A Comprehensive Pitch for an 'Anti-Woke Wiki'

With Wikipedia thoroughly compromised, opponents of Wokeism need an epistemological anchor to stop themselves falling down a conspiracy rabbit hole and repelling Elite Human Capital.

Wikipedia was one of the highest ideals of the early internet. The idea of a comprehensive database of knowledge that anybody could contribute to, pooling the collective knowledge of humanity so that it could be shared by all.

In many ways, Wikipedia has been an enormous success. I frequently link to it on this Substack, as on many issues like historical events, biography, statistics, and election results, it is absolutely indispensable.

However, one website having such an enormous influence on what people consider to be ‘fact’ and what people consider to be ‘misinformation’ is inherently dangerous. And indeed, starting from very early on in its development, it has parroted out a culturally left-wing narrative. Larry Sanger, the co-founder of Wikipedia, has himself said this, disappointed at what Wikipedia has devolved into, into a parroting out of culturally left-wing establishment views.

Therefore, I have long since had a proposal for an ‘alternate Wikipedia’, like the many subject-specific wikis that exist, some of which exist on independent servers away from ‘Fandom’.

In this article I’m going to be outlining my basic blueprint for this website, its philosophy, purpose, and the practicalities around actually making it happen. I have chosen that out of all of the projects I suggested, this is the one I want to dedicate my life towards it becoming reality. I believe it has the potential to be a gamechanger in our ‘war of position’.

Why We Need This

In all of the explanations about Wokeism and what we can do about it, the control of Wikipedia by the Woke left has been strangely absent. This is strange, as Wikipedia is one of the most widespread means by which people get their information.

Wikipedia’s Woke bias is so dangerous both because of its reach, but also because it is not immediately obvious. For the most part, ‘Neutral Point of View’ and ‘View from Nowhere’ are adhered to, and subjects are spoken about in an analytical tone.

But when it comes to the way it uses language, where it is virtually impossible to be neutral, it adopts the Woke manipulation of language to a tee. This can best be shown in how it will always use the ‘preferred pronouns’ of people who identify as ‘transgender’, monstrous terms like ‘gender-affirming care’ to describe transgenderist mutilation procedures, and will describe most racial advocacy in a neutral and objective tone EXCEPT White advocacy, which it will treat as ‘hateful’, ‘racist’, and ‘White supremacist’.

Christopher F. Rufo

has exposed how there has been extensive FBI interference in the Wikimedia Foundation, with Katherine Maher being the CEO. The idea of a repository of knowledge has been enormously betrayed, with swarms of fanatical left-wing editors used to cancel out any attempts to make coverage of certain issues more neutral. It includes Pink News as a ‘reliable source’.

There were attempts in the 2000s to create an alternative form of Wikipedia, Conservapedia, on the basis that Wikipedia had a liberal bias. However, Conservepedia was the work of idiots, with no subtlety at all, no reach outside narrow partisan conservative circles, and endorsing stupid things like denying evolution.

As

Nathan Cofnas

and

Scott Greer

have frequently pointed out, the Sensible Centre is far less academically rigorous than most mainstream leftists, which means that questioning one part of the establishment narrative leads to a complete detachment from reality and falling down the conspiracy rabbit hole, as movements like QAnon show.

It is a difficult ask to get people to trust us when virtually every single ‘scientific’ establishment is controlled by our enemies. However, it is crucial that we provide an alternate ‘anchor’ of knowledge to keep people on our side grounded in reality, and have a robust reporting of various issues that does not simply serve as propaganda for our own side and push people down a conspiracy rabbit hole.

Epistemological Philosophy

The epistemology of this wiki would be rooted in 6 principles:

Essentialism: the Aristotelian notions of categories, essences, and universals. It is this essentialism in which the pursuit of knowledge and the scientific method is ‘anchored’. It opposes Nominalism, which is the idea that universals are social constructs, and subscribes to ‘Moderate Realism/Hylomorphism’.

Principle of Parsimony: When describing events and resisting conspiracy theories, it will utilise the ‘Principle of Parsimony’ (commonly known as ‘Ockham’s Razor’, but William of Ockham did not invent it, and generally should be viewed as a suspect figure due to founding Nominalism). This principle is the maxim that ‘the view which relies on the least assumptions is more likely to be the correct one.’ This is why it will dismiss notions like the 9/11 Conspiracy and Moon Landing Conspiracy.

Critical Rationalism: To determine whether something is ‘scientific’ or not, it will use the Critical Rationalist ‘Empirical Falsification Principle’ of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos. Always being aware of bias and self-interest, whether something is ‘scientific’ will be measured on the basis of ‘will the theory and those that believe in it accept when their theory is proven wrong?’ ‘Pseudoscience’ will only be a term used in the most extreme cases (like transgenderism).

Hard Science vs Soft Science: It would use Friedrich Hayek’s distinction between hard science and soft science. Hard science is that which has clearly measurable variables that can be measured in controlled conditions. Soft science is that which studies human behaviour and relies on subjectively defined variables. This wiki would treat the former with considerably more authority than the latter, especially subjects like ‘political science’ on matters that go beyond polling and survey data.

Humean Scepticism: Following the philosophy of David Hume, this wiki would remain sceptical of all knowledge, acknowledging one’s ignorance and that knowledge is always evolving and incomplete.

Viewpoint Balance: It will have a different view of ‘reliable sources’. It would consider news outlets that have a basic standard of journalism as worthy of mention, however, it would always present sources from different viewpoints in order to construct as balanced of a perspective as possible. Groups like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Stonewall, Hope Not Hate, and other ‘anti-racist’, ‘anti-fascist’, or ‘anti-hate’ groups would not be cited with any degree of authority as reliable sources.

‘Appeal to Authority’ Rejected: This platform would not see ‘scientific consensus’ as proof in and of itself of saying whether something is true or false, particularly in regards to ‘soft sciences’ like psychology, anthropology, or sociology, given how much the sciences have been infiltrated by Woke ideology over the past 15 years and ever since the 1960s. It should seek to present arguments from all experts, either the majority or the minority, reveal who is funding each side, and allow the reader to come to their own conclusion. This is what science is, different theories debating in the marketplace of ideas.

The ideology could broadly be described as ‘Essentialist Critical Rationalism’.

Content

Topics

Here are some high priority topics that would be written about. We would of course not be able to cover everything immediately, and so should point the reader towards Wikipedia where the website considers it to be fair. Here are TOP priority, and the website should not be released to the public until there is comprehensive articles and article series on these subjects:

• Transgenderism and Detransitioners.

• Biological sex differences.

• Human Biodiversity and Race Realism.

• Climate Change.

• Nuclear Energy.

• Covid Pandemic.

• Donald Trump.

• The American Civil War.

• The Civil Rights Movement.

• LGBT Movement.

• White Advocacy/Nationalism.

• Figures like Jared Taylor and George Wallace.

• Organisations/accounts like American Renaissance and Libs of TikTok.

• History of Transgenderism.

• ‘LGBT History’ (History of the ideological movement and its long institutional subversion)

• George Floyd Riots.

• 2016 - 2019 Big Tech Mass Deplatformings

I will analyse some of these in greater depth:

Gender Critical: One example of the above epistemology, methodology, and style guide would be a complete rejection of transgender ideology that is a direct attack on reality. It would not use ‘preferred pronouns’, would not talk about ‘transgender people’ but rather ‘transgenderism’ and ‘transgender ideology’. ‘Gender-affirming care’, an evil distortion of the English language to endorse mutilation, will be called what it really is, ‘transgenderist mutilation procedures’.

Biorealist: It would also support Race Realism/Human Biodiversity and Sex Realism, collectively referred to as a ‘Biorealist stance’. The science of HBD is robust and replicable, unlike a great range of accepted scientific disciplines which have no hard substance behind them. This was the original stance of Wikipedia before the appalling intervention of Katherine Maher and the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC). It would remove all anti-White bias that Wikipedia has. ‘White Nationalism’ and ‘White Advocacy’ will be talked about in the same way as other racial nationalist movements.

Historical and Contemporary Figures: When it comes to historical figures, in sections like ‘legacy’ and ‘historical assessment’ on historical figures, it would provide a range of viewpoints. The figure of Donald Trump in particular will be covered in a way that is fair to both sides, taking sources with the least conflict of interest (Twitter Files, Mueller Report, Durham Report in favour of Trump, Bill Barr, Mike Pence, and Federalist Society-judges against Trump) to navigate the truth and let the reader decide.

Climate Change: On climate change, it will seek to present a balanced picture, both the obvious links between fossil fuel lobbies and climate change denial, and the evidence of fossil fuels being behind warming temperatures, but also the alarmism and false predictions from the pro-environmental side, and its embellishment of catastrophe.

Covid Pandemic: This wiki would stop the pro-lockdown bias, and would discuss vaccine injuries and conflicts of interest, whilst also providing evidence saying that on the whole the vaccines were safe and effective.

Left/Right Political Spectrum: When defining political parties on the political spectrum, it would determine whether they are ‘left’ or ‘right’ depending on the year of each election, compared to other parties, as opposed to generally in the infobox. The information about political parties would be predominantly what the parties say about themselves, plus the context of the countries in which they were part of and stood for election in.

This resource would completely reject interpretivist, constructivist, and critical theories of knowledge. It would not talk about ideas like ‘human rights’ as if they are factual. It would instead use framing like Elite Theory, which is a more realist framework at understanding society, whilst still attempting to be neutral.

Language

Like the Woke did, we will reinvent language to subtly promote our viewpoints, except oriented towards the good, the true, and the beautiful.

It would avoid using pejorative words in a neutral way, unless it says ‘source has described x as…’, is counterbalanced by the other side, and only giving these assessments at the end of the article and not at the start. In brackets are the words it would use instead:

• Racist (Race Realist or, in extreme cases like the Nazis, Racialist).

• White Supremacist (only to define groups like the KKK, most of the time use ‘White Advocate’).

• Sexist (Sex Realist, male chauvinist ).

• Fascist (only movement that should be described as fascist are the groups that actually called themselves that, the Italian Fascists and the British Union of Fascists).

• Homophobic (Opposing homosexual lifestyles).

• Transphobic (Gender Critical/Sex Realist).

• Transgender People (People who identify as transgender).

• Trans-woman/man (male who identifies as trans, female who identifies as trans, only presented at the end and not at the start)

• Ableist.

• Extremist.

• Neurodiversity.

• ‘Far-Right’

• ‘Hate Group’.

• ‘Hate Speech’.

• ‘Opposing Rights’

• ‘Gender-Affirming Care’ (Transgenderist Mutilation Procedure)

• Genocide (Mass Killing/Atrocity/Murder)

Vision

I do not have any illusions that this organisation will be as big as Wikipedia. Ultimately, a future administration in the United States needs to take control of Wikipedia and purge it of the Woke fanatics. Woke totalitarianism is so deeply embedded in all aspects of culture, only what may be accused of being a totalitarian state will be needed to exorcise it, though this would be no more tyrannical than what currently exists through a decentralised ideological hegemony.

But a more realistic goal would be to have the reach of something like Rational Wiki, a New Atheist-descended resource that quickly became infected with ‘Atheism Plus’, and has been a Woke source since the early 2010s. That Wiki is often explicitly non-neutral and aggressively partisan.

What we should seek to do is what Wikipedia currently does, have a ‘neutral point of view’ in terms of our writing style, whilst having style guides that favour an essentialist, empirical worldview, just like Wikipedia does a Woke worldview. We would have an edge over Rational Wiki if we can be less explicitly biased.

This would serve as a resource for Elite Human Capital trying to access anti-Woke ideas but that can’t separate what is true from what is blatantly conspiratorial and low-IQ. Whilst of course we will still be fighting an uphill struggle, and every trick in the book will be used to attack it as conspiracy theorist and unreliable, a publication that knows how to cite properly, measures bias and conflict of interest, attempts to write in a neutral way (even though at a core level that is impossible), and does not simply parrot out the ‘conservative line’ on every issue, would be a major advantage.

Contributors

Here are some examples of people who I think would be ideal to help contribute to this, very much parts of the ‘Elite Human Capital’ Right.

• Nathan Cofnas

• Noah Carl

• Bo Winegard

• Eric Kaufmann

• Daniella Pentsak

• Regan Arntz-Gray

• Richard Hanania

• Ruxandra Teslo

• Brian Chau

• Robin Hanson

• Colin Wright

• Astral Codex Ten

• Nate Silver

• James Pethokoukis

• Charlie Bentley-Astor

• Emil O. W. Kirkegaard

I’m sure there are many more that I have missed out. If anybody who I have mentioned know people who might be interested in contributing, please spread the word.

Instead of an ‘anyone can edit’ wiki, which would make it vulnerable to vandalism and infiltration, this would be approved only, something Larry Sanger wished he had made the policy of Wikipedia as. It would not be exclusive to the right, and if some anti-Woke leftists, even Marxists, who agree with the values of the project want to become contributors, they should be very welcome, as this is not designed to be exclusively ‘left’ or ‘right’, but rather a ‘new centre’ and ‘pro-reality’.

This would be a decentralised platform. I do not wish to be its ‘leader’, rather it to become a collaborative space for people with similar worldviews who are committed to a non-Woke, neutral information depository.

To see how such a community could come into fruition, I suggest one looks at Polcompball, a meme wiki of ideologies represented by ball icons. This website is very comprehensive and in many cases is actually less biased than Wikipedia.

It started out on ‘Fandom’, which then forcibly closed down the website due to its promoting of ‘hate speech’, it then switching to Miraheeze, and now is on MediaWiki. It has been able to survive constant setbacks because of a small group of very organised and dedicated people with sufficient knowledge of web development and programming.

Many of the articles would be good to be mostly rewritten articles using the same primary sources as Aporia, though Substack shouldn’t be used as a source as much as the sources it cites.

Reach

In order to promote reach, it would be good if influential figures within the Rightosphere space could promote it (and in a super ideal world, Elon Musk). It should be sufficiently good quality before it goes public, with a decent amount of information, a regular contributor base, secure server situation, and a consistent citation system throughout all topics and articles. It should not be open to the public for around a year, from which a basic level of information will have been put onto the website.

Security

A very important thing to consider in this project is security. We need to understand how to prevent lawsuits, have a server based in a country that doesn’t aggressively crack down on ‘hate speech’, and have security from hackers.

Trans activists are fanatics who make it their life’s work to disrupt any narrative that disproves their cult. If this website was to be successful, it would be a No. 1 target, which would require many backups and contingency plans in case this happens. I do not have any knowledge of programming, hacking, or web development, which is why having some people with these skills is crucial.

How to Join

I hope other people are as persuaded by this idea as I am. Making it happen will require a large amount of contributors.

DM me if you are interested, and I will start an X groupchat where we will decide what platform to use long-term for organising (Discord or Telegram), as the size of this community will require a platform with multiple channels.

J’accuse

now has a famous motto that I take to heart ‘don’t get angry at Woke, get even’. Actually building something like this would be a chief way of getting even over their constant taunts of intellectual superiority.

Cultural hegemony is something that must be actively fought for. The belligerents must sacrifice time and money, something Janan Ganesh, not an ally of ours, nevertheless accurately observed about conservative defeat in the culture war, explaining that they weren’t prepared to make any financial sacrifices in order to attain cultural capital.

After defeat after defeat, are we finally willing to match the dedication of the Woke left with a dedication of our own? There is no point getting enraged at Woke control of the commanding heights of culture, it is time to militantly organise to turn the tables, and our victory will be our revenge. This is one specific project, among many others, which could make a huge difference, and this is why I hope you’ll join me in bringing it into reality.