Four months ago I wrote a short article about Wikipedia saying that the trick they use to turn that online encyclopaedia into anti-white propaganda is the wiki-policy they call ‘reliable sources’. Well, recently a Polish fan of Stefan Molyneux (that he’s Polish I gather from the IP he left in the wiki’s talk page) posted some words that portray what I think is the inherent fraud in Wikipedia. The Pole wrote (some of his syntax corrected):
Don’t you even see what kind of mental gymnastics and loophole thinking made from double standards you’re performing? He [Molyneux] was censored because he was speaking things the mainstream, left/far-left media you deem as ‘Reliable Sources’ didn’t like. And what your ‘Reliable Sources’ don’t like, they usually call racist, misogynist or hate speech, for convenience. So let’s follow you and your Reliable Sources’s thinking, step by step:
> Reliable Sources: Guy X has wrong opinions, they should be censored, because free speech and freedom of thought is violence and it’s dangerous for individuals to use their brains
>Guy X gets censored, anyone defending him gets shunned and also censored
>You, self-proclaimed liberals from Wikipedia: ‘We won’t censor Reliable Sources, our Reliable Sources (even though clearly biased) say that he’s a white supremacist so it means that he is’.
How ironic is it that you call fact-checking your sources as ‘censorship’, when what you’re doing now along with those sources is exactly that: censorship.
What contests the claims about him being far right are his actions and his political views. The proof is in the source material. His exact words. His podcasts and videos. They should be the main—reliable source here—, not opinions of some biased media of your choice. Especially when you want to judge the man and write an article summarising him, his views and his life.
You can’t do it legitimately and fairly when the only thing you’re doing here is quoting opinions of unrelated people instead of the man himself. The Policy and Guidelines in which you try to find support for your political bias and unprofessional way of creating articles, clearly states that all, often biased sources, such as the ones used in this particular article, need to be fact-checked, and proper research needs to be done in order to write an article from a NPOV [neutral point of view].
But you just don’t care. That’s not what you want, you don’t want the truth to be conveyed. You simply want to silence a man you disagree with. Just like a typical ‘liberal’, drunk on power and influence, absolutely confident that he cannot possibly be ever incorrect. You’re a part of the reason why we’re entering a truly dystopian phase of modern civilisation.
Thought police, abuse of power, censorship. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to convey someone’s opinions on a given subject, but straight facts. And the facts are that you simply took mainstream media’s opinion of Stefan, and put it in the article as if it was the truth, without any research whatsoever. Whoever made this article or helped to edit it should permanently lose his editorial rights for violating basic rules for article creation, which was already quoted above.
Alas, the horrible wiki editors are right. According to the so-called reliable sources (kosher approved in plain English) Moly is a vile racist white supremacist just for discussing race and IQ studies (the video I recently embedded is now the best one on Moly in YouTube). Incidentally, Peter Schiff also commented on the expulsion of Moly and in his latest podcast he even fears that he could also be expelled from YouTube…!
2 replies on “Anti-white encyclopaedia”
Wikipedia’s anti-white POV:
Perfect juxtaposition illustrating the insanity we are living through, nothing like a visual to make it clear. I recently did a google search after seeing this hashtag, “#killallwhites”. I wondered what hits would be returned on a search for “kill al whites” versus one for “kill all blacks”? No spoiler alert here, it was exactly as expected: the same mindset demonstrated in the wiki graphic contrasting black pride versus white pride.
I’m not a defeatist, but considering the operative word in the hashtag above was “kill”, I had to go back to Cesar’s June 28 post for inspiration, the blog closing with “…the lukewarm and faint-hearted that never dared to hate with all their being and with all their strength and with all their heart and with all their soul…”