence and playing the community game tactfully. They proceeded to organize themselves into bureaucratic clan groups, which come together to manipulate articles with their own bias agenda and de facto run the asylum over at the madhouse.

While many objectionable forms of propaganda, utilizing emotions and epithets exist in Wikipedia; such as promotion of so-called “global warming”, the homosexual agenda, branding unpopular scenarios “conspiracy theories” [Chechar’s note: only on this one I agree with the wiki], previously dubbing eugenics “pseudoscience” and so on. The most insidious and vulgar form of bias is its toleration of hatred against the European race, its culture and history, including demonization of political groups who work for its social and economic interests. Thus Metapedia has taken on the metapolitical struggle and is well on the way to surpassing the compromised project.

9 replies on “On Wikipedia”

Hey Chechar

Although I haven’t commented of late on your blog your latest posts on the gay question among several others have been great.

Keep up the great work pal!

Wikipedia and Wiki Commons always had copious amounts of non-relevant nudity (non-medical, art or tribal related). But what the article mentioned above about Libertarianism, will always indicate 1. Jewish involvement, 2. Hedonism.

How are Wikipedia revisions fact checked? Evidently by anyone reading who happens to catch a problem, and has the inclination to fix the error. I suppose it works OK, but one must always be careful about subterfuge, and political agenda. It seems that the homosexual crowd has their own version of the Chinese “50 Cent Party” working overtime, there.

In the entry on the Russian writer, Petyr Ouspensky, a man who was in many ways a deep traditionalist, someone slipped in an edit about how, were he alive today, he would likely have been pro-homosexual. This, of course, completely misrepresented his views. A month later someone caught it and corrected it, adding the comment, “what nonsense” I remember because at the time I’d been doing some research on Ouspensky, and after reading the queer-friendly comment, just shook my head in disbelief. I was able to locate the relevant edit in the article’s archive:

“Seemingly a modern Parmenides, he denied the ultimate reality of motion (in his ”Tertium Organum”) but also provided an original discussion of the nature of sexuality (in his ”A New Model of the Universe”); it is conceivable, were he living today, that he might have come to see how even same-sexuality could have a “normal expression,” according to his own thoughts on the matter.{{Fact|date=May 2008}}”

“Asdfg12345 (talk | contribs)
(what nonsense. even the first few lines need to be rewritten)”

Chechar, I read this entry yesterday and I admit I found it a bit exaggerated.

But due to an incredible coincidence, exacly today I read two entries on Wikipedia that vindicated what is said above. This is a passage from the entry on Bach on this website:

“Bach’s devout relationship with the Christian God in the Lutheran tradition[90] and the high demand for religious music of his times placed sacred music at the centre of his repertory.”

Why “Christian God” instead of “Christianity”? It sounds like the author is writing for an atheist audience.

This is an even worse passege from the entry on English poet Percy Shelley:

“Paul Johnson, in his book Intellectuals,[49] describes Shelley in a chapter titled “Shelley or the Heartlessness of Ideas “. In the book Johnson describes Shelley as a moral-less person, who by borrowing money which he did not intend to return, and by seducing young innocent women who fell for him, destroyed the lives of everybody with whom he had interacted, including himself. However, when reading the book one should keep in mind Johnson’s conservative and religious agenda.”

Again, the author of this article sounds as if he was winking at a hard-left audience.

Sinister, isn’t it?

I edited the wiki on my real name for years:


I know it well. It is really extreme Lefty, ultra-Liberal and Judaized. In another recent comment here I said that there are more homos in Wikipedia than in Greg’s town! Even in my former field of specialty, child abuse, the ultra-Leftists deleted my article on Australian infanticide by aboriginals in previous centuries, and removed the section of infanticidal Australian abbos in the main “Infanticide” article.

As Andrew Hamilton said, Wikipedia is “a viciously anti-white publication”.

Can you imagine the sentence “however when reading the book one should keep in mind his liberal and atheistic agenda” anywhere on the site? Not in a million years.

Metapedia’s point about “libertarian” ventures being taken over and then ruthlessly purged by Jews and Marxists is especially important, it’s a phenomenon that has occurred in every single instance.

Comments are closed.