Update: Canada Admits Use of Undercover Cops During SPP Protest

"Quebec police admit they went undercover at Montebello protest"

From the article: "Police said the three [undercover agents] were told to monitor protesters who were not peacefully demonstrating to prevent any violent incidents, but they were called out as undercover agents when they refused to throw objects."

This is clearly false. Other protestors told the agent provocateurs to put down the rock and not start a riot. No one was goading the officers to start a fight. So, if the police are lying about the details of the incident, are they also lying about the purpose of the officers there?

For video of the incident and a good summary of the history of the use of agent provocateurs during anti-globalization protests, see here.

Canadian Police Provocateurs?

Canadian protesters have accused undercover Canadian police of attempting to instigate a violent confrontation. The protesters were peacefully challenging the “Security and Prosperity Partnership” (SPP), an unlawful agreement being forged by the heads of state of Mexico, the U.S., and Canada. The SPP is widely seen as a move towards a future “North American Union”, where the three countries will abrogate their sovereignty in favor of a European Union-like superstate.

During the protest, three unknown masked men appeared to be planning to throw rocks at a police line. They were confronted by the protesters, who reminded them that it was a peaceful protest. The masked men refused to reveal their identities to the other protesters, and refused to dismiss the notion that they were really police provocateurs. Eventually, they pushed their way into the police line, where they were seemingly arrested. However, there is no record of their arrest, and witnesses claim that the masked men were wearing the exact same boots as the uniformed riot officers.

There have been many claims of undercover police provocateurs during past protests. The speculation is that the provocateurs start a violent confrontation, which is used as an excuse to shoot fleeing women in the back with rubber bullets and generally discredit the protesters. Fortunately, a violent confrontation was averted this time, and the alleged provocateurs were caught on tape.

More details here.

Psychologists For Torture

Psychology has a relatively short but tarnished history. In the Soviet Union, present-day China, and other countries, the supposedly poor “mental health” of political prisoners has been used as an excuse to incarcerate them indefinitely into mental wards. Psychology and psychiatry have also furnished us with dangerous drugs for “mental disorders”. Ritalin, for example, has similar effects on the brain as cocaine. And antidepressants are increasingly causally linked to suicidal and homicidal behavior – by the internal documents of the drug companies themselves. It may not be a coincidence that every single school shooter has been on antidepressants.

But let us not waste our breath on the history of psychology, for we can merely look at what psychologists are doing now: effectively endorsing torture. A recent APA meeting did, thankfully, ban psychologists from actually torturing victims. However, the APA refused to ban participation in torture centers such as Guantanamo Bay. A Colonel at Guantanamo argued against the ban, saying "If we remove psychologists from these facilities, people are going to die,” to which a psychologist for the ban rightfully replied, "If psychologists have to be there so detainees don't get killed, those conditions are so horrendous that the only moral and ethical thing is to leave." The participation of psychologists at torture facilities clearly abets the practice of torture, keeping victims alive to endure even more unspeakable evils. Most of these victims are, of course, completely innocent. Look at the number of those released from Guantanamo without any charges whatsoever. Psychology has a tarnished history, but even bad men can redeem themselves. It is time for psychologists to find a conscience.

RON PAUL WINS TWO STRAW POLLS!

Ron Paul has won both the Alabama and New Hampshire straw polls. The mainstream media has done everything they could to have slandered Paul, and yet he won both polls by a landslide. America wants a pro-freedom, anti-war candidate. Who is second-tier now? McCain and Giuliani have not done so well...

Here and here.

Karl Rove, The Philosopher

Wikipedia Populated By Spies, PR Agents

I had heard that Microsoft was rewriting entries so that its products would look good. I had heard the rumors that CIA agents were using Wikipedia to write political propaganda. Now a CalTech graduate student has proved that these things are the case. Virgil Griffith has developed Wikipedia Scanner, a service to identify anonymous Wikipedia users by IP address and show which articles they have edited. Not only the CIA and Microsoft but Diebold, Congressional offices, Walmart, and political parties have been editing pages in their favor.

I have revised my earlier proposition that we completely boycott Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is the only place to find some “nerd knowledge” about something like an old video game, or if Wikipedia is the only good resource to find links to better, more detailed web pages on some neutral topic, then use Wikipedia in these limited cases as a last resort. Otherwise, if a topic can be tied in any way whatsoever to political or financial interest, avoid Wikipedia. Do not fool yourself into believing that Wikipedia provides unbiased and peer-reviewed articles. In such a case, you are allowing yourself to be duped by spies, lies, and corporate thugs.

Wired article

Wikipedia Scanner

Wikipedia's Response, And My Solution

Here is Wikipedia’s official response to my letter:

“Thank you for contacting us regarding the dispute you encountered.

Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve editing disputes via email. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community.

For discussion on violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines by a particular user, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct


Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Yours sincerely,
Utkarshraj Atmaram”

Apparently, it is no large concern to Wikipedia that someone is deleting entry pages. The “steps outlined” on the first link they gave me amounts to this: “Have a quiet chat with the person you disagree with. If this does not resolve this issue, turn a blind eye to the problem. If that does not comfort you, try one or several forms of mediation. If you have tried all this and it fails, then maybe we will do something about your problem.” And from what I have gathered from the other link, if you show any signs of bias – like not wanting your work deleted – or anger – like at having your work unjustly deleted – then the odds are against a ruling or mediation in your favor. If this is how Wikipedia wants to run their website, then I say fine.

For I have another idea: boycott Wikipedia. We do not need it, as there are websites for nearly anything that we can think of. Furthermore, it is not an advantage that anyone may re-edit or delete an entry. One, not everyone is qualified to make changes to an entry. Two, it is too easy for people to make changes to entries on account of personal taste, political correctness, or an agenda. Other websites may be ill-informed or biased, but at least the good websites may not be so easily altered by anyone with a motive.