New high brow Conservative wiki

[Dinaric Leather]

Finally, a wiki for paleoconservatives and European nationalists:

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

[fallot]

Thank you for the link. It seems to be vastly superior to Conservapedia. My contention with wiki projects like these is generally that they tend to represent a rather specific worldview. There is a plurality of outlook amongst even European reactionaries. For example there is plenty of expounding on Jewish-Masonic conspiracies etc. which some may consider to be mostly fabrication. Nevertheless this is mostly a personal nitpick and I suppose I should not be expecting too much. I havent encountered anything else like it after all.

[NHA]

From the front page:

Did you know that...

…words like Nazi, anti-semite and conspiracy theory were all created by Jews as a means of thought control?
…National Socialist Germany conducted the first successful nuclear weapons test?
…Swedish journalist Donald Bostrom wrote an exposé on Jewish human organ harvesting?

Mind control and organ thievery! Sound about right for a political wiki.

[Dinaric Leather]

From the front page:

Did you know that...

…words like Nazi, anti-semite and conspiracy theory were all created by Jews as a means of thought control?
…National Socialist Germany conducted the first successful nuclear weapons test?
…Swedish journalist Donald Bostrom wrote an exposé on Jewish human organ harvesting?

Mind control and organ thievery! Sound about right for a political wiki.

I agree that there are some kinks that need to be worked out, the wiki is still new. The biggest problem is the paranoia, as you've noted.

[Cargést]

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Not_Guilty_at_Nuremberg:_The_German_Defense_Case

This is worth a read; I've never found a more detailed critique of the Nuremberg debacle.  The conduct of the allied forces was absolutely shocking towards the end of the war.

[Heresiarch]

Thank you for the link. It seems to be vastly superior to Conservapedia.

Conservapedia is a joke. It has three types of contributors:

- Trolls
- Trolls trolling other trolls
- The site's owner, Andy Schlafly.

My contention with wiki projects like these is generally that they tend to represent a rather specific worldview.

Indeed. These ideologically-oriented wiki projects always turn into a circle jerk, with patting-on-the-back and masturbatory grunts. Wikis like this are for people who have already decided their worldview and just want affirmation. Not even Wikipedia is immune to this - the liberal-egalitarian slant is so obvious that I only use the site for looking up non-ideological hard facts.

(Although, you might argue that true objectivity isn't possible for us humans.)

[fallot]

Yeah that is exactly the issue. Unfortunately, Wikipedia having a slant means that these websites do turn out to be useful after all, just in smaller ways than could be possible with absolute honesty.

[prozak]

Last year, he published “You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto,” a provocative critique of digital technologies, including Wikipedia (which he called a triumph of “intellectual mob rule”) and social-networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, which he has described as dehumanizing and designed to encourage shallow interactions.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/07/11/110711fa_fact_kahn#ixzz2L0OP84jL

[Time Curator 23]

No Wiki or information center/source of any sort will ever be unbiased. And you know what? It's okay.

Less than 10% of humans are of the enlightened caliber of mind as to be able to simultaneously entertain multiple worldviews from disparate sources whilst integrating them into whatever cohesive whole or conclusions may come.

We don't need fair and balanced. We need sane and logical. The top 9% don't need unbiased information sources, because they can easily weed out the quality and unbiased information bits from even the most low quality, biased sources.

All that matters in this Disinformation Age is that intelligent persons get information out there for those top 9% to read in a clear, concise manner, so that they can be on the same page, and take power.

[prozak]

We don't need fair and balanced. We need sane and logical. The top 9% don't need unbiased information sources, because they can easily weed out the quality and unbiased information bits from even the most low quality, biased sources.

All that matters in this Disinformation Age is that intelligent persons get information out there for those top 9% to read in a clear, concise manner, so that they can be on the same page, and take power.

This is true, but also not true. It's good thinking about why "unbiased journalism" isn't important.

However, there's two glitches:

(1) If the masses flood the airwaves with stuff like Wikipedia, the 9% are never going to get through to any minority voices;

(2) Wikipedia and other Crowdist outlets encourage hiveminding by showing "official" support for herd positions and ideas.

[crow]

Always remembering, of course, that unless you, yourself, actually experienced it, first-hand, then whatever it is must be held to be suspect.
As Larry Niven so entertainingly said, through the mouth of Gingerofer, an alien living on Ringworld:
"I do not know the truth of this..."

[fallot]

Sounds a little solipsistic. If you mean it like a necessity for some of the modern era rather than a general approach then I concur.

[Tralfamadorian]

I noticed an error on the Reptilian Humanoid page. Could someone who is more adept at writing than I am please amend it to say that science has confirmed that Jews are reptilians who control the world via mind control from their secret base beneath Antarctica?