Cognitive Dissonance – a hidden danger to us all

All I’m thinking about is clearing a space to make room for change.’

Edward nodded. ‘Which is needed, but I believe that it’s also important to have a goal in mind. One never changes things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, we have to build a new model that makes the existing one obsolete. The map to a new world is in our imagination.’

‘Which is my point,’ replied Jared. ‘How can we know what the possibilities are when we’re surrounded by walls? Tear down the walls and whole worlds open up.’

‘Agreed,’ said Edward. ‘The highest walls are in our heads though, Jared.’

The above is part of a conversation between two characters in Chapter 9 of the novel Psyclone, (which can be downloaded from here). The second half of this post was originally an appendix to the novel. Appendix I contains the collated results of four years of focused research, over 200 entries which link to information presented throughout the novel (active internal and external links in the case of the 2nd Edition ebook).

Such a comprehensive appendix is a rarity in a novel. Psyclone is a novel with a difference. The main purpose of Psyclone, as is stated in the introduction to the appendix, is to inform, not entertain, (although many readers have commented on its ‘seat-of-the-pants’, ‘eye-opening’, ‘couldn’t-put-it-down’ qualities!) Appendix II ‘was included in the hope of making people aware of processes which have the potential to keep them in the dark regarding some very important aspects of themselves and the natural and sociopolitical worlds, which, given the current state of things would be dangerous not only for themselves and their loved ones, but for every other person on the planet‘. Another reason was that ‘when discussing the information contained in Psyclone, I have found that, more often than not, people react in ways that after research I can now identify as ‘dissonance mitigation’.’

Briefly then, cognitive dissonance is a subconscious mental state often triggered by new information which conflicts with the person’s worldview and beliefs ( longer explanation follows below). Because I encountered a pattern of behaviour in the responses to some of the information in Psyclone, I investigated the phenomena and afterward decided that people needed to be made aware of this aspect of themselves. If humans are good at one thing, it’s self-induced blindness, and there’s none so blind as those who won’t see. Denial, it’s deep and wide and it’s not a river in Egypt.

Given the nature of Psyclone and the depth of the information in it, I’m now well used to encountering, in fact, triggering cognitive dissonance in people. And yet I’m surprised and dismayed each time I do. Maybe somewhere squirreled away I nurture an optimism about human potential. Actually, I must, otherwise I wouldn’t have spent the last five years of my life developing and producing ways of helping realise that potential.

I encountered it relatively recently following my posting of information that challenged the groupthink chanting of the masses regarding the Wikileaks circus. What I was trying to point out at that time was that all was not as it seemed about the Wikileaks organisation and the potential for the whole episode to be a Psychological Operation designed to manipulate public perception and feeling generally around the world and in some countries specifically. I eventually beat a tactical, dispirited and demoralised retreat, as I explained in the post My Last Word on Wikileaks saying:

I mentioned in a previous post on the same subject how my feelings about the herd-mentality behaviour I’m witnessing have led to me seriously considering disconnecting from networks like Twitter. The behaviour I was referring to was the knee-jerk reactions to what I called the Wikileaks Circus. In the post I called for more critical thinking, and provided what few references I had at the time to facilitate that…That the stampede of the unthinking is so threatening and the safety of the sane steadiness so rare still moves me to reconsider my position and role. Perhaps it’s because I’m tired after a long journey, but how am I to feel when those I once considered intelligent, aware, rational, and free-thinking join minds and voice with that choir that’s orchestrated by the hand of the state conductor, especially, as is pointed out in the last of the above articles, they’re singing a variation of the same song sung not so long ago?

Beware, Ears Have Walls

That was then and this is now. Now is characterised by another herd-like movement to which I once again presented information from a perspective different to that of the main. The reactions I’ve had, to which I include the silence of studious ignoring, have me revisiting those feelings of futility. Right now I’m seriously questioning the time it takes to research and write articles that I can’t throw high enough to get over most people’s wall. The only constructive recourse I can think of is to again present information on cognitive dissonance.

To be clear,  I have not been trying to promote any single view of the Occupy Movement. I’m presenting information from an angle that seems to be largely missing from the general discourse. Knowledge is power. Restriction of information is one of ‘their’ weapons. Consciously censoring information and/or allowing a subconscious mental process to prevent us from taking in information is self-sabotage.

A Word on Cognitive Dissonance (Extracted from the appendix of Psyclone)

When discussing the kind of information contained in Psyclone,  I have found that, more often than not, people react in ways that after research I can now identify as dissonance mitigation. Because of that I have included this section.

The theory of cognitive dissonance is based on the relationships between cognitions. A cognition can be described as a piece of knowledge. For example, the knowledge that your eyes are green is a cognition; the knowledge that you like the colour purple is a cognition; the knowledge that the Earth is round is a cognition. People hold a massive amount of cognitions simultaneously. These cognitions form relationships that are said to be irrelevant, consonant or dissonant.

Irrelevant means that the cognitions have nothing to do with each other. Most of the relationships among a person’s cognitions are irrelevant. Cognitions are consonant if one follows on from, or fits with, the other. It may be part of the nature of the human organism, or it may be learned during the process of socialisation, but people generally prefer cognitions that fit together to those that don’t. When a person’s inner systems, their values, beliefs, attitudes, etc, all support each other and when these are supported by external evidence, including the person’s own actions, they have a psychologically comfortable state of affairs.

Dissonance occurs when an individual must choose between attitudes, beliefs, etc, that are contradictory. A person who has dissonant cognitions is said to be in a state of cognitive dissonance, which is experienced as unpleasant psychological tension. This tension state has drive-like properties not unlike hunger and thirst. When a person has been deprived of food for some time, s/he experiences unpleasant tension and is driven to reduce that tension. Reducing the psychological state of dissonance is not as simple as eating or drinking.

It should be noted here that although the words ‘tension’ and ‘drives’ have a relatively dramatic tone, the states described are very often experienced in very subtle ways. A characteristic of the process is that it happens largely outside of the person’s awareness. Indeed, unlike hunger and thirst which are accepted tensions which can be endured for short or long periods, the psychological tension produced by a threat to one’s existing beliefs or values can be so uncomfortable that the strategies for alleviating the discomfort are usually adopted swiftly and determinedly, and subconsciously.

As said, dissonance is experienced as an unpleasant drive, which motivates the individual to reduce it. The Asch study (Solomon Asch, 1956), described in C5, showed what can happen when there is a serious inconsistency between one’s own experiences (and the beliefs based on them) and those reported by others. But what happens if the inconsistency is among a person’s own experiences, beliefs or actions? Many social psychologists believe that this will trigger some general trend to restore cognitive consistency – to reinterpret the situation so as to minimise whatever inconsistency may be there.

An example provided by a group of social psychologists (Festinger, Riecken and Chachter, 1956) is that of a study of a sect that was awaiting the end of the world. The founder of the sect announced that she had received a message from the “Guardians” of outer space. On a certain day, there would be a worldwide flood. Only the true believers were to be saved and were to be picked up at midnight of the appointed day in extraterrestrial craft. On doomsday, the members of the sect gathered together, awaiting the predicted deluge. The arrival time of the craft came and went; tension mounted as the hours went by. Finally, the leader of the sect received another message: To reward the faith of the faithful, the world was saved. Joy broke out and the believers became more faithful than ever.

Given the failure of a clear-cut prophecy, one might have expected the opposite reaction. A disconfirmation of a predicted event should presumably lead one to abandon the beliefs that produced the prediction. But cognitive dissonance theory says otherwise. By abandoning the beliefs that there were Guardians, the person who had once held this belief would have to accept a painful dissonance between their present skepticism and their past beliefs and actions. Their prior faith would now appear extremely foolish. Some members of the sect had gone to such lengths as giving up their jobs or spending their savings; such acts would have lost all meaning in retrospect without the belief in the Guardians. Under the new circumstances, the dissonance was intolerable. It was reduced by a belief in the new message that bolstered the original belief. Since other members of the sect stood fast with them, their conviction was strengthened all the more. They could now think of themselves, not as fools, but as loyal, steadfast members of a courageous little band whose faith had saved the earth.

One thing worth noting was that while fringe members tended to recognise that they had made fools of themselves and to “put it down to experience”, committed members were more likely to reinterpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (Earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members). This may have been because those who had invested everything in their belief would have experienced more dissonance than those who had not, and thus would have been more strongly motivated to reduce that tension.

The case in point is an extreme example of a process that happens regularly in much more mundane and subtle ways. As has already been pointed out, a characteristic of the process is that it happens largely outside of a person’s awareness.

There are several recognised ways of relieving tension produced by two dissonant cognitions:

1)    Reducing the importance of the dissonant cognition,

2)    changing one to make it consistent with the other or

3)    adding more consonant cognitions that outweigh the dissonant cognition.

(Based on my experience I would add simple ignoring to that list.)

Verbal indicators of the above have been:

  •  ‘Not another conspiracy theory.’
  •  ‘You’re reading too much into things.’
  • ‘That information is obviously biased.’
  •  ‘That’s not the way things work/There must be some other reason.’
  •  ‘Anyway, even if [what is postulated] were true there’s nothing that we can do about it.’
  •  ‘If that was true, someone would be doing something about it.’
  •  ‘It might not be perfect, but it’s better than…’

(See Seven Warning Signs of Bogus Skepticism )

Earlier the example of a round Earth being a cognition was given. There was a time in history when large amounts of people believed that the planet was flat, a potentially understandable belief/cognition given the lack of knowledge of the time. (An interesting aside here is an article by Michael Roll Uncomfortable Historical Facts That we are Never Taught at School in the Theocracy of England which shows that the round earth theory was actually proved by the Greek scientist Eratosthenes in the 3rd century BCE, and that information suppressed for theocratic/political reasons). When the news finally did get out, it took an inordinately long time for it to be accommodated by most. In that case the magnitude of the dissonance created, because the new cognition threatened some fairly fundamental beliefs, would have needed see-it-with-their-own-eyes proof or the combined weight of the beliefs of those around to change the cognition. Until that happened all sorts of wacky dismissals were put forward to reduce the dissonance produced.

Fast forward to modern day and, for example, the destruction of the World Trade Centre buildings. There is a substantial amount of evidence to prove that a) explosives, not planes, demolished the towers, and b) there was foreknowledge of the event. One of the biggest difficulties that people have in accommodating those facts despite all the evidence (which many won’t even consider for the same reason) is the dissonance caused by the thought that Americans, especially the nation’s leaders, would do such a thing. The nature of the event, and the strength of the existing beliefs, makes accommodating the new cognition difficult to the point of impossible for many. Parallels can be drawn here with cases where, despite evidence and/or testimony, one parent is unable to accept the fact that the other parent has been abusing the children.

The process is equally observable when presenting, or being presented with, subjects like life after death, out-of-body projection, free energy, UFO’s, etc. A good measure for predicting the stimulation of dissonance is a subject’s relative social unorthodoxy. Which provides a clue to what is one of the biggest influences on the formation and maintenance of people’s cognitions (see the Asch Study).

Part Two of Nick Sandberg’s classic thesis Blueprint for a Prison Planet  describes in detail the conditioning process that most of us undergo in the course of a normal Western childhood that permanently alters the way most of us evaluate information. [Essential reading!]

I’ve included this section in the hope of making people more aware of processes which, if not consciously addressed, have the potential to keep them in the dark regarding some very important aspects of themselves, and the natural and socio-political worlds, which, given the current state of things, would be perilous not only for themselves and their loved ones, but for every other person on the planet.


Knowledge is power. Your ignorance is their bliss.


Wikileaks from a variety of angles

I’ve had my last word on Wikileaks. The issue is so important though that I’ve introduced this post in which I’ll keep posting links to other sources who haven’t.

Whilst it’s not my habit to present information from solely one source, initially at least, the majority of links are to articles posted on the website of the Center for Research on Globalisation (CRG). CRG is a Montreal-based independent research and media organisation with an international network of independent journalists, researchers, and scholars. In my experience of it over the last decade I have found it to be an exceptional source for insightful, balanced, and informative material, but as I say in Psyclone and on the Centre of the Psyclone, don’t take my word for it, check it out for yourself and see what conclusions you reach.

Keep your eyes and mind open, and don’t stop asking questions.

Who’s Who at Wikileaks?

Wikileaks: Play the Ball, not the Man – and Check Who’s Kicking it

Wikileaks and the Worldwide Information War

The Political Spinning of the WikiLeaks Release: Anti-war Whistleblowing or War Propaganda

Wikileaks and Media Disinformation

The next two links are from the American Everyman blog:

A Brief Example of How the Wikileaks Propaganda Works

Wiki “Leak” Shows Palestinians Asked Israel to Attack Gaza

The Hazards of Nerd Supremacy: The Case of WikiLeaks (Added 23.12.10)

My Last Word on Wikileaks

I mentioned in a previous post on the same subject how my feelings about the herd-mentality behaviour I’m witnessing have led to me seriously considering disconnecting from networks like Twitter. The behaviour I was referring to was the knee-jerk reactions to what I called the Wikileaks Circus. In the post I called for more critical thinking, and provided what few references I had at the time to facilitate that.

Fortunately there are critical thinkers out there, able and prepared to put the time in to research and share balanced and uncompromised information. The following links are to articles and posts by a few of those lights in the fog, those jewels in the mud.

Wiki-Leaks and plausible lies – Where have all the critical thinkers gone?

Trying to Explain the World” – How the Globalist’s PR Agents Use the Wikileaks Psyops Program

Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job

Who is behind Wikileaks?

If We Lose our Internet Freedoms Because of Wikileaks, You Should At Least Know Why

Identity Politics and the Hero-Worship of Wiki-Leaks

That the stampede of the unthinking is so threatening and the safety of the sane steadiness so rare still moves me to reconsider my position and role. Perhaps it’s because I’m tired after a long journey, but how am I to feel when those I once considered intelligent, aware, rational, and free-thinking join minds and voice with that choir that’s orchestrated by the hand of the state conductor, especially, as is pointed out in the last of the above articles, they’re singing a variation of the same song sung not so long ago?

Depressing days indeed.

It’s Time to Think About Wikileaks

The reason I feel moved to be sat here at four o’clock in the morning writing this is because I’ve become increasingly disturbed and demoralised by the general herd-like reactions I’m witnessing in response to the circus that’s in town.

At the beginning of the month I wrote a post ‘Wikileaks? Wait a Minute! describing my misgivings and providing several links to other sources that seemed to confirm them. Since then, as I say, my feelings on the fiasco haven’t improved, and in fact have worsened and intensified as people’s reaction has become more sheep-like, more sheeple than people . It’s got to a point where I don’t even want to hear the word anymore as it’s become synonymous in my mind with lack of critical thought.

I was so relieved to find and read 12 Theses on Wikileaks by Geert Lovink and Patrice Reimans from Network Cultures, an extremely well thought out, lucid and articulate analysis and critique of the phenomenon. I thoroughly recommend it for its call to rational, lateral thinking.

Days passed and the circus remained, and I withdrew some more in reaction to the continued and louder baaing of the sheeple.

It’s not my way to be passive though  and I had to look into it more, and began my search with possible connections between George Soros who, as was pointed out in my earlier article, had funded Wikileaks through the Open Society Institute.

Soros’ name has appeared associated with the likes of CIA and Mossad, as well as other questionable global finance dealings and involvements, and it was this connection that was the jump point for my search. The following links and overviews are some of the results. During my searches I noticed another example of herd-like behaviour, the repetition of a piece from the Wayne Masden report that most quote, as I did in my earlier article,  some verbatim. This increased my questioning of the way information and possibly disinformation is passed around networks.

As with my earlier article, I’m not trying get people to think a certain thing or way. I’m just trying to get them to think. These articles provide some dots that are missing from both the mainstream and some side streams, and allow for a more comprehensive picture to emerge. The conclusions will be up to each individual.

Among other things Shadow Government: CIA, Mossad and Soros Behind Wikileaks points out is that on the Wikileaks advisory board is Ben Laurie, a one-time programmer and Internet security expert for Google, which recently signed a cooperative agreement with the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and has been charged by China with being part of a U.S. cyber-espionage campaign against China. It also contains some reasoning behind the possible Wikileaks/Assange move to Iceland within the context of Soros’ international finance dealings.

In Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran
Alex Jones presents a very interesting perspective with an historical description and analysis of intelligence agency destabiliation techniques leading up to the current one in which “Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests.”

The November 27 article Wikileaks, A Touch of Assange and the Stench of AIPAC (AIPAC is Washington’s major pro-Israeli lobbying group) anticipates the contents of the next disclosures in the context of an Israeli government agenda

Writing for Veterans Today Gordon Duff also questions Israel’s involvement with Wikileaks Working for Israel

The San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center article WikiLeaks ‘struck a deal with Israel’ over diplomatic cables leaks provides several Middle East and European (German) news agency articles that corroborate claims of Israeli/Mossad involvement


I began this post describing my feelings about the herd-mentality behaviour I’m witnessing. That it has been so widespread has led to me seriously considering disconnecting from networks like Twitter.

If the Wikileaks circus is a creation of and/or being used by intelligence agencies or other spooks, as it seems to be, what does that say about the well-meaning, but misguided and inexcusably gullible cyberactivists with their combined kick back. Especially if, as Alex Jones’ describes in the above article, intelligence agency destabilisation models have developed to include the predictable reaction of  network activists, who seem too blinded with their online ‘freedom’ and sense of power to smell a rat.

For instance, the hacktivists who took down the companies that ‘attacked’ Wikileaks. Now okay, companies like MassterCard might be fair game, but what of the domino affect of the DDoS attacks on innocent, possibly Wikileaks-loving, Assange fans? Or the potential justification such actions create for the already-in-the-pipeline plans for greater governmental control of the Internet?

If it was an intelligence agency psyop*, the architects of it must be wetting themselves to see such a mass gobbling of hook, line and sinker, as people played right into their hands.
Whatever your conclusions after reviewing the material linked to above, I think we can agree, some thinking is in order.

Knowledge is power. Your ignorance is their bliss.


*Psy-Ops, (Psychological Operations) for those of you who missed that class are defined as ‘the planned use of communications to influence human attitudes and behaviour… to create in target groups behaviour, emotions, and attitudes that support the attainment of national objectives…disseminated by face-to-face communication, television, radio or loudspeaker, newspapers, books,magazines and/or posters’ (Extracted from the appendix of Psyclone)

Wikileaks? Wait a minute!

The Wikileaks document release, or ‘Cablegate’ as sensationalists have jumped to name it needs to be thought about more than it seems it is being. Already, intelligent and usually clear-thinking people are reacting with one knee-jerk reaction or another as the drama unfolds. Now I don’t claim to have any answers, and have reached no conclusions, and think that, given the nature of the issue, any conclusion would still have many  questions unanswered. I feel it’s important, however, that we don’t stop looking and asking questions.

Now it’s early days and there are still documents yet to be released, but the initial reactions, if media sources are to be believed (as I wasn’t witness to any of these alleged reactions) are realisations in ‘the Arab world’ that all are not in reality united against the imperialist U.S. and its Middle Eastern sidekick strong-arm, Israel. In fact, if we are to believe the reports, there are ‘many’ Arab leaders who are more concerned about Iran’s nuclear capabilities than U.S. hegemony in the region, or indeed Israel’s nuclear weapons, which it still hasn’t (as far as I’m aware) acknowledged possession of. But that’s another story.

I personally caught such a whiff of ‘divide and conquer’ to these alleged reactions that I felt a closer look was definitely in order. Given the pause that’s not the only whiff in the air. And I’m not the only one to smell something fishy. So far there’s not a single document that is either embarrassing or revealing about the either the U.S. or the Israeli government.Rather it seems that the cables appear to be “cherry picking” to focus on Iran and China threat:

(Collated by: WMR)

Given the track record of behind-the-scenes machinations of both the U.S. and Israel, and the hoo-haa from the U.S. administration leading up to the release of the material, one could realistically have expected a little more dirt on the two major movers (I won’t say players because it’s not a game) in the region. But no, what we have is a little more dissent sown, and possibly a little less trust amongst countries and groups who, although having had to dance that military-economic ‘musical chairs’ with each other,  up until now have had a common enemy as a fixed focus.

Firstly, I think the reaction of leaders in ‘the Arab world’ is overhyped, if not completely misrepresented. Anyone who has been involved in politics in the Middle East for a length of time will be familiar with the overt and covert manipulations of the U.S. government and it’s allies, and U.S. intelligence/secret services and their ilk. They’ll also be aware of the necessity for each party to walk a very careful line to avoid getting hammered by an ever increasing, technologically superior military force occupying the region. Given what’s gone on throughout the region over the last, say, fifty years, shenanigans too numerous to list here, I can’t imagine any ‘disclosure’ coming as a surprise to anyone in ‘the Arab world’.

Back to Wikileaks then. The Wikileaks buzzword entered most people’s minds earlier this year with the release of the helicopter gunship footage hosted on the website Collateral Murder, part of the material submitted by PFC Bradley Manning (link for those of you who may be interested in how he’s getting on these days). The footage whilst graphic and shocking (I cried to see two children  murdered by whooping, cheering U.S. gunmen) wasn’t anything new. Similar videos like the following had been online for a long time before the Collateral Murder videos.

<a href=""></a>

Wikileaks was founded in 2006 by “Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.” (quote from the Wikileaks website). Two individuals involved were Julian Assange and John Young.

Wikileaks co-founder John Young outside Next HOPE hacker conference in Manhattan last weekend. (Credit: Declan McCullagh/CNET)

John Young, who runs Cryptome, a disclosure site with a fifteen year independent pedigree, resigned from the Wikileaks organisation after fellow founders started to talk about the need to raise $5 million and complained that an initial round of publicity had affected their “delicate negotiations with the Open Society Institute and other funding bodies.”(Note the OSI mention)

Young has since become one of the more prominent critics of the organisation. Young’s interview with Declan McCullough for CNET earlier in the year reveals the reasoning behind his position.

But John Young isn’t the only one to be questioning Wikileaks integrity. The Wayne Masden Report has learned from Asian intelligence sources that there is a strong belief in some Asian countries, particularly China and Thailand, that Wikileaks is linked to U.S. cyber-warfare and computer espionage operations, as well as to Mossad’s own cyber-warfare activities. They reported that, “Wikileaks is running a disinformation campaign, crying persecution by U.S. intelligence- when it is U.S. intelligence itself. Its [Wikileaks’] activities in Iceland are totally suspect.”

WMR has confirmed Young’s contention that Wikileaks is a CIA front operation. Wikileaks is intimately involved in a $20 million CIA operation that U.S.-based Chinese dissidents that hack into computers in China. Some of the Chinese hackers route special hacking program through Chinese computers that then target U.S. government and military computer systems. After this hacking is accomplished, the U.S. government announces through friendly media outlets that U.S. computers have been subjected to a Chinese cyber-attack. The “threat” increases an already-bloated cyber-defense and offense budget and plays into the fears of the American public and businesses that heavily rely on information technology. (Source:[redacted]news)

The article TRUTH serving LIES (with CIA/Mossad oversight) provides evidence of other claims of behind-the-scenes dealings with CIA, Mossad, George Soros (remember the Open Society Institute startup funding).

As an aside, the connection between the name Wikileaks and Wikipedia is quite interesting. Despite the connotations of open and interactive given by the wiki prefix, Wikileaks isn’t a wiki. By definition, a “wiki” is a user-generated database of information. The Wikileaks About page originally read: “To the user, Wikileaks will look very much like Wikipedia. Anybody can post to it, anybody can edit it. No technical knowledge is required. Leakers can post documents anonymously and untraceably. Users can publicly discuss documents and analyze their credibility and veracity. Users can discuss interpretations and context and collaboratively formulate collective publications. Users can read and write explanatory articles on leaks along with background material and context. The political relevance of documents and their verisimilitude will be revealed by a cast of thousands.”

This is quickly became not the case and an editorial policy introduced that accepted only documents that were “of political, diplomatic, historical or ethical interest”. Now submissions are regulated by an internal review process and some are published, while documents not fitting the editorial criteria are rejected by anonymous WikiLeaks reviewers.

The mention of anonymous reviewers reminded me of something I’d uncovered whilst researching for the piece ‘Suicide Bombers” and the Promise of Heaven?, which challenges the mainstream view of the subject of suicide attacks by putting it into an historical context and providing some important little-known and censored information. During my research I looked the subject up under various headings in Wikipedia and noticed a subtle bias to the information being put forward, a definite and persistent skewing that favoured the western party line rather than presenting impartial and balanced information, and a pattern of propagandistic manipulation in the language usage.

Having come across the described bias, I decided to investigate further and found the article Spies in Wikipedia from Wikipedia Watch, which relates to the possible use of Wikipedia by secret service agencies for ‘spin’/misinformation/propaganda purposes. The interference described includes positive propaganda for politicians, removal of entries, and other editing bias. An investigation into the identity of one administrator (Slim Virgin) showed her to be “an administrator with inhuman capacity for work. Over the past year, she edited nearly 35,000 articles (about 100 every day, without holidays and weekends). The same Slim Virgin also holds a record of continuous editorial work lasting 26 hours, with the longest break in editing not exceeding 40 minutes. These statistics from Wikipedia’s editing records suggests either a supernatural ability, or more likely that Slim Virgin is a convenient smoke screen for an entire team of specialists editing Wikipedia articles on behalf of intelligence services”.

Obviously, all is not what it seems.

Which is the point I’m trying to make with this post. It is easily possible that a disclosure group set up with money from at least one known CIA/Mossad associate could be being used to sow seeds of dissent in, at the moment, the Middle East. (Here I’ll remind you of the Mossad’s motto, which incidentally is missing from the entry in Wikipedia, ‘By way of deception, ye shall make war.’)

In the words of any professional investigative agency, Cui Bono, who benefits from the effects of these ‘disclosures’?