Jdog Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/amp/?__twitter_impression=true 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 17 minutes ago, Jdog said: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/amp/?__twitter_impression=true I've been following this with interest and it really makes you think. Like most, I always thought of Wikipedia as a fairly neutral and completely harmless resource but this reveals a sinister side. The founder, Jimmy Wales, certainly doesn't come across very well at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdog Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, Zetterlund said: I've been following this with interest and it really makes you think. Like most, I always thought of Wikipedia as a fairly neutral and completely harmless resource but this reveals a sinister side. The founder, Jimmy Wales, certainly doesn't come across very well at all. And that's just one media outlet... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Jdog said: And that's just one media outlet... Gives me another excuse to repost this. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, Jdog said: https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2018/05/the-philip-cross-affair/amp/?__twitter_impression=true "Philip Cross" has been at this for a decade at least. If it was a conspiracy by dark forces rather than an obsessive very closely associated with Oliver Kamm they would have changed the name occasionally? http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2008/11/wally-of-week-philip-cross.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, Zetterlund said: Gives me another excuse to repost this. The CIA have been subverting and infiltrating the US media since it's inception too. Think operation mockingbird was the name. Print and broadcast. It's incredibly naive to think this doesn't go on everywhere including here. We don't have anything remotely close to a free press in the west or democracy, the only difference between us and developing countries is we think we do. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 13 minutes ago, Zetterlund said: Gives me another excuse to repost this. I can't find any reference to him producing the evidence he claimed to have for this. The fact that the New York Times printed the allegations in full leads me to doubt the allegations. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/02/14/118135019.pdf 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 8 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I can't find any reference to him producing the evidence he claimed to have for this. The fact that the New York Times printed the allegations in full leads me to doubt the allegations. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/02/14/118135019.pdf That's just your nature man. You are imbued with an unhealthy respect for authority and therefore automatically look for reasons to disbelieve anything that suggests things aren't 100% as presented to you or that people in positions of authority might be in any way nefarious, dishonest or fallible. You probably think Oswald shot Kennedy too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zetterlund Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, welshbairn said: I can't find any reference to him producing the evidence he claimed to have for this. The fact that the New York Times printed the allegations in full leads me to doubt the allegations. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/02/14/118135019.pdf I don't know to what extent he ever did produce any evidence, but it seems quite the elaborate conspiracy plot to make up himself. The point of bringing it up is just to highlight that these allegations of 'deep state' infiltration of the MSM go back a long way, and added to the now public knowledge of the CIA/media relationship (and thus very likely MI6 & others) it shows that 'conspiracy theorists' have every justification to question mainstream narratives. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Peppino Impastato said: That's just your nature man. You are imbued with an unhealthy respect for authority and therefore automatically look for reasons to disbelieve anything that suggests things aren't 100% as presented to you or that people in positions of authority might be in any way nefarious, dishonest or fallible. You probably think Oswald shot Kennedy too. I'm just wary of people making up shit to back an agenda. You believe anything that fits your world view and reject anything that doesn't, no matter the evidence or lack of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppino Impastato Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Just now, welshbairn said: I'm just wary of people making up shit to back an agenda. You believe anything that fits your world view and reject anything that doesn't, no matter the evidence or lack of. No I formed my world view according to the evidence, you have yours handed to you by the MSM and never doubt it for a second despite reams of evidence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Less interesting but more plausible is that Wikipedia pages are constantly being fought over ideologically so that events are framed to suit a particular narrative. That’s a major problem when Wiki is the first port of call for millions of people as you can frame an event either by the sources you include and what you choose to omit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 Oliver Kamm sounds a right nutter, and a bit scary. Never heard of him before. http://neilclark66.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/a-sign-of-times-vicious-vendettas-of.html 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 I've been very close to donating to Wikipedia a few times. Thank f**k I didn't. Philip cross sounds incredibly dodgy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inanimate Carbon Rod Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 The CIA have been subverting and infiltrating the US media since it's inception too. Think operation mockingbird was the name. Print and broadcast. It's incredibly naive to think this doesn't go on everywhere including here. We don't have anything remotely close to a free press in the west or democracy, the only difference between us and developing countries is we think we do. Its not just the CIA, there are several high ranking BBC presenters who are alleged to have either worked for the security services or indebted to them, Andrew Marr being one of them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, pandarilla said: I've been very close to donating to Wikipedia a few times. Thank f**k I didn't. Philip cross sounds incredibly dodgy. There's lots wrong about Wikileaks but it's incredibly useful for quick information so long as you take it with a pinch of salt before checking sources. I thought there would have been a more rigorous arbitration process to weed out the likes of Cross/Kamm. If someone tells a blatant lie about you it's supposed be very difficult to get it removed as you aren't allowed to edit or comment on your own page. Edited May 19, 2018 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotThePars Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, Inanimate Carbon Rod said: Its not just the CIA, there are several high ranking BBC presenters who are alleged to have either worked for the security services or indebted to them, Andrew Marr being one of them. The security services have veto powers over appointments and what's shown. Tom Mills wrote a book about the BBC that discusses it called The BBC: The Myth of a Public Service. Would definitely recommend it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, NotThePars said: The security services have veto powers over appointments and what's shown. Tom Mills wrote a book about the BBC that discusses it called The BBC: The Myth of a Public Service. Would definitely recommend it. Room 101's a real thing, at least it was, a permanent office in Broadcasting house for MI5 vetting. Some poor sod couldn't understand why producers kept offering him jobs only to be told later that the position had been taken. It took 20/30 years before he found out it was due to faulty records, or willfully misinterpreted . He was briefly picked up in Holland because he looked a bit like one of the beardy Bader Meinhoff guys on a poster. Proved who he was and was let go. Edited May 19, 2018 by welshbairn 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pandarilla Posted May 19, 2018 Share Posted May 19, 2018 There's lots wrong about Wikileaks but it's incredibly useful for quick information so long as you take it with a pinch of salt before checking sources. I thought there would have been a more rigorous arbitration process to weed out the likes of Cross/Kamm. If someone tells a blatant lie about you it's supposed be very difficult to get it removed as you aren't allowed to edit or comment on your own page. Yeah I'm still going to use it...obviously.Unless anyone has any other free encyclopaedia sites that are a bit less riddled with right wingness? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted May 19, 2018 Author Share Posted May 19, 2018 1 hour ago, pandarilla said: Yeah I'm still going to use it...obviously. Unless anyone has any other free encyclopaedia sites that are a bit less riddled with right wingness? Just PM me with any question and I will give you the facts. Actually they won’t be facts but just my opinion; however post Trump that seems to be acceptable. #alternativefacts 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.