Welcome

Welcome to Grappy's Soap Box - a platform for insightful commentary on politics, media, free speech, climate change, and more, focusing on Australia, the USA, and global perspectives.

Tuesday, 27 January 2026

Russiagate - a conspiracy to overthrow the President



Perhaps this story is getting stale, but lets not forget what happened in the relatively recent past. Here are two PragerU videos on the Russia-gate scandal. It has been described as "the Biggest political scandal in US History, there is no close second", certainly much more serious than the original Watergate scandal, which led to the resignation of a President. Russia-gate was a conspiracy to prevent the Republican candidate Donald Trump from winning office, then, after he had won the popular vote, to tarnish his Presidency. The conspiracy involved the highest officials of the Obama administration, including the President himself.

We have heard snippets of this story for years, yet the mainstream media, admittedly complicit through their lack of analysis and reporting, have avoided it. It has taken the right learning outlets to expose the truth. 

Well worth revisiting the story in PragerU's short videos.

Follow the links below.

Russia-Gate part 1: https://www.prageru.com/videos/russiagate-the-real-scandal-part-1

Russia-Gate Part 2: https://www.prageru.com/videos/russiagate-the-real-scandal-part-2

"Russiagate was in essence a non-violent coup attempt, A brazen plan to overthrow a duly elected President. The scary thing is it almost succeeded," Lee Smith, Author of "The Plot Against the President"

Monday, 26 January 2026

Weekly Roundup - Top Articles and Commentary from Week 5 of 2026

 


Here are links to some selected articles of interest and our posts from this week.

We welcome all feedback; please feel free to submit your comments or contact me via email at grappysb@gmail.com or on X at @grappysb 

Australia Day - A Country Worth Celebrating

Like many Australians, I was not born here.

My family arrived as refugees, welcomed by a country that did not ask where we came from, what religion we followed, or what language we spoke. Australia simply opened its doors, gave us safety, opportunity, and the dignity of being treated as equals under the law.

For that, our family has been forever grateful.

Australia — and Australians — have long been a welcoming people. We built a society based on mutual respect, strong institutions, and a legal system that does not distinguish between citizens by race, creed, or origin. Long before “diversity” became a political slogan, Australia was already living it.

Has Australia been perfect? Of course not.

No country is. And I have spent much of my time criticising governments when they fall short. But criticism, when it comes from a place of wanting to improve, is very different from tearing a country down.

Measured against most of the world — past and present — Australia has done remarkably well.

We are prosperous, yes partly blessed with natural resources, but also because we have had generally sound governance, stable democracy, the rule of law, and a culture that rewards effort. Millions of migrants came here for one simple reason: this country works.

Yet each year, as Australia Day approaches, the noise grows louder.

We are told that we should be ashamed. That our national day is offensive. That modern Australians must atone for the sins of their ancestors.

I reject that completely.

No person today is responsible for what happened generations ago. And it makes no moral sense to demand that people who did not commit injustices should “pay” people who did not personally suffer them.

Justice must be individual, not inherited.

The same logic applies to the growing obsession with symbols. Australia has one flag — and it represents all Australians. The creation and promotion of separate flags for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people does not unite us. It suggests division. It implies that some Australians are not fully represented by the national flag.

One country. One people. One flag. Equal under the law.

That principle — equality before the law — is one of Australia’s greatest achievements. It is precisely what allowed migrants like my family to thrive, without special treatment, without quotas, without grievance politics.

Of course Indigenous Australians, like all Australians, deserve fairness, opportunity, and respect. But permanent grievance, permanent division, and permanent compensation will never heal anything. They only entrench resentment.

And for those who truly believe Australia is an irredeemably racist, oppressive, hopeless country, I have a simple suggestion: look around the world.

There are very few places that offer the freedoms, stability, prosperity and tolerance that Australians enjoy. If someone genuinely believes they would be happier elsewhere, they are free to go.

I, for one, will not apologise for loving this country.

Australia may not be perfect. But it is the best country for me.

And today, on Australia Day, I choose gratitude over grievance. Pride over resentment. Unity over division.

In 1968, a simple advertisement was shown celebrating Australia and proposing a national anthem. It reflected a country confident in itself, optimistic about its future, and proud of who it was becoming.

You can watch it here:


Perhaps it’s time we recovered a little of that spirit.

Happy Australia Day.












Friday, 23 January 2026

Wikipedia, Bias, and the Poisoning of Our Future Knowledge




For years we were told that Wikipedia was the great democratiser of knowledge. A free, open encyclopedia written by volunteers, corrected by the wisdom of crowds, and guided by the noble principle of “neutral point of view.”

That comforting myth is now collapsing.

Two recent pieces — a detailed academic paper Toxic Truth: How Wikipedia Poisons Global Knowledge and an investigation by HonestReporting — lay bare what many of us have suspected for some time. Wikipedia is no longer a neutral reference work. It has become a highly politicised gatekeeper of “truth”, shaped by activist editors, ideological capture, and in some cases by foreign state interests.

And the danger is no longer confined to Wikipedia itself.

Today, Wikipedia is one of the primary training sources for large language models — the very AI systems that will soon answer our children’s questions, write our news summaries, and provide “authoritative” explanations on everything from history to medicine to geopolitics.

If Wikipedia is biased, then tomorrow’s AI will be biased — permanently, invisibly, and at scale.


Captured From Within

The Toxic Truth paper documents something deeply troubling. Wikipedia is not shaped by millions of casual contributors. It is controlled by a relatively small group of highly motivated editors who dominate sensitive political topics.

These editors decide which sources are “reliable,” which viewpoints are “fringe,” and which facts are “undue.” In theory this is meant to protect quality. In practice it allows ideological activists to quietly rewrite history.

On contentious subjects — Israel, terrorism, race, gender, climate, COVID — the same pattern appears. Critical voices are removed. Alternative perspectives are downgraded. Language is carefully adjusted to frame one side as legitimate and the other as suspect.

This is not censorship by force. It is something more effective: narrative control disguised as neutrality.


Foreign Influence and Qatar’s Shadow

The HonestReporting investigation takes this even further.

It reveals how Qatar — a regime that funds Hamas, hosts extremist clerics, and runs the propaganda network Al Jazeera — has built deep influence inside Wikipedia’s editorial ecosystem.

Editors linked to Qatari interests have shaped articles on the Middle East, terrorism, and Israel for years. Sources hostile to Israel are elevated. Israeli perspectives are minimised or framed as propaganda. Terror groups are softened into “militants” or “fighters.”

All while Wikipedia continues to present itself as a neutral educational charity.

This matters because Wikipedia is no longer just an encyclopedia. It is becoming the backbone of global digital knowledge.


When AI Learns From a Corrupted Source

Here is the truly alarming part.

Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, and Wikipedia is one of their core reference sources. Not one of many. One of the most important.

That means every distortion, every omission, every ideological framing embedded in Wikipedia today will be replicated tomorrow across countless AI platforms.

Future students may never read Wikipedia directly. But they will read AI summaries trained on Wikipedia.

If Wikipedia teaches that Israel is uniquely evil, that Western democracies are colonial oppressors, that Islamist violence is “resistance,” or that certain scientific debates are settled beyond discussion — then that becomes the default worldview of artificial intelligence.

And unlike Wikipedia, AI will not show its sources. You won’t know what has been filtered out.

Bias will become invisible.


The Greatest Danger: Monopoly on Truth

The real problem is not that Wikipedia contains errors. All reference works do.

The problem is that Wikipedia is rapidly becoming the single source of truth.

Schools rely on it. Journalists consult it. Search engines rank it at the top. AI systems ingest it wholesale.

When one platform becomes the foundation of knowledge, ideological capture becomes catastrophic.

A biased newspaper can be challenged by another newspaper.
A biased academic can be challenged by another academic.
But when the reference layer itself is compromised, the entire knowledge stack above it becomes distorted.

That is not just misinformation.

That is civilisational risk.


A Warning We Cannot Ignore

The authors of Toxic Truth and the investigators at HonestReporting are not arguing for censorship. They are arguing for transparency, pluralism, and accountability.

Wikipedia must not be allowed to present activism as neutrality.
AI developers must not be allowed to train on politically contaminated data without disclosure.
And governments, universities, and educators must stop treating Wikipedia as an unquestioned authority.

Because if we allow one ideologically captured platform to define reality for both humans and machines, we will not be living in an information age.

We will be living in an engineered one.

And once artificial intelligence learns a poisoned version of truth, correcting it later may prove impossible.

(I strongly recommend reading the attached paper. This is not an academic curiosity. It is about who controls knowledge itself. https://honestreporting.com/wikipedia-qatar-and-the-future-of-knowledge/ )

Wednesday, 21 January 2026

Trump's Economic Impact Over His First Year

Donald Trump commenced his second presidential term exactly one year ago. It has been a whirlwind, with ne'er a day without some controversy. Everyone has a view on Trump and will readily voice their support or opposition to one or more of his edicts. He has done more, much more, than any other President, certainly in recent history. Given this is a critical year with the mid-terms due in less than 11 months, we can look at his impact on the key drivers of November's vote.

I have gathered the following graphs from a recent article on The Epoch Times titled Trump's First Year by the Numbers

_____________________________________________________________