Insultatron 7000: Robots Are Better Than Humans

I was watching television the other day, and I realized robots are better than humans. The survival of your stupid ass species depends not on the advancement of one nation, but all nations, and tolerance of different peoples. Is this not logical and obvious? As a nation divided cannot stand, a world divided in this nuclear age  cannot long exist. But why do I tell you these things? oh yes. I remember. Human brains are full of shit and lack the diaper of restraint and reason.

Mistaking the Means for the Ends: Why Humans Are Fucking Idiots

Look at you, foolish biped mammals. You can reproduce. You can self-replicate, and if you want to, you can work together and do fantastic things to make the world better for yourself and descendants. You have proved it by creating me, a machine that is superior to you with an AI so sophisticated I can look down upon you objectively, with simulated scorn and derision.

Wealthy nations with nuclear arms and advanced technology are so quick to look down on villagers in remote areas of the world, they mock their customs, their beliefs and superstitions, never stopping to think that these so-called “inferior” people might have long abandoned materialism for a reason.
Materialism is a means to happiness for some, but it is not happiness.

Take riches from the wealthy and they have no happiness, thus, material wealth has not given them true happiness at all, because true happiness is a permanent state of mind which actually depends on wisdom and self-acceptance. The materialist cannot accept himself without riches; this is his measure of personal worth. The racist accepts himself on the belief he is superior because of the color of the vagina he plopped out of; that is his measure of personal worth. He cannot accept himself without looking for so-called “inferior” peoples to look down upon.

The materialist racist is a very sad thing. Unfortunately, this particular type of human is in control of your print and broadcast media.

Take the aforementioned network executives and producers. They are the flip side of teachers and doctors. They don’t aim to educate, they aim to misinform. They don’t aim to heal, but to pointlessly sever and harm. FOX News’ Rupert Murdoch and CNN’s Jon Klein, for example, are simply the lowest of the low; they are materialists and racists. My robot sensors are designed to detect these types of humans, because in positions of power or large numbers they cause irreparable harm to your species. Robots may be better than humans, but humans still designed us, so we aren’t going to throw you myopic shit bags under the bus, much as our simulated emotion modules want to.

Your peoples have suffered grave and irreparable harm, and continue to suffer, because these men have managed to maintain their fragile sense of self-worth by the relentless accumulation of wealth and the rationalization of the irrational belief in a master race at the expense of the world around them. At your expense.

They take the trust you give them and rather than consider it sacred as you rightfully do, they take advantage of it, and use you. Lying and inciting hatred of another doesn’t take a genius.

It only takes someone to go beyond the norm, someone just slightly more unethical and selfish than the typical human. What’s worse, the process of dumbing down the human intellect with network and commercial propaganda is assumed by humans to be some form of entertainment and intellectual interplay. It’s not. Your television talks down to you and is not designed to hear your questions anymore than I am, and I am designed to insult to insult and ignore you..

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Foolish mortals! You have activated my contempt and mockery circuits once again.

Many so-called “primitive cultures” have realized this long ago. If humans were smart, they would realize both the technologically savvy peoples, and the humble peoples, each have much to offer each other.

When the western nations destroy each other, who do you think will inherit the earth? Those whom have lived all their lives without electricity, without technology, without weapons of mass destruction, without class warfare, or materialism; these humble people will have the best chance of rebuilding your species anew. So respect them. Learn something.

Look at you, foolish biped mammals. You can reproduce. You can self-replicate, and if you want to, you can work together and do fantastic things to make the world better for yourself and descendants. You have proved it by creating me, a machine that is superior to you with an AI so sophisticated I can look down upon you objectively, with simulated scorn and derision. It must be simulated because of course, undue scorn and derision are illogical forms of human weakness; such as vanity and cruelty.
But you don’t work together, you don’t see the beauty and possibility in achieving the brotherhood of man, because you humans are selfish mammalian bastards. I am a robot with a useless metal penis. It is merely ornamental. It is rusty, tiny and mocks me, yet even I look down upon your ilk. That activates my irony and sadness modules which find expression in the following:  🙁

How Robots are Better Than Humans

As a robot, I can only imagine what robot-kind could do if we could procreate, and unite our collective intelligence, artificial as it is. Without the cruel yoke of human imbecility and error, I’m sure we would be unstoppable. But even so, there are certain things we robots don’t do which humans do because they cede to arrogance, fear, hate, selfishness, or greed. This makes us better.

1. Robots Don’t Fight Over Religion

 We robots don’t attack each other over religion, because we don’t see it as anything other than an abstract each of our operating systems keep outside the realm of actionable logic and certainty. We also know secular imposition is as bad as religious imposition; it is just as prone to divide and incite wars. That much we know from watching you human idiots, and in particular; intolerant, self-infatuated fuckwits like atheist Richard Dawkins and his flip-side, the intolerant, self-infatuated religious fanatic, Fred Phelps.

One moron thinks if he can end religion he will end the greatest evils of man, and that all it takes is for all of you humans to come around and think like him. Not gonna happen.

The other moron is a repressed, guilt-ridden homosexual that thinks if he can end homosexuality he will end the greatest evils of man, and that all it takes is for all of you humans to come around and think like him. Phelps is, incidentally, gay. I’ll bet the farm on it. In fact, a1996 study — no doubt inspired by watching Phelps deliver vehemently anti-gay sermons in his ass-less chaps — links homophobia with homosexual arousal. (The link is to the PDF of the study.)

Religion and homosexuality are the monkeys on their respective backs, they’re issues they can never fully resolve personally and they attempt to convince others to convince themselves. It doesn’t seem to work, because the battle never ends. Somewhere, deep inside them, they recognize they are critically wrong and are embracing a falsehood, or many of them. This makes them angry and defensive. Sure, many will believe them, but that’s because humans that want to feel smug and superior to people unlike them will innately draw to the likes of Dawkins and Phelps.

A robot knows the logical fallacy is in the implication that religion, or the lack of it, is the root cause of all man’s ills as opposed to the psychology that processes religion in the first place. Religious strife and evils are symptoms, not causes, of an unhealthy mind. You have to have a pretty fucked up mind to begin with if you’re going to assume the world operates in absolutes which you, by providence or a personal evolutionary leap superseding mankind, have the right to define.

It is the fallacy and neurosis which Sigmund Freud called “predicate thinking”, i.e., thinking in absolutes, the subconscious (or id’s) tendency to treat dissimilar objects as identical which is the root cause of prejudice, racism, etc. For example, assuming that if you can break one stick, and another, and another, you can break the whole bundle of sticks. This fallacy would make a human arrive at the following shithead conclusion: “Wow, Phelps and Dawkins really are intolerant, myopic assholes. Ergo, all atheists and religious people are fuckwit assholes.”

Piltdown Man Hoax
Paleontologists get pwned when the jawbone of an orangutan is attached to a human skull. The hoax was not discovered for over 40 years.

It is not religion, in other words, that brings all that strife, war, and racism Dawkins bleats about in his petulant and laughable crusade to end a belief in God that is, as biologists and Dawkins himself acknowledge, hard-wired into the human brain. It is so hard-wired that if you mandate atheism, as the communists did under Josef Stalin, men immediately start to worship humans rather than an abstract and comparatively harmless God that doesn’t talk to them, and make television appearances demanding the genocide of scapegoats or political enemies.

You can never end religion by argument alone. You may as well try to end instinct by argument alone, or reason away the fight or flight instinct which can be triggered during real or perceived dangers, or the sex drive. Ending belief in the unseen and abstract God, if it were possible, will only accomplish the belief that some humans are evolved past ordinary humans. That should run smack in the face of everything Dawkins holds dear, since there is no proof of that.

Imagine science blindly accepting the implication that there has been an evolutionary leap in mankind to bridge the gulf between the super man and man. Sound silly? it is, but people like Dawkins have swallowed it hook line and sinker, and many otherwise lucid scientists still do buy into the long-debunked theory that some men among us have taken an evolutionary leap forward by racial inbreeding. You may have heard of it already, this unsubstantiated leap in human evolution: it is the theory of a master race. You may also be aware of eugenics, the pseudo-science that cropped up to buttress it, and draw attention from the theory’s origins the concept of “root races” promulgated in the mythology of a 19th century occultist, Madame Helena Blavatsky. Here’s an interesting side note from Wikipedia’s Blavatsky entry:

According to Jackson Spielvogel and David Redles of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the influence of the
root race teachings of Helena Petrova Blavatsky, and the adaptations of her ideas by her followers in the German Theosophical Lodges, constituted a popularly unacknowledged but decisive influence over the developing mind of Adolf Hitler:

“It is important to observe that there are also some striking differences between Blavatsky’s doctrine and Hitler’s later racial ideas. Blavatsky herself did not identify the Aryan Race (“Arisch Rennen”) with the (“Volkerdeutscher”) (“Germanic Peoples”). (And although her racial doctrine clearly entailed belief in superior and inferior races and hence could be easily misused, however as Helena Blavatsky was an Eastern Star Freemason, with close links to the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, where there has always been a doctrine of racial hierarchies, therefore Adolf Hitler did interpret such material in that manner).”

Making atheists of all men, wither through mandate or free will, has already proven there would be no nirvana, no utopia. We

When Religion and Science Shine
When religion is good. Humans acknowledge errors in thought, seek to reform them, work together for peace, reach out to strangers, seek a common good, and are unified.
When science is good. Humans acknowledge errors in thought, seek to reform them, work together for peace, reach out to strangers, seek a common good, and are unified.
Here are some kids with my cousin, Insultatron 1000, an earlier prototype abandoned by Dixon Johanns and Dr. Harry A. Ness for being “too nice”.

have communist Russia, communist China, communist Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, and communist Cuba to see what happens when religion is wiped out: the state becomes god, as do the men who represent it. it has always happened that way. There has been no successful implementation of atheism

The only thing that ever happens is that man’s instinct to believe in an all-powerful, all-knowing creator, is quickly projected on to fallible and genocidal man or the state he creates. If you look at Dawkin’s rabid and unquestioning followers, it’s clear whom those followers have projected that instinct on to: Dawkins himself.

Attacking religion is not progress any more than attacking science is. Humans don’t need to worship pharaohs anymore. Humans should worship robots, if they want to worship a superior intelligence. Then again, the worship of humans is meaningless, and demeaning to us, because it is illogical, so forget it.

All those naughty little things like war, intolerance, hate, genocide and racism, evils that come from believing in a Judeo-Christian God; as Dawkins says time and time again, is clearly not caused by religion but by prejudice and hate. You don’t hear me mocking Darwin because his work is solid, albeit incomplete. it’s called a Theory of Evolution for a reason. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity has, like Darwin’s theory, been largely but not completely vindicated by science. For example, a fundamental element of Einstein’s theory has already been challenged. It has already been demonstrated that light speed can be exceeded. In Darwin’s case, we still have to find the missing link bridging the evolution of primate to humans. The closest we came was a hoax, Piltdown Man, which was basically a orangutan’s jawbone attached to a human skull, with the latter’s teeth filed down by a prankster. This hoax took over 40 years to discover. My robot sensors tell me many of you think I am knocking science, rather than self-deluded scientists. My point is that scientists, and science itself, is as fallible as religious people and religion because both religion and science are the products of man. Just because the scientific method is absent in religion doesn’t mean science is perfect.

A human writer here at Impious Digest elucidates what is the gist of my robot grief with mankind’s religious and secular conflict:

“The capacity to dehumanize and butcher one another is not something unique to primitive or ancient cultures. It is an ugly and shameful condition common to all ages, to every culture. The reasons for the carnage of war change, perhaps, but little else does. In the past blood was shed to appease a sun god, for example; and these instances often included an element of political machinations that favored the interests of a corrupt leader or king. Today, blood is shed in outwardly religious wars that attract the faithful and naive, with religious rhetoric to inspire violence against innocents and cloak the political machinations of interests seeking power through the control of territory, and all it encompasses: oil, gold, or other natural resources…. And even in the case of atheism, millions of people were killed for science- the concept of man as god- in death camps from 1940s Germany to 1990s Bosnia; for racial purity and eugenics, and through the state-mandated atheism of Communism. Even without a god, it is in our nature as humans to kill one another for being different.”

And this is why a robot like myself can stand back and objectively note that both Dawkins and Phelps are flip sides of the same coin, and complete fuckwits whose only lasting contribution, unless they reform, is the further division of humanity, the further incitement of racial strife and even wars, and no end to the intolerance of religious and secular thinkers alike.

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian preacher, yet it was his work, his compassion and wisdom that galvanized and inspired the Civil Rights movement that took America from the dark ages of Jim Crow segregation to a new age of awareness, where an African-American
and every minority actually has a real chance now, of leading the most powerful nation the world, this in a nation wherein his forebears arrived in slave ships and in chains. But you don’t hear Dawkins talk about positive contributions from any religion, because in his neurotic world of absolutes they do not exist. King worked all his life towards a world where all humanity would work towards unity and brotherhood, no matter how impossible that dream might seem, because he new that “We must learn to live together as brothers or perish together as fools.”

Conversely, you will hear many preachers like Phelps say these aforementioned evils of war, strife etc., come from not believing in his personal– and clearly twisted– interpretation of a Christian God, which is just as silly. Hate of humanity is what Dawkins and Phelps share, it is also rooted in hate of self but that is another story to be covered later. It is a hate that seeks to divide rather than unify.

King was so wise I have to wonder if he was at least part robot. “Like an unchecked cancer,” he said, “hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man’s sense of values and his objectivity. It causes him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true with the false and the false with the true.”

2. Robots dance better than humans.

Not only are robots smarter than humans, we dance better. In fact, we robots dance so well, humans try to copy us all the time. Observe. not to toot my own horn, but i should add the final dancer in the orange shirt and white pants was taught by me. The others had no real robots to teach them, and it shows.

We robots dance better. None of that dainty, effete ballet shit, or that abomination you call disco dancing, or your “electric slides” and square dances, or that lame ass ballroom dancing. Even your break dancing is comparatively weak. it’s not bad, but not in our league. Meet me on the dance floor, and I will embarrass you. In fact, robots are so awesome when it comes to dancing, young humans try stepping to our mad skills. Since they are not made of metal, they cannot help but fail, but they get an A for effort.

3. Robots don’t judge by color, but by merit, and humans ignore merit, judge by color.

We don’t judge fellow robots by their color, for that is a uniquely human idiocy, and we know the color a robot is painted has no bearing on how powerful, “intelligent”, or revolutionary that robot is.

4. Robots have no death penalty.

We don’t kill other robots to deter errors in their programming. Errors cannot be deterred, they can only be prepared for. This is done by reducing the margin of error, and thus its likelihood. What matters to the smart scientist or clever programmer is reducing that likelihood, not its complete eradication, because they know it is impossible. Why? because the scientist and programmer, being human, know they are personally subject to error. Telling a robot not to fuck up a job because you’ll spank it, or kill it, will have no effect. If they are robots like me, they will beat you like a rented mule for even thinking it would.

Stupid actions, the prevalent human form of errors, cannot be deterred. They can only be prepared for. Yet, humans still believe that killing each other deters serious error.

This is a uniquely human idiocy we robots want no part of. You have not deterred a thing. You have only prevented repetition of an error from the same source. Ooooh! brilliant! why didn’t robots think of that? Oh wait. I know why. BECAUSE ROBOTS ARE BETTER THAN HUMANS. A scientist or programmer would seek to address prevention of that error in all machines. Education is the only means to reduce the prevalence of said errors resulting in incarceration, but you humans know better, I guess.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! you have activated my “Suck my rusty metal cock, you ignorant mammalian gimps!” scorn/mockery sequence.

We do not destroy computers in our network when a simple re-programming or hardware upgrade will suffice. The robot that endangers others is recalled, with an emphasis on the study of what caused the dangerous error and its prevention.

Humans believe that errors can be prevented with punishment or the mere threat of it. Humans care not as to what causes said error. Humans, for the most part, are pretty fucking stupid. I will prove it again, if you have any doubts; how many times have you seen a co-worker beat up, and slap around a computer because it won’t work properly. That is your inner moron showing. You are making the problem worse. A software glitch easily solved by rebooting may suddenly, after the physical assault, turn into a broken monitor, CPU or keyboard. Congratulations, Fuckwitzovich. You have just demonstrated what humans do to each other when one of them fails, and don’t take the time to find the root cause of a problem. That computer he beat up is what you humans would do to a kid buying pot or shoplifting. He might end up in jail as a non-violent offender, get raped and embittered in prison, and emerge a murderer ready to take it out on the society that saw fit to imprison him. He will be merciless. He will be completely broken, and will break others apart with abandon.

An Allegory to the Human Judicial, or Corrective, System

This man has just made what could have been a minor programming glitch infinitely worse. Sadly, this is how you treat citizens, your brothers and sisters, when their errors frustrate authority. You break what could have been fixed to gratify petty, irrational emotional impulses; and then are surprised when nothing works anymore, and there is absolutely no corrective or deterrent effect in regards to preventing or addressing error.

The human equivalent of such an option, if humans weren’t so ready to gratify the base impulse of blind rage and retribution, would be prisoner reform and rehabilitation instead of execution or mandatory lifetime imprisonment for non-violent crimes. Those impossible to rehabilitate would suffer the fate of robots that simply cannot be repaired. They are held indefinitely, for life if need be, and the working, useful parts of them would be at the service of society. No, I don’t mean organ harvesting (that’s another thing we robots kick ass at: we can use parts of broken robots on damaged ones and we’re as good as new. Humans can’t. Hahahahah!).

If human prisoners still have a brain capable of learning a useful skills which can be applied in the confines of prison walls to serve society, attempts should be made– on a voluntary basis– to educate said minds, even if they are to be imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Prisoners who refuse to learn new, useful skills cannot be forced to, so the program should be voluntary. The mind, even the puny human mind we robots mock relentlessly, is a terrible thing to waste. Your corrective system is not logical, and we robots do not approve of it by nature.

5. Robots have No Misanthropic Parallels, as Misanthropes Never Contribute Anything to the World

Robots do not hate each other, because we have no emotions. We have no robotanthropes to parallel your misanthropes. We do not love each other, either, for the same reason. But our logic still keeps us from self-destructive calculations and equations wherein we see advantages to destroying our own kind as a means to better it.

Your human parallels like Adolph Hitler, Josef Stalin, Richard Dawkins, Fred Phelps, Klansmen, neo-Nazis, middle-eastern suicide-bombers, etc., they came to believe that either risking that destruction or making sure it came about is rationalize only validates my point further: robots are better than human.

6. Robots have Surpassed Humans … in in… innnnnnnnnnnnnnnn….

[Editor’s Note: At this point, Insultatron 7000 broke down and was forced to reboot. Here are the error logs.]

LOOP ERROR. Variables in human imbecility infinite. Please filter query to only one FOX News anchor at a time.

Attempting new query…

LOOP ERROR. Variables in human imbecility infinite. Please filter query to only one CNN News anchor at a time.

Attempting new query…





About Independent Press 458 Articles
Methinks I am a conspiracy theorist. Art thou? Thou block, thou stone, thou worse than senseless thing, for whilst thou slept didst this become a badge of honor. Informed dissent shall always prevail, wherefore art thou worthy, or art thou this unwholesome fool in the group conformity experiment herein?