Wikipedia a Propagandist for January 6

January 6th is a day which shall live in infamy. The most disheartening aftermath are the thousands of United States citizens' whose lives were destroyed. The Democrat party weaponized the government outfitted to fight terrorism, achieving historic levels of retribution on their political enemies by framing them as domestic terrorists. While utilizing their armies of propagandists to create a narrative to justify the inflicted suffering, Wikipedia participated in solidifying this narrative. Additional embarrassment to the reputation of the United States was achieved by failed crowd control at the capitol on such a critical day with important events. Who suffered the most as a result of the events of January 6, 2021? Who are the propagandists controlling the J6 narrative at Wikipedia?

In the lead up to the certification of the election results on January 6, 2025, the enemies of President Trump reeling from their defeat on November 5th of the 2024 election have their final squeeze of their narrative on the 4 year anniversary of an infamous event. January 6. As infamous as the bombing of Pearl Harbor. These are the echoes of deep conflict. The acts of war in our modern day irregular warfare world.

The United States is undergoing a cold civil war while propagandists profit from fears of a hot one. Reminiscent of the Cold War in years past. Yet this conflict is over the future of the United States: between conflicting values, ideologies and factions. Weapons of information war that have been deployed against enemy nations are repurposed and refitted by factions of different interests in a culmination of populism vs the deep state.

The voices of the forgotten men and women across a nation of self government have endured escalating forms of silencing. Culminating the use of social sites as exposed by the Twitter Files, federal assets collude with corporations to control free speech and public discourse. The unforgettable banning of a sitting United States President, Donald John Trump, will never be forgotten. And those who shared his views of Making America Great Again found ideological justifications to influence a presidential election through silencing his supporters.

Researchers understand how the CIA apparatus utilizes venture capitalism as they have through the Highlands Forum and In-Q-tel to fund and launch companies, projects that they pull the strings on. Google earth is very publicly verified in its links to the CIA as their free service “Google Earth” initially belonged to a CIA backed company called Keyhole, inc. Mobile games like Pokemon Go require users to share their geo-location data. Which is concerning considering the companies behind the game have links to In-Q-Tel as well.

Social Media icons like Mark Zuckerberg who is attributed with the start of Facebook, yet speculation of concealed origins and links to the agency persist. The Zuckerbergs have been critiqued in their assistance with funding ballot drop boxes in the 2020 election that disproportionately helped democrat-concentrated areas. Alongside the concerns of the lack of chain of custody for these ballots, Facebook also censored a sitting president to secure an election outcome, which was heavily debated and scrutinized.

Propagandists worked overtime to contrive a fear laden recount of events in January by claiming Trump supporters were armed, when the evidence shows very few people had anything related to a firearm. So, converting flag poles into spears became the work of these news illusions. Creating a fictional reality divorced from the reality of those who were there saw. This is the modern hyper-reality of the digital age and propaganda - evidence of an ongoing Cold Civil War for determination of the future course of the United States of America. Who can you trust?

Historic events require reviews of events. Wikipedia has become a commonly referenced source of history so we must review their documentation and interpretation of events. What is their documentation of this history?

The opening sentence of the Wikipedia page titled “January 6 United States Capitol attack,” calls the events an “attempted self-coup d'état. Their own definition of self coup is:

stays in power through illegal means through the actions of themselves and/or their supporters.

While it is true some illegal actions were taken by a tiny percentage of individuals in attendance, did President Trump stay in power? No, he left the White House on January 20th. The chaos of the day was a result of insufficient crowd control personnel. The official proceedings were disrupted due to insufficient crowd control measures.

The page refers to the House select committee as “bipartisan,” which sweeps under the rug the reality that of the 9 member committee 7 were democrats and 2 alleged republicans. Liz Cheney was defeated in the Republican primary as a result of her devolving actions. And the only other alleged Republican, Adam Kinzinger, retired without seeking a new term, as if he knew his actions would not be supported by those he claims to represent. These two ostracized the majority of their voters and exited their terms in office disgraced for their actions as participation in an influence operation and propaganda - operations less successful in the internet era.

Additional essential context to these claims of “bipartisan” is the ongoing efforts to clean house of the establishment Republicans. Frustrations from voters against those, like Senate Majority Leader at the time, Mitch McConnell, who have consolidated power in the party for far too long. Efforts to reform the party have been ongoing, as voters expect that elected representatives serve the interests of the voters. Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger did not serve the interests of their voters and had to leave. In other words, they served their own interests and lost their positions, which is why the frustration from these actions inspire the reformers of the Republican party. This was not a bi-partisan committee.

As the page continues on the events, they desperately try to assert that there was willful intent to prevent the certification. Yet no evidence exists to reach that conclusion. They say:

The attack was ultimately unsuccessful in preventing the certification of the election results.

The proceedings were not SOUGHT to be prevented. Legal and ethical review of the election was sought. The rhetoric of all elected officials was clear that only legal ballots should be counted. Along with a proposal from Senator Lankford to implement a 10 day period for a commission to review the concerns over election integrity. A constitutional solution utilized during the failed election of 1876. This could have de-escalated tensions.

Who tried to prevent the certification? No one. It was only delayed from crowd control failures. This is the capital of the world’s leading military superpower, with over 750 military bases in other nations along with unmatched intelligence gathering capacity, in a city that has endured repeated violent protests, and they all failed to secure the nation's Capitol building from protestors.

The page later made the claim that “the attack was the culmination of a seven-part plan by Trump,” and cites as a source their own Wikipedia page dedicated to the United States House Select Committee on the January 6 Attack. Yet there’s no clear plan by Trump. Just a collection of possibilities and theories attributed to, but not from President Trump. Politically motivated conclusions - dissenting voices were not heard.

The opening of the article cherry picks a President Trump quote, "If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," while omitting for later the balancing President Trump quote, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." While propagandists gratify their inner yearning to project intent on their enemies, the truth of intent by President Trump for the march to the US capitol is one of peace and making voices heard. There was no request to punch people or force their ways inside, and no mention of disrupting the proceedings.

Additional assertions are made:

Trump resisted sending the National Guard to quell the mob.

The facts are clear. Secretary of Defense Chris Miller testified to Congress that on January 3, 2021, President Trump had authorized up to 20,000 National Guard troops to support law enforcement if necessary. It’s a violation of law to deploy the military without a formal request from local officials. Having done so, would have also been called a coup attempt.

What officially happened was D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser wrote a letter to the Pentagon on January 4, 2021, requesting limited National Guard support for January 6: focused on traffic control and crowd management, not riot control or law enforcement. The Department of Defense approved the request and 340 National Guard troops were available for non-lethal support. It wasn’t until after protestors breached the capitol that Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund at 1:49 PM called for additional National Guard assistance. Then by 2:22 PM, Mayor Bowser and other D.C. officials joined a conference call with Pentagon officials, urgently requesting the deployment of more National Guard troops to quell the violence at the Capitol.

DC is an over 90% democrat voting block which raises questions of intent of those with left-leaning ideologies. Was this an obstruction strategy?

Over 1,600 arrests have been made against republicans in the years following January 6, 2021, inflicting the pain of legal fees, family separation and a permanent stain on the records which will disrupt employment. Whose lives were destroyed?

Ashley Babbitt was killed. The Wikipedia page doesn't mention that the “one was shot” has a name. Ashley Babbitt!

It took nearly 4 years to affirm publicly that FBI assets were amongst the crowds at the U.S. Capitol building complex. President Joe Biden’s Inspector General at the Department of Justice Michael Horowitz said there were 26 confidential human sources in the crowd.

When all of the events are collected and reviewed, the thin narratives of the propagandists fall to pieces.

In 2007, a tool called Wikipedia Scanner revealed that some edits to Wikipedia pages could be traced to IP addresses belonging to government agencies, corporations and other organizations. It was reported that some edits clustered around CIA and other government entities altered pages related to politically sensitive subjects. Changes were made to the profile of former CIA chief Porter Goss.

In 2005, an anonymous Wikipedia editor erased 15 paragraphs from an article about the electronic voting machine vendor Diebold: cutting a whole section that was critical of the company and their machines. The changes originated from an IP address allocated for the corporate offices of Diebold.

Another CIA linked IP address revised the events of the “Black September in Jordan” about historical conflicts in Palestine. Even Saudi Intelligence edited the history of their murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi to make themselves look less guilty. And Pentagon linked IPs modified the Guantanamo Bay and military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan Wikipedia pages.

Being open-source means anyone can edit articles and use pseudonyms or remain anonymous. This missing transparency complicates attempts to determine whether edits are made by an agency or an independent contractor working for one. Additionally, influence operators can be working for corporations, public relations objectives and political campaigns. Despite its moderation systems, Wikipedia is still vulnerable to manipulation.

The site often presents a Western, U.S.-centric worldview: standing in alignment with U.S. foreign policy and military PsyOp narratives. These reflect a subtle or direct influence from government-linked actors, and bolsters the conclusion that the intelligence agencies ensure their side of the story is the dominant one - even on Wikipedia.

A former CIA officer named Philip Giraldi has published about the goals of America’s influence operations conducted by intelligence agencies. Any online forum or social media platform is a battlefield in the information war, which public records show tax payer funds go to support pushing US positions and national security.

Wikipedia presents itself as being crowdsourced and of the people, but the result of their library of information tells a different story. An undeniable link to and acting as an arm of the global agency, which, at times, is helpful for preserving our national interests. But at other times it is destructive to human cognitive reasoning, and is a viable mechanism for capturing the minds of the citizens in deception.

We must remember the 51 spies who lied about the Hunter Biden Laptop to interfere in the 2020 presidential election. Lies that were later proved to be complete propaganda to aid a political campaign. From former CIA leaders who branched out into the privatized networks and current employees.

In regards to the Wikipedia January 6 page, their narrative is propaganda.

The citizens of the United States will struggle to be free if their perceptions of events are painted with the brush of intentional propagandization - be it for the interests of the military, a political party or those paying to control the news.

The facts must speak. To color them is manipulation. Manipulation on an individual level is morally wrong. To do so on a large scale is evil. We must purge the free press of agency, military or private interests. To make the free press free again - free of manipulation and restored as independent publishers. The burden of those results falls to the people with their free choice. You have work to do.

History belongs to the people. We The People of the United States must take seriously the methods and systems of documenting our history. Do we leave it to corporations to preserve? Our government? That is supposed to be you and your representatives, by the way. Yet it doesn’t actualize as intended. How about the school systems who are disproportionately left-leaning, democrat in ideology, which results in the critique of them being indoctrination centers? Shall text book companies decide what is taught and their profit driven motives to appease the school systems? What about websites that appear to be run by the people, but demonstrate signs of coercion by agencies like Wikipedia? No. We as humans have a right to self determination.

The burden to preserve freedom of thought falls to you. The risk is the broader population falling into the deception of propagandists as observed through Wikipedia, which does not present all the facts, but deceive through omissions, misconstruction or intentional failures, or by hiding behind the mob of partisan divisions created by the forces of power who deepened the divide for PsyWar objectives. Psychological manipulation of the FREE citizens of the United States. No more.

In the words of a founding father of this great nation, Benjamin Franklin when asked what system of government, monarchy or republic. He said… “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Freedom begins in your mind first. Are you free? If so, how are you spreading freedom?