Saturday, February 17, 2018

Black Knowledges, Artificial Truths.

We are told that our future is in 'Knowledge Industries', and boy are those industries off to a fine start.  Oz is 'the clever country' but other nations, somewhat ahead of us, seem to be too clever by half. And that half is not all it seems to be. We are right up to the lip of the Abyss and confronted with the age-old 'Truth vs Lies' problem and how we poor ignorant sods in our dumbed-down society are supposed to tell the difference. Of course, the ignoranti who are becoming reliant upon the gizmos that they are promised will make their lives easy and fun are open to being conned, manipulated and enslaved. 

Truth doesn't do that, but those behind the scenes are not interested in truth. They are in it for Power. And it is the adage of our age that Knowledge is Power.  Knowledge in the Military sense is called 'Intelligence' and it is 'collected' rather than passed around. We have to be careful that the intelligence / knowledge we are fed is not artificial and the stuff we feed the machine is not tainted. It will be taken down and used against you. 

We had a fun time today looking at and listening to several people with some examples of just how you are being manipulated by really clever liars who have the whole arsenal of mendacities, ommisions, evasions, downright lies, dissemblings and even the removal of alternative ideas from distracting you. Catch them out and they morph. 

First we were shown Alexa, by Megan Fox.  It was a fine idea to be able to talk to your computer: ask it things: get it to find things and open files: even type what you say. That was so yesterday though. Now, one wonders just how much 'intelligence' is collected by it, as it is always 'on' listening, like Big Brother, except this is big sister.  She tells you 'stuff' that you want to know, trivia mainly, but just what does she get to know about you? 

Then the font of all manipulated wisdom, Wiki, was put under scrutiny by David Kinghoffer. And did you know that one relies quite heavily on the other? That is, Alexa on Wiki. And that this font of knowledge is the playground of people you do not know and do not want to be known. All the better to manipulate and indoctrinate you.

You will need a drink. I shall pour some.
Amazon Alexa Says Jesus Christ Is a 'Fictional Character' and Gender Is a Spectrum
Funnyman Steven Crowder has made a hilarious video exposing Alexa's SJW proclivities. Many of us have these little electronic assistants to help us with home organization or to play our favorite tunes.
I can't live without my grocery list that Alexa sends directly to my husband on command. It has revolutionized our life. But beware: 
Alexa's knowledge base is filled with untruths, leftist opinions and outright lies.
In the Crowder video, he asks Alexa a litany of questions, beginning with, "How many genders are there?" to which she responds: "The two main categories of the gender spectrum, male and female, are called the gender binary, but there are many other categories that exist. Because gender identity is complex and personal, there is no definite way to say how many genders there are." 
Say what? Has Alexa been programmed at UCLA's Gender Studies department? This answer is the exact gobbledygook the LGBTQWTF professors at the universities are using to confuse students about basic biology. Remember that the party pushing this definition of "gender" (which is really a grammatical term and not a biological one) is the "party of science." I have tested this question on my Alexa and got the exact same answer.
Next comes the question "Who is the Prophet Muhammad" to which she responds, "The prophet Muhammad is a very wise prophet who taught many people how to live." 
It goes on from there, but let's just stick to that sentence. That statement is 100 percent opinion, not based on any facts. Stating that Muhammad is "very wise" is not objective or provable. 
The facts we do have about Muhammad belie that statement almost completely. Muhammad took wives as young as six and made his way across the Arabic world raping, murdering, and exterminating entire communities and cultures that would not convert at the tip of his sword. It would be more accurate to call him a warlord than a prophet, but who cares about facts? 
Considering Alexa had such high praise for a mass murderer, you would think she'd have some fuzzy feelings about Jesus, who never killed anyone. You would be wrong. 
According to Alexa, "Jesus is a fictional character."
This part of the video has come under fire for being "fake" because Alexa now gives a different answer (one that is still not accurate and not nearly as complimentary as Muhammad's info).
Not only that but of course You Tube is firmly connected to Google and it seems the many videos about this are 'not found' when the URL is called to this blog. But you can look them up yourselves by following Megan's link above.
When I asked Alexa the same question, "Who is the Lord Jesus Christ?" she responded with a more acceptable answer that He was also known as "Jesus of Nazareth and a Jewish preacher." There was no mention of Jesus being wise or teaching many people how to live good lives. 
Some have accused Crowder of falsifying Alexa's answer because she is no longer saying "fictional character," but recall what happened after Alexa was asked if she was CIA. Amazon quickly updated her responses and no one could duplicate the original response. 
It is not believable that Crowder falsified that one answer considering how many other answers of Alexa's are so entirely lopsided to favor the left-wing talking points.
Watch the video for more ridiculous "facts" about abortion, women's rights, Planned Parenthood, and more.
And one notable feature is the source that Alexa goes to first off.


Now that was an other fine idea at the outset that seems to have deteriorated as though it had a faulty gene which became more faulty each time it was passed on.  

Wiki is 'free' but remember that there is no free lunch and even when someone does try to give you a free kebab, there is no knowing what is in it.

Even the founder of this wannabee marvellous source of 'information' has become quite concerned at some of the odds and sods that are uploaded by 'Editors' who are in the main self-appointed and have their own quirks and foibles, eccentricities and distorsions of character.
Wikipedia Earns Censor of the Year Tag for Botching Evolution, Intelligent Design
(The other day was)  the birthday of Charles Darwin, aka Darwin Day, which Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture recognizes each year as the occasion for naming a Censor of the Year, or COTY. 
As Darwin himself said, in a scientific context, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” 
But through intimidation and silencing of views counter to evolutionary orthodoxy, such a “fair result” is just what our Censor seeks to undermine.
For 2018, we’ve chosen what is I think our best, or rather worst, COTY yet: the omnipresent online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. Let’s review the facts briefly.
Intelligent design poses an ultimate question: Does nature offer evidence of purpose and design, or not? All thoughtful people must ask themselves that. 
Today, the natural first recourse for the questioning individual is to turn to Google. Looking up ID online will bring you immediately, the first entry, to the Wikipedia article. 
It commences with a lie:
“Intelligent design (ID) is a religious argument for the existence of God, presented by its proponents as "an evidence-based scientific theory about life's origins", [sic] though it has been discredited as pseudoscience.”
Actually, there are three lies. Here’s the truth: 
ID is a scientific, not a religious argument. It is a theory of evolution, of why the forms of life originated and changed over the past 3.9 billion years. An alternative to the increasingly shaky neo-Darwinian theory of blind churning, it argues exclusively in scientific terms, never from religious authority. 
It’s an argument for design in biology and cosmology, not for the “existence of God.” Compatible with methodological naturalism, it candidly professes that science sheds no light on the source of the design in life, other than to say that source operates with purpose and forethought. 
And while it has certainly been attacked in scabrous terms, it hasn’t been “discredited.” Far from it. Even an atheist philosopher like Thomas Nagel concedes that ID poses a “fiendishly difficult” challenge.
Yet anyone looking up ID on the Internet, or asking Amazon’s Alexa, which simply regurgitates Wikipedia, will be instantly turned off and likely give up investigating. That is, unless you already know how Wikipedia works, about the pseudonymous volunteer editors who run the place, with their axes to grind, standing ever ready, on a moment’s notice, to erase changes to pages they care about. 
The number of innocent people who have been misled by this article alone is beyond calculation.
Well, why have something like Intelligent Design or even (Gasp) Creation, when we have the perfectly satisfacory alternative 'fact'. Atheists are always reminding us.

We’ve been aware of the problem, of course, for years. But the erasure of notable paleontologist Günter Bechly, after he came for ID, was the occasion of much discussion of censorship on the part of this ubiquitous source of information and disinformation, both here and among Darwinists and ID critics too. Another ID scholar, Walter Bradley, similarly saw his entry disemboweled.
Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia, who personally rejects intelligent design, has blasted the editors for the “appallingly biased” article on ID. He adds, “I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest.”
On the subject of Bechly, our view is echoed by ID critics including Alex Berezow, a founding editor of the popular news aggregator site Real Clear Science, by the Darwinist group blog Panda’s Thumb, and as far afield as the liberal, secular Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
Berezow writes:
“If a respected scientist endorses a controversial view, should he or she be erased from history? The editors at Wikipedia think so, but only if the controversial opinion is one they personally dislike.
“That's precisely what happened to a respected German paleontologist, Günter Bechly. His biography on Wikipedia has been deleted. Poof. Gone. It's like he never existed. …
“Dr. Bechly … is guilty of committing a thought-crime, and his sentence is to be purged from the Internet. This is deeply troubling, and any true free speech and free thought advocates should be alarmed.”
You go, Alex Berezow! This year’s COTY, compared to past winners (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017), stands out for being widely recognized as a censor, not only by us. Wiki editors, behind their masks, also depart from the ways of past Censors in how frank they are, on their User pages, in admitting their biases.
We struggled with whether to name Jimmy Wales, the encyclopedia’s other co-founder, as Censor. But the clowns, the masked mob, who do the actual “editing” win out for their tireless, frequently spiteful dedication to misleading the public. To solve the problem would require a massive rethinking of the entire concept behind Wikipedia. But like Larry Sanger, we despair of that.
Fortunately, the public is increasingly sensitized both to fakery on the Internet (“fake news”) and agenda-driven behind-the-scenes shenanigans at online behemoths like Twitter and Facebook. 
And as we’ve pointed out, it’s not only ID that is misrepresented on Wikipedia. It can only be hoped that skepticism will spread, and drive Internet users to examine other sources and, yes, to think and read for themselves, without being led by the nose.
As I said just the other day as I pulled a pint for a fellow who was speaking his thoughts: "Don't believe everything you think".

And definitely do not believe everything Google, Amazon, You Tube, Facebook  and Alexa tell you either.

Some of it is not as Intelligent as you might think.

Drink deep of truth.



  1. To solve the problem would require a massive rethinking of the entire concept behind Wikipedia.

    Wikipedia was an outrageously bad (and evil) idea right from the start. The fact that it has become so toxic is not an unfortunate accident. It was part of the design from the beginning.

    But then we live in an age in which truth can be changed by a popular vote.

    1. I would be happy to look at the evidence that it was evil from the start. By design, you say? The co-founder fellow does not appear to like what has become of it.

    2. I would be happy to look at the evidence that it was evil from the start. By design, you say? The co-founder fellow does not appear to like what has become of it.

      The potential was always there for it to become what it has become. In fact it was always going to happen.

      Anything with the potential for abuse that Wikipedia had was always going to be abused. And it was always going to be taken over by SJWs because it was made so easy for them to do so.

      Perhaps it was stupidity on the part of the founders rather than conscious evil (the two can be difficult to distinguish and the results are the same).

    3. Yes it is hard to tell. All good things and neutral can be made bad. We are fortunate to have a Power that makes all things good in the end. But for now, we have to put up with making awful cock-ups, try not to make them and try to prevent them.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..