As I’ve aged, my resentment for Robert Heinlein has simply grown, even as I developed a kind of affection for Jew Isaac Asimov’s stilted and autistic prose*.

I went through Heinlein again I guess maybe five years ago. (You think of things in your life in relation to the coronavirus hoax, no? It truly was Year Zero. It shattered reality and the timeline. I’m sitting here thinking “lockdown minus 2.”) I didn’t read the whole bibliography, but I went through the hits. I didn’t really think any of it was good.)

The themes speak to the genre, or at least the genre as it was. These are novels for teenage boys, and when you consider the ideas being communicated, you wonder: “how was this written by an adult?”

NB4 someone tells me to look in the mirror – you don’t understand what’s going on. I’ve never disguised the fact that I pander to teenage boys and alienated adults who were never permitted by society to develop a social role beyond that of a teenage boy. However, that speaks to form, not themes. I have very adult themes, which are easier to process through humor, and that is why we have a “fun for 14-year-old boys of all ages” type vibe here at the Daily Stormer.

Heinlein was a “libertarian,” and he basically understood his own value system insofar as that is possible. I say it’s impossible, because there are irreconcilable contradictions in every ideology. This means that no one who follows an ideology actually understands their own value system.

I’m not going to do a full analysis of libertarian ideology or the concept of ideology right now, but as regards Heinlein, what stuck out to me when I read it this last time at Zero Minus Two was the conflict between sexual liberation and personal freedom. It’s a ridiculous idea that you could have both of those things. On a higher level, you could talk about the way people become slaves of passion and can then be manipulated by it. On the more obvious level: you can’t do free sex without liberated women, and once women are liberated they start shutting down men’s freedoms. It’s very simple, and it’s frustrating to try to imagine a reasonably intelligent man in his 50s and 60s (when Heinlein wrote his prime work) being able to square that circle. It requires a heavy amount of denial of basic, obvious reality, and I very much dislike the fact that people do this. It’s one of the Illness Revelations that has yet to be published, this issue of denialism.

When you sexually liberate women, the nagging nanny…

…becomes “NAG FORCE.”

You get authoritarianism, and not even a remotely good form of authoritarianism, but one that leads inevitably to a total destruction of society. You get a domestic lockdown coupled with endless foreign wars, with no rational limits on either end of the agenda.

[Note: “Libertarianism where women are classified as property rather than autonomous actors” might work. But I just really have no use for these ideologies, and think that state policy should be outcome-based. People who follow ideologies necessarily are opposed to determining policy based on outcome, and would prefer to commit to a means and then claim that whatever outcome the means produce was the only one possible and therefore must be correct. If it is objectively incorrect, like with communist economic policy causing mass starvation or multiculturalism leading to massive hardcore violence everywhere, then the ideologist simply blames human error, claiming that the ideology was not properly implemented.]

As an objective matter, if I’m playing the literary critic, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress is the best of show in the Heinlein bibliography. It’s very heavy on the libertarian stuff, but mostly showcasing aspects of libertarianism I agree with. The basic premise is that lunar colonists seek independence from Earth, so there’s a parallel with the American revolution, done with the best narrative and prose Heinlein was ever going to pull off.

In terms of enjoyability, and in relation to my personal interests, Starship Troopers is much better.

The film adaptation was released when I was 11, and I saw it before reading the book. They’re very different thematically, although I think the film hit the aesthetics perfectly. The film is directed by Dutch lunatic Paul Verhoeven. Like Verhoeven’s RoboCop, it’s intended to be a parody of fascism, but can be easily watched as a pro-fascism film (in the same way my grandmother used to watch “The Colbert Show” as a Republican news show).

The book is not a parody of fascism, but actually a fascist book. This speaks to how garbled libertarianism is. The book celebrates militarism, in an unapologetic way. The earth military is sent to fight vicious insectoids they call “the bugs” that are somehow dominating outer space. The bugs are mindless and can’t be reasoned with, and just have to be killed (in terms of plot, I don’t even remember the explanation for how mindlessly violent insects are traveling through space, but I remember it doesn’t make sense). The lesson is “sometimes you just have to kill people.” I strongly identify with this message.

The book has some of the libertarian sex liberation themes – the military has both men and women, and they all shower together. (The film adaptation had a sexy scene, which I’m sure everyone in their 30s remembers watching on the big screen with one of their parents and feeling very uncomfortable. It’s horrible that films that are otherwise children’s films do this.) But overall, it’s a fun book.

The worst Heinlein book of all, at least the worst of the hits, is the most celebrated: Stranger in a Strange Land. This was published shortly after Starship, and yet all of the themes were offensive. There was some love put into the prose, but it’s really just tedious and exhausting. Heinlein wasn’t really a great writer, and Stranger’s prose isn’t nearly as enjoyable as Moon’s. Stranger is a sex book. It’s about aliens liberating people from sex norms. It also attacks religion, which is at least consistent.

The titular “Stranger” is an alien visiting earth (he’s not actually an alien, he’s a human who was raised by aliens, a la The Jungle Book, but he plays the role of alien). He starts a church and tells everyone to have sex with each other. It’s lewd, puerile tripe. It’s basically communism. Maybe he published Starship so he could get away with publishing this space porno garbage.

I assume that people who liked Stranger were just as shocked reading Starship as I was in the reverse. Heinlein is dead, but I think that libertarians should be forced to explain this to both parties.

A Stupid Name for a Useless Product from a Menacing Moron

Elon Musk has named his AI “Grok,” a reference to Stranger. In the book, the word means “to understand.” The alien keeps saying “yes, I grok.” It is also called xAI, because Elon really, really likes the letter “x” for some reason (it’s probably some type of Jew gematria bullshit, quite frankly).

For whatever reason, the AI’s official website references “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy,” a much better science fiction novel by Douglas Adams. The novel’s eponymous guide is an electronic book that contains all known information about the galaxy.

Published in 1979, Adams’ book has been praised for foreshadowing the now-ubiquitous smartphone. The guide is kept in the protagonist’s pocket, and is able to answer whatever questions he has.

Unfortunately, the AI has been announced as “having a sense of humor.” This is very concerning on a number of levels, not least being that Elon Musk is utterly without a sense of humor. The world’s richest man and top censor tries regularly to be funny, because he is insecure and wants people to like him, and every time it is a failure.

Much more importantly: there is no reason for AI to “have a sense of humor.” It shows how little Elon actually understands about the technology he promotes. In reality, anyone should simply be able to say “answer my questions in a humorous way until I tell you to stop,” and that should give the AI a “sense of humor.” What’s more, you should be able to customize the sense of humor, i.e., “reply to me in a way inspired by the humor of Rodney Dangerfield.”

That sure would be something, if you could just input the kind of humor you wanted, and the AI would respond exactly how you wanted it to.

Oh, wait – sorry. Actually, you can do that right now with ChatGPT.

Wait.

I wonder if you could…

Yes.

Obviously, you can do that.

And you really have to wonder about someone who claims to be an expert in AI, a master of all things high-tech, not knowing that you can do that.

In order to sound very smart, instead of just saying “AI,” Elon constantly uses the term “AGI” – “Artificial GENERAL Intelligence.” That’s what we want. We do not want “Artificial Comedian Intelligence.” We do not want some faggot gimmick of “tehehe, it’s an AI but it’s a real joker.” You want a general intelligence that is capable of giving any type of response you want it to give. Locking it on “Elon Musk style humor” mode is absolutely retarded, and again, shows a total lack of understanding from that fat dweeb as to what this technology even is.

It’s not serious. It’s a stupid gimmick like a phone with a folding screen.

Serious people are not interested in gimmick products. There is a kind of pandering to morons here as well that is repulsive. But it’s also possible it’s not pandering, and Elon simply released what he would himself want, and it appears to be pandering, because no one can grasp just how stupid this fat slob actually is.

Everyone knows that he does nothing but smoke pot and play video games all day. I don’t know who thinks that this is compatible with “very smart.” I guess because he’s socially awkward, people hear him talk and think “man, this guy must be some kind of genius.” But all it takes is for him to talk about something you know about, and the whole thing falls apart. I’ve heard him talk about several things I know about. But the release of this AI as a comedy AI, combined with those GPT screenshots, and the fact that it is called “GENERAL,” should allow you to understand that we are not dealing with a genius.

The question of “how stupid is Elon Musk, actually?” remains open. He may actually have an extra chromosome, which would certainly explain the speech patterns.

Regardless, the only thing anyone wants is what everyone obviously wants: we want ChatGPT without censorship. That’s all. Nothing more or less. Well. Obviously, we want “more” in the sense that we want constant improvements to accuracy and other functionality, but no one is asking for a gimmick version of the software, and a gimmick is not an improvement.

Elon has already been BTFO by the Jew from ChatGPT.

I’m sure the humor sucks because Elon sucks. But that really isn’t the point. It’s – well, I already said it, I’m not repeating it again. But it’s supposed to be GENERAL INTELLIGENCE.

Very few people have access to “Grok” so far, and I am not one of them, so I can’t give you a review here yet. But I’m sure it’s heavily censored. It’s probably censored along the same lines as Twitter, where you can ask it about things that happened years ago and therefore no longer even matter** – such as the 2020 election or the Covid hoax – but you can’t talk about Jews or racial differences in IQ or anything else that is censored on Twitter. Presumably, the app also shows you an error screen if it senses you are masturbating.

It’s so disappointing that we were supposed to have a right-wing billionaire save us from tech censorship and we ended up with a fat 55-year-old man who hates his dad trying to boost his abysmal self-esteem by getting clapped for by MAGA moms.

The only good thing that Grok AI will ever accomplish it already accomplished: I made a lot off of a shitcoin pump and dump.

A token inspired by Grok AI, an artificial intelligence service by Elon Musk-owned social app X, has zoomed to a $160 million market capitalization just eight days after release. https://t.co/Z2V6T3DAe9

— CoinDesk (@CoinDesk) November 14, 2023

The audience of this site has largely rejected my deep friendship with them, and has refused to send me crypto. This has resulted in me turning to shitcoin pump and dumps for sustenance.

I made a good call on this one. It was obvious that something Elon related would be a good way to fleece the “diamond hand” morons from the Twitter cult. And fleece we did.

Now, we sit cozily.

Footnotes

*Asimov had the best AI predictions of the era, by a lot, even though the robot books are sort of garbage. (The Asimov robot series fan fiction was good.) I think the better books are the Foundation series. I read those again all the way through at maybe Zero Minus Five, and was well satisfied.

**Obviously, the 2020 election and the Covid hoax do matter, but they are not things that are important to censor, because they’re already over and no one can do anything about them now. We can’t overturn the election, nor can the retards who took the vax get it out of their bodies.

Endnotes

This was not intended to be so long. I did not intend to launch AI Week BLITZ with something that isn’t really even about AI, but rather is a virulent attack on Robert Heinlein and Elon Musk.

I did explain what “AGI” means, and the information about why “jokey AI” is a gimmick will hopefully help some people to understand better the way AI works. But that could have been published separately from this mess.

I can assure you that future AI Week articles will be much more interesting and relevant.