Present tactics of the TJC as rooted within the post-1953 modus operandi of the HABIB SABET dominated NSA of Iran

[Ruhaniya]

[Note: Truthseeker is the handle of yours truly]

http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1589.msg6201#msg6201

Bugman said:
"So there you have it folks. The Haifa Baha'i quest for power using
the Tahirih Justice center as a lobbying front so they can manipulate
our US democratic system to instill their radical beliefs on the non
Baha'i population."


A point that might be historically instructive here is that these
tactics the Haifan Baha'is are using presently in the United States to
manipulate the liberal foundation establishment over to their ultimate
agenda(s); is that the course and template for such strategies were
ones specifically seeded by them in Iran in their nascent forms under
the Shah (esp. after 1953). They already had one of their own inside
the royal court before the 1953 royalist coup d'etat. After that event
the numbers increased exponentially and as a result the money flowed
into this organization like a busted Hoover Dam. Pre-1953 you had the
Shah's personal physician, Dr. Karim Ayadi, as a court insider but
with minimum political clout inside the royal court.

Along comes the first abortive attempt by the Shah to oust his popular
nationalist premier Mossadeq in August 1953. The Shah immediately
leaves Iran, first to Baghdad, then to Rome where he and his then
queen Soraya are hosted for their entire hiatus there by a Baha'i
business tycoon named Habib Sabet. He pays for everything. Apparently
the Shah left Iran at this juncture virtually penniless. A couple of
days later the coup against Mossadeq succeeds, and a short time after
that the Shah returns to Iran. Soon thereafter Sabet himself returns
to Iran and meets with the Shah at the Niavaran palace. From this
meeting Sabet walks away with the soon-to-be Iranian Pepsi Cola
franchise. But first he agrees with the Shah to keep his community
quiet while the new rubber stamped royalist premier and parliament
begin re-negotiations with international petroleum consortiums, and,
in order to divert public attention from these negotiations, they
temporarily unleash the Shi'ite clerics and their partisans against
the Baha'is in the public media. While this is going on the new junta
government is also beginning its own political (show-)trials against
Mossadeq and the topped nationalist government. Duplicity all around
here: from the Shah, Sabet and the Baha'is as well as the Shi'ite
clerics!

With the voice of Falsafi, and the support of two senior Ayatollahs,
the mullahs and their wound-up dupes go mad on the Baha'is for several
months. They demolish the Baha'i center in Tehran. They go to Shiraz
and desecrate the house of the Bab. Several dozen average, middle-
class and working class Baha'is get accosted and abused by the
rampaging sectarian mobs in the urban centers. A handful of Baha'is
even get killed in rural Iran. But the upper-class Bahai sub-culture
which Sabet now effectively heads are left totally unscathed. In
mid-1954, having concluded a thirty year agreement with the oil
cartles, the royalist government shuts down the mullahs' anti-Bahai
carnival and kicks the vocal ones back into the mosques and the
seminaries. At this point Habib Sabet is elected to the National
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Iran and immediately elevated to
its Chairman and head. From Haifa, Israel, Sabet is after his election/
elevation then christened by the Baha'i patriarch and guardian, Shoghi
Effendi (d. 1957), as a Knight of Baha'u'llah. Early 1955 Sabet's
Iranian Pepsi Cola franchise is official.

By early 1956 Pepsi Cola Inc. is fully operating in Iran under Habib
Sabet's franchise patronage - which is also exporting to various
places in the Mid East and South-Asia. I'll let you figure out how
much money Sabet would've been making in this venture, even in the mid/
late 1950s, not to mention the manner in which the investment
structure of this venture was set-up in such a way which involved
numerous other wealthy Baha'i investors taking huge dividends.
Apparently, although it has never been proven with documentation, the
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Iran itself as an entity
was a partner in Sabet's Iranian Pepsi Cola franchise. BTW this
franchise itself also held interests in the Iranian franchise fast-
food industry that was just recently launched as well as the farms and
factories that supplied them.

The almost immediate, raging success of Pepsi Cola then convinces the
Shah to let Sabet buy into the franchise for the Iranian Radio/
Television corporation, which he did as the first bidder in 1959. So
now you have Baha'i control over a significant sector of the Iranian
food industry as well as total financial control over Iranian
television and radio media. They never managed to get the newspapers
or fully get in to the print market industry. But these in themselves
were significant enough political and economic leverage. Should I also
mention that Sabet got unimpeded, unhindered and perpetual access to
the Shah of Iran all the way until the 1979 Revolution? This was also
the case with Dr. Karim Ayadi, the Shah's physcian, who had first
introduced Sabet to the Shah in the early '50s and now himself was
elevated to (surgeon-)general with full military rank. Ayadi also got
to head the office of the Royal Imperial Inspectorate, an office
answerable to the Shah alone and impervious to any oversight by any
government or private body other than the Shah himself. If SAVAK (the
secret-police) - which the Baha'is also managed to put their people
into (and pretty close to the top) - was universally feared and hated,
the Royal Imperial Inspectorate was doubly so since even SAVAK could
not touch it. Note well where in the hierarchy of the former regime
the Baha'is managed to place themselves!

Now, off the record, amongst some reputable historians of the 1979
Iranian revolution, there are those who swear that a Baha'i hand
existed in precipitating the social angst that triggered the upheavel
toppling the Westernizing Shah and dumping Iran into the hands of an
obscurantist theocrat. Sabet and his cronies had a consistent habit of
exclusively promoting their own religious flock and yes-men throughout
all the industries (and peripheral industries) they were involved with
whilst aggressively excluding or pushing out (even persecuting) non-
Baha'i Iranians, especially Muslims. Many secular Iranian Muslims or
secular Iranians not remotely interested in any religious identity
walked away from Sabet and his Baha'i mafia seething and swearing to
one day even out scores. Sabet was even supporting a violent Baha'i
cosa nostra headed by henchman Hozhabr Yazdani: a crime syndicate
which regularly murdered people and extorted money by force all over
Iran. The victims were usually Iranian Muslims of various shades, and
unless for exigent circumstances, seldom ever (if even never) was a
Baha'i a target of the Yazdani crime family. All of this went either
unknown, ignored or largely unheeded by the Shah and his government.
But nonetheless he got the blame for it all when the revolution did
hit.

In effect there was almost an attempt by the Haifan Baha'i
organization to gradually but forcefully impliment an outright power
grab in Iran, first through the royal court and the economy, later
through other means.


Why I am spelling all of this out is that I believe the seeds and
consequences of Baha'i modus operandi in the past needs to be examined
closely in light of the kind of tactics the TJC is using. The ways and
mores in which they have climbed into the ear of power and then
utilized its levers for their own ends previously need to be heeded,
and heeded well. They have spent 30 years since 1979 perfecting these
techniques in the topsy-turvy (but much more manipulatable) democratic
polities of North America, Australasia and Europe. They are also that
much more wealthy since 1979 because they have diversified their
investments globally and have that much more to draw from. They have
also perfected techniques of information subterfuge, misdirecting
propaganda, buying friends and buying off amenable opponents, and how
to pack assorted venues with their own people to forcefully push their
agenda while outright disenfranchising those of others - especially
perceived enemies of various shades.

To win this fight decisively, you good people are going to need to
learn as much about the Baha'i past as you can. The best place to do
this is to look into the extent of their involvement with the Shah's
regime. This is also a place where the TJC itself is somewhat
vulnerable (in terms of association by implication) and can be made to
look pretty stupid in the eyes of the general public if the details of
such information were to be more widely diffused and exposed in the
media.

Truthseeker

[r***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Ruhaniya
[Note: Truthseeker is the handle of yours truly]
http://www.online-dating-rights.com/forum/index.php?topic=1589.msg620...
"So there you have it folks. The Haifa Baha'i quest for power using
the Tahirih Justice center as a lobbying front so they can manipulate
our US democratic system to instill their radical beliefs on the non
Baha'i population."
A point that might be historically instructive here is that these
tactics the Haifan Baha'is are using presently in the United States to
manipulate the liberal foundation establishment over to their ultimate
agenda(s); is that the course and template for such strategies were
ones specifically seeded by them in Iran in their nascent forms under
the Shah (esp. after 1953). They already had one of their own inside
the royal court before the 1953 royalist coup d'etat. After that event
the numbers increased exponentially and as a result the money flowed
into this organization like a busted Hoover Dam.  Pre-1953 you had the
Shah's personal physician, Dr. Karim Ayadi, as a court insider but
with minimum political clout inside the royal court.
Along comes the first abortive attempt by the Shah to oust his popular
nationalist premier Mossadeq in August 1953. The Shah immediately
leaves Iran, first to Baghdad, then to Rome where he and his then
queen Soraya are hosted for their entire hiatus there by a Baha'i
business tycoon named Habib Sabet. He pays for everything. Apparently
the Shah left Iran at this juncture virtually penniless. A couple of
days later the coup against Mossadeq succeeds, and a short time after
that the Shah returns to Iran. Soon thereafter Sabet himself returns
to Iran and meets with the Shah at the Niavaran palace. From this
meeting Sabet walks away with the soon-to-be Iranian Pepsi Cola
franchise. But first he agrees with the Shah to keep his community
quiet while the new rubber stamped royalist premier and parliament
begin re-negotiations with international petroleum consortiums, and,
in order to divert public attention from these negotiations, they
temporarily unleash the Shi'ite clerics and their partisans against
the Baha'is in the public media. While this is going on the new junta
government is also beginning its own political (show-)trials against
Mossadeq and the topped nationalist government.  Duplicity all around
here: from the Shah, Sabet and the Baha'is as well as the Shi'ite
clerics!
With the voice of Falsafi, and the support of two senior Ayatollahs,
the mullahs and their wound-up dupes go mad on the Baha'is for several
months. They demolish the Baha'i center in Tehran. They go to Shiraz
and desecrate the house of the Bab. Several dozen average, middle-
class and working class Baha'is get accosted and abused by the
rampaging sectarian mobs in the urban centers. A handful of Baha'is
even get killed in rural Iran. But the upper-class Bahai sub-culture
which Sabet now effectively heads are left totally unscathed. In
mid-1954, having concluded a thirty year agreement with the oil
cartles, the royalist government shuts down the mullahs' anti-Bahai
carnival and kicks the vocal ones back into the mosques and the
seminaries. At this point Habib Sabet is elected to the National
Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Iran and immediately elevated to
its Chairman and head. From Haifa, Israel, Sabet is after his election/
elevation then christened by the Baha'i patriarch and guardian, Shoghi
Effendi (d. 1957), as a Knight of Baha'u'llah. Early 1955 Sabet's
Iranian Pepsi Cola franchise is official.
By early 1956 Pepsi Cola Inc. is fully operating in Iran under Habib
Sabet's franchise patronage - which is also exporting to various
places in the Mid East and South-Asia. I'll let you figure out how
much money Sabet would've been making in this venture, even in the mid/
late 1950s, not to mention the manner in which the investment
structure of this venture was set-up in such a way which involved
numerous other wealthy Baha'i investors taking huge dividends.
Apparently, although it has never been proven with documentation, the
National Spiritual Assembly of the Baha'is of Iran itself as an entity
was a partner in Sabet's Iranian Pepsi Cola franchise. BTW this
franchise itself also held interests in the Iranian franchise fast-
food industry that was just recently launched as well as the farms and
factories that supplied them.
The almost immediate, raging success of Pepsi Cola then convinces the
Shah to let Sabet  buy into the franchise for the Iranian Radio/
Television corporation, which he did as the first bidder in 1959. So
now you have Baha'i control over a significant sector of the Iranian
food industry as well as total financial control over Iranian
television and radio media. They never managed to get the newspapers
or fully get in to the print market industry. But these in themselves
were significant enough political and economic leverage. Should I also
mention that Sabet got unimpeded, unhindered and perpetual access to
the Shah of Iran all the way until the 1979 Revolution? This was also
the case with Dr. Karim Ayadi, the Shah's physcian, who had first
introduced Sabet to the Shah in the early '50s and now himself was
elevated to (surgeon-)general with full military rank. Ayadi also got
to head the office of the Royal Imperial Inspectorate, an office
answerable to the Shah alone and impervious to any oversight by any
government or private body other than the Shah himself. If SAVAK (the
secret-police) - which the Baha'is also managed to put their people
into (and pretty close to the top) - was universally feared and hated,
the Royal Imperial Inspectorate was doubly so since even SAVAK could
not touch it. Note well where in the hierarchy of the former regime
the Baha'is managed to place themselves!
Now, off the record, amongst some reputable historians of the 1979
Iranian revolution, there are those who swear that a Baha'i hand
existed in precipitating the social angst that triggered the upheavel
toppling the Westernizing Shah and dumping Iran into the hands of an
obscurantist theocrat. Sabet and his cronies had a consistent habit of
exclusively promoting their own religious flock and yes-men throughout
all the industries (and peripheral industries) they were involved with
whilst aggressively excluding or pushing out (even persecuting) non-
Baha'i Iranians, especially Muslims. Many secular Iranian Muslims or
secular Iranians not remotely interested in any religious identity
walked away from Sabet and his Baha'i mafia seething and swearing to
one day even out scores. Sabet was even supporting a violent Baha'i
cosa nostra headed by henchman Hozhabr Yazdani: a crime syndicate
which regularly murdered people and extorted money by force all over
Iran. The victims were usually Iranian Muslims of various shades, and
unless for exigent circumstances, seldom ever (if even never) was a
Baha'i a target of the Yazdani crime family. All of this went either
unknown, ignored or largely unheeded by the Shah and his government.
But nonetheless he got the blame for it all when the revolution did
hit.
In effect there was almost an attempt by the Haifan Baha'i
organization to gradually but forcefully impliment an outright power
grab in Iran, first through the royal court and the economy, later
through other means.
Why I am spelling all of this out is that I believe the seeds and
consequences of Baha'i modus operandi in the past needs to be examined
closely in light of the kind of tactics the TJC is using. The ways and
mores in which they have climbed into the ear of power and then
utilized its levers for their own ends previously need to be heeded,
and heeded well. They have spent 30 years since 1979 perfecting these
techniques in the topsy-turvy (but much more manipulatable) democratic
polities of North America, Australasia and Europe. They are also that
much more wealthy since 1979 because they have diversified their
investments globally and have that much more to draw from. They have
also perfected techniques of information subterfuge, misdirecting
propaganda, buying friends and buying off amenable opponents, and how
to pack assorted venues with their own people to forcefully push their
agenda while outright disenfranchising those of others - especially
perceived enemies of various shades.
To win this fight decisively, you good people are going to need to
learn as much about the Baha'i past as you can. The best place to do
this is to look into the extent of their involvement with the Shah's
regime. This is also a place where the TJC itself is somewhat
vulnerable (in terms of association by implication) and can be made to
look pretty stupid in the eyes of the general public if the details of
such information were to be more widely diffused and exposed in the
media.
Truthseeker

All very interesting! Have you tried to big up some reliable sources
to get the information included in Wikipedia articles like
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_in_Iran?

[Ruhaniya]

Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
All very interesting! Have you tried to big up some reliable sources
to get the information included in Wikipedia articles likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_in_Iran?- Hide quoted text -

Yes, I have. However, Wikipedia is not remotely a reliable source:
http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien...

ANTI-WIKIPEDIA

Is Wikipedia a new fascism of knowledge perpetrated by disaffected
leftists: a Wackopedia?

The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia - against its
pretensions to being encyclopedic; against its false claims of
openness; against its representation of a democratic access to, and
democratic enunciation of, knowledge; against ***its institutionalized
falsification of facts***; against its sordid attempts to monopolize
knowledge and rewrite history by blanking out parts of our collective
memory and replacing them with imprimaturs. Yes, those are all aspects
of the cyberbureaucratic fraud that Wikipedia is committing wholesale
upon knowledge. The fraud that consists of producing false knowledge
on an encyclopedic scale. Now, that's notable about Wikipedia, if
nothing else is.

The facts and events related in this document unfolded in the course
of an attempt to place in Wikipedia a factual and informative entry on
the topic of Aetherometry. The unequal, rigged war which ensued
crystallized perfectly what is corrupt and perverse in the workings of
the wikipedian enterprise, and the utter impossibility for such an
enterprise to produce anything even close to a factual and balanced
reference source.

The term "Wikipedia" is a neologism designed to sound as if it denoted
an encyclopedia, a community project developing and functioning
through an effort of 'self-regulation'. That's what Wikipedia strives
to be, right? Wrong.

It is more like a Wackopedia of the 'pediaphiles' and perverts of
knowledge, the cyberpriests of infantilized knowledge. It suffices to
read the falsifications committed in so many thousands of entries -
ranging from Friederich Nietzsche or Gilles Deleuze in philosophy, to
Black Holes or Autodynamics in physics, to Acupuncture or
Morphogenetic Fields (that are both classified as Pseudosciences!), to
entries on Peer-Review, Politics, Medicine, etc - and one immediately
realizes that one is dealing with an over-writing machine, a digital
abstract machine in charge of overcoding history and knowledge, but
doing it in the fashion of a modern mini-State or a mass-mediated
power mechanism: as a system of exchange of the simplest overwrites, a
packaging of bullets of the most degraded information.

The reader will appreciate that we are not in favour of enshrined
encyclopedias that lay down monolithically official knowledge and
science - anymore that we can be in favour of a storehouse of
mediocrities and inanities whose content and classification varies
from hour to hour, like Wikipedia's. Robert McHenry, former Editor in
Chief of Encyclopedia Britannica was not far from the truth when he
wrote:

The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm
some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a
public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to
exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be
lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know
is who has used the facilities before him.

However, he failed to notice that, like in most public toilets these
days, the 'dirt' in Wikipedia is not a matter of chance but a matter
of system, it is there in principle, it is systemic and endemic. And
one knows that it was invariably left by either an Admin or a member
of some squad or cabal, some officiating technopriest of the Cult of
Ignorance.

It is all done in the name of a representation of a majority and
culture for the masses. The unassailable mediocrity of the entries is
the credo of Wikipedians, enshrined in a new ideology, sans-party, the
cult of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View). The NPOV is supposed to be
the result of the checks and balances of community participation in
the Wikipedia project. But that's baloney - since the community
effort is an exercise in power by the new cyber-bureaucrats that go by
the name of Wikipedia Administrators, and the power-play in which the
"house always wins" specializes in optimizing the degradation of
information to fit it into premade slots. It is more an axiomatic of
overcodes by voluntarily enslaved cyberbureaucrats, than a party-
police machine. Yet, it functions with a hardline reminescent of
fascism red or black, and deploys a thought-police filled with
policies and procedural guidelines, as these excerpts from Requests
for Adminship so well relate:

Jtkiefer has been a Wikipedian for about 2 months, but already has
1486 edits. He is active on RC Patrol, and could use a rollback button
to help him. ABCD, 02:07, 27 July 2005

Kmccoy has been a Wikipedian since June 2004. (...) I believe he ought
to have the delete button to finish the process. (...) Mindspillage
(spill yours?), 22:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Madchester has 3,100 edits and has been here since January. He reverts
vandalism a lot. Near 650 edits in the user talk and talk namespaces.
I feel he would benifit from admin powers. Howabout1, 22:37, July 23,
2005 (UTC)

(...) A rollback button would enhance the work of a great vandal
fighter. Canderson has been here for 5 months now, and according to
Kate's tool has 1678 edits, 1078 to articles, 34 to talk, the bulk of
the rest to User talk and Wikipedia namespaces. (...) Meelar, 16:29,
July 23, 2005 (UTC)

It's hilarious, pre-pubescent and bizarre, all at once. They have
standard questions that would-be Admins have to answer, like:

1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
(Please read the page about administrators and the administrators'
reading list.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you
feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it
and how will you deal with it in the future?

And answers like:

1. I would check the Recent Changes page for any signs of obvious
vandalism, and I would look at the Newpages for anything that could be
speedied. I also might check the vandalism in progress page to keep an
eye on anything.
3. Really the only thing I can remember is back when I first joined, I
added a lot of box art to game articles and tagged them with the
{{pd}} tag, which caused a couple other contributors to get a little
upset (see my talk page), cause they had to go and re-tag them.

At the click of a button, these Administrators become empowered
barbarians in a campaign of mutilation of facts, thought and history;
cybervandals with a license to kill and a whole community of
bureaucrats to support them. One gets the sensation that one is
observing a strange electronic mix between Disneyland, maoist self-
confession, a computer game of political monopoly, and a police
recruitment questionnaire. RC patrol, war against vandals, keeping an
eye on anything...Wait, there is more, above the admins come the
actual 'bureaucrats' (sic):
Requests for bureaucratship
Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make
other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions
reached here. They can also change the user name of any other user.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above,
but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship
is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to
engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications. No
bureaucrats have been appointed since October 2004. The three
unsuccessful applicants since that time attracted comments about their
experience and about there being little need for new bureaucrats.
Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the
prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before
nominating themselves. Bureaucrats are expected to determine
consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Yes, it is almost, almost like a revamped fascist party, a cybership
of bureaucratships muscling voters in electioneering campaigns and
seeking to refashion knowledge by a bureaucratic consensus abusively
represented as the majority consensus.

In a word, Wikipedia is the latest effort in the new leftist attempt
to consolidate representative knowledge for the masses. It represents
the migration of the old left into the field of cyber-information. Now
programmers get to play at cyber-revolutions...

A new bureaucracy, subliminal and purely electronic, almost invisible,
now manages to perform all those cybertasks necessary for the
education of the masses and proper majoritarian representation with
the new cybertechnical tools. An invisible dictatorship by
administrators and annointed bureaucrats that have charted their plan
for the ulterior evolution of knowledge - a kind of mental police of
concepts and facts. It is the age of the publicitarian Left, permeated
by a technobureaucratic vision of fake-democracy, self-policing and
pure representation. A kind of masturbatory electronic pork-barrel.

What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in
knowledge - or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and
adequate knowledge. Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an
officiating falsification of knowledge, a system for disinformation
and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of administrators
and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and
exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies.
It is easy to see how a few - ignorant and stupid ones - can, in the
name of a 'democratic access to knowledge', establish the worst kind
of dictatorship: the fascism of the expression, the fascism of the
most mediocre and most ill-digested of commonplace notions. It is
easy to see, because, in fact, our most public institutions are now
subject to just that same kind of fascism - the diffuse fascism of
unquestioned majorities represented by groups of loudmouths
manipulated by bully boys.

Yes, Wikipedia is in the throes of a democratized, pervasive,
disseminated, molecular fascism. The precedence for just such a kind
of fascist attitude, for its rampant misinformation and disinformation
and the collective sanction that it appears to garner is found in our
very own social organization. Likewise, this goes to answer the
question - 'what are the uses of such a falsified encyclopedia?'. The
uses are simple - the commercial value of 'perceived information',
irrespective of how false and falsified is the 'information' or its
'perception'.

How Wikipedia-fascism can be of use in the science and technology war

With a refreshing frankness , Joe Buff, in an article titled "Science
versus Science" published in Feb. 2004 atwww.military.com, raised a
series of basic issues that confront, at one and the same time, both
Big Science and the ongoing intelligence war in cyberspace with
respect to science and technology - two areas pertinent to the present
exposé of Wikipedia and its cultural fascism. This merits a careful
going-over. Buff underlines how

Relative advantages in scientific and mathematical know-how have
helped determine the outcome of every major war for at least two
centuries - even for two-plus millennia.

We might say, it's far more than that, since the very history of
development of civil societies puts into evidence how scientific and
technological development of the forces and methods of socio-economic
production was everywhere dependent upon the scientific and
technological development of the forces and methods of military
destruction. Buff acknowledges that the development of science is
impelled by these forces, and

affects a nation's quality of life, economic vitality, and standing
on the world stage.

His focus, however, is as follows:

Yet American science is at war with itself. (...) The war is not about
"junk science" or "pseudo science." It's being fought, if that's the
proper word, by highly credentialed and deeply respected academics and
researchers. I believe the science war has resulted because of a
conflict between what science ideally should be, or ought to be, and
what in the real world science actually turns out to be. Part of the
scientific community, in fact, has jumped on the bandwagon of that
intramural blood sport, electioneering -- and thus serves
inadvertently as a test case and a learning tool for the military.
This is because scientists, by weighing in on partisan politics and
calling in doubt public policy, in my opinion have begun to undertake
heightened Knowledge Warfare. Knowledge Warfare is defined as the
broadest strategic level of manipulating how a populace thinks and
makes decisions -- it includes information warfare (using cyberspace),
and psychological warfare (a classic stratagem).

He has almost entirely plunged his finger into the wound: Knowledge
Warfare - the broadest strategic manipulation of how a populace thinks
and acts; employment of cyberspace and mass-media to control a mass-
society and fashion a consensus to be called "democratic". He places
the scientific community squarely at the focus of this Knowledge
Warfare; and at the heart of that focus, the dispute between Big
Science and small science, between the power-servant peer-review
institutions of Big Science and the facts of science or discovery:

Science is supposed to be founded on objectivity, solid proof, and a
spirit of open inquiry. The essence of this is called the Scientific
Method, whereby an hypothesis is stated, and then experiments are
performed to either validate or invalidate the hypothesis. A key part
of the Scientific Method is that those experiments have results which
are reproducible by independent laboratories. A crucial aspect of
advances in science is that papers summarizing the results of studies
be subjected to stringent peer review. The bottom line in peer review
is whether or not the experimental results are correct and support the
conclusions stated in the paper. Alas, if only it were that simple.
(...) Many scientists are extremely conservative when it comes to new
ideas that could demolish the established order. Big Science, as it
has been called by commentators and journalists for years, is about
three things: funding, funding, and funding. Much of that funding
comes from the federal government. Consequently, science itself
represents a form of pork barrel. It has its vested interests, its
bitter rivalries, its successes and its failures, its insiders and
outsiders. (...) Science is the handmaiden and queen of the modern
battlefield.

This brings us squarely to the question of the uses of Wikipedia, and
in particular, those that concern protection of the interests of Big
Science. For Wikipedia is at the intersection of this Knowledge
Warfare. Its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review, and its
determination to brand bona fide non-mainstream scientific efforts as
Pseudoscience, lumping them together with doctrines or ideas that
would disgust any good scientist, all point in the direction of a
gigantic disinformation act. Tyrannized by fanatical lefto-facho
bureaucrats and by zealots of Official Science surrounded by an
always-
ready supply of zombified adolescents, Wikipedia has become a
supplement to the imaginary 'peer-review system' that supposedly rules
the secretion called Official or Big Science. The unconscious entente
of Wikipedia proves the collective adherence of its participants to
the brave new concept of Official Science: if it does not occur within
those institutions which embody the powers of the State (Academia),
the Military Mechanism and Capital, it is NOT science, nor worthy of
the Media (including mainstream peer-reviewed publications), not
worthy of being endorsed for the strategizing of mass-control.

In a truly impoverished world there is a multiplication of the false;
utterances or systems that would qualify as scientific or
philosophical thoughts are few and rare. For these few, a new dilemma
or double-bind arises: if they are not accepted by majorities, by the
effective organs of majorities, they cannot ever gain the recognition
of Big Science; and if they cannot gain that recognition, they are not
eligible for public or private funds. They are, in a word, condemned
to a minor existence, at best, or no existence at all.

As part of a global strategy to control the thought, perceptions and
affections of populaces, there rise against these few efforts to think
and research independently, the voices of the basest, with slogans
like - "if this work were scientific it would have gained recognition
by an institutional power, or been published in a peer-reviewed
mainstream journal"; "if it is so good it would already have been
commercialized"; "If it were science, it would not be ignored". These
are just some examples of the gravest and stupidest of the base
common-
senses that 'human automata' are now programmed to regularly emit -
and Wikipedia is replete with this mechanical exhibitionism of
ignorance, close-mindedness and willful stupidity. For it is
precisely this notion - the notion that nothing can be scientific
unless it has been officially sanctioned as science by institutional
powers - which bars pioneering efforts, particularly in basic science,
from being taken seriously, from finding a source of worthy capital,
from any possibility of success. It is a notion that works as a self-
fulfilling prophecy, weeding out all that that threatens the
equilibrium of the supposedly 'known'. Hence, disinformation wins, as
legitimate efforts and innovation are effectively strangled by
irrational and uninformed belief in that disinformation - a belief of
a religious allure, only its content is 'science' not religion. And
that's precisely why it is called Knowledge Warfare: because it is
disinformation and not knowledge or science that wins.

Perhaps the most grimly amusing part of all of this is that Wikipedia
does not even accurately enunciate Official Science. Rather, its
cyberpriests are poor sods who entertain themselves with splattering
over "dangerous" articles ready-made Stop and Caution signs, as if
they were curators of public morals, guard-dogs intent on protecting
the 'unknowing populace' from the horrors of scientific invalidity -
and this with respect to scientific claims and endeavors whose content
they openly and proudly proclaim to be ignorant about! Wikipedia is
not an organ of Official Science; rather, Wikipedia is a volunteer
enforcer of the politics of that 'science', a rank manager, an organ
of an Officiating Science made up of norms that remind one more of the
adolescent games of Alpha Beta Phi societies than anything resembling
the thought of science. In a word, Wikipedia has become an
officiating organ of scientific censorship and scientism. In that
mass-media role, it now stands as the rule (the norm) of the most
mediocre, an effective media dictatorship of falsified knowledge, and
thus an effective 'mediocracy'.

To us, this is the Jed Rothwell syndrome, the Serpent's Tooth, all
over again - but on a larger and grander scale. A pervasive fascism,
the wikipedic fascism of pseudo-knowledge. A 'pediaphilia' of the
mind, often dictated by 10- and 14-year olds and written for them. The
victory of infantilization as the best tool in the thought-control of
a mass. From the viewpoint of power-systems, Wikipedia is indeed very
useful. It keeps us all ignorant, but proud of it, all the happier for
it.

Is Wikipedia's fascism and suppression of knowledge a fraudulent
intelligence operation?

In the beginning, one could have wondered where the 'spontaneous'
animosity towards Aetherometry came from. On closer scrutiny, the
animosity was found to be not simply aprioristic and uninformed, and
more intent on libeling scientists and their efforts than on creating
an encyclopedic article, but also part of a general fanaticism
displayed on all Wikipedia entries relating to new science and its
controversies. While this alone shows Wikipedia to be an
extraordinarily biased depository of so-called 'information', the
archives of modifications and the discussion pages which accompany
these entries record a shocking degree of zealotry and fanaticism
backed up by an administrative power that is systematically abused
through overt or covert deletion of texts expressing opposing views,
through alteration of records, caricatural distortion of content, and
the determined suppression of knowledgeable contributions.

One cannot but start to wonder - why is this animus so entrenched in a
self-styled community project? Why do administrators abuse their
power and control the project, instead of acting as balanced
moderators? Why are they so wanton in their display of power and its
abuse, why do they behave towards potential contributors like a swat-
team towards rioters, why do they see fit to use war tactics and cover
their tracks with tag teamwork, why are they so compulsively obsessed
with a competitive scoring of bureaucratic points?

The answer that slowly emerges is that it has to do with the
insidious, insinuating, small-time molecular fascism of Wikipedia. It
is, when all is said and done, a private concern masquerading as a
public service, with the pretension of revising the entirety of
historical facts and human knowledge (science included). In a word,
it is a major field for power systems to do battle in. But more than
that - and this is where it becomes ever more interesting - the
leaders of this neo-maoist cabal for the purification of knowledge are
people like William M. Connolley, employee of the British government,
or Dr. Fred Salsbury, who has worked with the US Army Medical Research
Institute at Fort Detrick, MD. Slowly, one begins to realize that this
Wikipedia, and, at least its cabal in charge of science, is an
intelligence operation where at all hours (in their private or their
public life), these semi-government officials and semi-scientists,
with their numerous, mostly anonymous and frequently under-age
minions, engage in disinformation and open 'Knowledge Warfare' against
their enemies. The attacks are aided and camouflaged by a mob of
almost exlusively anonymous administrators who 'lend a hand', and who
can be invoked ("there's thousands of us") and summoned to help 24
hours a day. In the gloating words of one of the most rabid ones:

This is how wikipedia works.Anyone can edit any article at
anytime. If you don't like that then you'll just have to lump it. The
Correas "work" is not proper science because they have refused to
submit it to review by other scientists. Don't give me a load of crap
about IE magazine or their own vanity press. That's not proper peer
review. What's more, they refuse to let anyone see their papers in
full unless they pay for them. That's well dodgy and quite rightly
leads to suspicion of crackpottery and fraud. We have all been far too
polite really. We've welcomed you and your junk science here, we've
been insulted, bullied, accused of being a cabal and generally been
given a hard time. But you won't win. Because there are a lot of us,
thousands in fact. The aetherometry article will call a spade a spade,
and describe aetherometry as what it is. Theresa Knott (a tenth
stroke), 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This half-veiled 'moronic-intelligence' operation which is presented
as if it were a democratic undertaking, fair, square, and impartial
(NPOV, Wikipedia's ideological catchword), is, in fact, a systematic
operation of vilification and demonization of any knowledge,
scientific or otherwise, that is NOT orthodox by Wikipedia's standards
- i.e. cannot boast a sufficient number of Google hits and/or a record
of publication in mainstream journals that are regarded as flagships
of official science by a "consensus" of Wikipedia luminaries. It's a
gross and obscene spectacle, a joke that is being perpretated on the
public. And given the high Google ratings of this joke, it is also a
fraud, with serious consequences. For what other name can one give to
passing information that is false and created for explicit and
exhibitionistic purposes of disinformation?

[Death to Haifan Bahaism]

Post by r***@yahoo.co.uk
All very interesting! Have you tried to big up some reliable sources
to get the information included in Wikipedia articles likehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_in_Iran?-Hide quoted text -

Yes, I have. However, Wikipedia is not remotely a reliable source:http://www.aetherometry.com/Electronic_Publications/Politics_of_Scien...
ANTI-WIKIPEDIA
Is Wikipedia a new fascism of knowledge perpetrated by disaffected
leftists: a Wackopedia?
The following is a manifesto against Wikipedia - against its
pretensions to being encyclopedic; against its false claims of
openness; against its representation of a democratic access to, and
democratic enunciation of, knowledge; against ***its institutionalized
falsification of facts***; against its sordid attempts to monopolize
knowledge and rewrite history by blanking out parts of our collective
memory and replacing them with imprimaturs. Yes, those are all aspects
of the cyberbureaucratic fraud that Wikipedia is committing wholesale
upon knowledge.  The fraud that consists of producing false knowledge
on an encyclopedic scale.  Now, that's notable about Wikipedia, if
nothing else is.
The facts and events related in this document unfolded in the course
of an attempt to place in Wikipedia a factual and informative entry on
the topic of Aetherometry. The unequal, rigged war which ensued
crystallized perfectly what is corrupt and perverse in the workings of
the wikipedian enterprise, and the utter impossibility for such an
enterprise to produce anything even close to a factual and balanced
reference source.
The term "Wikipedia" is a neologism designed to sound as if it denoted
an encyclopedia, a community project developing and functioning
through an effort of 'self-regulation'. That's what Wikipedia strives
to be, right?  Wrong.
It is more like a Wackopedia of the 'pediaphiles' and perverts of
knowledge, the cyberpriests of infantilized knowledge.  It suffices to
read the falsifications committed in so many thousands of entries -
ranging from Friederich Nietzsche or Gilles Deleuze in philosophy, to
Black Holes or Autodynamics in physics, to Acupuncture or
Morphogenetic Fields (that are both classified as Pseudosciences!), to
entries on  Peer-Review, Politics, Medicine, etc - and one immediately
realizes that one is dealing with an over-writing machine, a digital
abstract machine in charge of overcoding history and knowledge, but
doing it in the fashion of a modern mini-State or a mass-mediated
power mechanism: as a system of exchange of the simplest overwrites, a
packaging of bullets of the most degraded information.
The reader will appreciate that we are not in favour of enshrined
encyclopedias that lay down monolithically official knowledge and
science - anymore that we can be in favour of a storehouse of
mediocrities and inanities whose content and classification varies
from hour to hour, like Wikipedia's. Robert McHenry, former Editor in
Chief of Encyclopedia Britannica was not far from the truth when he
The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm
some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a
public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to
exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be
lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know
is who has used the facilities before him.
However, he failed to notice that, like in most public toilets these
days, the 'dirt' in Wikipedia is not a matter of chance but a matter
of system, it is there in principle, it is systemic and endemic. And
one knows that it was invariably left by either an Admin or a member
of some squad or cabal, some officiating technopriest of the Cult of
Ignorance.
It is all done in the name of a representation of a majority and
culture for the masses.  The unassailable mediocrity of the entries is
the credo of Wikipedians, enshrined in a new ideology, sans-party, the
cult of the NPOV (Neutral Point of View).  The NPOV is supposed to be
the result of the checks and balances of community participation in
the Wikipedia project.  But that's baloney - since the community
effort is an exercise in power by the new cyber-bureaucrats that go by
the name of Wikipedia Administrators, and the power-play in which the
"house always wins" specializes in optimizing the degradation of
information to fit it into premade slots.  It is more an axiomatic of
overcodes by voluntarily enslaved cyberbureaucrats, than a party-
police machine.  Yet, it functions with a hardline reminescent of
fascism red or black, and deploys a thought-police filled with
policies and procedural guidelines, as these excerpts from Requests
Jtkiefer has been a Wikipedian for about 2 months, but already has
1486 edits. He is active on RC Patrol, and could use a rollback button
to help him. ABCD, 02:07, 27 July 2005
Kmccoy has been a Wikipedian since June 2004. (...) I believe he ought
to have the delete button to finish the process. (...) Mindspillage
(spill yours?), 22:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Madchester has 3,100 edits and has been here since January. He reverts
vandalism a lot. Near 650 edits in the user talk and talk namespaces.
I feel he would benifit from admin powers. Howabout1, 22:37, July 23,
2005 (UTC)
(...) A rollback button would enhance the work of a great vandal
fighter. Canderson has been here for 5 months now, and according to
Kate's tool has 1678 edits, 1078 to articles, 34 to talk, the bulk of
the rest to User talk and Wikipedia namespaces. (...)  Meelar, 16:29,
July 23, 2005 (UTC)
It's hilarious, pre-pubescent and bizarre, all at once.  They have
1. What sysop chores, if any, would you anticipate helping with?
(Please read the page about administrators and the administrators'
reading list.)
3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you
feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it
and how will you deal with it in the future?
1. I would check the Recent Changes page for any signs of obvious
vandalism, and I would look at the Newpages for anything that could be
speedied. I also might check the vandalism in progress page to keep an
eye on anything.
3. Really the only thing I can remember is back when I first joined, I
added a lot of box art to game articles and tagged them with the
{{pd}} tag, which caused a couple other contributors to get a little
upset (see my talk page), cause they had to go and re-tag them.
At the click of a button, these Administrators become empowered
barbarians in a campaign of mutilation of facts, thought and history;
cybervandals with a license to kill and a whole community of
bureaucrats to support them.  One gets the sensation that one is
observing a strange electronic mix between Disneyland, maoist self-
confession, a computer game of political monopoly, and a police
recruitment questionnaire. RC patrol, war against vandals, keeping an
eye on anything...Wait, there is more, above the admins come the
Requests for bureaucratship
Bureaucrats are administrators with the additional ability to make
other people admins or bureaucrats, based on community decisions
reached here.  They can also change the user name of any other user.
The process for bureaucrats is similar to that for adminship above,
but is generally by request only. The expectation for bureaucratship
is higher than for admin, in terms of numbers of votes, ability to
engage voters and candidates, and significant disqualifications.  No
bureaucrats have been appointed since October 2004.  The three
unsuccessful applicants since that time attracted comments about their
experience and about there being little need for new bureaucrats.
Candidates might consider initiating a discussion here of the
prevailing consensus about the need for additional bureaucrats before
nominating themselves.  Bureaucrats are expected to determine
consensus in difficult cases and be ready to explain their decisions.
Yes, it is almost, almost like a revamped fascist party, a cybership
of bureaucratships muscling voters in electioneering campaigns and
seeking to refashion knowledge by a bureaucratic consensus abusively
represented as the majority consensus.
In a word, Wikipedia is the latest effort in the new leftist attempt
to consolidate representative knowledge for the masses.  It represents
the migration of the old left into the field of cyber-information. Now
programmers get to play at cyber-revolutions...
A new bureaucracy, subliminal and purely electronic, almost invisible,
now manages to perform all those cybertasks necessary for the
education of the masses and proper majoritarian representation with
the new cybertechnical tools. An invisible dictatorship by
administrators and annointed bureaucrats that have charted their plan
for the ulterior evolution of knowledge - a kind of mental police of
concepts and facts. It is the age of the publicitarian Left, permeated
by a technobureaucratic vision of fake-democracy, self-policing and
pure representation.  A kind of masturbatory electronic pork-barrel.
What Wikipedia is not, is an effective repository of the best in
knowledge - or even, much more modestly, of actual, factual and
adequate knowledge.  Instead, Wikipedia has become a forum for an
officiating falsification of knowledge, a system  for disinformation
and an assurance of misinformation. Backed by cabals of administrators
and bureaucrats, Wikipedia features the raw, unfettered and
exhibitionistic domination exerted by ignorant and fascist bullies.
It is easy to see how a few - ignorant and stupid ones - can, in the
name of a 'democratic access to knowledge', establish the worst kind
of dictatorship: the fascism of the expression, the fascism of the
most mediocre and most ill-digested of commonplace notions.  It is
easy to see, because, in fact, our most public institutions are now
subject to just that same kind of fascism - the diffuse fascism of
unquestioned majorities represented by groups of loudmouths
manipulated by bully boys.
Yes, Wikipedia is in the throes of a democratized, pervasive,
disseminated, molecular fascism. The precedence for just such a kind
of fascist attitude, for its rampant misinformation and disinformation
and the collective sanction that it appears to garner is found in our
very own social organization. Likewise, this goes to answer the
question - 'what are the uses of such a falsified encyclopedia?'. The
uses are simple - the commercial value of 'perceived information',
irrespective of how false and falsified is the 'information' or its
'perception'.
How Wikipedia-fascism can be of use in the science and technology war
With a refreshing frankness , Joe Buff, in an article titled "Science
versus Science" published in Feb. 2004 atwww.military.com, raised a
series of basic issues that confront, at one and the same time, both
Big Science and the ongoing intelligence war in cyberspace with
respect to science and technology - two areas pertinent to the present
exposé of Wikipedia and its cultural fascism.  This merits a careful
going-over. Buff underlines how
Relative advantages in scientific and mathematical know-how have
helped determine the outcome of every major war for at least two
centuries - even for two-plus millennia.
We might say, it's far more than that, since the very history of
development of civil societies puts into evidence how scientific and
technological development of the forces and methods of socio-economic
production was everywhere dependent upon the scientific and
technological development of the forces and methods of military
destruction.  Buff acknowledges that the development of science is
impelled by these forces, and
 affects a nation's quality of life, economic vitality, and standing
on the world stage.
Yet American science is at war with itself. (...) The war is not about
"junk science" or "pseudo science." It's being fought, if that's the
proper word, by highly credentialed and deeply respected academics and
researchers. I believe the science war has resulted because of a
conflict between what science ideally should be, or ought to be, and
what in the real world science actually turns out to be. Part of the
scientific community, in fact, has jumped on the bandwagon of that
intramural blood sport, electioneering -- and thus serves
inadvertently as a test case and a learning tool for the military.
This is because scientists, by weighing in on partisan politics and
calling in doubt public policy, in my opinion have begun to undertake
heightened Knowledge Warfare. Knowledge Warfare is defined as the
broadest strategic level of manipulating how a populace thinks and
makes decisions -- it includes information warfare (using cyberspace),
and psychological warfare (a classic stratagem).
He has almost entirely plunged his finger into the wound: Knowledge
Warfare - the broadest strategic manipulation of how a populace thinks
and acts; employment of cyberspace and mass-media to control a mass-
society and fashion a consensus to be called "democratic".  He places
the scientific community squarely at the focus of this Knowledge
Warfare; and at the heart of that focus, the dispute between Big
Science and small science, between the power-servant peer-review
Science is supposed to be founded on objectivity, solid proof, and a
spirit of open inquiry. The essence of this is called the Scientific
Method, whereby an hypothesis is stated, and then experiments are
performed to either validate or invalidate the hypothesis. A key part
of the Scientific Method is that those experiments have results which
are reproducible by independent laboratories. A crucial aspect of
advances in science is that papers summarizing the results of studies
be subjected to stringent peer review. The bottom line in peer review
is whether or not the experimental results are correct and support the
conclusions stated in the paper. Alas, if only it were that simple.
(...) Many scientists are extremely conservative when it comes to new
ideas that could demolish the established order. Big Science, as it
has been called by commentators and journalists for years, is about
three things: funding, funding, and funding. Much of that funding
comes from the federal government. Consequently, science itself
represents a form of pork barrel. It has its vested interests, its
bitter rivalries, its successes and its failures, its insiders and
outsiders. (...) Science is the handmaiden and queen of the modern
battlefield.
This brings us squarely to the question of the uses of Wikipedia, and
in particular, those that concern protection of the interests of Big
Science.  For Wikipedia is at the intersection of this Knowledge
Warfare. Its cult of the sanctity of mainstream peer-review, and its
determination to brand bona fide non-mainstream scientific efforts as
Pseudoscience, lumping them together with doctrines or ideas that
would disgust any good scientist, all point in the direction of a
gigantic disinformation act. Tyrannized by fanatical lefto-facho
bureaucrats and by zealots of Official Science surrounded by an
always-
ready supply of zombified adolescents, Wikipedia has become a
supplement to the imaginary 'peer-review system' that supposedly rules
the secretion called Official or Big Science.  The unconscious entente
of Wikipedia proves the collective adherence of its participants to
the brave new concept of Official Science: if it does not occur within
those institutions which embody the powers of the State (Academia),
the Military Mechanism and Capital, it is NOT science, nor worthy of
the Media (including mainstream peer-reviewed publications), not
worthy of being endorsed for the strategizing of mass-control.
In a truly impoverished world there is a multiplication of the false;
utterances or systems that would qualify as scientific or
philosophical thoughts are few and rare.  For these few, a new dilemma
or double-bind arises: if they are not accepted by majorities, by the
effective organs of majorities, they cannot ever gain the recognition
of Big Science; and if they cannot gain that recognition, they are not
eligible for public or private funds.  They are, in a word, condemned
to a minor existence, at best, or no existence at all.
As part of a global strategy to control the thought, perceptions and
affections of populaces, there rise against these few efforts to think
and research independently, the voices of the basest, with slogans
like - "if this work were scientific it would have gained recognition
by an institutional power, or been published in a peer-reviewed
mainstream journal"; "if it is so good it would already have been
commercialized"; "If it were science, it would not be ignored". These
are just some examples of the gravest and stupidest of the base
common-
senses that 'human automata' are now programmed to regularly emit -
and Wikipedia is replete with this mechanical exhibitionism of
ignorance, close-mindedness and willful stupidity.  For it is
precisely this notion - the notion that nothing can be scientific
unless it has been officially sanctioned as science by institutional
powers - which bars pioneering efforts, particularly in basic science,
from being taken seriously, from finding a source of worthy capital,
from any possibility of success. It is a notion that works as a self-
fulfilling prophecy, weeding out all that that threatens the
equilibrium of the supposedly 'known'.  Hence, disinformation wins, as
legitimate efforts and innovation are effectively strangled by
irrational and uninformed belief in that disinformation - a belief of
a religious allure, only its content is 'science' not religion.  And
that's precisely why it is called Knowledge Warfare: because it is
disinformation and not knowledge or science that wins.
Perhaps the most grimly amusing part of all of this is that Wikipedia
does not even accurately enunciate Official Science.  Rather, its
cyberpriests are poor sods who entertain themselves with splattering
over "dangerous" articles ready-made Stop and Caution signs, as if
they were curators of public morals, guard-dogs intent on protecting
the 'unknowing populace' from the horrors of scientific invalidity -
and this with respect to scientific claims and endeavors whose content
they openly and proudly proclaim to be ignorant about!  Wikipedia is
not an organ of Official Science;  rather, Wikipedia is a volunteer
enforcer of the politics of that 'science', a rank manager, an organ
of an Officiating Science made up of norms that remind one more of the
adolescent games of Alpha Beta Phi societies than anything resembling
the thought of science.  In a word, Wikipedia has become an
officiating organ of scientific censorship and scientism.  In that
mass-media role, it now stands as the rule (the norm) of the most
mediocre, an effective media dictatorship of falsified knowledge, and
thus an effective 'mediocracy'.
To us, this is the Jed Rothwell syndrome, the Serpent's Tooth, all
over again - but on a larger and grander scale.  A pervasive fascism,
the wikipedic fascism of pseudo-knowledge.  A 'pediaphilia' of the
mind, often dictated by 10- and 14-year olds and written for them. The
victory of infantilization as the best tool in the thought-control of
a mass. From the viewpoint of power-systems, Wikipedia is indeed very
useful. It keeps us all ignorant, but proud of it, all the happier for
it.
Is Wikipedia's fascism and suppression of knowledge a fraudulent
intelligence operation?
In the beginning, one could have wondered where the 'spontaneous'
animosity towards Aetherometry came from.  On closer scrutiny, the
animosity was found to be not simply aprioristic and uninformed, and
more intent on libeling scientists and their efforts than on creating
an encyclopedic article, but also part of a general fanaticism
displayed on all Wikipedia entries relating to new science and its
controversies.  While this alone shows Wikipedia to be an
extraordinarily biased depository of so-called 'information', the
archives of modifications and the discussion pages which accompany
these entries record a shocking degree of zealotry and fanaticism
backed up by an administrative power that is systematically abused
through overt or covert deletion of texts expressing opposing views,
through alteration of records, caricatural distortion of content, and
the determined suppression of knowledgeable contributions.
One cannot but start to wonder - why is this animus so entrenched in a
self-styled community project?  Why do administrators abuse their
power and control the project, instead of acting as balanced
moderators? Why are they so wanton in their display of power and its
abuse, why do they behave towards potential contributors like a swat-
team towards rioters, why do they see fit to use war tactics and cover
their tracks with tag teamwork, why are they so compulsively obsessed
with a competitive scoring of bureaucratic points?
The answer that slowly emerges is that it has to do with the
insidious, insinuating, small-time molecular fascism of Wikipedia. It
is, when all is said and done, a private concern masquerading as a
public service, with the pretension of revising the entirety of
historical facts and human knowledge (science included).  In a word,
it is a major field for power systems to do battle in.  But more than
that - and this is where it becomes ever more interesting - the
leaders of this neo-maoist cabal for the purification of knowledge are
people like William M. Connolley, employee of the British government,
or Dr. Fred Salsbury, who has worked with the US Army Medical Research
Institute at Fort Detrick, MD. Slowly, one begins to realize that this
Wikipedia, and, at least its cabal in charge of science, is an
intelligence operation where at all hours (in their private or their
public life), these semi-government officials and semi-scientists,
with their numerous, mostly anonymous and frequently under-age
minions, engage in disinformation and open 'Knowledge Warfare' against
their enemies. The attacks are aided and camouflaged by a mob of
almost exlusively anonymous administrators who 'lend a hand', and who
can be invoked ("there's thousands of us") and summoned to help 24
   This is how wikipedia works.Anyone can edit any article at
anytime. If you don't like that then you'll just have to lump it. The
Correas "work" is not proper science because they have refused to
submit it to review by other scientists. Don't give me a load of crap
about IE magazine or their own vanity press. That's not proper peer
review. What's more, they refuse to let anyone see their papers in
full unless they pay for them. That's well dodgy and quite rightly
leads to suspicion of crackpottery and fraud. We have all been far too
polite really. We've welcomed you and your junk science here, we've
been insulted, bullied, accused of being a cabal and generally been
given a hard time. But you won't win. Because there are a lot of us,
thousands in fact. The aetherometry article will call a spade a spade,
and describe aetherometry as what it is. Theresa Knott (a tenth
stroke), 08:19, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
This half-veiled 'moronic-intelligence' operation which is presented
as if it were a democratic undertaking, fair, square, and impartial
(NPOV, Wikipedia's ideological catchword), is, in fact, a systematic
operation of vilification and demonization of any knowledge,
scientific or otherwise, that is NOT orthodox by Wikipedia's standards
- i.e. cannot boast a sufficient number of Google hits and/or a record
of publication in mainstream journals that are regarded as flagships
of official science by a "consensus" of Wikipedia luminaries. It's a
gross and obscene spectacle, a joke that is being perpretated on the
public. And given the high Google ratings of this joke, it is also a
fraud, with serious consequences.  For what other name can one give to
passing information that is false and created for explicit and
exhibitionistic purposes of disinformation?