Wednesday, October 7, 2020

Truth Visits the Wikipedia Page, Gets Thrown Out on Its Edit by WikiThugs

By Nicholas Stix
September 13, 2019
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored/VDARE

I don’t get out much these days, if I don’t have to. I have to keep my babies rolling in steaks, TP, and soap, so that necessitates some trips to the Store Formerly Known as Waldbaum’s, and to the national chain drug store which has been swallowed up by another national chain drug store. Otherwise, I have my books and movies and music and TV and the Internet, and every few days, UPS or the USPS brings new books, movies, and music.

However, Peter Brimelow asked that I voyage to a dangerous place. I call it The Pretend Encyclopedia (TPE); others call it Wikipedia.

Actually, I had gone there on my own, but I only do that a few times a year, if I can help it. I get fed up with this or that outrage by the communists running the joint, and make a modest correction, which one of them immediately “reverts.”

Their reversions always constitute vandalism, but they would call me a “vandal.” They are vandals, because they enforce lies and racism, and automatically revert (and frequently ban) anyone who seeks to tell the truth, or expose and fight racism.

On paper, the place has a million “policies and guidelines”: Be bold; AGF (Assume good faith); NPOV (Neutral point of view); PA (No personal attacks); BLP (Biographies of living persons); CIV Neutral Point of View, etc., but in practice, it has none. If you are part of the ruling, communist clique, you may violate the rules with impunity, while making false charges against those on TPE’s Enemies List. Thus does TPE increasingly resemble institutions such as the law, the press, and the antiversity in today’s world of anarcho-tyranny.

Over the past two months, I had been venturing down Pretend’s mean, virtual streets more than usual, due to the death of John Tanton (1934-2019), the greatest American of his generation.

Dr. Tanton, a small-town Michigan opthalmologist, founded America’s modern immigration reform movement, when he saw that the environment and America were bound to be destroyed by mass, Third-World immigration. Admirers called him the “Johnny Appleseed” of the immigration reform movement, due to his practice of donating seed money to found organizations (the Federation for American Immigration Reform, U.S., Inc., U.S. English, The Social Contract Press, Pro English, the Center for Immigration Studies) that then flourished on their own. Enemies were, well, less charitable. “The Puppeteer.” “White nationalist.” You get the idea.

At TPE Dr. Tanton’s page, like that of, has in recent years been turned into an attack page based on slanders from the racist, scandal-plagued, frequently debunked SPLC. However, at TPE, the SPLC, whose publications are all glorified fund-raising letters, is treated as if it were the gold standard of journalism, scholarship, and morality.

(On August 27, one of the WikiThugs, Bradv, put Dr. Tanton’s page under “protection”: “Protected ‘John Tanton’: Persistent disruptive editing” That was in response to yours truly having made three modest edits, removing its inflammatory language. Now, only trusted liars, traitors, and racists have access to edit the page.)

That page was originally written by old immigration hand Fred Elbel, the scholar and blogger who maintains CAIRCO, the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform, but it does not at all resemble the original version, and there’s nothing Fred can do about it.

You’d never know, to read TPE, that the SPLC was completely disgraced earlier this year. Then again, you wouldn’t know it, to read the New York Times, either.

“VDARE is an American website focused on opposition to immigration to the United States and is associated with white supremacy, white nationalism, and the alt-right.”

That’s TPE’s lead for its entry on (as I write). And they expect people to treat it like an encyclopedia article!

Paragraph two opens,

“The group has been described as white supremacist.” page has virtually nothing about the actual writings published at VDARE. It consists of libels published about VDARE by the racist, treason site, the SPLC. Just try filling up the SPLC’s TPE page with criticisms of its operations, even though The Social Contract (founded and, for many years, published by John Tanton) published an issue last year that is the equivalent of a 400-page book devoted to exposés of the SPLC.

Not that people (including yours truly) haven’t sought to make TPE’s page actually be about, but the Wikithugs always immediately revert any honest, decent changes. (They get pings, whenever a page they own gets edited, or whenever anyone on their Enemies List edits something.)

Once or twice a year, I would make modest corrections, e.g., removing the instances of “white supremacist,” “white nationalist,” and “anti-immigrant/immigration,” and replacing the latter with “immigration reform.”

Sometimes, less than a minute would pass, before one of the racist Reds would revert me.

The Wikithugs are so contemptuous of everything a real encyclopedia stands for that they even got basic facts wrong, and maintained their wrongness, e.g., asserting for years that Peter Brimelow worked at Fortune, rather than Forbes.

On September 5, just for the record, I undertook a more ambitious correction, even though I knew it would quickly be struck down. Its lead goes,

VDARE is an American Webzine focused on patriotic immigration reform. It was established on Christmas Eve, 1999, by Editor-Publisher Peter Brimelow….

In my explanation of my edit, I wrote, “BLP, Undue [weight], NPOV… is there a WP rule this entry didn’t break? I don’t know if this is obscene, or a parody.”

“Is Wikipedia censored?
“Wikipedia uses the minimum of censorship. Generally, only gratuitous explicit (pornographic) images are removed.”

Corrected version: Wikipedia uses a maximum of constant censorship, and is lousy with pornography, though the majority of the latter is tucked away on Wikimedia Commons.

Currently, TPE is the world’s fifth most popular Website. Students and media operatives use it to plagiarize its entries, corporate mischief-makers and their subcontractors use it to enhance their companies and harm their rivals, and it functions as a libel factory for racist organizations like the SPLC and ADL, and TPE’s Red Brigades.

I have some ideas for solutions to the problem of TPE, but can’t discuss them at VDARE, because laws.  


Thursday, July 18, 2013

Wikipedia and the Knoxville Horror: Pretend Encyclopedia Thread Nazis are So Rabid That After Six Years, They Even Censor the “Discussion” Page, to Ensure That Readers Learn as Little as Possible about Racist Atrocity!


War crime victims Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom


The five known war criminals responsible for the violation and murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom. This was the only picture of the five handy. Two additional black rapist-killers were identified by DNA in semen they had left in Channon Christian's panties, but have yet to be named. Whoever put together this photo display did no research on the case, as attested to by his repeating the Internet hoax perpetrated by neo-Nazi/FBI informant Hal Turner, according to which the victims were sexually mutilated.


[See also, by N.S.: “Wikipedia on Race: ‘World’s biggest encylopedia’ serves up propaganda” (American Renaissance exposé)]

Posted by Nicholas Stix

Two of the many thread Nazis who have for years ensured that the Knoxville Horror entry presents as little of the truth as possible, Evanh2008 and Dougweller, are now even censoring the entry’s “talk” page, which is not kosher, according to Wikipedia. Then again, the wikithugs always violate their own rules. Rules are for the little people!

The censored section follows:

If you want to learn the truth about this racial hate crime, you’re at the wrong place

For real coverage of this atrocity, go to, and type “Knoxville Horror” in the search box. Not only will you find photographs of the victims and perps [which have been repeatedly censored at Wikipedia], respectively, but you’ll find exhaustive coverage of the crime, ensuing trials and retrials, and judicial scandals, enough to fill a book or two. And you’ll be spared Wikipedia’s censorship, distortions, and outright lies. (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

* * *

[The following was not at Wikipedia.]

On the Knoxville Horror, All of It Banned at The Pretend Encyclopedia!:

“The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Cover-Up” (first national report published anywhere, for American Renaissance);

“The Knoxville Horror: The Crime and the Media Blackout” (biggest national report, also for American Renaissance);

“The Knoxville Horror: Crime, Race, the Media, and ‘Anti-Racism’” (first report for VDARE);

“De-Policing and the Knoxville Horror”;

“Conclusion of First Knoxville Horror Trial Shows Legal System Under Stress”;

“Knoxville Horror Prosecutions Spinning Out of Control?”;

“Diversity is Strength! It's also… Minority Jury Nullification”;

“One Knoxville Horror Perp Sentenced to Death—But the Time-Bomb is Ticking”;

“Vanessa Coleman Sentenced to 53 Years in Prison for Facilitating the Knoxville Horror Gang-Rape-Torture-Murders (Revised and Expanded)”; and

“The Knoxville Horror (Yet Again): George Thomas Conviction Shows Justice Expensive, Agonizing, Grudging in Multicultural America.”

John Derbyshire and Kevin Myers on the Myth That Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia


[See also, by N.S.: “Wikipedia on Race: ‘World’s biggest encylopedia’ serves up propaganda” (American Renaissance exposé)]

Posted by Nicholas Stix

Gossipedia By John Derbyshire July 27, 2009 Taki’s Magazine


That's Wikipedia for you. They can say what they like about you, employing any level of sub-literacy for the purpose, and there isn't a darn thing you can do about it, even if you are patient and computer-literate enough to master their mark-up language. I had heard this, but just hadn't believed they are really so brazen.

I had heard it from, amongst others, Irish journalist Kevin Myers, who, at the slightest prompting, will give you a passionate forty-five minute harangue on the evils of Wikipedia.

There's a Myers column on the topic here, from which:

So who are the people who founded and run Wikipedia? I don't know, and nor have I any foolproof way of finding out, because the only way of doing so is by consulting Wikipedia itself: a hole-in-bucket solution to a hole-in-my-bucket problem …And so — do these wretched Wikipedia people ever lie awake worrying at the damage that the evil or the impressionable might inflict upon those who have been maligned in their uncontrolled and filthy internet gossip-shop, whose very power derives from the complete fiction that it is an "encyclopedia"?

I doubt it extremely: for of all the lies of our time, Wikipedia is surely the greatest.

[Read the whole thing here.]

Wednesday, July 3, 2013

The George Zimmerman Trial : Wikipedia’s Thread Nazis are Working to Completely Confuse Readers About Rachel Jeantel's Testimony!

Posted by Nicholas Stix


Nowhere in the entry "Shooting of Trayvon Martin," is Rachel Jeantel named; instead her identity is hidden behind "Witness 8," in order to leave readers in the dark. Various editors have repeatedly entered her name, only to have the thread Nazis censor it. And when the entry quotes Jeantel's testimony that Martin told her he was being followed by a "crazy-ass cracker," the latter statement is in a separate, one-sentence section, "Allegations against Martin."


Witness 8

On March 20, Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump revealed that Martin had been on the phone with a friend moments before he was shot.[167][168] During an ABC News exclusive report, Crump allowed portions of his recorded interview with Martin's friend to be aired. She said that Martin told her that a man was watching him from his vehicle while talking on the phone before the man started following Martin. Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.[167][168][169] The friend said that she told Martin to run to the townhouse where he was staying with his father and the father's girlfriend.[168] She then heard Martin say, "What are you following me for?" followed by a man's voice responding, "What are you doing around here?" She said that she heard the sound of pushing before the phone went dead. She immediately attempted to call him back, but was unable to reach him.[170] Crump stated that he would turn the information over to the Justice Department because "the family does not trust the Sanford Police Department to have anything to do with the investigation."[167] Martin's friend was subsequently interviewed by state prosecutors on April 2, 2012. During her interview with the prosecutor, Martin's friend recounted her last phone call with Martin and added that Martin had described the man as "crazy and creepy," watching him from a vehicle while the man was talking on the phone.[168] Martin's friend told prosecutors that she heard words like "get off, get off," right before she lost contact with Martin.[168]

On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that witness 8 had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral.[171][172][173]

Crump had refused to disclose the identity of Witness 8, stating that she was only 16, a minor at the time of the shooting, and asked the media to respect her privacy.[174] It was subsequently revealed that she was actually 18 at the time when she said she was on the phone with Martin.[175] According to the defense, her actual age had been edited out of previously released disclosures.[176] Crump has denied intentionally giving any misleading statements about her age.[177]


Allegations against Martin

This section appears to contain unverifiable speculation and unjustified claims. Information must be verifiable and based on reliable published sources. Please remove unverified speculation from the article. (July 2013)


This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2013)

State's witness 8 testified that Martin had described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker" just prior to the shooting. [309]


[N.S.: The most recent discussion—there are 15 sections of archives—from the "talk page," in which the Trayvonistas sandbag anyone trying to craft an honest entry, follows.]



blatant POV pushing and will not be tolerated[edit]

The fact that we have sworn testimony from witness 8/jeantel specifically indicating trayvon martin used a racial slur directed toward zimmerman is more relevant to wikipedia than 99% ofthe other speculative and fantasy racism found in the rest of the "allegation" of racism sections. If you can provide some evidence how anything else is even equally relevant in that entire section be my guest. As it is, it's nothing more than blatant political POV push trying to keep out the racist comments of Trayvon. (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Witness #8, Rachel Jeantel, testified to what Martin said to her over the phone in a conversation the night of the shooting. She did not testify that it was an "alleged race issue" or that is was "allegations against Martin". To the contrary, she testified that words like "cracker" and "nigger" which Martin said, are not offensive to her. When questioned about it again on a recross exam, she testified again that people in her community refer to white people as "cracker", and use the word "nigger", and this is non-offensive normal behavior. Additionally, she stated that she didn't consider the term "cracker" to be racial and also testified that she didn't know if Martin used those words regularly. Her testimony never indicated or even implied that it was an "alleged race issue" nor did she testify that it was an "allegation against Martin".

I understand what you are trying to convey here, but you are not putting her testimony into the proper context. She is not the one who alleged the terms she said Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one that chose to pursue that line of questioning about whether the terms Martin used were racial. The defense team is the one who made the allegations against Martin, and her, for that matter. But she never wavered in her testimony that those terms were not offensive to her.

There have been many media outlets that have highlighted that portion of the defense's line of questioning, and her answer's, and offered their opinions on what it may or may not have meant.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 09:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

the fact she thinks that cracker is not racist and not offensive is not even remotely relevant. How many things do we delete on this wiki page because "george doesn't think so and so or say so and so, so we are just gonna delete it". SHE IS NOT TRAYVON MARTIN. She is also not part of "trayvon's community". You have supplied not a shred of an argument supporting non-inclusion. (talk) 12:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

No. We are not going to add inflection or assert that which cannot be proven as "fact". At most, we would need third-party sources claiming that and we would have to cite it as "opinion" and provide context at minimum. The media is dramatic and biased for these issues; Wikipedia should not parrot such accusations blindly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but your logic for creating this sub-section with a single quote from Jeantel's testimony is that Martin made a racial comment, so therefore, it is an allegation against himself? I am not disputing that she testified to what Martin called Zimmerman, but she is not the one who alleged that the term Martin used to describe Zimmerman was a racial slur, defense attorney Don West did. Like I stated above, I get what you are trying to convey, but put it in the proper context. Here's what I believe you are trying to convey and is put in the proper context:

During the trial of Zimmerman, Rachel Jeantel testifed that while on the phone with Martin on the night of the shooting, Martin described Zimmerman as a "creepy ass cracker". On cross examination of Jeantel, defense attorney Don West questioned her about the term (cracker) Martin used to describe Zimmerman, alleging that it was a racial slur. Jeantel testified that she did not believe it was a racial slur and that it was not offensive to her.'

Your edit doesn't even say who made the allegation against Martin. You've created a sub-section titled Allegations against Martin, but you fail to provide the reader with who is making the allegation. You can't just insert one line out of her testimony without putting it in the proper context. If you want to create a sub-section about Allegations against Martin, then you need to clarify exactly who is making the allegation against him, and it certainly wasn't Rachel Jeantel making that allegation, it was Don West.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Coming into this late, but all of the sworn testimony in the trial refers to racial bias on part of Martin, not on the part of Zimmerman. I think its odd that the article only has subheadings regarding Zimmerman and the police. There should at least be a bullet about Martin given whats come out in court. (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

jeantel made the allegation that trayvon called george a cracker, that's "the allegation". We don't know if martin ever said that, or if martin did say it if it was in a racist mindset. You can only tell the facts and let the reader discern what they think.04:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

When defense attorney West asked her - "You don't think that's a racial comment" - that is when the "allegation" was made (by West) that what Martin had said about Zimmerman (creepy ass cracker) was a racial comment. Jeantel didn't allege that Martin made a racial comment, West did, her answer to West' question was No. Then West repeated the question to her again and she again said no, she didn't think what Martin had said about Zimmerman was a racial comment. West also asked her - "You don't think calling someone a creepy ass cracker is offensive" - now West is making an "allegation" that what Martin had said about Zimmerman was offensive. Jeantel answered No to that question (allegation) as well.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem really lost. As already said, what she THINKS is irrelevant. She is nothing more than a hearsay witness. She is not a telepathic. Nor are you. (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Neither are you. She repeated his words. Defense did not make an allegation (although they did make some implications towards that point). Allegations are made by reliable and notable commenters. If youw ant to include this content, find reliable sources, specifically making the allegation that this was racism or racial motivation. Taking the alleged hearsay fact of what martin said and saying that it is an allegation of racism is original research. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

@ - If you believe that "what she THINKS is irrelevant", why are you arguing for inclusion of what she THINKS Martin said to her.

@Gaijin42 - Allegations can also be made by a defense attorney when they pursue a line of questioning about what a witness has testified to. West specifically asked Jeantel about racial issues, in response to her assertion that she thought it was racial because Martin had said a white man was following him. West seized upon that statement she made and then proceeded to ask her questions like: "It was racial because Trayvon put race in this?" - "You don't think that's a racial comment". Here are some sources discussing West's interaction with Jeantel.

And the defense really likes that "creepy-ass cracker" line that Martin delivered to his friend. West and his team have accused Jeantel in front of the cameras not so much of toning things down for the mother of dead 16-year-old as that Martin's slang somehow had some deeper meaning. The implication, in this transforming trial, has become that Trayvon Martin was the racist for calling George Zimmerman a "cracker,"...[5]

George Zimmerman's defense attorney insisted during several testy exchanges with an important prosecution witness Thursday that Trayvon Martin injected race into a confrontation with the neighborhood watch volunteer...[6]

Peterson suggested that line of questioning underscored racial subtleties of the case...[7]

I would argue that RS have alleged that West made "allegations against Martin" when he pursued that line of questioning. Use whatever term you wish in describing West' line of questioning - alleged, implied, asserted, contended - but there is no doubt that West interjected a racial component into his line of questioning concerning Martin.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 16:05, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Asking a question about if someone else thinks something is racial, is not the same thing as saying that they themselves think it is racial. If/when they directly make that statement (closing?) that is making an allegation. If other notable/reliable sources are making that allegation, then it could be sourceable now. Zimmerman has directly been accused of being racist/acting in a racist manner. The SPD has directly been accused of being racist and acting in a racist manner. Thus far (within the context of the additions made to this article, and sources provided for that purpose) nobody has done so towards Martin. If such sources exist, then we can discuss adding it and attributing those allegations to them. Beyond that, the number of people making those allegations against Zimmerman/SPD is huge, compared to the one person (albeit highly relevant to the case) brought up here. The allegations are not apples to apples, and I would say they aren't even apples to oranges. They are apples to elephants. The alleged racism of Zimmerman and SPD has been directly linked to motive in their actions in the night. This linking has been made by multiple sources. To the degree that this issue has been raised against Martin, it is not a direct allegation (as stated before), and further it has not been linked to his actions in the night. Such a linking is fairly obvious, and plausible to make - but us making it is Original Research. Find someone else reliable who has done that for us, and attribute the allegations to them.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I will defer to the original editor who inserted the information the task of finding reliable sources to support this being included in the article . My argument is that a single sentence cherry picked from Jeantel's testimony doesn't support an "allegation against Martin". Having said that, I do believe that if put in the proper context with reliable sources discussing this line of questioning, it is an allegation against Martin. The sources listed above all specifically mention defense attorney West and his line of questioning of Jeantel. I also believe that asking a question about if someone else thinks something is racial is an allegation against the person who said it, because the person asking the question would have to believe that it was racial in order to ask the question in the first place.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

On a personal level, i don't disagree. Im just saying it isn't sufficiently sourced to convert that inferred allegation to an acutal allegation, particularly when compared to the explicit nature of the other allegations in the section. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

What are you even talking about "sufficiently sourced". It's freakin sworn testimony. it doesn't get any more sufficiently sourced for an allegation.Whatzinaname (talk) 02:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Her sworn testimony is in fact a DENIAL of an allegation. She said it wasn't racist. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

For the umpteenth time already HER OPINION IS IRRELEVANT. It's not Trayvon's opinion. Even if trayvon would still be alive today and have said "it wasn't meant to be racist", the most you could do is say "he claims his words were not racist"etc. It's all further irrelevant by the fact the section is called "racial allegations", not racist allegation. So I can pull my lawyer notebook out and underline the fact that the section only is for "racial allegations" . not "racism allegations" cracker is clearly a racial epithet, whether racist of intent or not, hence would qualify.Whatzinaname (talk) 05:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)







Wednesday, January 18, 2012

Wikipedia’s Censors are Hard at Work, Ensuring That Readers Do Not Learn about Crimes Committed by Members of “Protected Classes” Against Members of

“Non-Protected” Classes
By Nicholas Stix
Nicholas Stix, Uncensored
December 29, 2010


Left: Clockwise from top left: Jason Befort, Heather Miller, Aaron Sandler, Bradley Heyka; right: Ann Walenta.

Convicted racist rapist-mass murderers, Jonathan and Reginald Carr.

“The following passage is a Pretend Encyclopedia-related excerpt from “‘Forget Me Not’ Wichita Horror Update: Will Justice Ever be Meted Out to the Carr Brothers? Will Their Victims’ Fates be ‘Disappeared’?,” about the crimes of brothers Jonathan and Reginald Carr. The Carrs kidnapped and murdered Jason Befort, Heather Miller, Aaron Sandler, Bradley Heyka and Ann Walenta; shot a third woman, “H.G.,” and left her for dead; kidnapped, robbed, and pistolwhipped Andrew Schreiber; committed several rapes against their female victims; and forced several of their victims to have sex with each other. The Carrs have both been sentenced to death. All of their victims were white.

* * *

And while Wikipedia, or as I call it, The Pretend Encyclopedia, has an entry on the Carr brothers' crimes, whenever an editor has posted pictures of the respective victims and perpetrators, censors have vigilantly deleted them. One censor made the following complaint on the entry's talk page:

Black Profiling on this page
the first thing you see when you come to this page is two BLACK men. this is misleading because it makes people think that ALL blacks commit massacres. pleas fix the page with a better picture that doesnt make people thing black people commit massacres.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk • contribs)

* * *

Wikipedia’s censors make a point of displaying photographs of heinous white criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Rader, and of the black victims of heinous white criminals; e.g., they have a picture of James Byrd Jr., who was dragged to death in Texas by white racists Shawn Allen Berry, Lawrence Russell Brewer, and John William King.


Kirkwood PD Sgt. William King Biggs Jr. (L) and Officer Thomas Frederick "Tom" Ballman.

Kirkwood City Councilmen Connie Karr and Michael H.T. Lynch.

Kirkwood Director of Public Works Kenneth Yost and Mayor Mike Swoboda.

The entry for the Kirkwood Massacre, in which black racist Charles “Cookie” Thornton shot seven whites, killing five instantly (one died seven months later, primarily from the effects of his wounds, though he also suffered from cancer), wounded another man, and tried to kill an eighth, has no photographs of the black murderer or his white victims. Instead, the entry has photographs of limited relevance of police cars and of firemen putting up purple memorial bunting. Thornton’s white murder victims were KPD Officer William Biggs KPD Officer Tom Ballman, Public Works Director Kenneth Yost, Councilman Michael H.T. Lynch, Councilwoman Connie Karr, and Mayor Mike Swoboda (who died seven months later). Thornton wounded reporter Todd Smith.

Racist mass-murderer Charles Thornton.

Although the Wikipedia article now has a wealth of information about Thornton and his crimes, it has been blackwashed. No mention is made of his victims’ race, or of the blacks from his community who celebrated his mass murder, or of his transparently racist motivation.

The entry also contains unfounded allegations constituting a conspiracy theory from a blog entry by a preacher that sought to rationalize Thornton’s carnage. Note that Wikipedia’s censors routinely denounce as unacceptable and delete quotations and citations from, and links to blog entries, when the blogs are by people whom they deem their political enemies.

Finally, the censors thoroughly mislead readers by listing “similar earlier case[s]” that are not at all similar, such as Dan White’s murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Councilman Harvey Milk, and the assassination of New York City Councilman James E. Davis (who, by the way, was black, and was murdered by a black man).

A perusal of the talk page will leave no doubt as to the racial character of the massacre, including myths spread all over the Internet at the time by a racist black defender of the killer.

I wrote about the Kirkwood Massacre at the time.

The entry for the racist massacre perpetrated at Hartford Distributors in Connecticut on August 3 by black shooter Omar Thornton not only contains no photographs, but does not so much as name any of the eight whites that Thornton murdered, or the man whom Thornton wounded. Much of the entry is given over to reciting the unfounded charges by the killer's family and girlfriend that he was a victim of racism, and the victims' relatives and friends rejection of that charge. Nowhere did the entry quote anyone arguing that the mass-murdering Thornton was the real racist.

Thornton murdered Victor James, William C. Ackerman, Bryan Cirigliano, Francis Fazio, Louis J. Felder, Edwin Kennison Jr., Craig Pepin, Douglas Scruton, and wounded Steve Hollander.

The entry for the Zebra Murders, the racist serial murder campaign, in which the Nation of Islam murdered anywhere from 70 to 270 whites in California alone during the early 1970s, likewise has no photographs, and leftist enforcers such as “Doug Weller” and “Ruy Lopez” have censored almost all of the information about the murders’ racial character.

Readers who want to learn about the Nation of Islam’s racist serial murder campaign (aka Zebra Murders) would do much better to read Clark Howard’s book, Zebra: The True Account of 179 Days of Terror in San Francisco (free download!), and my blog, The Zebra Project.

At present, the entry on the Knoxville Horror contains a picture of the white victims, Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, but the censors controlling the entry have immediately removed all photographs of the since convicted, racist black perpetrators, Lemaricus Davidson, Letalvis Cobbins, George Thomas, Vanessa Coleman, and their accessory after the fact, Eric Boyd. The censors have come up with such fantastic, fictional rationalizations for their refusal to permit any pictures of the assailants that they deserve an entry of their own.

My first exposé on the Knoxville Horror is available online here.

The only white crime victim I could find whose picture was shown, along with those of his killers was Matthew Shepard, but that was because Shepard was a homosexual, and his killers, Russell Arthur Henderson and Aaron James McKinney, were white heterosexuals whom homosexual activists and their heterosexual allies had portrayed as having committed a “hate crime,” in order to get unconstitutional “hate crime legislation” passed at the state and federal levels.

Conversely, while the entry for Jesse Dirkhising, the 13-year-old heterosexual boy who was gang-raped and murdered by homosexuals David Carpenter and Joshua Brown contains a picture of the victim, there are no pictures of his homosexual killers.

In the entry for the Duke Rape Hoax, Wikipedia’s racist enforcers displayed photographs of the three falsely accused white victims for one year, but have always immediately censored the photograph of the black criminal false accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum.

To learn the real story of the Duke Rape Hoax, without having to plow through an entire book, I recommend my VDARE investigative report.

To get a more comprehensive view of censorship at Wikipedia, read my American Renaissance exposé, “Wikipedia on Race.”

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Rush Limbaugh’s Media Enemies Used a Wikipedia Libel to Shoot Down His Bid to Co-Own an NFL Team

OCTOBER 16, 2009, 10:27 P.M. ET
The Race Card, Football and Me
My critics would have you believe no conservative meets NFL “standards.”
By Rush Limbaugh
October 16, 2009
The Wall Street Journal

David Checketts, an investor and owner of sports teams, approached me in late May about investing in the St. Louis Rams football franchise. As a football fan, I was intrigued. I invited him to my home where we discussed it further. Even after informing him that some people might try to make an issue of my participation, Mr. Checketts said he didn't much care. I accepted his offer.

It didn't take long before my name was selectively leaked to the media as part of the Checketts investment group. Shortly thereafter, the media elicited comments from the likes of Al Sharpton. In 1998 Mr. Sharpton was found guilty of defamation and ordered to pay $65,000 for falsely accusing a New York prosecutor of rape in the 1987 Tawana Brawley case. He also played a leading role in the 1991 Crown Heights riot (he called neighborhood Jews "diamond merchants") and 1995 Freddie's Fashion Mart riot.

Not to be outdone, Jesse Jackson, whose history includes anti-Semitic speech (in 1984 he referred to Jews as "Hymies" and to New York City as "Hymietown" in a Washington Post interview) chimed in. He found me unfit to be associated with the NFL. I was too divisive and worse. I was accused of once supporting slavery and having praised Martin Luther King Jr.'s murderer, James Earl Ray.

Next came writers in the sports world, like the Washington Post's Michael Wilbon. He wrote this gem earlier this week: "I'm not going to try and give specific examples of things Limbaugh has said over the years because I screwed up already doing that, repeating a quote attributed to Limbaugh (about slavery) which he has told me he simply did not say and does not reflect his feelings. I take him at his word. . . . "

Mr. Wilbon wasn't alone. Numerous sportswriters, CNN, MSNBC, among others, falsely attributed to me statements I had never made. Their sources, as best I can tell, were Wikipedia and each other. But the Wikipedia post was based on a fabrication printed in a book that also lacked any citation to an actual source.

I never said I supported slavery and I never praised James Earl Ray. How sick would that be? Just as sick as those who would use such outrageous slanders against me or anyone else who never even thought such things. Mr. Wilbon refuses to take responsibility for his poison pen, writing instead that he will take my word that I did not make these statements; others, like Rick Sanchez of CNN, essentially used the same sleight-of-hand.

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?

[The black players who damned Limbaugh’s “racial views” were New York Giants defensive end Mathias Kiwanuka, and Jets linebacker, Bart Scott.

It wasn’t Limbaugh’s “views” at all that outraged Kiwanuka and Scott, but rather his report on the brutal, racist school bus attack by blacks on a white boy in St. Louis.

In 2003, during a brief sports gig at ESPN, he had correctly pointed out that Donovan McNabb got kid glove treatment from the media because they wanted a black quarterback to succeed in the NFL. The channel forced him to resign. ESPN has been so obscenely pc for so long that you have to wonder if it had only hired Limbaugh, in order to humiliate him, as a PR gambit.

A little over one year later, McNabb choked in his only appearance in the Super Bowl.

In 2009, the semi-literate Bart Scott said, “It's an oxymoron [?!] that he criticized Donovan McNabb.”

Kiwanuka and Scott are such racist dirt bags that for them any white who exposes black racism or privilege, no matter how evil, must be met with the social “death penalty” of the scarlet “R.”

Mathias Kiwanuka loves his former defensive coordinator Steve Spagnuolo, but the Giants' defensive end says he will never play for Spagnuolo's Rams if Rush Limbaugh purchases the team.

Kiwanuka and the Jets' Bart Scott made it clear Thursday that they would never play for the Rams or any team owned by the controversial conservative radio host.

"All I know is from the last comment I heard, he said in (President) Obama's America, white kids are getting beat up on the bus while black kids are chanting 'right on,'" Kiwanuka told The Daily News. "I mean, I don't want anything to do with a team that he has any part of. He can do whatever he wants, it is a free country. But if it goes through, I can tell you where I am not going to play."

So, the black players have no problem with black kids beating the hell out of white kids on the school bus for traveling while white. But they want us to believe that Limbaugh is a “racist”?]

The NFL players union boss, DeMaurice Smith, jumped in. A Washington criminal defense lawyer, Democratic Party supporter and Barack Obama donor, he sent a much publicized email to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell saying that it was important for the league to reject discrimination and hatred.

When Mr. Goodell was asked about me, he suggested that my 2003 comment criticizing the media's coverage of Donovan McNabb—in which I said the media was cheerleading Mr. McNabb because they wanted a successful black quarterback—fell short of the NFL's "high standard." High standard? Half a decade later, the media would behave the same way about the presidential candidacy of Mr. Obama.

Having brought me into his group, Mr. Checketts now wanted a way out. He asked me to resign. I told him no way. I had done nothing wrong. I had not uttered the words these people were putting in my mouth. And I would not bow to their libels and pressure. He would have to drop me from the group. A few days later, he did.

As I explained on my radio show, this spectacle is bigger than I am on several levels. There is a contempt in the news business, including the sportswriter community, for conservatives that reflects the blind hatred espoused by Messrs. Sharpton and Jackson. "Racism" is too often their sledgehammer. And it is being used to try to keep citizens who don't share the left's agenda from participating in the full array of opportunities this nation otherwise affords each of us. It was on display many years ago in an effort to smear Clarence Thomas with racist stereotypes and keep him off the Supreme Court. More recently, it was employed against patriotic citizens who attended town-hall meetings and tea-party protests.

These intimidation tactics are working and spreading, and they are a cancer on our society.

Mr. Limbaugh is a nationally syndicated talk radio host.

[Posted by Nicholas Stix.]

Sunday, October 30, 2011

Wikipedia Scientific Hoax Alert: In Article on the U.S. Census, the Encyclopedia That Any Leftwing Fraud Can Edit Promotes “Race Does Not Exist” Myth

By Nicholas Stix
Revised and expanded, 6:24 a.m., on Sunday, October 30, 2011

[Previously, see: “Wikipedia on Race: ‘World’s biggest encyclopedia’ serves up propaganda.”]

The following passage comes from the entry in Wikipedia, or as I call it, The Pretend Encyclopedia, on “Race and ethnicity in the United States Census.”

==Relation between ethnicity and race in census results==

The Census Bureau warns that data on race in United States Census 2000|2000 Census are not directly comparable to those collected in previous censuses. Many US residents consider race and ethnicity to be the same concept. American Anthropological Association. " A Brief History of the OMB Directive 15." 1997. May 18, 2007.

[N.S. How many is “many”? WP/TPC’s own guidelines prohibit such squishy language, but in practice, the rules never apply to lefties. If there is confusion about the simple distinction between “ethnicity” and “race,” the confusion owes much to generations of mischief by organized, Marxist anthropology professors and their comrades in other departments and outside of academia, which the editor who inserted the approving reference to the AAA somehow failed to note.]

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="text-align:right"
!Race !!Hispanic or
Latino!!% of
H/L!!% of
US!!Not Hispanic
or Latino!!% of Not
H/L!!% of
!Any races
!One race:
!Black or
African A.
!A. Indian/
Alaska Nat.
!Hawaiian N.
& Pacific Is.
!Some other
!2+ races:
!Some other
+ W/B/N/A
!2+ W/B/N/A

In the United States Census 2000, respondents were tallied in each of the race groups they reported. Consequently, the total of each racial category exceeds the total population because some people reported more than one race.

According to James P. Allen and Eugene Turner from California State University, Northridge, by some calculations in the 2000 Census the largest part white bi-racial population is white/Native American and Alaskan Native, at 7,015,017, followed by white/black at 737,492, then white/Asian at 727,197, and finally white/Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander at 125,628.

The Census Bureau implemented a Census Quality Survey, gathering data from approximately 50,000 households in order to assess the reporting of race and Hispanic origin in the United States Census 2000 with the purpose [sic] creating a way to make comparisons between the United States Census 2000 with previous Census racial data.

In September 1997, during the process of revision of racial categories previously declared by OMB directive no. 15, the American Anthropological Association (AAA) recommended that OMB combine the "race" and "ethnicity" categories into one question to appear as "race/ethnicity" for the United States Census, 2000.

The Interagency Committee agrees, stating that "race" and "ethnicity" were not sufficiently defined and "that many respondents conceptualize 'race' and 'ethnicity' as one in the same {{sic}} [N.S. “{{sic}}” was in the Wikipedia text] underscor[ing] the need to consolidate these terms into one category, using a term that is more meaningful to the American people." [Read: “More meaningful to” Marxists and others waging race war on white Americans.]

The AAA also stated,

"The American Anthropological Association recommends the elimination of the term "race" [sic] from OMB Directive 15 during the planning for the 2010 Census. During the past 50 years, "race" has been scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon. More specific, social categories such as "ethnicity" [sic] or "ethnic group" [sic] are more salient for scientific purposes and have fewer of the negative, racist connotations for which the concept of race was developed."

"Yet the concept of race has become thoroughly—and perniciously—woven into the cultural and political fabric of the United States. [The concept of race is older than the United States.] It has become an essential element of both individual identity and government policy. Because so much harm has been based on "racial" [sic] distinctions over the years, correctives for such harm must also acknowledge the impact of "racial" [sic] consciousness among the U.S. populace, regardless of the fact that "race" [sic] has no scientific justification in human biology. Eventually, however, these classifications must be transcended and replaced by more non-racist and accurate ways of representing the diversity of the U.S. population." [N.S.: My use of “sic” in the previous two paragraphs is due to Wikipedia’s improper use of double quotes both to open and close quoted paragraphs, and for words within the paragraphs, which should receive single quotation marks.]

The recommendations of the AAA were not adopted by the Census Bureau for the United States Census 2000 or the United States Census 2010.

Race has never been “scientifically proven to not be a real, natural phenomenon.” Apparently, professors of anthropology understand under “scientifically proven,” endlessly repeating what they know to be a lie, and destroying the career of anyone who refuses to play along.

The myth that the races are identical in their abilities was spread by Franz Boas (1858-1942), a German Jewish immigrant, whose true faith was socialism. The reason Boas invented the myth was purely political, and anti-scientific. As Zygmund Dobbs showed in The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences (1964), Boas was a fanatical socialist who had no training in anthropology, as opposed to physics and geography, and who undertook a deliberate political campaign to hijack anthropology, and turn it into a propagandistic tool of stealthy, organized socialism. Boas was hugely successful.

He and his comrades took over one anthropology department after another.

The anti-scientific origins of the ultimate “race does not exist” hoax were in Boas’ plan to impose socialism on America. He knew, as everyone did, that there were different races, which were distinguished by their respective inherited characteristics. However, the facts were inconvenient to Boas’ goal of imposing an ideology and state form that asserted that all men were the same and had identical abilities.

As he wrote, early on,

The anthropologist recognizes that the Negro and the white represent the two most divergent types of mankind,


It is true that the average size of the Negro brain is slightly smaller than the average size of the brain of the white race.
[Zygmund Dobbs, The Great Deceit: Social Pseudo-Sciences, 175.]

Boas and his devotees such as Ruth Benedict and Margaret Mead routed the empirical, scientific study of physical racial differences, and replaced it with “cultural environment theory”: All nurture, no nature. He also committed scientific fraud, in writing a “study” falsely claiming that the skulls of immigrants’ children grew larger, due to the environment in America.

Just as college departments of anthropology were reduced to socialist fronts providing propagandistic pseudo-science by Boas and his devotees (e.g., Margaret Mead and Coming of Age in Samoa, Ruth Benedict and Patterns of Culture, Boas’ works, etc.), Boas also helped socialist fronts outside of academia.

He was long involved with one such non-academic front, the NAACP. He sought to use this radical organization, in order to promote race mixing, blend the two races into one, and thereby eliminate the white and black races (in America, at any rate). To this end, he also spread lies touting great black African advances in antiquity.

As Dobbs wrote,

Boas busied himself with giving a professorial tone to the NAACP movement. The nation began to be bombarded by a barrage of so-called scientific opinion on the racial question. The major theme projected was that there are no fundamental differences among races. There was constant repetition that all mankind was cast from the same mold. Only some mysterious compound called the culture complex was said to create differences. For example, Boas would team up with Mary White Ovington in a book which emphasized that the only major differences between the white and Negro races are those of cultural environment. A whole bevy of transitory socialist fronts were created….

In the course of a few decades the well-organized Boas leftist anthropological phalanx had managed to cripple physical anthropology as a scientific discipline. This was done by degrees. The early works of Boas began with a mixture of the cultural approach with anthropometrical and biological data about the different races. Little by little, the physical aspects of anthropology were pushed into the background through ridicule [sound familiar?] and politically inspired charges. By the time Hitler rose to power, the socialists throughout the world, and the Boas group particularly, began to apply epithets of “racism” and “genocide” to those who endeavored to carry on scientific studies of the various races and sub-races of humankind. They were greatly helped by Hitler’s use of the racial theme to excuse his inhumanities.

The Nazi pre-occupation with the theory of Aryan “superiority” to justify their massacres of millions of innocent civilians was cited in literature, speeches, university lectures and newspapers, as the reason for damning all physical investigations into racial differences. [See the Left’s ongoing war on the Pioneer Fund and all whose research it has funded, including some of the world’s foremost scholars of intelligence, e.g., Richard Lynn, J. Philippe Rushton, and Linda Gottfredson.] By imperceptible degrees the Boas leftist school, which was made up of both socialist and communist partisans, began to create the impression that the Aryan “superiority” theory was a Fascistic abomination and invention.

[Dobbs, 175f.]

Dobbs the shows that it was the Left, above all Marx’ collaborator, friend, and benefactor, Friedrich Engels, that had embraced and promoted the Aryan myth generations before Hitler did.

Boas’ fraudulent assertion that the races were equal in abilities was designed to become self-fulfilling through socialist agitation and social policy. Today’s phony “anthropologists” and other leftist pseudo-scholars (e.g., the late Stephen Jay Gould) are consciously continuing Boas’ work, and have extended his fraudulent claim that the races are identical in abilities to the even more obviously fraudulent claim that there are no different races, and that race exists merely as a “social construct.” And yet, they demand in all areas of human activity that one non-existent race be privileged, and other non-existent races be harmed.

The leftists who control WP/TPC are likewise continuing such pernicious propaganda, with the goal of wiping out the white race. Note that they do not even feign impartiality by at least citing dissenting, more scientific voices, let alone permitting anyone to expose Boas’ deceit, which they covered up.

[I thank Joel Lefevre for providing me with the brilliant, fearless Dobbs’ research.]