Copyright©2017. Wilk Mocy Publishers. All Rights Reserved.
In our eleventh podcast, John and I discuss The Atlantic’s hit-piece on Mr. Anglin, A.I. (now and in the future), and Freemasonry (then and now). Believe it or not, we tie these three (seemingly) disparate topics together in our one-of-a-kind analysis of Captain William Morgan’s Freemasonry Exposed. We also discuss the bleak future of women and male ethnic minorities in an Anglo/Jewzi A.I. world, John B. Calhoun’s “Rat Utopia,” and how these subjects relate to the ‘Freemasonic dystopia’.
Have a listen as we send Mazis (Masons) and their Libtard minions into a tailspin with genuine analysis. You’ll enjoy it!
The Making of an American Nazi: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/12/the-making-of-an-american-nazi/544119/
Yes, A.I. is coming for EVERYONE’s job: http://fortune.com/2016/06/24/silicon-valley-last-job/
Inside the First A.I. Church: https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial-intelligence-religion/
Stephen Hawking issues A.I. warning: http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30290540
“In a weird way, shifting all the work (physical and intellectual) to robots is the fulfillment of Marx’s prophecy regarding the impoverishment of the working class (robots only need “subsistence,” they don’t complain). But what’s left for people to do? One might say, “a life of leisure.” But for many people, work is a major source of fulfillment. What happens if you take that away from them?” – Peter G. Stewart
Obsolete (2016 documentary):
You can help support this podcast with just one dollar a month. Please visit our About page for details. Thank you!
Gen-X FashyCast w/Johnny & Ronnie – Episode 11 – 11/19/2017
Music by Heimatærde & E Nomine.
Food for thought heading into 2018…
by Yonah Jeremy Bob | November 19, 2017
Netanyahu was discussing an initiative announced last week by Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Interior Minister Arye Deri to close Holot, an “open” detention center.
It is time to increase the pace of deporting African migrants, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the cabinet on Sunday.
Netanyahu said he has a three-pronged policy regarding getting migrants to leave the country, with the current focus being to encourage most of them to self-deport to a third country – which reports have identified as Rwanda.
In the years prior to 2012, a flood of African migrants crossed into Israel illegally, at one point reaching around 64,000 annually.
Netanyahu said that the state had already carried out the first two prongs of its strategy: stopping the flow of new migrants by building a wall and through legislation, as well as getting more than 20,000 migrants to leave.
The third stage of deporting migrants at an increased pace, he said, “can be carried out thanks to an international agreement which I obtained which allows us to deport the 40,000 remaining infiltrators against their will.”
“This is very important. This will allow us to empty the Holot Detention Center in the future and to redirect portions of the large resources we are using there,” from guarding the migrants, to other needs of the state.
Netanyahu was discussing an initiative announced last week by Public Security Minister Gilad Erdan and Interior Minister Arye Deri to close Holot, an “open” detention center where a few thousand migrants have been sent to try to convince them to self-deport.
Erdan and Deri’s idea would be to offer migrants the choice of “voluntarily” deporting to a third country or being put in regular prison indefinitely.
Several organizations, including The Hotline for Refugees and Migrants, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Amnesty International Israel, Kav LaOved, Physicians for Human Rights – Israel, Aid Organization for Refugees and Asylum Seekers, and the African Refugee Development Center responded to Netanyahu, Erdan and Deri by slamming the initiative.
They accused the government of violating its international obligations and of using incitement against migrants.
“The Holot detention center, an isolated prison that was meant to make asylum seekers’ lives miserable, should have been forbidden in the first place. From the words of Minister Erdan it is clear that the government was lying to the High Court when they denied that the purpose of Holot was to make asylum seekers leave Israel,” they said.
“Holot needs to be shut down immediately,” they continued, “and instead of a policy of oppression, lies to the High Court, detention and deportation, the government should fulfill the moral and legal obligations of Israel to protect asylum seekers and ensure their right to live in dignity.”
Until now, Israel was only allowed to deport migrants to third countries if they agreed to self-deportation and were not viewed as being coerced.
However, in August, the High Court of Justice both struck down a tougher state policy against migrants and implied that if the state managed to get a third country to accept migrants and passed a new law to exploit such a deal, then deportation of migrants against their will could become legal.
The High Court distinguished between deporting migrants to a third country, such as Rwanda, and to the migrants’ country of origin.
Israel is a signatory to the Convention on Refugees which prevents it and other signatories from deporting illegal migrants back to their countries of origin if they would face persecution.
There is an ongoing debate about whether Eritreans, Israel’s largest group of migrants, fled Eritrea due to persecution or to improve their economic status.
Deporting to a third country sidesteps this legal debate.
It is unclear, however, if the High Court would endorse indefinite detention in a regular prison as an alternative to self-deportation.
The High Court has said that one of the reasons that it declared the old state policy unconstitutional was because the state was trying to coerce migrants to self-deport at the same time as having signed a deal with the third country that migrants would only be sent voluntarily. However, it did not explain how far the state could go to “convince” migrants to be deported.
UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency expressed concern over the proposal.
“Due to the secrecy surrounding this policy and the lack of transparency concerning its implementation, it has been very difficult for UNHCR to follow up and systematically monitor the situation of people relocated to these African countries. UNHCR, however, is concerned that these persons have not found adequate safety or a durable solution to their plight and that many have subsequently attempted dangerous onward movements within Africa or to Europe,” the agency said in a statement.
“As party to the 1951 Refugee Convention, Israel has legal obligations to protect refugees and other persons in need of international protection,” said UNHCR’s Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, Volker Türk. “UNHCR and the international community have been assisting Israel to meet its international obligations, including by resettling or finding other durable solutions for 2,400 refugees who have departed from Israel in the last couple of years.”
Meanwhile, also on Sunday, the High Court ruled that the state’s policy restricting migrants from bringing most packaged food products into the Holot detention center was unconstitutional.
The High Court did however endorse the state’s policy of preventing migrants from cooking within the facility.
Regarding packaged products, the court wrote that the state had said it had restricted packaged foods because it believed that a packaged can of tuna had caused an outbreak of some kind of illness.
The court asked rhetorically, “Because of one bad can of tuna, does the whole prison need to be penalized?” It suggested that the state could make some targeted restrictions that had a rational basis, but had to start from the standpoint that most items should be permitted since the migrants in Holot are not categorized as criminals.
However, the decision does not go into effect for 90 days, which, taken with the new initiative to close the facility, leaves it unclear as to whether it will ever be implemented.
This is yet another lie. I don’t even know who this Giacomo/Sen guy is, so how could I have ever “linked up” with him? As well, I have never been “flakey [sic]” or a “White Nationalist”. I have managed to put myself through years of university with honors or high honors, to publish more than 30 books, and I have paid back over $50,000 in student loan debt — hardly flaky. Krazy Kahant needs to learn how to spell and then get her facts straight before she flaps the hole in her face that she dares to call a “mouth”.
What a fork-tongued, lying creep this “woman” has turned out to be!
LIKE A BOSS.
Krazy Kahant is a lunatic. She has it out for anyone and everyone with whom she agrees and disagrees.
Olaf Childress | Wed, 24/02/16
March & April issues of TFF
“If I got the wrong impression from your comment, I apologize.”
I accept your apology, Carolyn, as you did get it wrong. Why in God’s name you don’t want that HH speech appearing in TFF baffles me. OUR side includes The First Freedom, and if it’s just a matter of payment for that story’s use, how much? The March 2016 issue of TFF has already mailed out and will go online as is in a few days, or with pages 6 & 7 blanked out to reflect your objection and my apology to TFF readers explaining your position as I see it.
Krazy Kahant then shrieked in reply:
carolyn | Wed, 24/02/16
I got the RIGHT impression
“Obviously, I did NOT get it wrong, Olaf. You have it wrong and are in the wrong. You owe me an apology.
The March 2016 issue of TFF has already mailed out …
So you consider yourself a newspaperman but do not know you cannot publish other’s copyrighted material without their permission? Oh, you know but just ignore it because …. “OUR side”.
Excuse me, hypocritical b!tch? You published my material without my permission. What about that, you venomous viper?
[It] will go online as is in a few days, or with pages 6 & 7 blanked out to reflect your objection
Blanked out. And write whatever you want. I am going to write about the knaves and “pick-up-artists” in “our movement” who think they are above the rules. And I may even turn it into a radio podcast. You will star in the opening segment.
Go ahead, Janus Face. Wail, shriek and moan like you always do. Run even more people off with your creepiness. And no, lying jackass, I am not “wrong” that both Hitler and Himmler changed their minds about race. You just have no concept of chronology. And you simply ignore any evidence/books which contradict your viewpoint. If I might put it so gently, GFY.
(And there really is no need for me to remind you, Krazy Kraut, that Germany co-initiated and lost both world wars. So much for German superiority, eh?)
To explain why I “don’t want that HH speech appearing in TFF” is easy. I want control of my translation so every Tom, Dick and Harry doesn’t screw around with it and pass it from here to there. YOU are a Dirty Harry who is screwing around with it. It is available to be read free at carolynyeager.NET, that is enough. You can explain that to your readers.
Krazy Kahant is the “Dirty Harry” here. This lying animal has no problem harming others by infringing on their creative work and efforts, but when her efforts are infringed upon, she wails, shrieks and moans like a banshee in heat. MGTOW are right about this woman. She is a vindictive, hostile and selfish b!tch.
I did send you a private email but something went wrong with the address. I am resending it. But it’s understood, I hope, your April issue of TFF will NOT carry ‘Part 2’ of the speech.
You have been advised and warned.”
Well, well, well…it’s okay to violate my copyright, isn’t that right you snake in the grass? But when your copyright is violated, you throw a public tantrum like a toddler.
Here is my DMCA takedown against Krazy Kraut B!tch when she flagrantly and arrogantly violated my copyright and refused to comply with a simple request (not a threat) to remove it:
Krazy Kahant has proven to be a possessive control freak and a hypocritical criminal. And yes, she does have a criminal record. She can deny it until she’s blue in the face, but this information is of public record.
Ms. Kahant is batsh!t insane. What kind of white woman gets a traffic theft misdemeanor in her late 60s? LOL.
Screenshot of Kahant’s public tantrum:
LIKE A BOSS.
By Maria Konnikova
Several weeks ago, on September 24th, Popular Science announced that it would banish comments from its Web site. The editors argued that Internet comments, particularly anonymous ones, undermine the integrity of science and lead to a culture of aggression and mockery that hinders substantive discourse. “Even a fractious minority wields enough power to skew a reader’s perception of a story,” wrote the online-content director Suzanne LaBarre, citing a recent study from the University of Wisconsin-Madison as evidence. While it’s tempting to blame the Internet, incendiary rhetoric has long been a mainstay of public discourse. Cicero, for one, openly called Mark Antony a “public prostitute,” concluding, “but let us say no more of your profligacy and debauchery.” What, then, has changed with the advent of online comments?
Anonymity, for one thing. According to a September Pew poll, a quarter of Internet users have posted comments anonymously. As the age of a user decreases, his reluctance to link a real name with an online remark increases; forty per cent of people in the eighteen-to-twenty-nine-year-old demographic have posted anonymously. One of the most common critiques of online comments cites a disconnect between the commenter’s identity and what he is saying, a phenomenon that the psychologist John Suler memorably termed the “online disinhibition effect.” The theory is that the moment you shed your identity the usual constraints on your behavior go, too—or, to rearticulate the 1993 Peter Steiner cartoon, on the Internet, nobody knows you’re not a dog. When Arthur Santana, a communications professor at the University of Houston, analyzed nine hundred randomly chosen user comments on articles about immigration, half from newspapers that allowed anonymous postings, such as the Los Angeles Times and the Houston Chronicle, and half from ones that didn’t, including USA Today and the Wall Street Journal, he discovered that anonymity made a perceptible difference: a full fifty-three per cent of anonymous commenters were uncivil, as opposed to twenty-nine per cent of registered, non-anonymous commenters. Anonymity, Santana concluded, encouraged incivility.
On the other hand, anonymity has also been shown to encourage participation; by promoting a greater sense of community identity, users don’t have to worry about standing out individually. Anonymity can also boost a certain kind of creative thinking and lead to improvements in problem-solving. In a study that examined student learning, the psychologists Ina Blau and Avner Caspi found that, while face-to-face interactions tended to provide greater satisfaction, in anonymous settings participation and risk-taking flourished.
Anonymous forums can also be remarkably self-regulating: we tend to discount anonymous or pseudonymous comments to a much larger degree than commentary from other, more easily identifiable sources. In a 2012 study of anonymity in computer interactions, researchers found that, while anonymous comments were more likely to be contrarian and extreme than non-anonymous ones, they were also far less likely to change a subject’s opinion on an ethical issue, echoing earlier results from the University of Arizona. In fact, as the Stanford computer scientist Michael Bernstein found when he analyzed the /b/ board of 4chan, an online discussion forum that has been referred to as the Internet’s “rude, raunchy underbelly” and where over ninety per cent of posts are wholly anonymous, mechanisms spontaneously emerged to monitor user interactions and establish a commenter’s status as more or less influential—and credible.
Owing to the conflicting effects of anonymity, and in response to the changing nature of online publishing itself, Internet researchers have begun shifting their focus away from anonymity toward other aspects of the online environment, such as tone and content. The University of Wisconsin-Madison study that Popular Science cited, for instance, was focussed on whether comments themselves, anonymous or otherwise, made people less civil. The authors found that the nastier the comments, the more polarized readers became about the contents of the article, a phenomenon they dubbed the “nasty effect.” But the nasty effect isn’t new, or unique to the Internet. Psychologists have long worried about the difference between face-to-face communication and more removed ways of talking—the letter, the telegraph, the phone. Without the traditional trappings of personal communication, like non-verbal cues, context, and tone, comments can become overly impersonal and cold.
But a ban on article comments may simply move them to a different venue, such as Twitter or Facebook—from a community centered around a single publication or idea to one without any discernible common identity. Such large group environments, in turn, often produce less than desirable effects, including a diffusion of responsibility: you feel less accountable for your own actions, and become more likely to engage in amoral behavior. In his classic work on the role of groups and media exposure in violence, the social cognitive psychologist Alfred Bandura found that, as personal responsibility becomes more diffused in a group, people tend to dehumanize others and become more aggressive toward them. At the same time, people become more likely to justify their actions in self-absolving ways. Multiple studies have also illustrated that when people don’t think they are going to be held immediately accountable for their words they are more likely to fall back on mental shortcuts in their thinking and writing, processing information less thoroughly. They become, as a result, more likely to resort to simplistic evaluations of complicated issues, as the psychologist Philip Tetlock has repeatedly found over several decades of research on accountability.
Removing comments also affects the reading experience itself: it may take away the motivation to engage with a topic more deeply, and to share it with a wider group of readers. In a phenomenon known as shared reality, our experience of something is affected by whether or not we will share it socially. Take away comments entirely, and you take away some of that shared reality, which is why we often want to share or comment in the first place. We want to believe that others will read and react to our ideas.
What the University of Wisconsin-Madison study may ultimately show isn’t the negative power of a comment in itself but, rather, the cumulative effect of a lot of positivity or negativity in one place, a conclusion that is far less revolutionary. One of the most important controls of our behavior is the established norms within any given community. For the most part, we act consistently with the space and the situation; a football game is different from a wedding, usually. The same phenomenon may come into play in different online forums, in which the tone of existing comments and the publication itself may set the pace for a majority of subsequent interactions. Anderson, Brossard, and their colleagues’ experiment lacks the crucial element of setting, since the researchers created fake comments on a fake post, where the tone was simply either civil or uncivil (“If you don’t see the benefits … you’re an idiot”).
Would the results have been the same if the uncivil remarks were part of a string of comments on a New York Times article or a Gawker post, where comments can be promoted or demoted by other users? On Gawker, in the process of voting a comment up or down, users can set the tone of the comments, creating a surprisingly civil result. The readership, in other words, spots the dog at the other of the end of the keyboard, and puts him down.
As the psychologists Marco Yzer and Brian Southwell put it, “new communication technologies do not fundamentally alter the theoretical bounds of human interaction; such interaction continues to be governed by basic human tendencies.” Whether online, on the phone, by telegraph, or in person, we are governed by the same basic principles. The medium may change, but people do not. The question instead is whether the outliers, the trolls and the flamers, will hold outsized influence—and the answer seems to be that, even protected by the shade of anonymity, a dog will often make himself known with a stray, accidental bark. Then, hopefully, he will be treated accordingly.
Maria Konnikova is the author of the New York Times best-seller “Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes.” She has a Ph.D. in psychology from Columbia University.
Science reveals what makes trolls so nasty
By Justin Jouvenal | July 21, 2015
Why do trolls troll?
Anyone who has spent time on the Web has probably wondered in exasperation what motivates people to spew venom and wreak havoc in seemingly every forum and comment section. Science has begun to provide a few answers.
A 2014 University of Manitoba study was the first to attempt to create a personality profile of trolls. Researchers surveyed hundreds of Internet users and gave them personality tests.
Most respondents said they liked to do benign things online, such as chatting and debating issues, but 5.6 percent reported that they enjoyed trolling. The personality tests for this group were striking.
People who enjoyed trolling had much higher rates of dark traits such as sadism, narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism — so much so that “it might be said that online trolls are prototypical everyday sadists,” the authors concluded.
The study also found a correlation between enjoyment of trolling and the amount of time a person spent commenting online — perhaps explaining why so many corners of the Internet seem overrun by trolls.
A 2013 George Mason University study found that trolls are not just annoying to their victims. Their actions can influence the way innocent bystanders perceive and receive information online.
The researchers asked nearly 1,200 people to respond to two versions of a blog post on the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. One had more civil comments appended, while the second had ruder and more aggressive comments.
The researchers found that reading the latter selection had a polarizing effect on respondents: Readers who thought nanotechnology was safe became more entrenched in their positions, and the same was true for people on the other side of the debate.
By now, there are probably a few trolling comments on this story, too.