I had planned on raising the Wikipedia issue again tomorrow, March 6, which marks the fall of the Alamo. EA usually does at least one post in remembrance of the iconic stand of American settlers against the Mexican army, knowing they would all die and deciding to fight to the death. In preparing for the post, I found Wiki’s sub-article, under its very long account of the episode, titled “Legacy of the Battle of the Alamo.” It is, as anyone who knows anything about the battle and its cultural significance will see, pure anti-American spin. Only anti-Alamo historians are quoted. The defenders of the Alamo were defiant defenders of slavery against an enlightened Mexican government that had banned the practice. American accounts of the siege falsely whitewashed the Mexicans who stood with the Americans in the battle, who were somehow rendered good by their nationality and brown skin though they stood with the bad white supremacists. Here’s a prominent section:

“According to the author Richard R. Flores, in the early 20th century, the Alamo was perceived by many in the majority white population of Texas as a symbol of white supremacy over the minority Mexican population. That symbolism followed the late-19th-century and the early-20th-century development of a new capitalist system in Texas that placed whites at the top of the social ladder as profit-earners and Mexicans at the bottom of the social ladder as wage-earners.”

The article goes on to make a major point of how President Johnson’s admiration of the Alamo defenders affected his view of the Vietnam war. The Vietnam war was bad, you see: tying the Alamo to it is pure cognitive dissonance scale manipulation.The article takes great pains to criticize the many movie depictions of the battle, particularly John Wayne’s film, which was, as one non-woke historian has said, historically inaccurate but feels right because it correctly conveys why the battle is important to American values and aspirations. He didn’t add “ethics,” but I will.

Earlier this year, the Institute of Investigative Journalism, which has been throttling Wikipedia for years, published another exposé, “London PR firm rewrites Wikipedia for governments and billionaires.” A summary of its conclusions: “A tiny insider group controls what billions see as “fact” Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia. It’s a bought-and-paid-for propaganda brochure run for the elite and woke activists.”

No wonder our rising generations reach adulthood with a warped, leftist view of the world and a hostile attitude toward their own country, its history and place in the world. But as in so many other areas—education, journalism, the professions, academia, entertainment—the public and those they depend upon to preserve society and civilization were complacent, apathetic, naive and inert. Now the most powerful reference tool is engaged in political brainwashing, pursuing a mission of indoctrination rather than information. Wikipedia has burrowed into the nation’s body like a poisonous tick. Alert, alarm, reform and replacement will take years, if they can be accomplished at all.

If George Orwell had anticipated the internet, surely the equivalent of Wikipedia would have been a key part of Big Brother’s machine.