What is Truth?

We cannot have a popular vote on the truth. We cannot deem something to be true because it is popularly believed. If I say that I am a trained hair dresser, and everyone in town believes me, that does not make me a trained hair dresser.

Truth is difficult to define. Absolute truth is something that is true at all times in all places for all people. We tend to treat facts as absolute truth. However, facts can be tampered with. So we then add an element of doubt. So our mind has a ‘voting’ element on the likelihood of a ‘fact’ being absolute truth. I was in a family run hostel in Moscow near Red Square. After a few days, I was invited to sit at the family table and a young male of the house asked: “Did Armstrong walk on moon?” I replied: “Phew. That is difficult to answer.” He replied: “I don’t think Armstrong walk on moon.” Clearly, Armstrong walked on the moon or he did not. He cannot half walk on the moon. Such is the lack of trust in the propaganda arm of the globalists which they call ‘media’, the people no longer trust the ‘official’ narrative. We cannot vote on whether Armstrong walked on the moon. A court cannot decree that he walked on the moon. Popular belief that the walk occurred does not alter the facts. He did not walk on the moon because people believe that he walked on the moon. Wikipedia states:

Neil Alden Armstrong (August 5, 1930 – August 25, 2012) was an American astronaut and aeronautical engineer and the first person to walk on the Moon.

This still does not mean that it is a fact. Wikipedia, like Encyclopedias, is heavily edited to ensure it does not ‘offend’ the ‘official’ narrative required by those that control those that control us. Mark Moran writes an article titled ‘The Top 10 Reasons Students Cannot Cite or Rely On Wikipedia’.

8.  The contributor with an agenda often prevails.
In theory, the intellectual sparring at the heart of Wikipedia’s group editing process results in a consensus that removes unreliable contributions and edits. But often the contributor who “wins” is not the one with the soundest information, but rather the one with the strongest agenda.

7. Individuals with agendas sometimes have significant editing authority.
Administrators on Wikipedia have the power to delete or disallow comments or articles they disagree with and support the viewpoints they approve. For example, beginning in 2003, U.K. scientist William Connolley became a Web site administrator and subsequently wrote or rewrote more than 5,000 Wikipedia articles supporting the concept of climate change and global warming. More importantly, he used his authority to ban more than 2,000 contributors with opposing viewpoints from making further contributions.

According to The Financial Post, when Connolley was through editing, “The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy.” Connolley has since been stripped of authority at Wikipedia, but one blogger believes he continues to post.

…

6. Sometimes “vandals” create malicious entries that go uncorrected for months.

… For example, John Seigenthaler, a former assistant to Robert Kennedy, was falsely implicated in the assassinations of the Kennedy brothers on his Wikipedia biography for a period of more than 100 days without his knowledge.

3. It has become harder for casual participants to contribute.
According to the Palo Alto Research Center, the contributions of casual and new contributors are being reversed at a much greater rate than several years ago. The result is that a steady group of high-level editors has more control over Wikipedia than ever.

A group of editors known as “deletionists” are said to “edit first and ask questions later,” making it harder for new contributors to participate, and making it harder for Wikipedia—which, again, aspires to provide “the sum of all human knowledge”—to overcome the issue that it is controlled by a stagnant pool of editors from a limited demographic.

2. Accurate contributors can be silenced.
Deletionists on Wikipedia often rely on the argument that a contribution comes from an “unreliable source,” with the editor deciding what is reliable. An incident last year showed the degree to which editors at the very top of Wikipedia were willing to rely on this crutch when it suits their purpose.

Mark E. Moran

Mark Hill writes about Wikipedia bias. He talks of “lengthy edit wars” His article titled: ‘Wikipedia Is Shockingly Biased: 5 Lessons From An Admin.’ contains a sentence: “We only have 551 active admins.” The Gardian reports: “Two Israeli groups have set up ‘Zionist editing’ courses with aims to alter perceptions about Israel.” ‘If Americans Knew’ writes on Youtube:

A workshop teaching Zionists how to edit Wikipedia pages to be more favorable towards Israel. This is just one of many Israeli projects to manipulate Wikipedia, social media, and the Internet in general. See our video on this, “Israel’s Internet Censorship War,” at https://youtu.be/Vqhi16iikxk – The video is based on an in-depth exposé on the subject: https://iakn.us/2Ixc6LC – The speaker in the video is Naftali Bennet, a high tech millionaire and a right-wing Israeli minister close to the settler movement.

‘Israel National News’ reports:

The strategy and goal of the course is to educate and enable an ‘army’ of editors of Wikipedia, giving them the professional skills to write and edit the online encyclopedia’s content in a manner which defends and promotes Israel’s image.

As Christians, we have to spread the truth whilst they are trying to suppress it. It is not only the extremely influential Zionists editing Wikipedia in their favour, it is also edited and/or controlled by other national agencies, intelligence organisations, corporations, and ‘special interest groups’. Wiki cannot be trusted for truth nor for unbiased views. You are very unlikely to find any truth on matters of historical controversy such as revolutions and organizers of the culling of Christians in wars. Jeffrey Epstein’s page no longer lists him as Jewish nor that he was a friend of Bill Clinton. ElectronicInfitada goes even further:

A pro-Israel pressure group is orchestrating a secret, long-term campaign to infiltrate the popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia to rewrite Palestinian history, pass off crude propaganda as fact, and take over Wikipedia administrative structures to ensure these changes go either undetected or unchallenged.

A series of emails by members and associates of the pro-Israel group CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America), provided to The Electronic Intifada (EI), indicate the group is engaged in what one activist termed a “war” on Wikipedia. …
Throughout the documents EI obtained, CAMERA operatives stress the need for stealth and secrecy. …

Anticipating possible objections to CAMERA’s scheme, Ini conjectures that “Anti-Israel editors will seize on anything to try to discredit people who attempt to challenge their problematic assertions, and will be all too happy to pretend, and announce, that a ‘Zionist’ cabal (the same one that controls the banks and Hollywood?) is trying to hijack Wikipedia.”

But stealth and misrepresentation are presented as the keys to success. …

The emphasis on secrecy is apparently not only to aid the undetected editing of articles, but also to facilitate CAMERA’s takeover of key administrator positions in Wikipedia. …

Also among the emails is a discussion about how to alter the article on the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the village of Deir Yassin by Zionist militiamen on 9 April 1948. Unable to debunk the facts of the massacre outright, the CAMERA activists hunt for quotes from “reputable historians” who can cast doubt on it. Their strategy is not dissimilar from those who attempt to present evolution, or global climate change as “controversial” regardless of the weight of the scientific evidence, simply because the facts do not accord with their belief system.

The Electronic Intifada

In reality, we are talking a war on truth. Wikipedia has turned into control of student research on the Internet. A situation has developed such that a huge proportion of subjects that are Googled lead the student to Wikipedia in a manner that gives Wikipedia the majority of the hits. And thus the ‘truth’ is controlled. ‘Ascertain the Truth’ claims:

And as shown in our section on Google, this Internet search-engine is well in the hands of Zionist Jews and also cooperates openly with Zionist organizations such as ADL and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) to control the searches and censoring information and certain sites.

Ascertain the Truth

What happens is that the ‘news’ is considered by the public to be the ‘first draft’ of history. The history book repeats what was reported and accepted as truth. So we have a situation where history itself is departing from the truth. And the news system and those that control it manufacture “justified warfare”. We need to be aware and beware.

“The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

GeorgeOrwell

Now let us go back to Armstrong. It is an absolute truth when we discuss Armstrong on the moon as ha cannot half walk on the moon. However, our brain factors in a percentage of belief in this ‘truth’. We have an element of doubt about some absolute truths.

There are many thinking patterns for the supposed moon landings and different enthusiasts have different approaches to the topic. One line of thought is that no person has left low earth orbit since the moon missions in the 60’s and 70’s. We are expected to believe that NASA safely took men from earth to the moon and brought them back safely. A total journey of around half a million miles. Since the Apollo times, NASA has only been able to fly men to the space station a mere few hundred miles. Now NASA cannot get as far as the space station safely. Two US shuttles blew up and killed the astronauts. Only the Russians now manage to put men into space and only to the space station. There are strong arguments for believing that it was all faked. Was it simply cold war propaganda?

Does the New Testament help? Here is one statement in Romans:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, …

Romans 1:18

He was not keen on those that ‘suppress’ the truth. Those people now form ‘the media’. When the printing press was discovered, the propagandists were called “pamphleteers” and pamphleteers could bring down well established monarchies. During the French Revolution, pamphleteers played a key role in changing public opinion. The same continues today in a more influential manner. Jesus lambasted the Pharisees, the all powerful clique of their society, for the methods that they used to maintain impoverishment and thus control. We are kept enslaved to banks paying mortgages on land that was created by god or nature for all living things to share. We are given a vote to vote for political parties whom all support this debt banking system and every war that is advertised by the pamphleteers.

The reality is that you can now be jailed for telling the truth. Read the ‘Nameless War’ by Archibald Ramsey.

You simply have to get used to twitter and the likes hiding trending topics if they don’t like them? Even the New York Times gets critics saying things like: “We don’t trust the New York Times, not one bit of trust!! TYT also fits in that category of enemy of the people.” (BoomShakaLaka) and “Tim, I cannot believe that you actually use the New York Times as a real New organization. EVERYONE knows the New York Times is a lying rag.” (Terry)

I learned something as a young boy. Lies are difficult to live with. It is very difficult to remember what you said to who. Thus it becomes difficult to discus the lie later because you cannot remember the composition of your lie and to whom it was directed. Mark Twain had his thoughts on the matter:

Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn’t.”

Mark Twain

Truth has a problem with humans. Information is passed from human to human. A fact can be distorted. When information is passed, and element of doubt is inserted and the magnitude of the doubt depends upon the trust in the source.

The truth is still the truth, even if no person believes it. A lie is still a lie even when everybody believes it.

Don’t accept something just because it is popular. One paperback has the title: “War on Truth: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Invasion of Iraq but Your Government Wouldn’t Tell You.” The author, Neil MacKay investigates the lead up to the war in Iraq, its execution, and its aftermath. He contends that the public was systematically fed untruths in a manner that damages our concept of democracy. In this book, he gives an insight into the ‘Neo–Cons’, the radical think tank that surround George W. Bush and some of whom stated before 9/11, that the US “needed another Pearl Harbor” to condition the American people and their allies into supporting another war.