Metapedia
Metapedia is an electronic encyclopedia which focuses on culture, art, science, philosophy and politics.
According to WikiPedia and various user reports: “Metapedia is an online wiki-based encyclopedia, which contains fascist, far-right, white nationalist, white supremacist, anti-feminist, homophobic, Islamophobic, antisemitic, Holocaust-denying, and neo-Nazi points of view.”
Features
Metapedia News & Activities
Recent activities
- jdakfkj333 reviewed Metapedia
The more voices, the better.
We need more voices on the left, right, center whatever.
Free speech and open dialogue should be human rights.
This is necessary, as Wikipedia moderators censor any view they find problematic.
- MarceloRosario21 liked Metapedia
- MarceloRosario21 replied to a comment / review on Metapedia
- Ituaf liked Metapedia
- jdakfkj333 reviewed Metapedia
The more voices, the better.
We need more voices on the left, right, center whatever.
Free speech and open dialogue should be human rights.
This is necessary, as Wikipedia moderators censor any view they find problematic.
Comments and Reviews
"Warning
According to WikiPedia and various user reports: " Well, would you expect Pepsi to give Coke a good review? Some facts to back this claim up? According to Metapedia, Wikipedia is far left extremist, so why don't we put a warning on the Wikipedia page saying it contains far-left disinformation?
I agree. An obvious way to corroborate Wikipedia's bias is to search, for example, for Fidel Castro or Nicolás Maduro and compare the results with those offered by Metapedia. And let your common sense decide.
Reply written May 5, 2024
for whoever said they needed evidence or sources about the claims of fascism, racism etc, these are direct quotes from Metapedia:
"A very strong negative correlations between darker skin color and average country IQ has also been reported. Lighter pigmentation is also argued to be associated with lower birth rates, less infant mortality, less violent crime, less HIV/AIDS, higher income, and greater longevity"
or
"If New York City were all white, the murder rate would drop by 91 percent, the robbery rate by 81 percent, and the shootings rate by 97 percent. In an all-white Chicago, murder would decline 90 percent, rape by 81 percent, and robbery by 90 percent."
or
"Only 0.3% of reported interracial crimes are classified as official "hate crimes". This classification has been argued to be arbitrary and biased against Whites"
or
"White guilt has been seen as destructive also for non-Whites who put all blame for their problems on Whites and demand that Whites should solve the problems instead of non-Whites taking responsibility and focusing on improving themselves. "
too much racism? have some nazism:
" Organizations such as anti-racist and pro-Jewish lobby organizations usually prominently promote the Holocaust in order to scare Jews and other into giving large donations. "
this site is a bunch of hateful bullshit, do yourself a favour and avoid at all costs. now excuse me, while I go douse my eyes with bleach after having to watch all that troglodyte baloney.
While I understand the bias contained within this project to be extremely unpopular, I invite to make an exercise of thoughts: is this content produced by the human race and it's nature? Do we live in a world where having opinions is permitted? Is the content within any readable source a fragment of indisputable truth? Not saying you committed anything that goes against these principles I cited, however, if we want to be informed individuals capable of making choices biased towards the betterment of our and our loved ones life's (or 'good choices'), shouldn't we consider many different viewpoints, as an analytical person would say: "being pragmatic"? I, for one, dismiss the idea of both ridding the world of sensitive or controversial opinions and of becoming one with the information I receive immediately without further through investigative procedures. I am also not saying that this is how you should live your life and know your things, I am just sharing my opinion. And in my opinion, no opinion should cause offense, as I consider it to be an unproductive use of myself. Regarding the scientific methods that today allowed me to overly invest my resources to write this strange reply to you (inspired on you doing the same to comment that wiki project), said methods have been proven efficient to deliver us best results with the use of our limited, fleeting and error-prone, sentience. I am not aware of everything, since I am not God here, but I believe everything is worth to be studied at some depth, and if no one shared those controversial opinions then there would be no one capable of studying those cases and finding solutions to these problems, considering the entire complexities and intricacies required to devise any working and optimized solution. You can take that what i said as this metaphor: What would be of us as functional individuals if we simply deluded ourselves and started believing that no one has the need to take a shit anymore in their lives because shit is ugly and stinky, then it must be also bad, worthless and should be avoided at all costs by anyone that's a good and socially acceptable person?
Reply written Mar 14, 2023
The more voices, the better.
We need more voices on the left, right, center whatever.
Free speech and open dialogue should be human rights.
This is necessary, as Wikipedia moderators censor any view they find problematic.
More accurate, less CIA infiltration.
Worst wiki site ever (just some Nazi propaganda)
One of the best alternative to Wikipedia