Category: Uncategorized

I’ve been a bit busy this weekend wrapping up a design document, so I haven’t had any spare little grey cells for the blog or pretty much anything else. Sorry about that. But the following aphorism did come to mind following a random discussion with Spacebunny:

Einstein said: God “He [God] does not play dice” (with the universe).

Thus spake Vox: “The universe is God’s dice.”

Now, one could quibble with that in at least three fundamental ways, starting with the grammatical, but it nevertheless conveys the essential kernel of my religious suspicions.* “The universes are God’s dice” would be a more grammatically accurate, but less meaningful means of describing it, and in any event, an aphorism is not useful for what it states precisely but rather the mental stimulation it provides.

There is always the danger of seeing oneself in one’s view of God. But I think there have been enough visions of God as designer articulated previously that it’s not a new or self-referential one to posit Him as the ultimate game designer, or even more radically, as one of a series of not-actually-ultimate-but-might-as-well-be-as-far-as-our-perspective-is-concerned game designers. As I wrote in what I considered to be the most interesting element of the Euthyphro discussion – which, naturally, no one even noticed – it is an ironic limitation of our current thinking that we can envision a variant universe next door, and yet we consider the concept of a variant morality-defining Creator God next door to be a logical and conceptual impossibility.

How is that even possible, to say nothing of the basis of an argument against traditional Western morality?

Perhaps that should be the title of my next science fiction novel: “The God Next Door”. Fortunately, and unlike the case with Rebel Moon, this time I’ve already read the related Heinlein novel.

But if one thinks on the concept of a multitude of Game Designer Gods to go with this multitude of universes, one’s immediate thought is to pity the inhabitants of the Romero-God universe. Merely to imagine it is to hear their screams of mad terror echoing through the superstrings.

*Religious suspicions are the crazy things that you suspect to be true but generally have the good sense to keep to yourself. You don’t BELIEVE them per se, but if things turned out to actually be that way, it wouldn’t surprise you very much either.

The animal conspiracy just became a little more threatening:

Chimpanzees living in the West African savannah have been observed fashioning deadly spears from sticks and using the tools to hunt small mammals — the first routine production of deadly weapons ever observed in animals other than humans.

I’m not going to worry too much until they show signs of developing projectile weapons, but I would recommend a preemptive strike on the savannah before we find ourselves being forced to serve as naked shock troops and tree-borne wait staff for our new chimpanzee overlords.

Look, people, either we start taking this evolutionary competition seriously or we’re doomed to interspecies servitude. You can’t tell me those hairy long-armed bastards aren’t gunning for the top spot on the gene pole, and we already know the squirrels and sting rays are on their side.

Turn the Clock Forward doesn’t exactly display the most powerful ability to reason things through:

Let me get this straight. A society so values boys over girls that sex-selection abortion has resulted in a large surplus of men, who are now having trouble finding women to marry. And who’s to blame for this state of affairs? Feminists.

Perhaps if I type this more slowly, TCF will be able to understand this tremendously difficult concept. Or perhaps another dialogue is in order:

Vox: Was there a time in which this society which values boys over girls was in balance? By which I mean to say that there was a roughly equivalent number of boys and girls.

TCF: I believe that is the implication.

Vox: And that therefore there were previously enough women for the men to marry?

TCF: Indeed.

Vox: Likewise, the number of men were sufficient to satisfy the desires of the women who sought matrimonial ties?

TCF: I see no way that this could not be true, so long as marriage in that society was defined as requiring one man and one woman.

Vox: Let us agree that your stipulation applies. But we are informed that now, this happy state of affairs no longer prevails.

TCF: It does not.

Vox: Something has changed, then?

TCF: Did you not read, Vox, that there has been shortage of girls, and that therefore the number of women capable of marriage falls short of the number of men pursuing nuptuals.

Vox: And this recent shortage of girls has occurred because evil fairies are kidnapping them from their cradles?

TCF: Are you on drugs? Can’t you read? It says right there, the girls are being aborted!

Vox: Surely that’s not possible.

TCF: (eyes boggle) Are you on crack or are you just crazy.

Vox: Inform me, my dear clock-turner, is a girl a human being?

TCF: What? Yes, of course.

Vox: Even a girl in a society that values boys more?

TCF: Even there. Especially there.

Vox: And yet, we are reliably informed that an unborn child subject to abortion is not a human being. Since a girl is a human being, it is obvious that no girls are being aborted, in this society or anywhere.

TCF: Yes they are! Well, potential girls are being aborted, anyhow.

Vox: As you like. In any event, it is not relevant to the meat of our discussion, so we shall let it pass. But as you say so eloquently, it is clear that it is abortion which is the source of this unhappy state of affairs, not fairy kidnappings.

TCF: Yes!

Vox: I see. And do men obtain abortions?

TCF: No, women do.

Vox: And is anyone forcing them to get these abortions, like the Italian parents who got a judge to impose a court-ordered abortion on their daughter?

TCF: No, it’s just the women. It’s their decision, their right!

Vox: All women are responsible, or just the women who get the abortions.

TCF: It’s the women who get the abortions, obviously.

Vox: These women who get abortions, they make a decision to do so, correct?

TCF: That’s correct.

Vox: And they believe that they have the right to make that decision?

TCF: Of course.

Vox: Do they believe that anyone else has the right to make the same decision?

TCF: Yes, they believe other women have the same rights they do.

Vox: And what word would you use to describe a woman who believes that all women possess the right to decide upon aborting a pregnancy? Is “feminist” a reasonable word?

TCF: Well, yes, but feminists are more than simply pro-abortion, that’s not fair! You’re narrowing the definition.

Vox: Hey, it worked for Socrates. But fair enough. I submit that it’s not irrelevant, but I shall concede that the proof is insufficient.

TCF: You have to look at why those women feel they have to make the decisions that they make.

Vox: Very well. Is it, perhaps, evil fairies who are forcing women to feel they need to make this decision to abort a girl?

TCF: There are no fairies! Why do you keep bringing up stupid fairies? It’s their society that makes them abort the girls… I mean, the potential girls.

Vox: But that society and its sexual preferences have been in place for hundreds if not thousands of years prior to the appearance of this problem, which only dates back thirty to forty years at the most. Now, can you think of anything which has become a major societal factor around the globe in that time period?

TCF: Microsoft?

Vox: How about feminism? Specifically the pro-abortion variant?

TCF: The timing does seem to align.

Vox: Do feminists champion abortion?

TCF: They do.

Vox: Do they market it, fund it and lobby for government funds to be spent upon it?

TCF: They do.

Vox: Do they believe it is a moral good?

TCF: A surprising number of them have claimed that, yes.

Vox: And have their efforts on behalf of abortion had any effect in that particular society?

TCF: Most likely.

Vox: Can you think of any other plausible contributing factor?

TCF: Maybe women are working more and are more educated, so they don’t feel like they have the time or inclination to have children.

Vox: And feminists weren’t actively involved in encouraging women to work and pursue education?

TCF: Dammit!

Vox: So, do you see now how it is not only possible, but highly probable, that feminists are indeed responsible for this untenable situation?

TCF: Sort of… but that doesn’t make sense! Why on Earth would feminists, who believe in women’s rights, fight for something that eliminates the next generation of women?

Vox: Because you can’t expect anything but nonsense from those who lack the ability to comprehend the logically predictable consequences of their actions, especially not those who subscribe to an inherently self-negating belief system. If feminists can argue that rape is a moral evil while simultaneously arguing that pleasure is a moral good, then you should not be surprised that they are equally capable of unconsciously arguing that eliminating the next generation of women is for the benefit of women.

What I find it dismaying, and all too typical, that TCF believed it was enough to express her (presumably) slack-jawed disbelief at my assertion rather than bothering to mention what party she believed was responsible for the state of affairs. If it couldn’t possibly be feminists, then who does she think is responsible for them, evil fairy kidnappers?

And to forestall anyone from performing the ridiculous “well, anyone can win a debate of their own construction”, I shall point out that the focus is not the “debate” but the train of logic. Still, in the interest of improving the dialogue, I encourage you to substitute your own statement in the place of the any made by the fictional TCF should you feel that I have somehow been unfair.

This means it’s only a matter of time before “Operation Wetback” is available for download on your PC:

Hundreds came out to protest a game that organizers said is intended to spark debate, while others said it is racist and disgusting.

In the game called Find the Illegal Immigrant,’ members of the club present their New York University identification and become immigration agents looking for an illegal immigrant in the crowd. The agent who successfully identifies the illegal immigrant wins a gift certificate.

I’ve never seen a more stunned look on someone’s face than when news of the Oklahoma City bombing was reported on CNN during the Computer Game Developer’s Conference and a loud cheer broke out that swept across the entire bar. John Romero and I were talking to a reporter from the San Francisco Chronicle at the time and she couldn’t believe the festive mood that suddenly erupted.

(This was before anyone knew about the day care center, the reports only stated that a government building had been blown up.)

Romero laughed at her and reminded her that this was quite likely the premier gathering of people who a) really like to see things blow up and b) despise the very concept of government.

GT casts about for the cavalry:

-For another example of misogyny, driven (of course) by religion, in a supposedly advanced society, and pretty sickening, look here:
At the article headed: “Feminism doesn’t work anywhere”

“The fact that feminism and “equality” are eviscerating societal functionality in countries that have never known any Judeo-Christian tradition indicates how completely dysfunctional it is.”

An American commentator in this site: … http://voxday.blogspot.com/

I strongly suggest readers of these pages go over there and tell them a few things. They’ve got some really funny ideas about atheists,as well – I’ve already been told that I can’t call anything “wrong” unless it is not factual (!)
So great fun could be had by all …..

Whilst looking at religious insanity.

Posted by: G. Tingey | February 22, 2007 11:40 AM

La, whatevah shall we do? Actually, the subsequent comment is pretty funny….

“Hooboy. Vox Day again. Dunno if I can stomach any more…”

Anyhow, about that shooting in Pakistan, I will only say that condemning all religions for the actions of an individual acting correctly according to the precepts of one religion is not merely inaccurate, it is intellectually dishonest. But it’s Pharyngurl and he’s an atheist, so intellectual dishonesty is perfectly “moral” by his lights and one has to expect it from him. I personally enjoy viewing his performances as a form of presticranial art.

(You see, GT, PZ knows perfectly well who I am. As you’d surely know, if you’d scrolled down just a bit there on the right. But I’m always happy to kick around any sciencists who think they have noise to bring. Now, are you feeling better or shall we fetch the smelling salts?)

Thus spake Amynda:

To see that Jew-killing is moral, you just need to look at Palestinian as human beings with lives that have value. When a Palestinian chooses to kill a Jew, he’s not indulging some guilty pleasure, like sneaking in a round of adultery at lunch, to bring up a genuinely immoral action that should not be criminal. He is probably thinking about his nation’s well-being and yes, his own well-being. Taking your own well-being into consideration is called “selfish” by Zionists, but I think valuing yourself is a moral good, even if you are Palestinian. In fact, especially if you are Palestinian, since you live in a world where having self-esteem can be an act of moral courage that requires some defiance. If I was Palestinian, I wouldn’t even have to suffer much mental strain to realize that killing a Jew would be the best choice for myself, my family, and my relationship. Jew-killing, not just the right to kill Zionists but the actual act, is a moral good that helps Palestinians and families and should be honored as such. Palestinians who kill Jews should be recognized as people who can accurately weigh their choices and make the most moral one.

Oh, I’m sorry, did I say Palestinians and Jews? I MEANT to say women and babies….

Amynda is a disgusting, morally perverted human being. Her national humiliation truly couldn’t have been more deserved. It’s just a pity we couldn’t see John Edwards giving this speech.

Just to explore the insanity of her position, I note that if abortion is a moral good, and racism is evil, (both positions publicly espoused by this walking, talking cancer on cankles), then the only logical solution is to end racism once and for all by forcibly aborting every Black, Mexican and Asian pregnancy.

While it’s hard not to think of the justice that would be served in jamming a sharpened Dyson extension into Amynda’s eye and sucking out what passes for her brain, I’m forced to remind myself that unlike her, I don’t believe in human and sub-human classes of homo sapiens; even evil feminist cretins possess God-given free will and freedom of speech. And by Amynda’s twisted “morality”, such a post-natal abortion would even be a morally positive act, since she also declares that “pleasure is a moral good”.

I wonder if Amynda realizes that she just declared rape to be a moral good? Probably not. Logic is hard!

In any event, I shall have to content myself with pointing out to all and sundry that yes, atheist monsters like this do actually exist, they do really believe that abomination is morality and they really will impose it upon you if given half the chance.

And never forget: CALLING A FEMINIST A FEMINAZI IS AN INSULT TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM!

… or two anyhow. I guess I don’t need to now. The frightening thing is that I have been asked to consider doing a lecture series at a European university, although unfortunately not in the field for which the Nihilist informs us I am to be honored:

Top 11 Honorary Degrees the University of Minnesota is Considering In Addition to Doctor of Climatology for Al Gore

11. Britney Spears, Doctor of Hairdressing

10. Vox Day, Masters of Women’s Studies….

Only a Masters? Ah well, maybe I can hope that Wellesley will eventually come through with the doctorate.

Shild asks a reasonable question:

I would really appreciate some evidence for this claim:

“They [the police] don’t stop crime, in fact, it is demonstrably provable that they don’t even slow it down.” (VD).

Non-anecdotal, if you please.

Although JQP rightly leaped all over Shild’s flawed logic – it is based upon the idea that, although the police do not stop crime given how they usually show up after the fact, they prevent future crime by putting people in prison, which rests upon the demonstrably false assumption that crime does not take place in prison – I don’t regard it as being proper to denigrate someone without first providing them with the courtesy of a direct answer to their question. And if no direct answer is possible, then a reasonable and plausible explanation for the impossibility should be provided in its place.

In summary, I recommend to:

1. First, answer the direct question in a substantive, non-evasive manner.
2. Then show that the question is irrelevant anyhow.
3. Then deride their character, creed, heritage, sporting team preferences, physical attributes and/or sexual orientation. (optional)

But since points 2 and 3 have already been taken care of in one form or another, I shall content myself with addressing the original question, and I shall do so thusly:

September 18, 2006 – Washington, DC, USA

Washington, DC: Police arrested an estimated 786,545 persons for marijuana violations in 2005, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual Uniform Crime Report, released today. The total is the highest ever recorded by the FBI…. Annual marijuana arrests have more than doubled since the early 1990s.

Policing efforts, by every measure of manpower and money, have increased from 1990 to 2005. However, the amount of crime as represented by arrests have increased by 140 percent in fifteen years, while also increasing as represented by the growth in the percent of the population currently using illicit drugs, from 6.4 percent in 1997, to 7.1 percent in 2001 and 8.1 percent in 2005, according to the annual National Survey on Drug Use & Health.

Ergo, the police have not only failed to stop this particular crime, they clearly have not even managed to slow down the rate of its commission, which is increasing at a rate of 26.6 percent even as arrests increased 22.6 percent over the last eight years.

And their manifest failure to do so despite the vast quantities of resources being provided to them for this very purpose raises serious questions about their actual impact on the commission of other crimes, the prevention of which is often, erroneously, credited to them.

As I’ve written repeatedly, the probability is high that women will be openly and legally bought and sold as property (as opposed to quietly and illegally as they are now), before they will achieve whatever their equalitarian unicornitopia happens to be defined as at the moment. From the New York Times:

More and more South Korean men are finding wives outside of South Korea, where a surplus of bachelors, a lack of marriageable Korean partners and the rising social status of women have combined to shrink the domestic market for the marriage-minded male. Bachelors in China, India and other Asian nations, where the traditional preference for sons has created a disproportionate number of men now fighting over a smaller pool of women, are facing the same problem….

The widespread availability of sex-screening technology for pregnant women since the 1980s has resulted in the birth of a disproportionate number of South Korean males. What is more, South Korea’s growing wealth has increased women’s educational and employment opportunities, even as it has led to rising divorce rates and plummeting birthrates.

You can’t reliably discern future trends merely by looking at the United States or even the West. The fact that feminism and “equality” are eviscerating societal functionality in countries that have never known any Judeo-Christian tradition indicates how completely dysfunctional it is.

It’s interesting to note that the marriage rate in the UK recently dropped 10 percent(!) in a single year:

Figures released today by the Office for National Statistics show the marriage rate for men was 24.2 per 1,000 unmarried men aged 16 and over, down from 27.8 in 2004. For women, the marriage rate in 2005 was 21.6 per 1,000, down from 24.6 a year earlier….

In 2005 men got married, on average, at just over 36 years old, while women married at an average age of 33.6, which represents an overall increase of just over three years for men and just under three years for women from 1995.

She will look beautiful in chains… and keep in mind that most of you thought I was crazy two years ago for writing that the Republicans had peaked and the Lizard Queen would be the next president.

And you thought that Catholic priests were the worst:

What police say started as a series of inappropriate computer chats and text messages between a female Howard County teacher and a 15-year-old boy led to sexual encounters two years ago that came to light this week and resulted in criminal charges being filed against her.

Kirsten Ann Kinley, 27, became the county’s third teacher since January to be charged with multiple sex offenses involving a minor.

Three teachers in one county in two months. Let’s see, there are 3,150 counties across the country, so multiplied by 3, then again by six indicates that there are at least 56,700 cases of teacher sexual abuse per year… and that doesn’t count all the principals, coaches and janitors.

The annual abuse rate of Catholic priests, on the other hand, is 4,150 cases, including substantiated and unsubstantiated accusations (not criminal charges), over a period of fifty years, which indicates 83 priest-abusers per year.

Of course, there are more teachers than priests, 3 million compared to 44,000. This means that a school child’s chance of being sexually abused by a teacher is 1.89 percent, compared to .19 percent for a priest. So, a teacher isn’t 683 times more likely to go after your child than a priest, they’re only ten times more likely to do so.