GOD, ROBOT

It is the year 6080 AD. Detective Theseus Hollywell has at last discovered the hiding place of William Locke, a notorious fugitive from justice who has been hunted for decades after committing unspeakable crimes.


But Locke has a trick up his sleeve, one that the detective couldn’t expect: He has a story to tell.


This is the tale of the theobots, the robotic beings created to love God and Man with a perfection no mere mortal could achieve. In ten stories by eight different science fiction authors, Locke recounts the role of the theobots throughout history, from the purposes for which they were originally created to their ultimate role in deciding the fate of Man, the galaxy, and one lost and tortured soul.

GOD, ROBOT is a themed collection of intertwined stories from some of the best known names in superversive science fiction. Written in the tradition of Isaac Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics and edited by Anthony Marchetta, the book contains stories by John C. Wright, Steve Rzasa, Joshua Young, L. Jagi Lamplighter, and others.

GOD, ROBOT is 162 pages, is DRM-free, and is available on Amazon. Note: One story in the collection, “The Logfile” by Vox Day, was previously published in The Altar of Hate.

UPDATE: From the Amazon reviews:

FIVE STARS. This one pleasantly surprised me. I don’t mind
Asimov-style sci-fi and find the basic concept of the three laws of
robotics very interesting, but it’s not my favorite subgenre, and I felt
I could guess where things were going to go before I read it. It took a
few pages, but in spite of my initial reservations I was drawn in by
the multi-part sequential story which takes the well-known three laws
and posits what might happen if two more laws were added… the greatest
commandments of scripture–love God above all, and love your neighbor
as yourself–and builds an alternate future based on the
theologically-aware robot race that results and seeks its own place in
God’s creation.

Another strike against free trade

You may note that among my four points against free trade, I note that free trade is incompatible with democracy and national sovereignty. One argument I failed to note in this regard is the way in which free trade permits extortion by holding the national economy hostage:

Saudi Arabia has told the Obama administration and members of Congress that it will sell off hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of American assets held by the kingdom if Congress passes a bill that would allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

The Obama administration has lobbied Congress to block the bill’s passage, according to administration officials and congressional aides from both parties, and the Saudi threats have been the subject of intense discussions in recent weeks between lawmakers and officials from the State Department and the Pentagon. The officials have warned senators of diplomatic and economic fallout from the legislation.

Adel al-Jubeir, the Saudi foreign minister, delivered the kingdom’s message personally last month during a trip to Washington, telling lawmakers that Saudi Arabia would be forced to sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other assets in the United States before they could be in danger of being frozen by American courts.

Dr. Miller mentioned that he couldn’t think of any way that foreigners buying up American assets could be a bad thing. But, once more, we have an object lesson in letting reason be silent when experience gainsays its conclusions. Free trade not only imperils democracy, but also endangers the rule of law.

Notice again that free trade theory fails due to the limited imaginations of its advocates and their inability to even conceive of potential problems that are actually occurring in the real world.

But speaking of Dr. Miller, I emailed him to broach the possibility of a second debate addressing a topic that more than a few readers observed we failed to discuss, namely, whether free trade necessarily requires the free movement of people or not. He agreed at once, although we both need to do a bit of research before we’re prepared to debate it. When we’re ready, I’ll let you know and we’ll hold another open Brainstorm event.

Names are harassment now

It’s always amusing what contortions SJWs will twist themselves into in order to try to justify their actions beyond “me no likee”. Reddit is suspending accounts for linking to pages “posting the personal information (including the full names) of non-public people.”

As some of you may know, there is a list of “confirmed SJWs” being passed around on various sites.

Do not post or link to it on Reddit. It’s considered personal information, and you will likely have your accounts suspended for it.

We already had one user post it here, and it was removed earlier today by the admins, and the account suspended. Similar issue happened on /r/SJWsAtWork, as well.

This was the ruling given to us:

    Our rules aren’t just against connecting IRL names to reddit user names, they are also against posting the personal information (including the full names) of non-public people.

Just wanted to give y’all a heads-up as to what’s going on, so none of you lose your accounts or think that we’re censoring it.

The funny thing is that despite their attempts to justify banning anyone who links to a list of which they don’t approve, and thereby creating a rule that requires the banning of anyone who links to any page with just one individual’s full name on it, the rule doesn’t actually apply to The Complete List of SJW because it doesn’t feature full names.

It does, however, ban anyone from linking to Facebook, among other sites. Not that it will be applied that way by the moderators, of course, because SJW.

It seems the primitive magicians were right. There is dark power in the knowledge of true names!

Mailvox: when is firing justified?

CC asks the wrong question:

Assume an employer discovers he has in his employ a vocal and known racist. Assume the presence of that racist in his employ is hurting his business due to people choosing to no longer do business with him. Is he justified firing the racist?

The answer is to this rhetorical query is, of course, yes? So, is a person who opposes racism justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist?

I don’t know why CC is even asking me this question. I believe in, and advocate, free association. That means that an employer can fire any employee for any reason he chooses.

So, I’m absolutely fine with an employer firing a racist simply for being a racist. What I would ask CC is this: is he likewise fine with an employer firing a black for being a black, a Jew for being a Jew, a woman for being a woman, a pregnant woman for being pregnant, a feminist for being a feminist, or a Communist for being a Communist? Because I support all of those hypothetical firings as well, on both logical grounds and on the basis of being protected by the Constitutional right of free association.

What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee. Remember, Ben Shapiro did not say that he would refuse to hire anyone who is a socialist, he did not say he would not do business with anyone who employs Jews, he said that racists should be hunted down.

That is not free association.  That is not eucivic behavior that is compatible with either civilized society or peaceful coexistence. Society can survive many things, but it cannot survive this aggressive ideological totalitarianism aimed at extinguishing the acknowledgement of observable reality. SJWism is both dyscivic and dyscivilizational.

What SJWs want is thought policing and enforcement. They want certain thoughts protected from criticism and certain other thoughts eliminated. A person who opposes racism can only be justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist insofar as anyone else is equally able to call on people not to do business with other establishments for any other reason.

If that’s the war the SJWs want, that’s precisely the war they’ll get. But judging by their frightened response to something as minor as The Complete List of SJW, it seems unlikely that they are genuinely up for it. Because they know, as well as we do, that it is a war they will lose. Badly.

Listen up, retards

  1. Stop talking about “ad hom” or “ad hominum” or “ad hominem attacks” unless you actually know what an “argumentum ad hominem” is.
  2. “Insult” and “ad hominem” are not synonyms.
  3. Never talk about someone committing a “logical fallacy” unless you can identify the specific logical fallacy being committed.

Seriously, you’re all just embarrassing yourselves. Just stop it. It doesn’t make you sound either smart or convincing to use words you clearly don’t understand. Even if I disagree with you and you’re attacking me, it’s painful to watch. I mean, count the errors in just this one tweet alone:

#NewYork4Cruz ﻦ † ‏@politicsiswar
Ad hominem attacks. The mark of a Marxist. Why does WND still have you on payroll?

I don’t have enough hands for the facepalms required.

They also slash tires

Mike Cernovich brings us news that the SJWs have expanded their tactical set:

I on the 11th day of the 4th month of 2016 did maliciously attack a hate symbol protected by free speech. After disturbing the vehicle and dumping rotten food into the interior I feel I have improved the community and supported our nations values by stopping a promoter of hate speech. I do not wish to have ignorant bigots in my town and in a just world the person deserved what was received. The situation is made whole. As America is far from just, I expect the bigot will want to be made whole. With this I declare he is owed nothing. But as the situation is what it is, I intent to make individual whole provided he cease to promote ignorance and hate. I do not expect the law to recognize damage to tools of hate or racism, such things need to be destroyed so good people may remain and become free.

I don’t know about you, but I find that argument entirely convincing. More weapons in the anti-SJW arsenal, I suppose, although I don’t think we’ll bother with this one.

In attempted defense of chickenhawks

Ben Shapiro’s defenders are more than a little sensitive to his hypocrisy and shameless, well-documented cowardice:

Ben Shapiro ‏@benshapiro
Trump speaks at a fourth-grade level. His WSJ piece is written at a ninth-grade level.

Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
And you went to law school instead of serving your country while calling for other Americans to go to war.

THE Chris Coon ‏@Coondawg68
these PC SJW Trumpkins are now yelling “Chickenhawk!!” “Bu$Hitler lied!!” FFS…

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Now? I observed that the coward @benshapiro was the Littlest Chickenhawk back in 2005

From my August 29, 2005 WND column, The Chickenhawk Clucks

 I – like 62 percent of the soldiers and veterans who frequent Vox Popoli and Blackfive – am in accord with the notion that “chickenhawk” is an appropriate label for a warmongering young columnist who urges others to make sacrifices he has no intention of making himself.

    Most of us realize that during wartime, sacrifices must be made … But taking such a stand requires common sense and the knowledge that we are in the midst of the great battle of our time.
    – Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, July 28, 2005

I would be remiss if I did not note that many of these military men and women favored a different 11-letter word that also begins with “chicken.”

The genuine flaw in the use of the “chickenhawk” label is that in most cases it is being applied years, even decades, after the fact, and inherently attempts to equate two different historical situations. However, due to Mr. Shapiro’s precocious position in the national media, this common flaw does not apply. While his peers are dodging sniper bullets and IEDs in Afghanistan and Iraq, Mr. Shapiro is bravely urging them to invade five more countries in the establishment of global empire from the safety of his Harvard dorm room.

    Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to our nation? Perhaps not. But toppling Saddam Hussein and democratizing Iraq prevent his future ascendance and end his material support for future threats globally. The same principle holds true for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan and others: Pre-emption is the chief weapon of a global empire. No one said empire was easy, but it is right and good, both for Americans and for the world.
    – Benjamin Shapiro, WorldNetDaily, Aug. 11, 2005

The America Bar Association already boasts more than 896,000 lawyers, America has no desperate need for another one. The U.S. Army, on the other hand, is currently 8,000 men short of its 2005 recruiting goals. I am only one of many non-pacifist, non-leftist Americans who believe that Mr. Shapiro would do well to heed his own words of Aug. 26, 2004. “Now’s the time: Either put up, or shut the hell up.”

And before you ask, on January 18th, 1991, my friend Big Chilly and I went to the Roseville, Minnesota recruiting office and attempted to enlist in the United States Marine Corps. Our enlistments were not accepted, in fact, the recruiter ripped up the papers after reading them over and asking us a few questions, but he also shook our hands and thanked us for being willing to serve our country.

So we never served, but we were ready and willing to do so without being asked. And that is something that Ben Shapiro, for all his hectoring bluster about the pressing need for Americans to die in war, was clearly not willing to do.

As further evidence The Complete List of SJW is effective, several of Shapiro’s defenders are extremely intent on having him removed from it. But unless and until he recants his public statement about hunting down and disemploying racists, (and assuming no further evidence of his social justice sympathies is discovered) he quite clearly belongs on it.

Syria or Colorado

Whose elections are less legitimate? Paul Craig Roberts points out the irony of American politicians decrying a purported lack of democratic legitimacy in Syria.

Today (April 14) Syria held parliamentary elections at 7,000 polling stations, keeping the voting open an extra five hours to accommodate the massive turnout. All were allowed to vote, even displaced Syrians from the two provinces still terrorized by Washington and Israeli backed ISIS.

Washington is angry, because Syria held elections before Washington had time to purchase its slate of politicians and organize Washington-funded NGOs to take to the streets to protest and to claim that Assad had stolen the election.

Despite the massive voter turnout and extended hours for voting, the US State Department set the tone by declaring that the elections are not legitimate in Washington’s eyes and do not represent “the will of the Syrian people.”

Washington’s two-bit punk vassals in London and Paris chimed in with both claiming that the war conditions in Syria to which London and Paris have contributed mean that the idea of elections is “totally unrealistic.”

The New York Times lied, characteristically, that the elections, which seem to demonstrate nationwide solidarity against the Western-backed overthrow of the Syrian government, “highlight divisions and uncertainty.” The Washington Post added its lies and misrepresentations to the propagandistic reporting.

The Western governments are far out on a limb with their lies that the Syrian people prefer to be governed by the Washington supported terrorists who were overrunning their country and conducting with Western supplied weapons mass murder on the Syrian people until Russia put a stop to it. Now the Western liars are exposed yet again by election results, and so the liars must pretend that the election lacks validity.

So, Republicans are in the fascinating position of arguing that Syria’s elections, which actually allow people to vote, are illegitimate and do not represent “the will of the people” because “war conditions”, whereas the Republican nomination in Colorado, where no one is even voting, is legitimate and does represent “the will of the people” despite the people having no voice because “rules”.

And people wonder why Americans support a quixotic outsider like Donald Trump. I vote for a blind and incontinent basset hound before I’d vote for any member of the Republican establishment, which now observably includes Ted Cruz. Of course, if I lived in Colorado, I wouldn’t be able to vote at all.

This isn’t that hard. Yes, we all know America is not a democracy. The point is that if you’re going to repeatedly go to war for democracy, then the first place you should do so is in the USA.

500 more votes

MidAmericaCon II reports more than 4,000 nominating votes for the 2016 Hugo Awards:

Over 4,000 nominating ballots were received for the 2016 Hugo Awards, nearly doubling the previous record of 2,122 ballots set last year by Sasquan, the 73rd Worldcon held in Spokane, WA.

I would assume that this bodes poorly for the Rabid Puppies, as it tends to indicate a stronger turnout by the No Awards than predicted by Chaos Horizon. His prediction assumed 3,620 nominating votes, about 500 short of what we will assume was 4,100 votes.

So, I have to conclude that expectations of a second-straight Puppy sweep are highly unlikely, although we will likely get a few nominations where there is an amount of crossover appeal. If the vote had come in around 3,000, I would have felt reasonably confident. Over 4,000 and I tend to doubt the 500-strong Rabid Puppy vote can compete effectively with what has become an increasingly uniform SF-SJW vote until EPH passes.

However, this still indicates a high probability of an entirely satisfactory result, as our primary goal was to break the Tor cabal’s stranglehold on the awards, not to dominate them in turn.