Internet Encyclopedia Helps Brainwash Millions of Minds

Wikipedia censors material they deem ‘extremely controversial’

By Dave Gahary

The demise of the ubiquitous door-to-door encyclopedia salesman and the subsequent rise of the electronic version of the books has brought with it unintended consequences for those wishing to learn the truth on a variety of extremely important topics, information that should be common knowledge to the masses.

In a series of damning emails exchanged with this writer, the predominant Internet-based encyclopedia Wikipedia admitted they subjectively censor material they deem to be controversial, in reference to the September 11, 2001 attacks, although their censoring is not limited to 9-11.



 

The reason this admission is so significant is due primarily to Wikipedia’s reach. According to its entry of itself:

“It is the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet, ranking seventh globally among all websites…having an estimated 365 million readers worldwide.”

Alexa, the online company that ranks websites according to their traffic, lists Wikipedia as the sixth most popular website in the world, in its “top 500 sites on the web.” Only Google, Facebook, YouTube, Yahoo! And Baidu.com rank higher.

Launched on January 15, 2001, the name “is a portmanteau of wiki, from the Hawaiian word meaning ‘fast’ or  ‘quick’ and encyclopedia,” the free website is edited collaboratively by volunteers around the world, and contains “30 million articles in 287 languages,” where “almost all of its articles can be edited by anyone having access to the site.” While this is true, what is not mentioned is that the edits to sensitive entries will be removed.

The censorship came to light after this writer attempted to edit the Wikipedia entry for Larry A. Silverstein, who “in 1980 won a bid…to construct 7 World Trade Center [WTC7],” and also won the bid when the WTC was put up for lease in 2000. “Silverstein…signed the lease on July 24, 2001,” just a month-and-a-half before the attacks that precipitated America’s current police state.

As the Web Editor for AMERICAN FREE PRESS, part of this writer’s duties is to post select articles from the newspaper on the AFP website. When selected for the website, all articles must be accompanied by Internet source links, in order to enhance the quality of the information provided there. It was during this process of placing an article by AFP writer John Friend on Silverstein’s unsuccessful bid “to recover billions of dollars from two airlines whose planes were used in the…attacks,” even after he “already received $4.55 billion in an insurance settlement.”

While examining the Wikipedia entry for Silverstein, it was noted that the ‘September 11 attacks’ section made no mention of the Jewish real estate mogul’s reference on a PBS documentary to initiate a controlled demolition on WTC7, which this writer found odd, and a fact quite necessary to gaining a fuller understanding of who was behind the attacks.

The paragraph from Friend’s article stated:

In an interview for the PBS documentary “America Rebuilds: A Year at Ground Zero,” Silverstein explained that after consulting with the New York City fire department commander regarding WTC Building 7, which was not attacked on 9-11, they made the decision to “pull it”—a term which implied they decided to take down the building using controlled demolitions.

After adding the paragraph from John’s article to Silverstein’s Wikipedia entry, it was deleted almost immediately by a fellow editor. It was placed back up and remained there for approximately half the day, then removed again. The editing and reediting went on several more times, until an email was received from a higher-up at Wikipedia in the form a “Final Warning.” It stated:

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia’s neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This writer replied as follows:

I don’t understand. This is a PBS documentary where he says this. I’m not saying it, he is.

The entry was reedited by adding the paragraph.

Almost immediately, an email titled “Blocked” arrived. It stated:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 3 days as a result of your disruptive edits.

Seven hours later another email by another senior editor was received which stated:

Frankly…I would have blocked indefinitely. I instruct you not to edit the Larry Silverstein article or mention him again in editing any page.

A few exchanges followed and an email was sent directly to Wikipedia on August 5, 2012, stating:

I had a terrible experience while attempting a minor edit & wish to discuss this with the appropriate authority. What should I do?

An email as received from one Kevin Rutherford, stating:

What seems to be the issue is that what you added was viewed as contentious and uncited. Unfortunately, you used a video, which is hard to verify to those who don’t have access to it, and controlled demolitions of anything on 9/11 is something that is extremely controversial, and Wikipedia considers that a fringe theory. Is there any way that you can get a transcript of it and use that, because otherwise I really cannot help you (I’m not an administrator), other than to advise you.

Contained in the body of the email was a disclaimer which stated:

All mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on www.wikimediafoundation.org.

An email to Rutherford was sent that asked:

How are you determining that this topic is “extremely controversial” and is there anything in writing that details why “Wikipedia considers that a fringe theory”?

The email also stated that:

If you watch 25 seconds of this video, there can be no other conclusion than to what brought that building down.





 

Rutherford sent a few more emails providing a few Wikipedia sites to gain some info on this writer’s queries, but failed to provide any concrete answers to the questions.

Although Silverstein admitted on camera that he ordered WTC7 demolished, this “minor edit,” while completely accurate, was removed after it was posted and reposted several times, and resulted in this writer being warned and then blocked from editing the online encyclopedia.

This one little bit of factual information, so vital to understanding this seminal event in American history, remains shrouded from the easy glance of the millions of eyes who trust Wikipedia.

The lesson to be learned from the above is clear:

Although the Internet can be a wonderful resource for information, it is also rife with censorship in topics that threaten the powers-that-be.

Donate to us

Dave Gahary, a former submariner in the U.S. Navy, is the host of AFP’s ‘Underground Interview’ series.

Be sure to check out all of AFP’s free audio interviews. You’ll find them on the HOME PAGE, ARCHIVES & AUDIO section.




U.S. Officials Protect Mexican Drug Lords

• Retired Border Patrol officers explain why amnesty could lead to explosion of illegal trafficking

By John Friend

In late July, a group of retired United States Border Patrol agents, writing on behalf of the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers (NAFBPO), released a public letter warning the American people that violent Mexican drug cartels are operating all across the U.S., building networks, recruiting assets, and cementing their dominance over the lucrative, and socially destructive, drug trade.

What many Americans fail to realize, however, is that leading politicians from both major political parties are actually helping the drug cartels, or at least enabling and protecting their activities— knowingly or unknowingly.

The shocking letter reads in part:




Transnational criminal enterprises have annually invested millions of dollars to create and staff international drug and human smuggling networks inside the United States; thus it is no surprise that they continue to accelerate their efforts to get trusted representatives in place as a means to guarantee continued success. We must never lose sight of the fact that the United States is the market place for the bulk of transnational criminal businesses engaged in human trafficking and the smuggling, distribution and sale of illegal drugs. Organized crime on this scale we are speaking about cannot exist without political protection.

Readers of AMERICAN FREE PRESS are no doubt familiar with the sordid history of criminal elements in the American military and intelligence agencies, oftentimes working in conjunction with corrupt factions operating in the U.S. Congress and White House, and their role in facilitating and benefiting from the illegal drug trade. In 1996, Gary Webb, the courageous reporter with the San Jose Mercury Newsdocumented the role of the Central Intelligence Agency in facilitating South American cocaine being trafficked into some of America’s largest cities, which led to the “crack” epidemic still plaguing many parts of America today. In the years since, whistleblowers and former military and intelligence operatives have come forth describing the myriad intrigues connecting the American political establishment, mainstream mass media, drug cartels and organized crime in the international drug trade.

A number of mainstream media reports have confirmed much of what NAFBPO is saying. Mexican drug cartels are indeed operating in thousands of American cities and towns all across the nation – and they have been for some time now. The city of Chicago – over 1,400 miles from the Mexican border – named the infamous Sinaloa cartel chief Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán as Public Enemy No. 1 last February due to his cartel’s expanding clout in the Windy City. Many seasoned U.S. law enforcement experts are increasingly concerned that the drug cartels, once firmly established, will extend their activities into other areas of organized crime. Mexican drug cartels are already notorious for extreme violence and being heavily involved with human trafficking, including prostitution.




 
 
 

Dr. David A. Shirk, Associate Professor of Political Science and the Principal Investigator of the Justice in Mexico Project at the University of San Diego, is disturbed by the lack of knowledge and specific, detailed information relating to the activities of Mexican drug cartels operating in the United States. “No one knows how extensive Mexican drug trafficking networks are in the United States, but it is fair to assume that there is substantial capacity to operate and access mid level distribution markets,” Dr. Shirk explained to this reporter. “The problem is that there has been little serious effort to understand how distribution networks really work in the United States from the border to the consumer.”

Robert Trent, the Secretary and Treasurer of NAFBPO, told AFP that the activities of the various drug cartels operating all across the U.S., which has been widely documented in the mainstream mass media and by our own United States Justice Department, “will be significantly bolstered by granting any form of immigration amnesty that would legalize the cartels’ foot soldiers and managers that reside illegally here in America.”

Americans would be wise to take Mr. Trent’s warning seriously, especially as the push for granting American citizenship to millions of illegal aliens residing in the U.S. increases in the coming months.

Mr. Trent went on to say, “America is a sovereign nation and has a right to defend its borders from intruders and enforce its immigration laws throughout the United States.” The problem, however, is that on a bipartisan basis the American political establishment has failed to adequately enforce current immigration laws already in place, and has hindered American law enforcement, Customs and immigration officials, and others dealing with immigration issues to fulfill their duties as protectors of America’s borders. Establishment Democrats and Republicans appear to be more interested in placating and even assisting illegal immigrants secure federal and state social welfare and other economic benefits, rather than enforcing existing immigration policy and adequately protecting our borders.

“Unfortunately, the current administration chooses not to enforce these laws, which simply encourages more to come illegally and remain here until we lower our guard,” Mr. Trent explained. “We had an amnesty in 1986 and our elected officials told us then that it would be the last. They said they had included enforcement protections in the amnesty bill that would prevent a future build up of illegals in America.”

Policing and securing a nation’s borders, in addition to formulating and enforcing a rational immigration policy, are two key responsibilities for any sovereign nation – and America’s political establishment is failing to fulfill these essential duties.

Donate to us

John Friend is a writer who lives in California.




71* Christian Churches in Egypt Attacked, Looted and Burned

• Fingers pointed at Muslim Brotherhood for coordinated assaults

By Pete Papaherakles

Massive riots in Egypt in mid-August left behind more than 800 dead, and at least 4,000 were injured, as Egyptian police and soldiers clashed with demonstrators. Unfortunately, supporters of jailed Egyptian President Mohammad Morsi also vented their wrath at the country’s Christian minority, in what activists described as “the worst coordinated attacks on Egypt’s Coptic community in modern history.”

Even Associated Press, which isn’t considered a pro-Christian news outlet, reported on the extent of the assaults.

“In the four days since security forces cleared two sit-in camps by supporters of Egypt’s ousted president, Islamists have attacked dozens of Coptic churches along with homes and businesses owned by the Christian minority,” reported AP. “Nearly 40 churches have been looted and torched, while 23 others have been attacked and heavily damaged since Wednesday [August 14].”

A more detailed report lists 56 churches attacked in a 24-hour span that started on August 14. Fifteen more were hit over the next two days. Dozens of Coptic institutions like schools, monasteries, bookstores and even an orphanage were also attacked.

The Bible Society in Egypt has been operating for 129 years, and this is the first time it’s been the victim of assaults like those carried out on two of its bookstores. Both were burned to the ground.

On August 18, this reporter talked with Dr. Halim Meawad, a deacon for 26 years with St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church, the largest Coptic church in the Washington, D.C. area.

“St. Mark was the founder of the Coptic Church in 45 A.D.,” Meawad explained. “All of Egypt was Coptic for almost a thousand years until the Muslims invaded and started imposing heavy taxes on the Christians. Those who couldn’t pay were forced to convert to Islam under pain of death. Today’s Muslims in Egypt are descendants of Copts who couldn’t pay their taxes hundreds of years ago.”

The Copts today are only 10% of Egypt’s population of 90 million, said Dr. Meawad, “but they have much economic and social influence in Egypt. They are the largest Christian community in Egypt and also the largest in all the Middle East.”

Asked what brought about the recent riots and the attacks on Copts, he explained:

“Since its founding in 1929 the Muslim Brotherhood has been involved in assassinations, arson and terrorism, with the single goal of making Egypt an Islamist republic. They co-opted the Egyptian revolution of 2011, which was a genuine grassroots movement against [former Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak’s tyranny. Shortly after Morsi came to power last year he started changing the constitution to give himself and the Muslim Brotherhood unlimited power. Millions of Egyptians including moderate Muslims, secularists, liberals and Christians protested against his government last November, but he continued with his goal of turning Egypt into an Islamic republic. On June 30, 33 million Egyptians demonstrated against him in what was probably the biggest demonstration in history, causing his ousting on July 3.”

“The Copts were attacked because as Christians they were a convenient scapegoat for the Brotherhood,” explained Dr. Meawad.



 

“Since Morsi’s ousting, his supporters set up camps on town squares and refused to leave,” said Meawad. “They were blaming the Copts for Morsi’s downfall and had already started threatening and attacking us. The sheer scale of the recent attacks against us proves that they were orchestrated rather than a byproduct of chaotic unrest.”

President Barack Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, however, have come down firmly on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood as a democratically elected government, while condemning Egypt’s military for using unnecessary force against “peaceful demonstrators.”

Morsi’s supporters killed at least seven Copts in the church attacks and 70 policemen and soldiers were also killed. They pushed an army vehicle full of soldiers off a 50-foot-high overpass. There were also a dozen dead bodies found when the two camps were taken down by police on Wednesday. Some of them had been tortured to death.

“Neither the Copts nor the military are responsible for Morsi’s ouster,” Dr. Meawad explained. “The Egyptian people simply did not want him. Morsi was elected with only 14 million votes last year, but 33 million Egyptians in the streets on June 30 told him they didn’t want him.”

* Thank you Pete very much for getting our voice heard out there. We definitely need as much spreading the word about the atrocities our fellow Copts are enduring as possible. Sadly, from that date you have reached out to us [August 18, 2013] till today [September 1, 2013] a total of 101 churches have been burned down/attacked — St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church

Donate to us

Pete Papaherakles is a writer and political cartoonist for AFP and is also AFP’s outreach director. Pete is interested in getting AFP writers and editors on the podium at patriotic events. Call him at 202-544-5977 if you know of an event you think AFP should attend.