Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Wade Frazier

My Edward S. Herman biography project

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi:

Here is an early draft of my rewrite of my summary of Noam and Ed’s After the Cataclysm.  It will receive plenty more work before I get it into the shape I want, but here is a peek.

After the Cataclysm

In Chomsky and Herman’s After the Cataclysm, their emphasis was on how the American media system focused on events in Indochina after the American withdrawal, and how it helped reconstruct the USA’s imperial ideology.  The bludgeoning of Southeast Asia, which caused several million deaths, had to be framed as a noble cause gone awry, instead of an imperial undertaking.  In that regard, the USA’s media engaged in the task of transforming the USA from perpetrator to a concerned observer with clean hands that could righteously moralize about the failings of its victims, as it falsely portrayed them as the victims of others, as if the USA had no responsibility for how events unfolded in postwar Indochina, even as it actively prevented aid from reaching its victims.

In After the Cataclysm, Chomsky and Herman made their stance explicit, writing in the book’s first paragraph:


“We will consider the facts about postwar Indochina insofar as they can be ascertained, but a major emphasis will be on the ways in which these facts have been interpreted, filtered, distorted or modified by the ideological institutions in the West.”


Chomsky and Herman wrote about how American pundits immediately began framing the American invasion of Indochina as a mistake, not a crime, and how the media endlessly repeated the myth that the USA’s intention was to protect the freedom of South Vietnam’s peasants.  Chomsky and Herman quoted the New York Times’s leading “dovish” pundit on the Vietnam War, the Pulitzer-Prize-winning Anthony Lewis, who wrote:


“The early American decisions on Indochina can be regarded as blundering efforts to do good.  But by 1969 it was clear to most of the world – and most Americans – that the intervention had been a disastrous mistake.”


That became the standard theme of American apologists.  The USA was not attacking Vietnam, but defending it, in its “blundering efforts to do good.”  Chomsky and Herman wrote that reframing crimes as “mistakes” and “errors” had rich precedence; they quoted Klaus Barbie, also known as the Butcher of Lyon, during his comfortable retirement in Bolivia, after rendering his services to the Third Reich:


“the mass killings of Jews constituted a grave error.  Many of the SS officers believed that the Jews could have been put to better use building roads to facilitate the advance of our troops.”  


Chomsky and Herman wrote that as Herman Goering was being interrogated at Nuremberg after the Nazis were defeated, he said that genocide of the Jews was not a crime, but a:


“vast political blunder; many would have made good nationalists and joined in the Liquidation of the communists.  If only Hitler had not confused the issues….”


Chomsky and Herman surveyed the USA after its Revolutionary War, and France after World War II.  In postwar France, around 30,000 to 50,000 French citizens were summarily executed, often by mobs, generally for the alleged crime of Nazi collaboration, and such murders happened while France was under the authority of Dwight Eisenhower, with Winston Churchill’s approval, as Eisenhower implemented Franklin Roosevelt’s directive.  In the American Revolutionary War, the relative affluence of Americans muted the barbarities that typically plague postwar situations, but Chomsky and Herman noted that about 100,000 loyal British subjects were driven from the colonies by the revolutionaries, and that massacres were common between loyalists and rebels.  About 20% of the colonial population, about a half million in all, were loyalists to the British crown.  Chomsky and Herman used those postwar examples, both of which had minimal suffering compared to what the Vietnamese people endured, in order to calibrate what the postwar experience in Vietnam could have been like.  

Contrary to Nixon’s warnings of a communist bloodbath in postwar Vietnam, one did not happen.  In their chapter on postwar Vietnam, Chomsky and Herman wrote about how the American media portrayed the events in Vietnam in the harshest possible light.  The testimonies of many credible Western witnesses, who noted many positive developments in Vietnam’s recovery from the American invasion, were disregarded in favor of the testimony of a French priest, André Gelinas, who served in Vietnam and made extremely fanciful and lurid claims, such as that the Vietnamese people wished that the USA would drop atomic weapons on them, to end the scourge of communism once and for all.  Virtually none of Gelinas’s claims could be independently verified, and when they could be subjected to verification, the findings demonstrated that Gelinas was far from a credible witness.  A great deal of credible Western testimony, such as from Quakers, Mennonites, relief workers, and UN officials, was entirely disregarded by the American media in favor of Gelinas’s fabrications, which were prominently published in the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among other media venues.  

Chomsky and Herman made it clear that few nations on Earth really helped much with reconstructing Indochina after it was destroyed by the USA.  When help was given, it was invariably done over the objections of the USA, as it tried to prevent Indochina from receiving any assistance as it recovered, in a historic example of vindictiveness.  Most of Indochina’s draft animals were killed in the wars, farmers were pulling plows in the aftermath of the American invasion, and when India sent 100 water buffaloes to Vietnam to help replenish its decimated herds, India had to route its donation through the Indian Red Cross, to avoid American retribution, as the USA outlawed any nation’s aid from going to communist-ruled Vietnam or Cuba.

Chomsky and Herman summarized how the American ideological system operates, which became a prominent theme in their work:


“The beauty of the democratic system of thought control, as contrasted with their clumsy totalitarian counterparts, is that they operate by subtly establishing on a voluntary basis – aided by the forces of nationalism and media control by substantial interests – presuppositions that set the limits of debate, rather than by imposing beliefs with a bludgeon.  Then let the debate rage; the more lively and vigorous it is, the better the propaganda system is served, since the presuppositions (U.S. benevolence, lack of rational imperial goals, defensive posture, etc.) are more firmly established.  Those who do not accept the fundamental principles of state propaganda are simply excluded from the debate (or if noticed, dismissed as ‘emotional,’ ‘irresponsible,’ etc.).”


Thousands of Indochinese farmers and others were killed by exploding ordnance that did not initially explode when the USA dropped it on Indochina, as well as leftover American mines.  Laotian Vice-Foreign Minister Khamphay Boupha met with the American official in charge of postwar Indochinese relations, Frederick Brown, and Khamphay concluded his summation of the meeting with:


“The US has dropped 3 million tons of bombs – one ton per head – forced 700,000 people to abandon their fields; thousands of people were killed and maimed, and the unexploded ordnance continues to take its toll.  Surely the US does not show humanitarian concern by refusing to heal the wounds of war.”  


Khamphay noted that Brown not only dismissed the idea of any forthcoming aid, but that the USA “forced Thailand to close the border.”

Chomsky and Herman wrote at length on the failings of Christian Science Monitor, as it parroted the propaganda about postwar Indochina as uncritically as the rest of the media, while it portrayed itself as a publication of high-minded thought on foreign affairs.  

The largest chapter in After the Cataclysm was on postwar Cambodia.  That chapter became the basis for a major international campaign to falsely portray Chomsky, and to a lesser extent, Herman, as apologists for the Khmer Rouge and defenders or deniers of the resultant genocide in Cambodia.  

Chomsky and Herman repeated throughout After the Cataclysm that their concern was the media’s treatment of postwar Cambodia, for example:


“As in the other cases discussed, our primary concern here is not to establish the facts with regard to postwar Indochina, but rather to investigate their refraction through the prism of Western ideology, a very different task.”


Chomsky and Herman wrote that Time magazine, in preparation for an article on Cambodia (“Cambodia: An Experiment in Genocide”, July 31, 1978) had approached Chomsky to elicit his support for the Khmer Rouge regime.  Chomsky replied to Time with a partial list of fabrications about the Cambodian situation that Time and other American publications were responsible for.  Time’s article did not name any “political theorists” who defended “the Cambodian tragedy” and Khmer Rouge atrocities because, as Chomsky and Herman noted, Time could not find any.

Chomsky and Herman wrote about Cambodia:


“It is a common error, as we have pointed out several times, to interpret opposition to U.S. intervention and aggression as support for the programs of its victims, a useful device for state propagandists but one that often has no basis in fact.”


Chomsky and Herman wrote:


“Another common device is to thunder that the doves ‘had better explain’ why there has been a bloodbath, or ‘concede’ that their ‘support for the Communists’ – the standard term for opposition to U.S. subversion and aggression – was wrong; it is the critics who must, it is claimed, shoulder the responsibility for the consequences of U.S. intervention, not those who organized and supported it or concealed the facts concerning it for many years, and still do.

“It is, surely, not in doubt that it was U.S. intervention that inflamed a simmering civil struggle and brought the horrors of modern warfare to relatively peaceful Cambodia, at the same time arousing violent hatreds and a thirst for revenge in the demolished villages where the Khmer Rouge were recruited by the bombardment of the U.S. and its local clients.  Matters have reached such a point that a social democratic journal can organize a symposium on the quite astounding question of whether opposition to the U.S. war on Indochina should be reassessed, given the consequences in Cambodia.”  


Chomsky and Herman replied to that logic with:

“Evidently, the question can be raised only if one accepts two assumptions:


  1. the U.S. intervention in Indochina would have prevented a Cambodian bloodbath or was designed for this purpose;
  2. the United States has the right to use force and violence to prevent potential crimes – and thus, a fortiori, to resort to force to prevent actual crimes by invading Indonesia, much of Latin America, etc.

It is difficult to decide which of the two assumptions that are jointly required for the question even to be raised is the more absurd.”


In their chapter on postwar Cambodia, Herman and Chomsky repeated their theme from The Washington Connection, on the discrepancy regarding the media’s treatment of Cambodia and East Timor, such as:


“A few months after Khieu Samphan’s now famous ‘admission’ that his regime was responsible for the deaths of about one-sixth of the population of Cambodia, Indonesian Prime Minister Adam Malik admitted that 50-80,000 people, close to the same percentage of the population, had been killed in East Timor in the course of what the Indonesia propaganda ministry and the New York Times called the ‘civil war’ – that is, the U.S. backed Indonesian invasion and massacre – though one would not have discovered that fact from the U.S. media.  While Khieu Samphan’s ‘admission’ was concocted by the media and scholarship on the basis of remarks that quite possibly were never made, Malik’s admission, by contrast, was clear and explicit.  A comparison of media reaction to the actual admission by Malik and the concocted ‘admission’ by Samphan gives some insight into what lies behind the machinations of the Free Press.”


Chomsky and Herman wrote at length about the tragedy of Cambodia and what caused it.  Contrary to the “gentle land” description of pre-war Cambodia found in the media, Cambodia had long been torn by strife, particularly by France’s brutal imperial reign.  

Chomsky and Herman wrote on subjects completely neglected by the American media regarding Cambodia, such as the idea that Nixon and Kissinger’s escalation of bombing in 1973 not only created the conditions that brought the Khmer Rouge to power, but it was an intentional outcome; the authors considered Michael Vickery’s explanation to be persuasive:


“Vickery points out that the Kissinger-Nixon policy during the last two years of the war was a ‘major mystery,’ for which he suggests an explanation that appears to us quite plausible.  Referring to the ‘Sonnenfeldt Doctrine,’ which holds that ‘pluralistic and libertarian Communist regimes will breed leftist ferment in the West,’ he suggests that ‘when it became clear [to U.S. leaders] that they could not win in Cambodia, they preferred to do everything possible to ensure that the post-war revolutionary government be extremely brutal, doctrinaire, and frightening to its neighbors, rather than a moderate socialism to which the Thai, for example, might look with envy.’  In short, though it was understood that the United States had lost the war in Cambodia (even though it was, quite clearly, still trying to win it in Vietnam), the destruction of rural Cambodia, by imposing the harshest possible conditions on the eventual victors, would serve two classic ends: retarding social and economic progress, and maximizing the brutality of the eventual victors.  Then the aggressors would at least be able to reap a propaganda victory from the misery they had sown.”


Chomsky and Herman wrote that before the 1973 bombing (the same year that Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize), the Khmer Rouge were far more moderate in their ideology.  The authors quoted leading Cambodian scholar David Chandler, an American, who wrote:


“What drove Cambodians to kill?  Paying off old scores or imaginary ones played a part, but to a large extent, I think, American actions are to blame.  From 1969 to 1973, after all, we dropped more than 500,000 tons of bombs on the Cambodian countryside.  Nearly half of this tonnage fell in 1973…In those few months, we may have driven thousands of people out of their minds.  We certainly accelerated the course of the revolution.  According to several accounts, the leadership hardened its ideology and got rid of wavering factions during 1973 and 1974.”


Another neglected idea in the American media about Cambodia also applied to Vietnam, in that Indochina was comprised of peasant societies that had societal dynamics markedly different from industrial ones.  Agrarian civilizations produced limited agricultural surpluses that could only support a small non-food-producing population, generally comprised of urban professionals and the elite, who coercively taxed the agrarian hinterlands to support the cities.  Cambodia’s and Vietnam’s cities had long been the headquarters for France’s colonial undertaking, and the USA’s epic bombing of Indochina was partly inflicted to drive the peasantry off of their lands and into cities and “strategic hamlets,” to destroy the popular base of support for communism.  Without the huge influx of food to the cities of those war-torn nations, delivered by the USA, the artificial economies of Saigon and Phnom Penh would not have survived, and the urban dwellers would have soon starved to death.  The evacuations of Saigon and Phnom Pen to the countryside were largely a return of rural peasants who had been forced into the cities, in order to stave off starvation, especially when the USA avidly prevented any foreign aid from reaching those nations.  

In addition, the longstanding conflict between rural and urban society in Indochina was greatly intensified by the American invasion, and Chomsky and Herman wrote that the brutal aftermath in Cambodia seemed to be largely due to peasant vengeance on urban dwellers that comprised the colonial elite under French and American rule.  The authors wrote that those historical dynamics contributed to the atrocities and brutal rule of the peasant-based Khmer Rouge.  Chomsky and Herman also noted that the early reports of atrocities in postwar Cambodia came from parts of the nation where the Khmer Rouge’s influence was relative muted, as the traumatized peasants engaged in prodigious score-settling, particularly against the wealthy and city-dwellers.

Chomsky and Herman wrote that the primary account that Americans were familiar with regarding Phnom Penh’s evacuation was an article by John Barron and Anthony Paul in Reader’s Digest, which depicted horrific suffering inflicted on the evacuated city dwellers by the Khmer Rouge.  Chomsky and Herman performed a detailed analysis of the Barron-Paul account of postwar Cambodia and concluded that it fell far short of a work of scholarly integrity.

Shane Tarr, a New Zealander journalist, and his Cambodian wife participated in Phnom Penh’s evacuation, and their account bore little resemblance to the Barron-Paul account, particularly regarding atrocities, which they never witnessed.  Their account was never given any Western media treatment, other than being sarcastically dismissed, and their account was far from alone in being ignored by the Western media, as it did not conform to the media’s preferred version.

Near the end of After the Cataclysm, Chomsky and Herman wrote:


“When the facts are in, it may well turn out that the more extreme condemnations were in fact correct.  But even if that turns out to be the case, it will in no way alter the conclusions we have reached on the central question addressed here: how the available facts were selected, modified, or sometimes invented to create a certain image offered to the general population.  The answer to this question seems clear, and it is unaffected by whatever may be discovered about Cambodia in the future.”


Chomsky and Herman could not have been clearer that their task was to focus on how the American media handled events such as the slaughters in Indonesia, East Timor, and Cambodia, not to support the regimes that might have slaughtered fewer people than their neighbors did, as if the lesser of two evils was somehow good.

In their final comments in After the Cataclysm, Chomsky and Herman wrote:


“Our primary concern has been U.S. global policy and propaganda, and the filtering and distorting effect of Western ideology, not the problems of reconstruction and modernization in societies that have been victimized by Western imperialism.  Correspondingly, we have not developed or expressed our views here on the nature of the Indochinese regimes.  To assess the contemporary situation in Indochina and the programs of the current ruling groups is a worthwhile endeavor, but it has not been our current objective. […] The success of the Free Press in reconstructing imperial ideology since the U.S. withdrawal has been spectacular.  The shift of the United States from causal agent to bystander – and even to leader of the struggle for human rights – in the face of its empire of client fascism and long, vicious assault on the peasant societies of Indochina, is a remarkable achievement.  The system of brainwashing under freedom, with mass media voluntary self-censorship in accord with the larger interests of the state, has worked brilliantly.”


In their subsequent Manufacturing Consent, Herman and Chomsky summarized the decade of the Cambodian catastrophe and the American media’s treatment of it:


“Phase I: From 1969 through 1975, U.S. bombing at a historically unprecedented level and a civil war sustained by the United States left the country in utter ruins.  Though Congress legislated an end to the bombing in August 1973, U.S. participation in the ongoing slaughter continued until the Khmer Rouge victory in April 1975 […] The vast numbers of Cambodians killed, injured, and traumatized in that period were, in our conception […] ‘unworthy victims.’”

“Phase II: From April 1975 through 1978 Cambodia was subjected to the murderous rule of the Khmer Rouge, overthrown by the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia in December 1978 […] the Pol Pot era is the ‘holocaust’ that was widely compared to the worst atrocities of Hitler and Stalin, virtually from the outset, with massive publicity and outrage at the suffering of these ‘worthy’ victims.”

“Phase III: Vietnam installed the Heng Samrin regime in power in Cambodia, but the Democratic Kampuchea (DK) coalition, based primarily on the Khmer Rouge, maintained international recognition apart from the Soviet Bloc.  Reconstructed with the aid of China and the United States on the Thai-Cambodia border and in Thai bases, the Khmer Rouge guerillas, the only effective DK military force, continued to carry out activities in Cambodia of a sort called ‘terrorist’ when a friendly government is the target […] Phase III renewed the status of the people of Cambodia as worthy victims, suffering under Vietnamese rule.”


Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

I have been busy lately working on Ed’s bio for my site.  I’ll publish the revised bio about the same time that I publish my Wikipedia article on The Political Economy of Human Rights and my rewrite of Ed’s abysmal Wikipedia bio, which is what Ed asked me to work on, which began this entire project.  The imperial hacks will be up in arms with my Ed bio, and we will see how those battles go.  But even though they might do their best to erase my work, which is not new to me at Wikipedia, they are going to have a very hard time erasing the Wikiquote page that I put up for Ed.  I have been beefing it up in recent days, and am probably about done for now.  I can see that page growing over time.  I expect that this phase of my Ed bio project will last well into the summer, and then it will be off to my long overdue big essay update.  

Best,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

I have been devoting my writing time to my Ed bio project.  I can see the light at the end of the tunnel for this phase, finishing it in the next week or two, and then I plan to take the summer off from heavy lifting.   I need a break from the last two relentless years.  Come autumn, I plan to then get on with my big essay update, which will likely take a year or so of my “spare” time, and then onto more visibility activities relating to my work.  

What a heavy lift the Ed project has been, but it has been a labor of love and an honor.  Just this weekend, I decided to beef up Ed’s latest on demonstration elections, and his contrast between the treatment of Iran and Honduras in 2009.  In a preview of what I may face at Wikipedia, the Iranian protestor who was shot has a big Wikipedia article on her, and Oxford has a scholarship in her name, while the Honduran protestor who was shot two weeks later not only has no article on him, but the account of his death at Wikipedia looks a bit like disinformation, such as an unfounded allegation that the protestors, not the military, shot him, and that the soldiers were somehow justified if they shot him, anyway.  It is Ed and Noam’s Propaganda Model in action once again.  Here is somebody who learned Ed’s lessons.  

I found another tribute from one of his co-authors, and we’ll see if I can work it in.  Those who knew Ed all felt blessed, even those whom he chastised, as they felt that he helped them make their work better.

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

My biography project for Uncle Ed just reached a milestone with my publication of:

Ed originally asked me to rework his execrable Wikipedia bio, and that is where most of my Wikipedia effort went, but the other articles needed work, too.  The infamous anti-historian Philip Cross (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) has been the most prolific “editor” of Ed’s bio so far, and I am trying to get Cross banned from editing Ed’s articles.

How the disinformation effort has been working against Ed and Noam is that what they actually wrote has been excluded from Wikipedia so far, such as the concept that they used from the very beginning of their collaborations, of benign, constructive, nefarious, and mythical bloodbaths and how the media treats them.  That was quite an achievement, to completely exclude that major theme from Wikipedia (I added it last year).  Then, with their actual writings suppressed, the attacks on their work commenced.  That is the “straw man” logical fallacy at best, and libelous at worse.  

I have had plenty of experience with the racist, imperial “editors” at Wikipedia before, but I can easily live with Brian O’s Wikipedia bio as it exists today.  I wrote an initial entry on Ed’s talk page, announcing my intentions.  

We will see how it goes.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

Well, that did not last long.  I’ll write an essay on it one day, titled something like “My Adventures at Wikipedia, The Sequel.”  More than ten years ago, a friend and I made additions to a wildly biased list at Wikipedia, to only see them all get deleted within a few days, mostly by the “editors,” but the worst offenders might have been the admins.  There was literally nothing to rationally dispute about our additions.  They were simply numbers of natives slaughtered, where, when, and the scholarly source of the numbers.  It was unassailable, especially when our effort was the first to introduce scholarly sources to the list.  Then we just stood back and watched what happened.  In the end, the logic at Wikipedia was that two white invaders being murdered by some angry Indians was a “massacre,” but slaughtering 40,000 (my number, but I have seen higher numbers estimated) residents of Tenochtitlan after the Cortes-led siege ended was somehow not a massacre.  If it was 100,000, which it may have been, would it have been a massacre?  The bias was blatantly racist.  When reporting on Ed and David Peterson’s genocide reporting ratio, in which a death in a “nefarious bloodbath” was more than 25,000 times as likely to be reported as a “genocide” in the media as a death in a “benign bloodbath,” I wrote that it might be the greatest statistical disparity to be found in the social sciences, but Wikipedia’s reporting may be more extreme.

Yesterday, I made my additions to those articles that I linked to, and then stepped back to watch what happened.  Predictably, one of Ed’s libelers called my additions “hagiography,” but according to the only honorable and reasonable person that I saw write yesterday, my version is the closest thing to a normal Wikipedia article that has yet been written about Ed.  I was expecting that the editors would start at it, and that reasonable editor immediately did.  That is how it is supposed to work at Wikipedia.  I was expecting edits, but that the framework would at least survive, because what was on Ed’s bio was basically a bunch of attacks on his exposures of the media’s treatment of “nefarious bloodbaths,” and more often than not, the critics cited in Ed’s Wikipedia bio libeled him.  I never saw even one of those critics cited on Ed’s bio make even one valid criticism.  It was all lies, misrepresentations, errors in logic, and the like.  It was just more evidence of what Noam wrote about, that Western intellectuals are so indoctrinated that they are incapable of understanding “trivial realities” when they aren’t being patently dishonest.  Noam once said that he did not mind scholarly disagreement, but that he did mind all of the lying.  

So, the reception to my edits was disparagement but also serious editing.  I would have taken that any day, but also I wondered when an editor would argue that all of my edits should be deleted.  It turned out that nobody needed to, because an admin did it for them, and quite rudely.  He made multiple threats about banning me from Wikipedia, and when he finished his diatribes, I was apparently guilty of three editorial crimes:

  • I was a fan of Ed’s who had communicated with him.  We traded somewhere around a hundred emails over about 20 years.  Apparently, that gave me a conflict of interest, making me disqualified to edit any article related to Ed.
  • I had made quotations in my edits, from other copyrighted material, which was a copyright violation.
  • I was guilty of plagiarism.  

Those were my crimes, and all of my edits were unceremoniously deleted from Wikipedia.  Not a simple reversion, mind you, but a KGB-like erasure of what I wrote, so that the public will never see it, at least on Wikipedia.  I’ll deal with my “crimes” one at a time.

On being Ed’s fan, I am guilty as charged.  So, communicating with an author disqualifies anybody at Wikipedia from making edits about said author.  I am guessing, but that crime may have been committed at Wikipedia a million times by now, so I am in good company.  But, since 99.9% of the editors at Wikipedia are anonymous cowards, there is no way to tell what their conflicts of interest might be.  Such conflicts will only be identified for people who use their real identities, and I made it easy on everybody by announcing my “conflict” as I came in the door.

On the Heinz Haber article, his son sat on that article like a hawk, erasing anything that suggested that his father was involved in medical experiments in World War II, when that idea is virtually incontrovertible.  Apparently, his son’s “evidence” was that his father never came home from work one day, announcing that he had just dissected a Jew that was killed that morning in a high-altitude experiment.  Now, there is a conflict of interest, and the Haber article to this day is outright hagiography, without a hint of his involvement in human experiments.   Today, one of the only accounts on the Internet that tells the real story is on my site, and you can see yesterday’s rude admin taking me to task over my contributions to the Haber talk page, while Haber’s son gets to edit the page about his father like a hawk.  This is the “evenhandedness” of Wikipedia in action.  Take that in for a moment.

Until yesterday, I had no idea that that “relationship” with Ed gave me an insoluble conflict of interest, which was apparently the primary reason for erasing all of my work.  I’ll guarantee you that my so-called conflict of interest is nowhere near as great as “Philip Cross’s”, who is very likely not a person, but a pseudonym for a group of individuals, and it would not surprise me to discover that they work for MI6 or the CIA in some capacity, and George Galloway, one of Cross’s favorite editorial targets, is readying a lawsuit that will presumably expose Cross’s identity.  So, my admitted “conflict of interest” disqualifies me, but Cross’s hiding behind a pseudonym, as “he” purveys disinformation, is just fine.  I went into great detail on one of “his” disinformation additions to Ed’s bio.  Every time that somebody removed it, it was restored by other editors.  So, this is far from a negligent oversight, but those editors are very actively misrepresenting Ed’s work. The bizarre part is that the passage that keeps getting added twists one of the greatest acts of censorship in the late 20th century into seeming to be a responsible and righteous act.  Calling the treatment on Ed’s bio “Orwellian” is an understatement.  Those kinds of misrepresentations and outright libel dominate Ed’s bio today, and that reasonable editor has proposed, after my erasure, to make Ed’s bio more like a normal Wikipedia article, but he is already being shot down.  I was going to refer to my last post at Wikipedia, but that was hidden from casual readers, and I reproduce it here.  

My second editorial crime was reproducing copyrighted material when I quoted somebody.  Look through any Wikipedia article, and particularly any biographical one, and you will see plenty of quoting, and Wikipedia has a “blockquote” feature just for lengthy quotations.  When I began to ready Ed’s bio for Wikipedia, I realized that there were far more quotations to make, to give Ed’s work justice, than I could put in the Wikipedia bio, and I suspected that what happened yesterday was well within the realm of possibility, so I built a bunch of quotes at Wikiquote, so that Ed’s voice would be heard at least once in the Wiki-universe, amongst all the libel against him.  

So, the logic seems to be that putting quotes at Wikiquote is fine, but putting them in a Wikipedia article is a copyright violation.  I am no attorney, and I can’t make any sense out of that logic.  I expected that some of my quotes in the Ed articles would be erased and turned into paraphrases, and I planned to add the erased quotes to Wikiquote, if they were not already there.  I do plan to add quotes to Ed’s Wikiquote page, from yesterday’s erased effort, but not immediately.  I already have added a pretty big slug of quotes (that page is all my work so far) that fills in the blanks on Ed’s writings, to show how off-base his assailants are, and that is enough for now.  I was already planning to take an Ed break, after it consumed most of my “spare” time over the past year, and especially after yesterday’s adventure in censorship.  

The last “crime” that I was accused of was plagiarism.  Whom did I plagiarize?  Myself!  It seems that if I put anything on Wikipedia that was already on my site, that is plagiarism.  Krishna informed me that it was not plagiarism, which I already knew.  I have been writing long enough to know what plagiarism means.  It is stealing somebody else’s work and presenting it as one’s own.  I have been plagiarized and impersonated on the Internet, and the crazy part about being plagiarized is that you can be accused of the plagiarism.  I don’t keep track of how often I have been plagiarized, but one event happened in 2001, when a professional Hollywood writer plagiarized my writings about Mick Cohen, and I was the person accused of plagiarism (you can see that event at the Above Top Secret forum, before they banned me – yes, I am used to this kind of treatment, where the trolls get free play while assailing me, and I get banned).  The good news is that it was easy to prove when I published my work, and the plagiarist published his work a few months after mine.  But it is kind of surreal to be plagiarized, to then be accused of being the plagiarist.

So, real plagiarism, where I copied somebody else’s work and called it mine, is actually nowhere in evidence in any of my work or what I posted at Wikipedia (you can see what I do when copyrighted material is added to my site, outside of the stray Fair Use quote, and that was quite an experience), but the person that I plagiarized was myself, of all people.  Should I be angry at being ripped-off that way?  :) Krishna began reading my work around 2001-2002, and after years of Krishna’s working on me, I finally contacted Richard Stallman, the founder of the Free Software Movement and the spiritual grandfather of Wikipedia.  Krishna’s idea, and I thought that it made sense, was that Free Software and Free Energy activists would be natural allies, and I wrote an open letter to that effect, around the time that I contacted Stallman in 2006.  Alas, after a frustrating month of trading email with Stallman (Does that disqualify me from ever editing his Wikipedia article?  It would seem so.), I gave up.  He is a classic Level 3, where so many of the “smart” end up.  That is no crime, but Stallman is not going to be any help.

I can’t remember exactly when I did it, but Krishna kept working on me, and I put my copyright release on my home page at least several years ago, meaning that anybody can use it in any way they wish, including me (  :) ), without fear of any copyright infringement.  Basically, I am a “public-domain” writer, although I ask people to at least cite me, if they use my work.  But I doubt that I would ever sue anybody who didn’t.

So, the “plagiarism” that I stand accused of is plagiarizing myself!  Because I used words from my own writings (including Brian’s NASA bio, which I wrote), and even though my writings on my site are all public domain, I was guilty of plagiarizing myself, and all of the examples that the censorious admin presented were “plagiarisms” of my public-domain self.  The admin informed me that any well-educated middle-schooler knew that, which was one of quite a few insults and threats.  I guess that I am just not smart enough to understand or was trained badly, but I just can’t seem to wrap my head around the idea that if I use my own public-domain writings at Wikipedia, that I am guilty of plagiarism.  Maybe a lawyer can explain it to me one day, but since I will never contribute to Wikipedia again, I don’t think it matters, and I will file yesterday’s series of events into my Twilight Zone file.  It was a truly bizarre day.  To add icing to the cake, that censorious editor also wiped out most of my work on Brian O’s bio (my crimes were knowing Brian and using my own writings), and now it is just a stub, with nary a mention of free energy.  What a travesty.

I have been on the receiving end of “selective enforcement” activities that make what happened yesterday pale into insignificance, and I’ll get over it soon.  I’ll one day publish the code that I wrote to put it into Wikipedia (probably 100 hours or so of effort), and anybody can use it however they wish.  My best version of Ed’s bio sits on my site today, and shows up as the third result on Bing and the second result at Google, if somebody enters “Edward S. Herman biography”, so my work is not completely banished to Siberia, but it is really a shame that Ed’s Wikipedia bio is an exercise in disinformation, but such is today’s world, and it is only more confirmation of Ed and Noam’s propaganda model.  While it would have been nice to get through Wikipedia’s censorious gauntlet, it was not to be, and I am finished with trying, although I am being encouraged to keep fighting at Wikipedia.  But it is a rigged game, in my opinion, and in the opinion of others who would know.  While Uncle Ed is near the head of my pantheon, I have bigger fish to fry these days.  What an honor to have done this work, but it has set back my big essay update by more than a year, as well as other “visibility” work relating to my effort.  It is time to move on.  Maybe somebody will make a dent in rectifying Ed’s Wikipedia bio one day, which today stands as an exercise in disinformation, but it won’t be me.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi:

I just posted out the Word files that I used to compose my additions to my articles on Ed.  They are here:

I also put out my work on Brian’s bio, at least as of 3-10-11.  

All Earthlings (Martians do not have my automatic permission, but they can nicely ask. :) ) have my permission to use those files however they wish.  It also contains Wikipedia code that is not my work, but that code is already at Wikipedia, available to anybody, so I don’t think that anybody can come after me legally for giving away this work that took probably 100 hours or so of coding effort.  This post ends my efforts at Wikipedia.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Krishna:

You get a gold star for your performance this weekend.  I greatly appreciate your effort, old buddy, and I won’t minimize what happened this weekend, but what I lived through during my adventures with Dennis made this weekend look like a picnic.  Nobody is coming to arrest me.  I am already kind of laughing about it.  We’ll see if anybody picks up the ball, and it looks like Prop9 is going to give it the college try.  It would be nice if some others came to the party, but I have my doubts.  It is usually a handful against the forces of darkness.  That is just what it is.  I don’t want you to get banned from Wikipedia, so you can back off for now.  

There is a lot that I am up against, and I don’t want to get too “conspiratorial” about what happened this weekend, but, as I wrote, I don’t see where that oh-so-rude admin has a leg to stand on regarding erasing my work, KGB-style, but I am finished with trying to get justice in a rigged court.  They can just make it up as they go.

As you probably noticed, not only is Philip Cross a disinformation professional, and is likely really a group of people with intelligence connections, but “he” did not even need to roll out of bed, as the admin and the other “editors” have “his” back.  The founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has publicly defended Cross, so it looks like Wikipedia may have already been captured by the intelligence community, so I would not expect the admin to buck what the founder openly supports.  As Ed might say, the values are internalized and are not even consciously acted on.  That admin might even believe that he just saved Wikipedia from a lawsuit over copyright violations and plagiarism, from perhaps me and Ed’s and Brian’s estates.  :)  

As you can tell, that was a “kill the messenger” moment at Wikipedia, and only one or two need to be on the payroll, if that, and then the mob does the dirty work, gratis.  I learned those lessons 30 years ago.  

I am finished with this phase of my bio project for Ed, and am putting it behind me.  I was planning to enjoy what is left of the summer up here in the spectacular Pacific Northwest, without any heavy lifting for my writing work, and I’ll be pretty busy at my day job.  It is time to move on, and I was planning to reply to your other recent posts.  Interesting material.  

Love,

Wade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×