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

My Edward S. Herman biography project

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Hi:

I’ll be winding down the Wikipedia posts, at least until I write that essay about Ed and the Left.  

I once read somebody state that the only fair way to evaluate any political-economic system is by the people it produced.  There is truth to that, but it goes further than that.  That system’s effect on the world deserves to be weighed on that scale, whether it is environmental destruction or its imperial behavior.  Any system has to be evaluated based on its final product, which includes the impact of how it was produced.  Elite clothing produced by slaves or virtual slaves must be held accountable for the total effect of the enterprise.  King Tut’s sumptuous grave mask was purchased with the lives of thousands of slaves.  Similar activities take place today.  

When Krishna joined the fray on the attacks and erasure of my work at Wikipedia, he wrote about the spirit of the law versus its letter, which is a noble sentiment and germane to what happened.  Wikipedia claims to be focused on the process, which ensures quality content, but at some point, one needs to step back and consider the end result, and the process is anything but evenhanded.  The Wikipedia project has to be held accountable for its final product, although it can say that it is always a work in process.  The events of my brief encounters at Wikipedia include:

  • I have written at length about George Washington’s greatest achievement – writing the blueprint for stealing a continent, in history’s greatest swindle –  and how that little fact is absent from his biographies, and somebody mentioned that omission at Wikipedia more than a decade ago, yet the hagiography stands to this day.  Just this month, others have been trying to correct the record at Wikipedia, but they don’t have a prayer, IMO.  Washington’s activities helped inspire Hitler, which is another little fact that is going to escape the hagiographic treatment at Wikipedia.
  • A decade ago, I made additions to a massacre list that was extremely biased in favor of Europeans and Americans.  Within days, all of my additions, which were the first scholarly additions to that list, were removed, by the editors as well as by the admins.  In the logic of the editors and admins, the murder of two white invaders by the invaded was more “notable” than 40,000 natives slaughtered by the first great conquest by Spain in the Western Hemisphere.  That magnitude of disparity in treatment ranks with the “genocide” bias that Ed noted in the Western media.
  • That same year, I noted the omission of any allegations of crimes against humanity in a German scientist’s biography, while his son managed his father’s bio, which stands as hagiography today.  In recent weeks, I dug back into this issue and plan to write an essay on Operation Paperclip, the German scientists, and war crimes.  That scientist might well have not committed any war crimes himself, but the issue is very clouded, thanks to American and German whitewashing.  Wikipedia’s renditions of the situations are a farce.  The USA very actively covered for war criminals, whitewashing their backgrounds and protecting them from prosecution, because they were useful to the USA’s Cold War efforts.  There is not a hint of that at the Paperclip article at Wikipedia, as the whitewash got a whitewash.  In the USA, that German scientist was the sidekick of two war criminals.  People can make the argument that Werner von Braun wasn’t a war criminal, and that would be quite a debate to have, which I have been involved with before, but his rocketry efforts in World War II were directly responsible for the deaths of more than 20,000 concentration camp inmates.  However, for his other colleague, his mentor, Hubertus Strughold, there is no doubt that Strughold was involved in death camp human experiments.  And like the whitewashing Paperclip article, one of Strughold’s close colleagues was undoubtedly involved in human experiments at Dachau, which killed many prisoners, he has a whitewash article, too, and Strughold actively covered up his friend’s medical experiments, in the same book where his sidekick’s first paper appeared.
  • This month, I finished an effort, which took more than a year of my “spare” time, to create Ed Herman’s biography at Wikipedia, to only see it summarily erased by a rude admin within hours.  While death camp Nazis and the “Father of our Country” get whitewashes, Ed’s bio at Wikipedia today stands as an exercise in disinformation, calling him a “genocide denier,” among other fictions, which is quite a charge to make against a Jew.  The most active editor of Ed’s bio is a notorious “person” who is likely a team of people, whose editorial slant is so severe as to be libelous, and that team may well work for the intelligence community.  That “editor” has been openly defended by Wikipedia’s co-founder.  

Those situations highlight the political nature of Wikipedia’s articles.  The bias is so extreme that Wikipedia itself resembles a disinformation effort, which unfortunately conforms to Ed and Noam’s propaganda model, even though Wikipedia is non-profit.  

To add icing to the cake, that editor erased most of my contributions to Brian O’s Wikipedia biography, while calling my edits a “f**king mess,” and that admin erased all references to Brian’s free energy work, which consumed the last 20 years of his life.  Ironically, today is the seventh anniversary of Brian’s death (not the July 28th death at his NASA bio, which has become his “official” data of death).  The erasures of my work, which even Wikipedia admits is an extreme measure, were performed on the flimsiest of pretexts. The accusations were that I had a conflict of interest with Ed and Brian, that I made copyright violations, and that I had plagiarized myself.  The copyright “violations” were virtually all for quotes that I also put at Ed’s Wikiquote page (that page is entirely my work today), and I don’t understand the logic of quotations being at one part of the Wiki-family is fine, but putting them in a Wikipedia bio is a copyright violation.  I have long given away the rights to my writings, doing it on my home page, so I was guilty of plagiarizing my public-domain self, which is the strangest case of “plagiarism” that I have heard of.  My so-called conflicts of interest, particularly with Ed, were orders of magnitude smaller than those of that German scientist’s son, who manages his father’s bio like a hawk, turning that bio into outright hagiography, and that conflict of interest passes in silence.  

So, in summary, death camp Nazis get softball treatment, as does the “Father of our Country,” while one of the greatest scholars of conscience in American history (and arguably world history) has a libelous bio.  I don’t care what the so-called rules of Wikipedia are.  I have borne the brunt of the selective enforcement of them, which are so great as to result in many Wikipedia articles being exercises in disinformation.  In the end, the final result is what matters, so, at this time, Wikipedia is a miserable failure on key issues.  I will likely still refer to Wikipedia in my big essay, but with an even stronger caveat, and I may no longer suggest donating to them, which I have done in the past.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi:

I am taking a little break from Gary’s tale this morning.  I have read several books on Operation Paperclip and how the USA hired death camp Nazis.  I have read too much about the Nazis.  :) Two books that I recently read were Linda Hunt’s classic treatment and Annie Jacobsen’s, which was better than I thought it would be.  I am always wary about books blurbed by The Wall Street Journal:)

I first wrote about Paperclip a generation ago, regarding how the Gehlen Org was hired lock, stock, and barrel by the CIA, which nearly led to World War III.  Gehlen was paid $1 million per year by the USA in his heyday, which was far better than he did under Hitler.  The USA has long had a habit of taking the worst aspects of enemy regimes and then using them for the same and even worse activities, such as at Abu Ghraib.  What became Camp King was a Nazi interrogation center for captured Allied soldiers.  After the war, Gehlen ran it, and torturing prisoners to death under American management was just a day at the office there.  Of course, the Wikipedia article is a heavily sanitized account that does not even mention those activities.  Where death camp Nazis are concerned, Wikipedia is hagiographic at times, and always covers the topic lightly, if at all, such as in its Paperclip article.  What Wikipedia has almost completely failed to do was deal with the American incentive to bring in death camp Nazis because of their usefulness for the Cold War, which those Nazis were instrumental in inflaming.  

While war crimes investigators were lining up death camp Nazis, who performed medical experiments in the death camps, for Nuremberg trials, the Paperclip side of the house was doing all that it could to undermine those very prosecutions, and even when convicted, death camp Nazis soon had their sentences commuted and were even brought into the USA and put to work.  The most useful ones were never even prosecuted, such as Hubertus Strughold, who lied his ass off but was shielded by his American handlers.  He was able to help get his buddy Siegfried Ruff acquitted.  Ruff supervised the experiments at Dachau, in which hundreds of prisoners died.  The USA then hired Ruff, and his article at Wikipedia is hagiographic.  At least one death camp Nazi had the situation mentioned, in that he was saved from the gallows by the USA because they found him useful, but that is about it for those people.  

I also found myself rereading other books in my library, such as Undue Risk and In the Name of Science, and what richly came across was that Nazi medical ethics were quite compatible with American medical ethics, and human experiments on unwitting, deceived, and involuntary subjects became an American pastime, particularly after hiring all of those Nazis.  It is debatable how much Nazi ethics influenced American ethics, but there is no doubt that the Nazis who came to the USA began performing the same experiments that they used on death camp prisoners on American soldiers and others.  The soldiers were only semi-voluntary, many had their health ruined and even died, and mass experiments on the unwitting American population were common.  

What also has come across very strongly during my studies over the past 30 years is that what has come to public awareness is only the tip of the iceberg.  The most damning documents are still classified or were destroyed long ago, and the Nazis were very aware of the nature of their crimes, as their documents were full of euphemisms such as “special handling” and “final solution.”  The medical experiments on humans wrote about the subjects as “pigs,” and a “large pig” meant a Catholic priest.  After the Nazi disaster at Stalingrad, thinking Germans could see how the war would turn out, and they began covering up their crimes, with destroyed evidence and documents, going back to early 1943.  What has come to light are only the tattered remnants, and the human experiments at Strughold’s facility only came to light recently, almost by accident, as some documents escaped destruction.

And those are not just tales of a bygone era.  Fluoride is added to my water supply to this day, which the Nazis used to dumb down their prisoners.  In the USA, it is used on the general population, with attendant propaganda that would make Goebbels blush.  In fact, the fluoridation propaganda campaign was designed by none other than the father of public relations, whose work Goebbels admired and used.  

Not that writing Gary’s story and my relationship to him is very fun, either, but I think that I am through with this stint of reading about death camp Nazis that the USA hired.  When I write that essay on Uncle Ed and me, I will mention the Nazi situation, in which death camp Nazis get hagiography at Wikipedia, while Ed’s article is libelous, and my contributions were erased under the flimsiest of pretexts, so that the public could not even see what I wrote.  So far, those vastly disparate treatments reflect Ed and Noam’s propaganda model.  In a way, Wikipedia is performing as expected, as an establishment mouthpiece, as death camp Nazis get hagiography and saints such as Ed get libeled.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hi Paul:

One of my favorite sayings is that none of us are as stupid as what we can collectively achieve.  :) All the time, in my life, I look around me and say to myself, “And we call it civilization.”  Humans are social creatures, and our sociality has always been an adaptive response to our economic situation, which has always been based on our energy surplus.  This goes back to the beginnings of social animals.  That is why thinking that we can create some new sociality and go make free energy happen is nonsensical, but naïve newcomers invariably advocate it.  That is why all mass movement attempts have failed.  Sociality is self-serving, at its root, and self-serving attempts are effortlessly defeated, and usually defeat themselves.  The new sociality will be a result, not a cause, of free energy.  My effort has nothing to do with sociality, but with combined positive intention.  

To Krishna’s latest, I’ll put on my list of things to do how to get from disbelief to belief to knowledge.  You can’t get there by books, surfing the Internet, in the lecture hall, or even hanging out with me.  You have to get out of your easy chair and seek experience, which is the only teacher.  My fellow travelers and I only got to where we went by experience.  Fortunately, I have not had to survive murder attempts, like Dennis, Brian, and Greer did.  The choir needs to come to at least a place of belief, if they can’t get to knowledge.  This is all part of the conundrum.  

To briefly revisit the Uncle Ed situation, the editors at Wikipedia are not only dishonest, but staggeringly incompetent.  When the propaganda model section was added to Ed’s bio, the edit named only four filters but properly said there were five.  The propaganda model article shows the five, but Ed’s bio left out flak and the enforcers.  Instead of adding flak, the most recent editor decided to change the number to four filters.  Incredible.  My efforts at the Wiki family have not been a total bust.  It looks like they are not going to erase my contributions to the CRV article, including, for the first time at Wikipedia, Noam and Ed’s framework of classifying bloodbaths, and I at least got to expose the fraudulence of the most active editor of Ed’s article, whom Wikipedia’s neo-con co-founder has openly defended, which explains plenty about Wikipedia.  With all of the libel directed Ed’s way at Wikipedia, I most wanted to at least have his voice heard, and I have been able to do that at his Wikiquote page, which is all my work so far.  That will likely have to do, until a professional biographer takes on Ed’s life, as I expect somebody to do with Brian one day, especially if free energy happens.  

Best,

Wade

Edited by Wade Frazier

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  

×