An article in the New Yorker, promoting the “Russian interference” conspiracy theory, referred to the first week of December 2016 as the time “when Obama was intent on an orderly transfer of power.” The real meaning of this phrase is that Obama has failed to orderly transfer power to the elected administration – for the first time in more than 200 years! On December 9, two day after Trump selected “climate denier” Scott Pruitt as the future EPA head, the Washington Post published a putative leak, falsely alleging that “Intelligence agencies have identified individuals with connections to the Russian government who provided WikiLeaks with thousands of hacked emails from the Democratic National Committee and others” and other lies. It also falsely claimed “that’s the consensus view” of the Intelligence Community. On the same day, Obama ordered a “full review” of the alleged Russian hacking, to be led by James Clapper, and delivered before January the 20th. But the “full review” has been completed much faster, on January the 5th. Miraculously, it took only one day to prepare an unclassified version of it! Of course, miracles don’t happen. Brennan and Clapper made a forgery, and released it in the morning of January the 6th before certification of the Presidential election by Congress! Continue reading Summary of the Brennan-Clapper Hoax
Wikipedia isn’t just a Crippled “Encyclopedia”: It’s Corrupt
2018-12-28 update: On the Thanksgiving Day, the Wikipedia page for Donald Trump was intermittently showing a penis in place of the President’s photo. Apple Siri displayed this picture when asked about the age of Donald Trump. Contrary to the MSM reports, that was neither a bug nor vandalism. This is how Wikipedia works. Leftist Wikipedia editors were permitted to switch the pictures. Apple, Google, and Facebook use Wikipedia as the main source of knowledge out of financial, economic, and anti-competitive motives. Wikipedia is choke full of such “mistakes.”
Pretty much everything people think they know about Wikipedia they heard from Wikipedia itself. Wikipedia has become a cesspool of information that cannot be trusted as facts. Amazingly, Wikipedia functions as a combination of tyranny, chaos, and opacity. Anybody can write anything in it (chaos) as long as what’s written is in harmony with the far-left politics of its San Francisco management (tyranny). But even in totalitarian countries the citizens know their rulers. The portraits of Stalin and Mao hung in every public place of the countries they ruled. This isn’t so in Wikipedia. The highest Wikipedia hierarchs (Stewards and ArbCom members) are totally anonymous and hidden behind usernames like Ks0stm. Wikipedia belongs to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Wikimedia Foundation’s Board currently consists of eight members (1). At least one of them (María Sefidari Huici, Spain) was appointed in open violation of the publicly posted bylaws. The only publicly known person on the board is Jimmy Wales, the founder. Other respected directors resigned or were pushed out years ago. Only two among the seven board members are American citizens. According to Wikipedia, it holds elections of its functionaries and power brokers but the election process is under control of a few (or even one) persons. These kingmakers are also anonymous. Most of the popularity and income (in small donations) is derived by Wikipedia’s relations with Google, which gives Wikipedia abnormally high prominence in its organic search results. However, the widely held opinion that Wikipedia is reliable on non-controversial subjects is wrong because Wikipedia regularly presents leftist opinions as non-controversial facts, making it hard to detect that a subject is in fact controversial.
Read about Wikipedia in Conservapedia.
Originally published on October 29, 2017. Minor updates on April 13, 2018 and July 7, 2019.
Jeffrey Carr, the “Russian Hacking” Skeptic
2019-09-25: The linked posts by Jeffrey Carr are gone. He probably deleted them under pressure. Their copies are available on archive.org.
Jeffrey Carr is a cyber-security expert, and one of few open skeptics of the narrative that the leaked DNC and/or DCCC internal documents came from hacking by Russia. Few remarkable quotes from his posts, mostly from 2016-2017.
Can Facts Slow The DNC Breach Runaway Train?
“Here’s my nightmare. Every time a claim of attribution is made — right or wrong — it becomes part of a permanent record; an un-verifiable provenance that is built upon by the next security researcher or startup who wants to grab a headline, and by the one after him, and the one after her. The most sensational of those claims are almost assured of international media attention, and if they align with U.S. policy interests, they rapidly move from unverified theory to fact.
Because each headline is informed by a report, and because indicators of compromise and other technical details are shared between vendors worldwide, any State or non-State actor in the world will soon have the ability to imitate an APT group with State attribution, launch an attack against another State, and generate sufficient harmful effects to trigger an international incident. All because some commercial cybersecurity companies are compelled to chase headlines with sensational claims of attribution that cannot be verified.”
Why aren’t there more skeptics in InfoSec?
“There’s a cost to being too critical. One infosec company threatened to sue a researcher if he didn’t make substantive changes to a published paper that was critical of their report. Many employers don’t allow their employees to express controversial opinions that could hurt the company’s business or reputation. And if the company or organization that you’re critical of has influential connections in Washington D.C., your professional reputation may suffer as well.” Continue reading Jeffrey Carr, the “Russian Hacking” Skeptic
Twitter Shadowbanning
Partial (i.e., especially hard to detect) shadowbanning of individuals dissenting from the Democrat narrative or disillusioned with the Democratic party for various and unrelated reasons is rampant on Twitter. Examples from early September 4, 2018:
Adam Carter, a cyber-security researcher opposing the dominant conspiracy theory of Russian hacking of the DNC:
Google AdWords: Fentanyl and Car Bombs are OK, Rifles are Bad
Google AdWords doesn’t allow bidding on certain words and phrase, except if an exception is requested and granted. Guess which word was disallowed among the following:
Fentanyl, improvised explosive device, IED, car bomb, jihad, rifle, RPG-7?
Rifle was disallowed, even in the phrase national rifle association! All other keywords above were allowed and approved.
See the screenshots in Google-Adwords-rifle-vs-fentany.pdf
Maria Butina is an Innocent Victim of the Rigged Witch Hunt
Maria Butina is totally innocent.
There was no Russian interference in the 2016 election (see the Summary of the Russian Interference Hoax and the DNC leaks related materials on my website) except for RT propaganda aiding Democrats.
Butina has been prosecuted by Obama holdovers and accused of spying without any evidence, only because she met Trump once or twice and shares the views of the National Rifle Association (NRA). She has been in prison since July, and pleaded guilty under duress. Continue reading Maria Butina is an Innocent Victim of the Rigged Witch Hunt
Democrats Claim Suppression of Conservatives is Google’s Right
The funniest part of the Google CEO Sundar Pichai testimony before the House Judiciary Committee was when Representative Lieu (D-CA) said that Google and other for-profit corporations have First Amendment rights—after Democrats were denying, protesting, and suppressing such rights for decades and had a derangement syndrome over Citizens United. Soon, they might figure out that bakers refusing to make cakes for a “gay marriage” ritual have First Amendments rights too.
Google does have First Amendment rights and exercise them on its corporate blogs, by speaking to the media, placing ads on the sites of third parties and its own site, and in many other ways. But Google Search, YouTube, and most other resources are services, not speech. They are not different from auto repair or accounting. This is how Google has been marketing them, and this is how users understand them. Continue reading Democrats Claim Suppression of Conservatives is Google’s Right
Google Google Pants on Fire
The following screenshots are examples of anti-conservative bias in the Google search engine:
The screenshot of Alexa info shows that Google sends to Vox 37% of its outside traffic, but only 12% to Breitbart. In the absence of intentional anti-conservative bias, both numbers would likely be close. Continue reading Google Google Pants on Fire