Wikipedia, Beware of the So-Called Debunkers and Their suppression of Forbidden Knowledge - by Paul A Philips
For countless centuries and centuries the human race has been taken down the misinformation highway in some wave, shape, form or another: Just about every subject under the sun is routed in fraud, lies and deception. Business, banking, finance, education, science, media, history, ancient history, religion, the military... you name it. All this has been done to advance a secret agenda on the human race instigated by a relative handful of elite world corporate/banker owners and controllers.
However, in recent years, thanks to the invention of the internet, the truth is finally finding its way into the hearts and minds of humankind. Indeed, there are many great websites out there exposing both the deceptions and the agenda. Because the ruling elite don’t want to be exposed and consequentially have their plans thwarted by the backlash from an enlightened overwhelming number of We-The-People through these websites and its authors, their agents have been busily engaged in media ‘information wars’ to stop this happening.
In effect, this means that certain major websites have been infiltrated and their existence as truthful or reliable information sources are seriously under threat. I will hone in on Wikipedia as an example. Don’t get me wrong, I realize that Wikipedia is a great invention, but it is clear to me that certain individuals acting for the elite have infiltrated it with takeover plans. More specifically, these agents have not only set out to oversee the editing but have also used biased and limited information while discrediting authors with opposing views.
Scepticism, to be in the state of doubt, can be a healthy thing and I have always encouraged this with my motto ‘never stop questioning.’ However, there’s also the other side of scepticism, where there are groups of so-called sceptics (I call them unhealthy sceptics) who are nothing more than advocacy organizations greatly motivated to enforce their dogmatic beliefs.
Unhealthy sceptics don’t see and are not interested in the ‘big picture.’ Anything outside of their limited bubble of existence to them is either unimportant or non-existent. These activists are abusing the system by not allowing open enquiry.
Take the case of Guerrilla Scepticism (spelt with a ‘K’ in America) on Wikipedia as an example. This has been used as a soap box by the elite’s unhealthily sceptical agents to enforce their ideological agenda. This goes against Wikipedia’s ‘neutral view point of view’ policy, but the Guerrilla sceptics are a well-trained network operating with some 17 different languages, bent on taking over the editorial front. Headed by Susan Gerbik she explains that the organization has 90 guerrillas. They secretly operate through Facebook and security check new recruits to avoid infiltration. They have managed to control many Wiki pages, remove entries of anything they don’t like and discredit individuals who go against their policies, sometimes to the point of deformation of character.
Another advocacy organisation of unhealthy sceptics is the well funded Committee for Sceptical Inquiry (CSI). They publish the periodical ‘The Sceptical Enquirer.’
I will take the subject of health as an example in the way the so-called sceptics work. Basically, and this goes as far back as ancient times (such as the days of physician Hippocrates (460 BC–377 BC) in ancient Greece), there have been 2 schools of thought on how a patient should be treated.
The first is the idea the human body has the ability to heal and treatment should be given in support of this. In effect, this means giving remedies that help to build the immune system and allow the body to find its way back to health through healing. This is a major principle in the way in which natural health remedies operate.
The second school of thought says that the human body is weak and intervention is required without really considering the body’s ability to heal. This is a major principle related to the conventional medical/pharmaceutical way of treating patients. It also happens to be the most profitable model and therefore favours the ruling elite’s medical/pharmaceutical establishment and is why they support teams of unhealthy sceptics to slander, ridicule and suppress highly effective alternative natural health related treatment that undercuts their business: The short and simple is corporate profitability rules over genuine welfare concern.
These unhealthy sceptics, whether it’s for suppressing alternative health cures or any other area of ‘forbidden knowledge’ in favour of the ruling elite’s hidden agenda, show recurring patterns reflecting the way they work, how they manipulate information sources. Here’s a list of some of those recurring patterns. Do you recognise any of these from your walk of life?
*Discredit individuals whose work goes against their dogmatic beliefs. Sometimes this can turn into downright deformation of character, making accusations and slurs... but nothing is ever mentioned about the person’s work, no ‘nuts and bolts’ discussion or reasons why the subject matter is rejected by the sceptics.
*Make claims in support of their dogmatic beliefs with statements like “evidence shows that...” when no such evidence exists or their cases against are nothing more than straw man arguments (weak arguments).
*Stage discussions or debates on a subject and make it look as if all areas are covered, when in actuality major key points which would go against their dogmatic beliefs are deliberately left out.
*The above 3 points rely on people’s ignorance or a lack of the want to enquire and blindly accept... This is why it works so well in creating misinformation.
The point about all this is to learn to discern; keep questioning. Ask yourself, is there ulterior motive going on? Who stands to gain? How can I benefit from my understanding of the way the deception or misinformation propaganda machine works..?
The dogged determination of these sceptic group mercenary activists and their support from powerful organisations has shown how Wikipedia can be infiltrated and subverted. Wikipedia’s ‘neutral point of view’ policies or mediation processes have not shown to be difficult hurdles for these sceptics to overcome. Maybe a team of experienced external auditors could be employed to restore that so much needed impartial point of view.
If this gets too out of hand then Wikipedia may not only lose its reputation for that neutral point of view, but also its financiers.