Quote from: Traxo on December 20, 2019, 08:58:20 AM

@AnonymousCoder,

Armstrong asks if you could please stop decorating his name into a wikipedia link:

Quote from: https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/press/wikipedia-fake-news-propaganda-tool-of-the-deep-state/

Wikipedia is a professional propaganda organization that allows fakes news and outright illegal propaganda to dominate the internet.
Most schools no longer accept Wikipedia as a valid source for citation in universities.
The only areas where Wikipedia may be accurate are where the topics have nothing to do with a political agenda.
Where there are any controversial political topics, current events, conspiracy theories,
and biographies of people who are anti-government, then the fake news and outright propaganda dominate the sensitive pages.

Thanks Traxo. I feel flattered. Gives me an opportunity to comment on it. In this case, I think that the Wikipedia is closer to the truth than it is not. That is why I am quoting it.

There are certain guidelines in Wikipedia in a sense that when the article is about a person which applies here, then nothing can be written in that article that does not quote another major source like an article in a news magazine.

And that article must not be on a hate site or a site that is blacklisted such as bitcointalk.org.

If you look at the edit history of the Martin Armstrong article, then you find that perfectly valid facts, simply facts of failed forecasts, were rejected because the forecasts were reported on the Armstrong site BUT the FAILURE was not reported by an accepted source while the evidence is available everywhere.

That is very convincing. So what Armstrong is doing, he is effectively attacking the mainstream media through Wikipedia by extension only. No surprise here because he has an axe to grind with the justice system. The fact that he hits Wikipedia very hard in the process will not give him any points because most people like Wikipedia.

Again, this discredits Martin Armstrong. Whatever this guy is doing in that direction, it is bound to backfire. He has tried it in this forum, and we collectively defeated him every time so he is not posting here any more. Which is ok. Let him post his rubbish on his own site, that is ok.

I am in no way simply pro-establishment, and I can in fact agree with some of Martin Armstrong's points which are well-known otherwise. But he mixes things up and uses cherry-picking to hide is own agenda. He is very much like the pot calling the kettle black.

Martin Armstrong is a charlatan, and he spent 11 years in jail for a reason.

Read this blog starting at page 273 to find out more about computerized fraud.

See armstrongecmscam.blogspot.com for a more compact view of major findings posted in this blog.