Wikipedia and the CIA; Fake Wikipedia Biography of Patricia Cornwell
L...@journalist.com
Plant Propaganda, Delete Facts, Deceive and Attack US Citizens
Wikipedia An Ultimate Trojan Horse for CIA and US Government on the
Internet
Fake Wikipedia Biography of Bush Donor Patricia Cornwell
Absurd Wikipedia "Budget" - the Giveaway of CIA-NSA Funding?
Staffers of the Wikipedia online "encyclopedia" - now one of the most
dominant media websites in the entire world - show signs of being
CIA-type operatives, directly engaged in US-funded propaganda
operations against US citizens.
This has significance far beyond the particular instance here of false
statements and propaganda, that have been maintained on Wikipedia in
order to cover for a wealthy donor to the President George Bush family,
and to try to sabotage American legal reform and a critic of the US
empire.
What we are facing, is that Wikipedia may already be the ultimate
Trojan horse of US government intelligence operations. Via this one
overwhelmingly dominant website, the thousands of nameless agents at
CIA and NSA headquarters, can now deceive and defraud millions of US
citizens and much of the rest of the world as well. These agents can
smear and attack those who challenge the government; they can easily
launch lies and propaganda on this powerful web forum that can falsify
anything and undermine almost anyone.
To give you a quick proof of how fake Wikipedia is, let's consider the
case of major Bush donor and weird right-wing celebrity author Patricia
Cornwell. Cornwell is an old pal of the Bushes since the early 1980s.
Take a look on the web for the well-documented "Patricia Cornwell
Biography: Crime, Bribery, Scandal and Mental Illness". Here you find a
pretty juicy set of legal cases and scandals collected from court
documents and print media like Esquire and Vanity Fair. Then take a
look at the totally fake biography of Bush's friend Cornwell on
Wikipedia - Here, most of the facts of Cornwell's fascinating life are
not even mentioned, and a good chunk of the Wikipedia entry makes a
slanderous attack on the author who wrote Cornwell's real biography
above. At the time of this writing, the Wikipedia attack on the
biographer uses a fake "internet source" for a phony story about a
court case, not telling you that this deceptive Wikipedia "source
article" is from Cornwell's own publisher who is a party in the legal
case being described.
The CIA and intelligence guys are very interested in Bush's friend
Cornwell, and not because they like her books (which one federal judge
once colorfully described as "a load of crap"). The CIA guys want to
hide the truth about Cornwell, and to smear any critics, because the
things Cornwell has done with US judges, are a scandal with the
potential to rock the US government to its foundations. The Cornwell
entry has become a good example of how Wikipedia has become a US
government propaganda mechanism.
Despite all the lies and fraud on Wikipedia, this bogus online
"encyclopedia" is today the most dominant reference source in the
English speaking world. It is far more influential than many people
realize or imagine, thanks to the power of the internet.
Wikipedia is based in Florida, where President Bush's brother Jeb has
been Governor, and where the Bushes managed that nice little game in
2000 that led to America's judges making G. W. Bush the President even
though the other guy won the election. The rise and growth of Wikipedia
is simultaneous with the current Bush regime.
Here's another quick way to give you an idea what is going on. Think of
some country you know very little about. Punch up the name on an
internet search engine. Two things will tend to pop up quite high on
the list: "Wikipedia" and the "CIA Fact Book". Hmm. Are you starting to
feel the connections here?
By its own boasting, Wikipedia is one of the most consulted websites on
the planet. But the content of Wikipedia - and any lies or fraud or
propaganda in that content - are multiplied many times over, because
Wikipedia in turn becomes the source for millions of other web viewings
under many other names, under all a number of Wikipedia license
agreements or other kinds of borrowing. Places like answers.com ape the
Wikipedia content. The CIA loves it - all that free slander and
propaganda, multiplied over and over.
In this particular case, someone who acts like a CIA-backed operative
is one "W. Guy Finley", who operates on Wikipedia as one of the central
"Wikipedia advocates" - the people who are supposed to help you, when
someone else is publishing false things about you. They are the sort of
"Wikipedia lawyers" in that strange little world, and they turn out to
be as nasty, devious and worthless as lawyers in the US usually are,
and just like real lawyers, the "Wikipedia advocates" kiss up to the
rich and the powerful.
The fake Wikipedia "democracy"
Much like the United States itself, Wikipedia pretends to be a
"democracy". They proudly trumpet: "Anyone can edit Wikipedia!" And
something like that happens, but it is an illusion. You can likely
right now jump onto the computer, go to the Patricia Cornwell page, and
put in a few real facts about the life of Bush's friend Patricia
Cornwell, and delete some of the lies put there by Cornwell's staff or
the CIA guys.
But then - you know what happens a little later? Cornwell's staff
members (she has over 125 million dollars, she can afford them) or the
CIA guys, quickly delete your material and put things back the way they
were, unless you said something really ass-kissy that they like and
want to keep.
Much like America itself, the fake "Wikipedia" democracy, turns out to
be rule by the rich and the strong and the devious. Some of it is sheer
manpower - Other things being equal, Wikipedia articles tend to be
controlled by those who have the time and staff to maintain the pages
the way they want.
And no one has more staff available, than the several US intelligence
agencies, with their multi-billion dollar propaganda budget, who can
afford to have thousands of employees at secret, anonymous locations,
trolling Wikipedia to keep things up the way the government wants.
How are conflicts handled on Wikipedia, when several people keep
editing a page, when it's you in conflict with the CIA guys? It's a
complex question of procedure combined with bullying. Wikipedia works
like a cult. There are lots of bizarre little rules or "Wikiquette",
some of them self-contradictory. Only the remote Lords of Wikipedia are
really masters of the system, and this is all to benefit the rich and
powerful.
There are various conflict-resolution procedures, and there are sets
and hierarchies of Wikipedia "administrators" and "volunteers" who
often hide behind screen names. It is an extremely hidden process, and
they make it very difficult to contact the leaders, or to find out how
the place works or what is going on. People involved are a mixture,
partly of some naive volunteers and eager beavers, who don't realize
they're part of a very sleazy government operation, and a likely quite
large coterie of operatives at intelligence agencies like the CIA and
NSA, who may be the truly powerful "Wikipedia volunteers".
Does this mean that most of Wikipedia is written by the government, or
supervised by it? No, not at all. A lot of Wikipedia, most of it in
fact, the CIA guys don't care about. For articles about pottery in 7th
century France, or ancient geology in the time of the dinosaurs, the
Lords of Wikipedia are perfectly happy to let college professors,
hobbyists or just plain average people put up material and bicker about
it. The vast majority of Wikipedia content falls into this category.
Indeed, it was part of the genius of Wikipedia that they could enroll
millions of people in helping to create this CIA-backed vehicle. It is
much more powerful and legitimate-seeming, if people get used to
looking things up on Wikipedia, if they go there to read helpful things
about Beethoven or Tibetan rugs. The somewhat legitimate content, makes
it much easier to sell the propaganda placed there in specific
CIA-backed cases, like with Bush's friend and donor Patricia Cornwell.
Wikipedia's power also derives from the short attention span and
laziness of the average person. To get an impression of something or
someone, people jump on the internet and google or search. Then, for
their quick initial view of a person or topic, they often jump onto
Wikipedia. If Wikipedia smears someone, that person is pretty well
smeared, factual or not, and people usually will not investigate any
further.
Wikipedia gives way to a feigned moderation in cases of accepted public
"controversy", like with articles about President Ronald Reagan or
President Bill Clinton. Such famous people have "differing views" about
them in the major media, and lots of people try to add material. So the
Lords of Wikipedia move the page to a sort of "neutral compromise" of
"well established" material. It's not that you get the real truth, of
course. What you get is a neutral mish-mash of facts as allowed by the
major corporate media. Not too bad perhaps, but often not very
illuminating, either.
If criminals are being publicly charged and indicted, if the corporate
media has made a big story over the indicted executives of Enron, or
some lobbyist facing federal charges, Wikipedia will always tend to go
along with the big corporate media. But that's not where the deep
trouble with Wikipedia lies.
One problem of course is that Wikipedia will tend to ban and suppress
some key information, on the grounds that it is controversial and not
"neutral". The Lords of Wikipedia are "neutral" when they want to be,
at other times they are glad to engage in libel and slander and fraud,
and then they call that "neutral" too.
A real grave danger of Wikipedia - and very obvious evil of it - comes
out with regard to the "U" class of political criminals in America.
These are government or corporate criminals who have political
connections, but are so far Un-indicted, Un-investigated and Un-known
to be criminals, thanks to a cover up by America's mainstream media.
Bush's friend the author Patricia Cornwell, is exactly this kind of
class "U" criminal. People know her name, they know she sells lots
books, but most of the public knows very little about her, despite the
fact that her crimes and scandals and sleazy behavior are nearly all in
the public record. Cornwell funds the US politicians and she is good
friends with US government agents, and the reward for her gifts is that
the media won't report on what happens with her. The big media are in
collusion, and the small media are afraid they will get nailed by
bribed US judges.
So the media don't talk about how Cornwell and her lesbian lover Irene
Shulgin were frolicking at Kennebunkport with the current President
Bush, and how Cornwell gave the Bush family a $1 million gift then,
handing the money to the President's mother, Barbara Bush (the wife of
the previous President Bush). The media know that story, they have a
witness, but they don't tell. That's because the government wants to
deceive all those starry-eyed Christian voters, who might not have
thought so well of Bush or Cornwell, thinking about that lesbian
romping and the money flowing, all on the Bush family estate.
Contrary to what you might guess about celebrities, the media will
indeed hide many things about celebrities who have good political
connections. If the government is not prosecuting them, and they are
truly politically connected, the media will join a cover-up of
celebrity crime.
As is well understood now, in the US and is much of the world, the
public view of reality is shaped by a small handful of media
corporations, whose ownership is intermixed with the other large
multi-national corporations who control much of the world economy. The
control is very effective. Most of the stories you would want to hear,
do not make it onto CNN. You need to dig, and dig deep, on the
internet, to really know what is happening in the world.
And that goes triple for any crimes connected to the US judges and
courts and lawyers. No subject is more taboo in the US than the crooked
US legal system: how so many innocent people get sentenced to prison or
have their rights taken away, how people everywhere in America are
robbed and betrayed by judges and lawyers and the system. It is all
taboo, very taboo indeed.
The cover-up of America's phony legal system, is one of the most
central Big Lies about the US. That cover-up is a priority for US
intelligence agencies, hence the CIA interest in covering up for Bush's
friend Cornwell.
It goes far beyond the desire merely to cover-up for Bush, though there
is plenty of that impulse in the CIA and intelligence agencies, where
the Bushes have held sway ever since George H. W. Bush was CIA Director
several decades ago.
The intelligence agencies know that to maintain the world image of
America as a "democracy", it is important that the world, and the US
citizens who haven't yet been victims, never know the truth about the
crooked and bribed US judges. The CIA wants to help make sure that
people don't think about the big corporations controlling the courts,
and how America's gulag of 2 million prisoners is actually the biggest
slave labor program since Joe Stalin and Adolf Hitler.
And to cover up for the legal system, they need to cover up for Bush's
friend Patricia Cornwell. As part of the 2000 election campaign for
Bush, Cornwell bought a fake court proceeding with a US federal judge
to ban a writer's freedom of speech. This "show trial" was so fake it
is almost hilarious, with the proof of federal crime lying around in
broad daylight.
The federal judge bought by Cornwell was appointed by Cornwell's friend
the first President Bush. The judge then picked his own friends to pose
as the lawyers of the victim, and as part of the fake trial they
invented a fake "Freedom Works Foundation", a so-called "first
amendment civil rights charity foundation" that did not exist at all.
The judge and his friends put this Cornwell-funded fraud in writing, in
court documents and on the internet.
With this fake trial, they banned a writer's freedom of speech,
thinking they would make him silent about Cornwell and Bush and about
the fake trial. Now, however, they realize they should have killed the
writer instead.
Today, the writer is safe in Europe, a political refugee from the US
government, writing articles like the one you are reading right now,
exposing the fraud of the US legal system.
Patricia Cornwell is a few inches away from getting indicted for these
crimes involving US courts and judges, but the US corporate media will
not say a word unless the government moves first. And the government
won't move unless the media moves.
And it's the job of the CIA and Wikipedia, to help try and make sure
the public doesn't know about Cornwell and her crimes. The CIA and
Wikipedia would like to smear and slander the writer who was Cornwell's
target victim, to try to stop people from reading his words, to try and
prevent him from becoming better known as a critic of the corrupt US
empire.
The plight of Wikipedia victims
When you get victimized on Wikipedia as a political target by
well-connected crooks, you quickly find out how hard it is to do
anything or contact anybody on Wikipedia, how difficult it is to get
any redress. Your complaints are often just ignored, as they get passed
around to the CIA-type-guys who really control Wikipedia.
And unlike the genteel controversies on Wikipedia, where they have a
dispute between two college professors who are writing about baroque
music, you find they quickly get nasty and venomous and slanderous
about you if you are a political target. The Wikipedia goons do their
best to create an image of you as someone who is self-interested, a
rule-breaker, a destructive vandal, someone not using good
"Wikiquette".
Meanwhile, the crooks and goons and CIA guys on Wikipedia all pat each
other on the back and congratulate each other, as fellow Wikipedia
people in good standing.
You can change the false material they have written about you, but the
Wikipedia goons just change it back, and quickly start charging you
with "vandalizing" Wikipedia.
There's all sorts of tricks they use to make it hard for you to make
any complaint. There's a Wikipedia "rule" against threatening people
with legal action. So they allow wealthy criminals to slander you and
tell lies about you, but if you talk about their legal liability -
Whoa! They start to jump in and condemn you, for violating the
Wikipedia rule of mentioning the law.
They even make it hard for you to figure out where to complain. There's
one spot that tells you, if you've been a victim of libel, contact the
"help desk" - but there's no link there to the help desk, or any clear
way to find it.
When you go to places you think you might make a complaint, you
suddenly find there is a rule posted about how this is the wrong kind
of place, you shouldn't post complaints here - but still no indication
of where to go.
On Wikipedia, when you do make complaints, they basically end up
getting reviewed by the same people who are putting up the false
material about you in the first place. Just like in the American legal
system, where complaints about judges get smothered by the judges
themselves.
You find that the people on Wikipedia, reflect the power realities and
corruption of American society generally. The Wikipedia "volunteers",
whether they are CIA guys, or regular idiots who are part of the cult
of Wikipedia, all kiss up to the power structure, which they can easily
see by (1) whether you are contacting them yourself, or whether a
powerful lawyer is doing so for you; and (2) what else they can find
out about you by googling your name.
If you are well-connected, rich, powerful, Wikipedia will instantly
adjust things for you. If they feel they can ignore and abuse you, even
the little dumb Wikipedia volunteers tend to follow the lead of the
mighty unseen Lords of Wikipedia, and they will ignore you and sneer
with contempt at you.
Wikipedia also offers the "Wikipedia advocates" who are supposed to
"represent" you, but these can be guys like W. Guy Finley of
'Dynascope' - which even sounds like a CIA front. Finley acts like an
employee of a CIA-backed intelligence agency contractor, there to
deflect and ignore what you have to say. With regard to complaints
about the libel and slander against Cornwell's biographer on the
Patricia Cornwell page, Finley's response was the laughable suggestion
that the victim try and contact film maker Michael Moore to get the
Cornwell scandal exposed first.
The Wikipedia guy's message was clear - if the big corporate media will
get involved, then Wikipedia will play along. Otherwise, Wikipedia will
continue with false information and slandering, the way the CIA would
play it.
In the Patricia Cornwell page attacking Cornwell's biographer, they
linked to an "online reference source" for the Cornwell slandering, a
false and deceptive article by a Pace University law professor, Rosario
or also Roy John Girasa, writing under contract for Pearson - Penguin,
Cornwell's own publisher, which has been named in filings with US
judges as a partner in Cornwell's crimes and in the very legal matter
Girasa was describing.
Needless to say, the Wikipedia slandering did not disclose the conflict
of interest in citing a Cornwell source that was both Cornwell's
publisher, and also a named party along with Cornwell in the same case.
Wikipedia - a bogus organization and budget
One of the most powerful and dominant media organizations in the world
today, the stated budget and organizational description of Wikipedia
that you find, is laughably preposterous. Really quite absurd.
Like much of America's CIA-backed operations since the 1970s, Wikipedia
does its work under the friendly face of a "non-profit foundation". As
you browse the online Wikipedia documents about itself, you realize how
bizarre and unlikely is the picture they are painting for you.
Here is this enormous media organization, with over a million separate
web pages, being accessed constantly and at immense volume around the
world, and printing huge amounts of controversial material which raise
continual legal questions, and having an enormous management apparatus
in place.
But then you see the numbers. Just two full-time employees, it says in
a description of a center node of the Wikipedia empire. Two? Yup,
that's all. There's an annual budget of about one - just one - million
dollars. And much of that for equipment, it says.
What they present for a legal budget, would not even pay for one lawyer
to read the e-mails about all the legal issues that arise out of
Wikipedia.
There is a tiny board of directors, looking as if a collection of
friendly hippie-type personalities. The rest are all "volunteers".
Yeah, right. "Volunteers" by the thousands, joining in a very complex
management scheme, and somehow this whole giant worldwide propaganda
machine is running, a machine which somehow never seems to have many
expenses except for a few fancy pieces of computer gear.
It seems as if the CIA really over-did it with this particular fake
front of Wikipedia "budget" and "organization". The storefront is too
tiny to really be connected with the elephantine operation behind it.
Another way that you can see that Wikipedia has government backing, is
that with its officially tiny funding and almost no claimed legal
budget, it really would have been shut down a long time ago for legal
expenses. It's very clear that Wikipedia is a government-backed
operation to the highest degree, or otherwise the judges and lawyers
would not be keeping away from it.
In fact Wikipedia is one of those organizations that deserves to be
sued and shut down immediately, it's such a monstrous fraud and
deception today, such an invitation to government mind control in the
future. Who knows the number of people whom it has already slandered
and harmed amid those 1-million-plus CIA-backed Wikipedia web pages.
And it's all right there in Florida where the Bushes can keep an eye on
it.
Contacting Wikipedia
It's very, very hard to contact Wikipedia, or even to figure out who to
contact or how to contact them. The CIA likes things that way. Attempts
were made to try to talk to Wikipedia for this article, but of course
the Wikipedia people didn't really want to chat about these things -
that's not how CIA guys like to play it.
Here's some contact info for Wikipedia. To start with, an actual phone
number! But press inquiries only, they say. Even when you're doing
journalism about them, though, they may not reply to you, unless you
are big corporate media on good terms with US politicians.
Wikipedia press phone number, 'Danny', no last name: +1 727 231 0101
Wikipedia "founder": "Jimbo Wales": jwa...@wikia.com
Wikipedia "advocate": "W. Guy Finley": wgfi...@dynascope.com
Other Wikipedia e-mail addresses that will also likely ignore you
unless you are powerful and have good political or media connections:
Wikipedia libel help desk: helpd...@wikimedia.org
Wikimedia support team: info...@wikimedia.org
Wikipedia information team: inf...@wikimedia.org
purplepain78
not perfect and there is LOTS of fake stuff on there.
Ok....now, take a little yellow pill and have some nap time.
(BTW, I don't like some of Patricia Cornwell's politics, but I LOVE her
writing, her books are my "airplane" books...very fast paced and very
enjoyable.)
Lily
<Take a deep breath...now listen to me. Wikipedia isn't fail safe! It's
not perfect and there is LOTS of fake stuff on there.
Ok....now, take a little yellow pill and have some nap time.
(BTW, I don't like some of Patricia Cornwell's politics, but I LOVE her
writing, her books are my "airplane" books...very fast paced and very
enjoyable.)>>
He's ba-aack.
This has to be the guy who ranted about Cornwell, and his lawsuit, and
the crooked courts, and the deprivation of his freedom of speech in
looooong posts for over two years. He used to sign them--I can't
remember his name though.
He's got one thing about Wikipedia right, though--there are a lot of
errors in its entries, and no one to correct them--let alone even read
all of them. And anyone can write an article for them.
This is not a source I'd use when I needed to be sure the data I was
collecting were reliable.
Lily