I’ve noticed that a few of you are hitting my home page and not much more. I don’t have the luxury to blog unless it helps me get my thoughts together as an effort to get my life together. I am learning to be merciless about my vitality and time. I recommend that approach. However, something just rubbed me the wrong way, and I feel compelled to share what I think is related insight. We now get our news from each other. Things are that bad. Herein is my contribution for now.
In my experience, the social relativists (the animal sex and their beloved savage men) are quick to use rhetoric and deceive for relative results. Never mind destroying the man with the hand that feeds them. These are instincts gone wild. They know not wealth stewardship and don’t care if they are destroying the economy that gives them higher standards of livings than they can get with social rules and control to their instinctive liking.
A unit of distractive mind rot news of late is the Hegelian debate over banning sex robots. This is like debating gay marriage. The issue for natural beta producers who should in their own objective interests be conquerors first and builders second is having pussy as property forced into loyal, constructive behavior. I believe liberated women feel miserable except for the transient, empty thrills of attention whoring and rank abusing stimulation. The junkies can’t grow that stimulation exponentially and must crash and feel like shit, especially after they age, don’t have the vitality, and don’t have the looks.
This artificial debate of sex robots is pointless in the outward substance. Firstly, natural selection will decide, not us. In all likelihood, addiction to sex robots will be weeded out: problem solved. But it is possible with more technological advance that sex robots will milk men and feed their semen into an egg-charged incubator. One day the woman’s uterus will be inferior technology, and women will, perhaps, be forced into becoming more like men in the sense of having cooperative value and culture. Thus, it is possible that a propensity for using sex robots could, in theory, be an evolutionary advantage with enough tech. That is obviously not the case now. The wise man need not decide what is right or wrong about sex robots. Morality is ultimately decided by nature on the basis of might making right. The wise man has all he can handle deciding for himself personally what is right, and as for social policy, he defers to nature’s natural selection (the free markets) if he his not sure direct intervention is best.
As in what I posted 14 November 2013, “Utopia 2050”, sex robots that are not organic, i.e. not real living flesh, are not the future. Organic robots that are essentially women with a lobotomy on their socially predatory instincts will be the future, assuming mankind has a future rather than AI or some cyborg hybrids that are not so defined or aroused by sexual reproduction. Genetically engineered female sex machines, as opposed to the freelance natural kind subsidized into a frenzy of biblical plague proportions, blur the line between natural and artificial. We eat food raised on purpose. We live in shelters made on purpose. We get around on roadways made on purpose. Shouldn’t we get off with sex partners made on purpose?
And what was traditionalism if not fathers making quality wife material for the next generation?
But all these considerations of higher-order cooperation well above the animal level is not for the animal sex or their preferred garden-variety lovers ranked after only the rarely available elitist man (still a half wild animal and still destructively wanton). So secondly about the news flimflam about sex robots, the culturally inferior use rhetoric to take personal power from the beta provider type, those of us who could and would create a better world if we had the chance. This from the BBC’s “Intelligent machines: Call for a ban on robots designed as sex toys” dated 15 September 2015 is the bullshit that triggered a silly need in me to write this post (and maybe make a few readers happy, my bold emphasis added):
Sex dolls already on the market are becoming more sophisticated and some are now hoping to build artificial intelligence into their products.
Those working in the field say that there is a need for such robots.
Dr Richardson, a robot ethicist at De Montfort University in Leicester, wants to raise awareness of the issue and persuade those developing sex robots to rethink how their technology is used.
“Sex robots seem to be a growing focus in the robotics industry and the models that they draw on – how they will look, what roles they would play – are very disturbing indeed,” she told the BBC.
She believes that they reinforce traditional stereotypes of women and the view that a relationship need be nothing more than physical.
“We think that the creation of such robots will contribute to detrimental relationships between men and women, adults and children, men and men and women and women,” she said.
These ¢*ᴫ†Ϩ are not happy until there is nothing left to take, an impossibility without termination of the human species and all human happiness. It’s part of being a woman, a creature normally moderated heavily per the wilds to which a woman’s behavior is native by the physical control of men. ¢*ᴫ†Ϩ can never be happy with more because it is never enough. As the red pill aware know, a woman is only happy with a NOOOOO from a high ranking man that has extremely high relative social value to share and shares it conditionally from a position of inviolable autonomy.
Liberated female instincts care nothing of the men except as a pile of sex objects to be cruelly kept on standby for ridicule and, for the astronomically few, sex under tedious and emasculating instructions. Careerists learn at work that safety and social rank requires giving orders continuously. The subsidy liberated wymonz only argue in terms of the men if it makes for the best rhetoric possible. Feminist tell us it does not matter what two goddamn homosexual men do in private, that it is none of our business, and yet this is the feminist SJWs’ business? There is something objectively true about this rhetoric: power. Specifically, relative power. Hurting you makes others successful by definition. That is the essence of subhuman.
The West is not committing suicide. There is no Western us. The West is dying from internal cannibalism. Don’t serve subhumans yourself on a platter. Sheeple will either use your or you will use them. Sheeple don’t stop until they have consumed every last bit. As if seduction by men for sex were some sort of insidious manipulation, the bitches protest out of fear that they might not be the best seducers after all, you ¢*ᴫ†Ϩ!
The brainwashing is a group effort, reinforced vigorously to make it effective. This is from Express’ “Creepy ultra-realistic SEX robots are facing UK ban” by Aaron Brown and dated 15 September 2015 (my bold emphasis added):
And True Companion believes it will be the first to market with Roxxxy – “the world’s first sex robot” – later this year.
True Companion CEO Douglas Hines sees a real need for advanced robotic companions like Roxxxy.
“We are not supplanting the wife or trying to replace a girlfriend,” he reassured.
“This is a solution for people who are between relationships or someone who has lost a spouse.
“People can find happiness and fulfilment other than via human interaction.”
The US firm hopes Roxxxy will eventually be able to learn on her own, and begin to pick-up on her owner’s likes and dislikes.
However for now the humanoid robot has to be manually updated using a laptop – and a cable plugged into her back.
“The physical act of sex will only be a small part of the time you spend with a sex robot – the majority of time will be spent socialising and interacting,” Roxxxy’s creator believes.
Roxxxy has already had thousands of pre-orders. Each unit retails for a staggering $7,000, some £4,530.
Of course, the CEO is using rhetoric. Open, honest discussion is soft capital punishment by socio-economic quarantine. What the entrepreneurial robotophiles are trying to do is get filthy rich by providing a substitute good for the goods, services, and goodness that women should objectively be (to deserve what they have and maintain the cooperation that makes all this possible) but are not (by force of institutional government and sheeple social thuggery).
Did you notice the use of ‘Creepy’ in the article’s title. Just objectively report the news, f**king @§§hole media people. If a sex robot is ‘ultra-realistic’ in emulating a real woman, then real women are creepy, which they really are. Of course, what the thought-strapped hiveminder meant was that the idea of a man having sex with a female robot, in private or not, is creepy and is therefore the business of the collective. We have this line from the last referenced article: “Dr Richardson believes humanoid sex robots reinforce traditional and damaging stereotypes of women.”
Dare I say, who gives a f**k what Dr. Kathleen Richardson believes? Why are her feelings more important to others than their own feelings, their own thoughts, etc. Answer: relative power.
Now this is the mainstream media, veritable state media, and we don’t really know what Dr. Richardson believes based on a few short indications therein.
According to her profile (www.dmu.ac.uk/about-dmu/academic-staff/technology/kathleen-richardson/kathleen-richardson.aspx) at De Montford University, Leicester: “Kathleen Richardson is Senior Research Fellow in Ethics of Robotics and part of the Europe-wide DREAM project (Development of Robot-Enhance Therapy for Children with AutisM).” At least she is working hard to make your video game experience better as some sort of member or partner of the ViR.AL interest group.
It is fine for the vermin manipulators to replace motherhood, but more consequently fatherhood that is not even debated, with robots. But take away the ability of women to abuse men, the ability of arrogant sex objects to guilt trip and abuse the only beings who can behold what little beauty they might or may have once had? “Sexist,” they viciously say. And what do the words of subhuman liars mean to me? Nothing in face value.
So let me get this straight. CNN has a segment against sex robots delivered in an obvious robot voice, so we can get used to a soothing robot voice?:
Does that look like arguments against per its subliminal and instinctive content?
Oh, finally, here is a video with a live person, Dr. Kathleen Richardson in fact, giving a personal and heartfelt take on robots and ethics:
This woman does a credible job of expressing herself considering the hamster handicap. I don’t question the IQ of intellectual women. I question their ultimate motives as with all women. Here is a partial transcript from the video, from the 1:25 mark to the end at 3:33 (with my commentary in square brackets):
My research is important to me because as a human being I think I’m like everybody else [a stock lie, cf. Dark Enlightenment], I want to have good relationships with people, [good how?, for whom?] I want to be, you know, have happiness, and be successful [yah, we know, female ‘success’], and so the relationships we have with others can support those, ah [which those? average men too?], can make our lives very happy, but around us, if our relationships are very difficult or disturbing or problematic, then, then it’s not actually very pleasant to be around people [really?].
It can be very disturbing [go on]. We might as humans want to withdraw [from the guttersnipe collective?], so I think for me, I’m kind of interested in trying to understand those situations and scenarios where people are finding it comforting, their relationships, and when they’re having difficulty, and then thinking about developing technologies or using technologies like robots to perhaps reflect on those difficulties and those relationships that they might be having, so that’s why it’s important to me.
For DMU, I want to stress this, DMU, as part of the Centre for Computing and Social Responsibility, has one of the most premier centers for looking at the ethics of technology, and there is, there is, well there’s only a few departments like this around the world, but is solely focused on thinking about the development of new technologies, and some of these technologies are so, I mean they’re so futuristic, you know, so the idea of a robot therapist is a very futuristic idea, and we get to be a part of that technology. And what we’re trying to do at DMU as well is build up our robotics profile. So thinking about how we can start to be more important [in terms of relative power] for leading UK research in robotics in various fields: social robotics, therapeutic robotics, and in all the other areas that robotics is developing […for whose greater good?].
We all are driven by the conflict over limited resources to have power, but who should have power over whom? In regards to the main topic of this post, why would Dr. Kathleen Richardson be, if we can trust the media, against robot therapy for men? Hmmm. Hmm. No idea, but here’s a hint: Α/α ___, Β/β ___.
These matrix controls to prevent failure guarantee that the inept will out breed the able. If able parenting is not a competitive advantage, what is?
Female hypergamy hates men feeling good. Men’s feelings don’t count, even irrelevant men in mom’s basement who don’t vote and only wish to be left alone to play video games and f**k a kind, loyal machine: what a liberated women can never be.
No matter what the establishment decides, it will be good for them and bad for the rest of us. Natural producers have been, and will continue to be, sacrificed first. There is money to be made, but more importantly there is greater RELATIVE control to be had. At some point women will transition from useful idiots to useless eaters. When that time comes, I don’t think we will be concerned about getting laid or not and how, but it just might be the best time for sexual adventure. Five seconds of alpha only takes a minute because ejaculation is never premature for those that matter most by natural standards. Smoke ’em if you got ’em. Cultural might makes right.
—‘Reality’ Doug, 15 September 2015