Free Market Forever

February 9, 2012

Condemnation of Evil is Fine

But if that’s our only point of view, we won’t see what’s really going on. We won’t see, for example, that we too would at least be very tempted to do the same thing under the same condition. We don’t see that most people would do the same thing. In fact, if very few people would do the same thing under the same shoes, we’re not facing a great evil.

Understanding rather than simple condemnation works better in most cases.

It’s simply foolish to think that religious people will stop condoning evil once they stop believing. Beliefs are their justification of their interests. As long as people’s interests are aligned not in their productivity but in their political power, people would commit rent seeking and all other evil.

People would kill each other especially the weak as long as that’s simply what pays. People would prohibit free sex if that’s what it takes to get rid inter species competitors in the gene pool, especially those who can give more attractive offers.

Most of us simply can’t see the truth that we are an evil species genetically predestined to do little more than breeding and kicking others out. That little more things called prosperity, is the only non zero sum aspect of our life.

Most of us lie to everyone including our self, on what we truly want. That’s how we have religions and ideologies. So we can feel good about all the killing, robbing, forcing, that most of us will do anyway for that’s our true nature.

Without religion, something else will show up. Socialism, romance, respect for women are quite often are simply justification to limit our freedom to max out our profit, including profit of those they claim to protect.

Only pure commercialization of most things will stamp out evil out of human heart.

December 2, 2011

Treat her like hoes, fuck her like sluts

I ain’t lose. The hoes wanna divorce. Hubby prevented her. That’s cheating.

Once I am making $85k per month, I’ll make sure she has it her way Thugs are not that expensive. If she wanted to stay, I’ll just bang younger speciments.

The Wife vs. The Whore (Treat Her Like a Prostitute) | Naked With Socks On

But seriously. It’s not just that. Every time I hear people said that prostitution is demeaning or women want love, I know the fucking truth. Those assholes are just like my wife ex boy friend. It’s all utter bullshit. Some men can’t give women what they want, namely money and good fucking and they come up with all these bullshit to kick males that can out of the gene pool.

That’s the truth.

I went from one massage parlor to another. I rarely did that now because I want healthy kids and stuff. I always asked, how do you ended up like this?

And I am not surprised. That’s what drove me mad. I am no longer surprised. Many tell how they used to get married and how the husband just left her nowhere to be seen. I am not surprised.

I KNOW. I know that societies won’t do anything against dead beat husband that just run away. In fact, the whole societies’ norm against prostitution is to ensure that kind of assholes get a piece.

Then I’ve heard about cops raiding prostitution dens. They hypocrisy just sicken me. It’s very obvious those women want it. Yet under pretext of protecting the women the cops are arresting them. Many of those women are raped or forced to perform by cops. What? That’s excess. No. That’s the whole point.

What about you? You work your ass of earning honest living. You pay your tax for the poor. Then you wonder, if it’s going to be my money supporting those kids, why it has to be someone else’s sperms? The money comes with the cock. Why should you support anyone else’ kids just because some hoes pick non paying males. Why can’t the hoes just pick some richer males? Why should any kids have poor dad?

Why should you support kids of hoes that prefer the poor? It’s her fault fucking poor guys, now she has kids, why should you pay tax for it?

Societies will say that love is blind yada yada yada… Bullshit. I know the truth.

Well those hoes would rather share a rich males. Now sugar daddy sugar baby relationship is booming.

It’s just that those non paying males are trying to ensure that those most capable and willing to pay don’t get laid without risking going bankcrupt. Any ways a rich smart male can get laid without risking his whole wealth is politically incorrect. Think about it. Prostitution is the telltale samples. Marriage’s alimony is another.

That’s reality.

Anything not commercialized is politized. See, jews and arab are killing each other over land. Imagine if middle east real estate is commercialized. Then everybody will just bid each others’ land. You see why we have WW2? Not enough commercialization.

The same goes for sex. It’s not commercialized enough. So it’s politicized. So people come up with bullshit after bullshit (=read religion) to justify why they should get the hoes rather than letting the hoes choose.

If women are free, assholes that can’t compete will go extinct. Poverty will be gone. The world will be a better place.

It’s not worthed?

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB child support money used for
  • harem sluts
  • harem women fucking

August 30, 2011

What are the negative effects of increasing sexual disparity in the United States over time?

Improperly understood, sexual disparity has caused mass murder, mass killing, poverty, starvation and very inefficient social contract etc. All in the name of things that don’t make sense like religions, racism, etc.

What’s the point of being productive, if you don’t make more money? What’s the point of making more money if those with power, rather than money, decide who lives, who die, or who can reproduce. Think about it.

Isn’t it normal then that so many are still killing each other rather than productively earn wealth?

First I will answer the opposite of the question. I will show how sexual disparity can actually be very positive if left to free market, or near free market system to operate. Then I’ll answer the question of what usually goes wrong with it.

Sexual disparity has a VERY IMPORTANT POSITIVE aspect rather than negative if we properly understand it. However lack of understanding of it has caused huge amount of suffering, which is the answer to the question.

Think about it. Sexual disparity is the MOST HUMANE way to evolve!

We will evolve. There will be winners and losers in the gene pool. Somebody will successfully breed and others will go extinct. It’s been like that for trillion of years. It won’t change any time soon if ever.

In fact, that’s the true purpose of life, all life, namely to outbreed your competitors. Okay that part was arguable.

However, we are descendants of those who out breed their competitors and you can bet your ass, that’s our nature. That’s what we will do whether we want it or not. That’s what all living things will do.

You can read Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene for more. All the genes that we have are there simply because those genes help us reproduce. Think about it. Our will, our self, our nature, everything is made up by genes that only want one thing, reproduce.

We can’t defy our true nature. Richard thinks we can and should but that’s where I disagree with him.

Even if you, out of sheer will, scream, I won’t be like that, it won’t make much different. Someone else will. Whoever does that will reproduce and be majority. If there is anything that all living things don’t usually fail to do is reproduce.

We will evolve. That’s our nature.

The question is, how should we evolve?

1. Killing each other like genocide?

2. Let the poor starve?

3. Let government decide (enforce monogamy, prohibits sex outside marriage, prohibits women from working, prohibit women trafficking, justified by religion, etc.)

4. Sexual disparity?

These are the economic equivalent

1. anarchy

2. let the poor starve. Won’t work either, just look at arab revolution when people are starving. People won’t just starve to death if they think they can rob richer people out of starvation.

3. command socialist economy (monogamy is effectively sex socialism)

4. and free market.

Obviously the 4th is the way to go. Being a moderate I would put 5% on third bucket but seriously. Only free market can truly provide working solution.

The key here is properly understood. If not properly understood, if we didn’t understand what the real game is, then things can go really wrong.

The truth is we are very close to totally abundant economy.

Think about it. Sexual disparity for males correlates very highly with wealth. In short, women prefer the rich. Now, in western civilization welfare program pretty much lessen that. In Asia, wealth=sexy is pretty much the absolute norm. In Chinese dating websites, men would actually display their salary to attract women. It’s that simple.

Left to the market, Bill Gates will have tons of concubines; we will evolve into homo bill gatus. Poverty will be gone.

Is this desirable? I don’t know. Should we embrace that fully? I don’t know. I’ll let you decide that. But at least 2 of our main goals that most of us can agree with, namely elimination of poverty and maximizing prosperity is within a very easy grasp just through market mechanism.

It’s important. Humans have very few goals most of us can agree with. Terrorists want islam to be the world’ religion. Many want more religious freedom. Some wants bigger government, the rest want freedom. It’s normal. Gene pool survival, and hence the creed of our very nature, is almost a zero sum game. When some want something, you can be assured that most will wanting the opposite.

Only wealth, and prosperity it represents, is not zero sum game.

Now imagine if some people vote wisely for their country and their country through free market, mixed economy, proper alignment, or whatever, got prosper. Then men in that country will attract women from the rest of the countries. Then poverty will be gone again in all countries because

1. All males will want their country to be rich too. They would change their ideology to whatever work. Free market, or whatever.

2. Should 1 doesn’t happen, they’ll be so depopulated richer countries will buy their land. Imagine a country where all the hot women emigrate to another country. The ugly is unused-able and usually are feminists anyway. The pretty are out. You see how that will affect population growth?

See. That’s a vision I have for years. I see, as many of us want, to increase humans’ prosperity through ways that fit our nature rather than against it.

We can’t eliminate poverty out of altruism. Altruism is not our nature. It just won’t work. Too much forced altruism (=socialism) and the productive will go John Galt. Actually they have more lucrative option than going John Galt. Ayn Rand live before globalization. Now, the productive can just go country shopping, picking the country with the most meritocratic rules. They do not need to go John Galt.

Now back to the question. What’s the negative of sexual disparity?

Well things can go really wrong, and in fact have been very wrong because we do not understand it.

Hell most of us do not admit it.

We keep lying to our self that love is blind, that money doesn’t buy love. Then using that lies we justify stupid solutions, like bigger government regulating sex.

So how do we deal with this sexual disparity now? Well different culture does it differently.

In western civilization, the main way is to simply ration females in equal share for everyone. Namely monogamy. You do not have to be a libertarian to see that this is a highly inefficient solution.

Just like money socialism has caused hugged poverty in china, monogamy is the biggest market distortion and the main cause of poverty in the world. Our GDP is 300 times our ancestors’ GDP before wealth of nation is produced. The cause is simple.

The poor outbreed the rich. Before, with much less money, poverty is still in check. That’s because before the rich outbreed the poor, as expected. Now the poor outbreed the rich. Before, a mere 2% tax from the rich is enough to feed all the poor. As the poor outbreed the rich, even if the rich were to spend their whole income to feed the poor it won’t be enough.

Also it’s not going to work as well anymore anyway. Free sex is legal. Women don’t want to be rationed. Predictably as free sex becomes more and more “legal” marriage is simply in decline.

The rich are moving their money to China. Socialism is over. Period. Money socialism is dying. So is this sexual socialism.

The arabs have a more conservative solution. They prohibit sex outside marriage and allow polygamy. That means only those favored by the states, get laid.

That means the rulers in Middle East are pretty much the pimp of all women. Saying no sex outside marriage is like saying you can’t reproduce without my permission.

That means everyone will want to rule everyone else. Humans will kill each other to decide who should be leader, what religion is true, and what variants of those religions are true, etc. That’s what happen in middle east.

I am not saying the 2 solutions are totally wrong. Hei we built things based on what used to work. But c’mon. The justifications for all these sexual rules are religion. Think about it. Do we ask religion when we want to lower or raise interest rate? Do we open the bible when we decide how much money supply is?

No. Why not? Because we understand economy. We do not understand sexual disparity. We keep denying it. So we lie. So we use religion.

Properly understood, we can make better social contracts. We can, for example, tax head rather than income. That’ll eliminate poverty in like one generation. In addition, we can, for example, provide free cash to those without kids. That’ll ensure that only those who are

1. Rich enough to afford kids

2. Attractive enough to attract mates.

3. Want to make the baby enough.

This is also another solution for pro/against abortion. Imagine if all kids have rich smart biological dad, would mom want to abort?

Currently monogamy is there to ration females in equal share for everyone. As sex outside marriage is more common, I expect many males to be shag less. Solution? Prohibit sex outside marriage? Well, that won’t work again. There is a far more efficient solution. Why not import them from poorer countries?

What about porn? That’s like mass produced females right?

Obviously some will scream on how I “demean women”, even though it’s not what I am trying to do. But that’s the reality. We do not understand sexual disparity. We do not understand that ugly women are not sex objects and hence, it doesn’t really make any sense why they keep bitching about women shouldn’t be ones.

If we understand, we should see that humans are naturally bigot when it comes to intersex competition. Males like to kill males and women like to kill women. The ugly that can’t be sex objects of course insist that the rest cannot too.

But we don’t understand it. We simply believe the fairy tales of feminism because we don’t understand humans’ true nature.

There are so many things we can do to use sexual disparity positively.

Improperly understood, we will just keep lying to each other, kill each other, and try to rule each other.

This is some samples of what can and have gone wrong:

Currently, ugly but diligent males are forced to support childs of the sexy through wealth redistribution. If this happen they’ll vote for conservatives that’ll eliminate welfare. No wonder they want to prohibit porn. No wonder they opposes freedom for so many others.

Without welfare, many will starve, and they’ll rebel like in the middle east.

Another that can go really wrong is that it’ll motivate people to prohibit sex outside life long monogamous marriage, which can result in bigger government

July 1, 2011

Top 10 Facts Evolutionary Psychology and Game Theory Can Predict More Accurately Than Religions

10. Like parents like children.

This is not too surprising. However, this is the essence of all evolutionary psychology. What are humans’ natures? Well what are their ancestors’ natures?

What are their ancestors’ natures? Just look in the past and try to figure out what kind of people used to become ancestors? Those are the kind that reproduced well in the past. That’s our nature now.

9. Anything that makes you feel good are things that made your

ancestors feel good too.

Because you are descendants of ancestors that beget children, you share the same preference with people that beget children. Hence, we can predict that anything that makes you feel good are the kind of things that tend to make you beget children too. Sex is the obvious sample. Quality of sex partner is also another one.

Quantity of sex partner (for male) will be other less obvious ones. So is eating good food. Things that make you feel bad are things that’ll drive you extinct.

So get hit, having your family died, being poor, etc.

8. Males prefer the pretty.

Males that prefer pretty women produce prettier more attractive daughters that attract richer males that sleep with more women and produce more kids.

Beauty signals high quality genes. Also women need to stay healthy and young to beget children. Males that prefer young pretty women survive better in the gene pools. Most of us are descendants of males with that preference.

Women are getting prettier thanks to evolution and porn. Sample maidens with 1,056 LIVE TV CHANNELS on Your PC!

so you can compare what’s available with your current girl friend/spouse/mate. See if you can do better.

7. Women prefer the rich.

 


This one is not too surprising. Cars have chick magnet depending on their price. Price of liquors in night clubs are way higher on supermarket because drinking in night club signal wealth to women.

Again same pattern. Women that preferred the rich had more grandchildren and current women are descendants of such women.

This is the interesting part. If I like a woman because she is pretty, will I become prettier? No. I like pretty women because I am a descendant of males that like pretty women. Prettier women have better genes that I will inherit to my kids.

The beneficiary is actually my offspring, not me, but I feel like getting hot babes. Instinctively by following my emotion, I not only benefit my self, but my offspring too. Inheriting good genes to ones’ kid is what I call responsible parenting. Make sure your mate is hot.

If women like a tall man, will she be taller? No. She likes taller men because taller men will produce taller kids that will attract more women.

If women like richer males, will she be richer? Yes. But even if that’s not the case, she still has plenty of intensive to like richer males. Maybe richer males have more common sense. Maybe richer males are smarter. Those traits are inherited. Wealth, like height, and beauty, also signal genetic quality.

This is why super-hot stars like Salma Hayek, with no problem getting any males she wants, pick a billionaire that also sleep around with so many other women. That’s how basketball stars sleep with so many women that they do not pay.

All of us instinctively want the best for our offspring. About 50% of that comes from picking higher quality mates. We think we do it for our self, but we’re actually doing it for our offspring. Things that make us feel good are things that are indeed good, not just for us, but for our family and offspring.

Governments would often argue that marriage is what’s “best” for children. Think about it. Your government would probably one day kill your children. Ask the Jews. What do governments care or know about your children? However, through evolution, we are programmed by our genes to provide the best for our children. That means picking the highest quality mates even if that means having to share.

Help me monetize chinese babes. Marry them here. Oh okay marriage sucks. But do hang out anyway

or perhaps you prefer Russians instead?

Punish males in countries that don’t embrace free market. Woo all their hottest babes to your country instead. Spread freeedddoommmmmm, truth and justice!!!!! The market way.

6. We’re not just selfish, we’re also greedy.

If we have to choose among many women, we will choose all.

We’re not descendants’ monks and virgins. We are not descendants of those who are not greedy. The greedier a person, the more likely he’ll inherit something to the gene pool.

The same way those with few kids contribute little to our gene pool. Most of our genes are contributed by warlords that kill millions and knocked up thousands. The greedy are the one inheriting the earth. Blessed be the greedy, selfish, manipulative, and jerks because their kind is inheriting the world for like 8 k years. It’s not until Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations things change a little bit.

Just like successful sperms are not those that live the longest. Successful sperms are those who greedily grab the egg depriving all other sperms for the same chance.

The same way, successful males are not the one living the longest but those knocking up the most beautiful girls while depriving other males out of the same chance through any means.

5. Many humans are not just selfish and greedy, they’re also bigotic and humans will kill each other, especially the innocent.

Evil yes. Inhuman? What is human?

Make sure your children and loved ones live. Read Gene Pool Survival Guide

written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Because males are greedy, every single males that got another women would mean the other don’t get any. Hence, deep inside, we sort of want others to fail, especially those far better than us.

This explains all pogroms against more successful and peaceful minorities group all over the world. From Jewish holocaust, Armenian genocide, to pogroms against bourgeois in PRC and Rusia. Being innocent won’t help. Those people die not despite their innocence. They died because they don’t fight back enough. They died because they earned money honestly and peacefully only to have all that snatched by those with something people should have aimed for more: power.

Why the bigots don’t aim for tyrants? After all tyrants are evil. Tyrants control the media. Tyrants are cruel and manipulative. Tyrants are filthy rich. Tyrants sell their country. Tyrants are not nationalists. Tyrants are jerks. Tyrants are cruel. So why not lash out at tyrants? The truth is, tyrants are tough to mess with. If you fight a tyrant, you die. So people aim for softer target. Innocent nice guys.

You don’t have to be as evil as tyrants to enjoy the benefit of being evil. In US, criminals enjoy first class health care. Good guys just die in droves and they’re just statistics. Yet many would go the extra mile to prevent one murderer and serial killers to avoid death penalty. People are afraid of and hence respect bad guys. Good guys are often not that lucky. Obviously human need to maintain the opposite reputation. But that’s often what human’s nature are.

Deep inside, those bigots knew they’re aiming at innocent. Deep inside, they also knew that it doesn’t matter anyway. What matters is that they got their veneer and can maintain image of being just. That’s it.

One of my vets told us that humans are the most evil animal. “Lions will stop killing when he’s full,” he said. I checked on lions. A male lion that already got 8 wives, will still deprive other lions from getting any. When a male killed another male lion, the victor will kill all the losing lion’s children.

Yea, lion is not greedy for money. But money simply don’t help lions reproduce. They’re greedy for everything else that matter, including lioness and territory.

No. We’re not the most evil animal. We’re just like everyone else.

4. Monogamy correlates very positively with democracy.

Basically most males are “better” of preventing an alpha male from getting too many women. Under democracy, interests of “most males” prevail.

While Christians often argue that the bible is in favor of monogamy, torah are not build by a democratic culture. Hence, we would expect polygamy to be common and tolerated during biblical time, which we did. We also predict that Greek and Romans, which are democratic, to be the original practitioners of monogamy either, which we did.

Until today, democracy, rather than any religions, predicts intolerance against polygamy far more than religions or culture.

That being said, polygamy cultures tend to be authoritarian. After all, shagless males would do anything to get laid, including committing suicide bombing to get virgins. Hence, penalty must be harsh to keep them inline.

3. Marriages in democracy tend to financially devastate rich males

Avoid marriage. Find out why at Gene Pool Survival Guide

written by a Mensa member sold by 2co
Who makes marriage terms? The marrying couple? No. Your competitors that want to bang that same girl create marriage terms. They have their own interests and that’s often the opposite of your interest or your spouse interests. One of their interests is to make sure that best selling men, don’t sell too much.

Just ask Beaty Chadwick that rot in jail for 14 years for not paying $2 million to his wife.

Think about it. Imagine if a rich male can get a lot of women without risking his whole wealth? Then rich men will just grab more and more women and the rest will have to settle for the ugly.

By marrying a beautiful girl, you have taken one women out of the mating market. The other males just want to ensure you don’t take more. Of course, you can still get more. However, there is no way you can do it openly. In arab you can do it openly, but only if you’re politically powerful and is in favor of whoever in power.

At the ends, power, not individual rights, that matter more on things that are truly important, like mating selection. Next, we would predict that people want to be in power and that they will kill each other for that, which is of course, true.

2. The more a rich smart male can effectively sleep with women without risking his whole wealth, the more politically incorrect it is.

You name it. How a rich man can use their money to persuade women to sleep without risking his whole wealth? The three main ways to do it are prostitution, contract marriage, and polygamy. All are illegal.

The politically correct ways are marriage, well that means risking his whole wealth. The next best way is free sex. That is also very politically incorrect in most countries.

Also males tend to make more money and women tend to stay at home raising children. So it’s kind of strange to expect a rich male to work hard all his life to make money and not spending it for women that choose him and his children. However, marriage terms tend to aim to destroy wealth rather than to support any women or children.

Reproduction is artificially costly in democratic countries for rich males and artificially cheap for poor males. Rich males pay child support and alimony proportional to his wealth. However, reproduction is artificially cheap for the poor due to subsidies. This explains why the poor breed more kids than the rich. It’s naturally predicted by evolution theory because humans want to get rid those richer than them out of the gene pool. Most people do not like supermen walking.

In general, the more attractive an offer someone make, the more politically incorrect it is. That’s why porn is illegal, because males prefer the pretty and pretty women showing her beauty is very attractive.

That’s why consensual women trafficking and international romance is politically incorrect. That’s because women from poorer countries give more attractive offers than women from richer countries that tend to be more expensive.

And that’s the same reason why prostitution is illegal. Because rich men that pays is way too attractive for lesser males that don’t.

1. The more consensual alternatives are available besides marriage legally, the less marriage there will be



Pro marriage religious group tend to argue that we need to protect marriage from other consensual alternatives. Finally they said something that make sense.

Marriage does need defending and government does need to define marriage for purpose of marriage to work.

What they didn’t tell you is that the purpose of marriage is not to serve your best interest but theirs. Hence, without protection against other consensual alternatives, marriage will disappear.

Their normal explanation doesn’t make sense. If marriage is the best and, we know our genes program us to want the best for our self and our offspring, why does marriage need protection from consensual alternatives? Best product do not need protection from competition.

When did American’s holy wood movies ask for protection from foreign competitors? When did Microsoft or Coca Cola asked government to be protected from competitors? Those who provide true value don’t need such protection. Their competitors can’t compete with them anyway. But marriage does, because marriage can’t compete.

Think about it, outside marriage, you, rather than your competitors, write your own deal. Of course it’s more attractive.

It’s like importing goods from china. Of course consumers pick that. Yea your local supplier won’t like that, but who care? Once they no longer have power to prevent you from picking better offers, of course, you pick better ones.

This is very surprising. Again and again religious group argue that no women would want to be prostitute unless they are forced too. Again and again politicians say that they need to protect young people from sex outside marriage.

People imply that marriage is the best for you and that’s what you want anyway while making alternatives illegal.

Of course, if alternatives are illegal, it’s hard to say which one humans truly prefer.

However evolutionary psychology predict that the very things people want to prohibit are the very things that are too attractive. That means, given choice, people would choose sex outside marriage.

And that’s what we observe.

When no fault divorce becomes easy, for example, divorce rate simply skyrocket.

The divorce rate in America for first marriage is 41%

The divorce rate in America for second marriage is 60%

The divorce rate in America for third marriage is 73%

So all this time marriage sucks. However, they stay together because they

can’t get out of it.

Now 46% of babies are born outside marriage in US.

0. Women that opposes consensual exploitation of women as sex objects are usually relatively uglier

This one is pretty obvious. People opposes consensual acts mainly to get rid superior competition. Beautiful girls displaying her superior desirability set a new industry standard the rest must follow. In totally victimless ways, pretty girls drive the rest extinct. It’s very understandable then that ugly women would want to drive hot babes out of mating market through any devious and vicious means.

-1. Justification of prohibition against consensual alternatives will often be “religious” in nature


Religious people often say that they forcefully enforce their value out of compassion, to set us straight from what’s harmful to us. Really?

Game theory predicts that people will be honest on cooperative games and deceptive on zero sum game. When it comes to competition, the zero sum aspects predominate and people will lie.

How do you lie? How do you convince people to believe something that’s not true?

Science? Well some science is a lie. However, those lies are scrutinized day and night. Scientific opinions are not usually protected from freedom of speech. People do not get their head chopped off for stop believing in evolution theory.

Scientific theory must produce clear unambiguous conclusions that can be disproved. It’s not easy to do so if the theory is false.

It’s hard to lie with science. It’s far easier to lie with religions.

In fact, the evolutionary costs of believing lies are often low enough it’s often advantageous to lie even to ones’ own self it it can help to convince others to believe the same lies. That’s often what people will do when the lies changes the focal Nash equlibrium to an area they people desire.

Often, truth are simply too complicated, the the only way to counter a lie effectively is by making a bigger lie. That’s how people kill each other to decide which lies are truth.

We would predict that opposition against consensual private relationship to have vague language or heavy religious backing. In fact, we would expect any politically significant aspects of life with huge zero sum aspects to have heavy vague languages and heavy religious backing. From who should rule, to who should have the land, and who are allowed to mate with who, we would expect that religions will evolve a lot on those areas.

So, far from religions predicting humans behavior, proper understanding of humans’ nature help us to see the nature of religions.

More shameless advertising. Buy: Gene Pool Survival Guide

written by a Mensa member

Or watch other boring blogs below. They’re free. Yea your time is cheap.

world map hits counter

Incoming search terms:

  • harem
  • harem of women
  • harem sLAVE
  • harem girl
  • evolutionary psychology beauty
  • harem women
  • naked women
  • powered by phpBB what is psychology
  • powered by phpBB chinese baby gender prediction
  • powered by phpBB comparing religion
  • powered by phpBB earn money now
  • powered by phpBB find people for free
  • powered by phpBB higher education and world culture
  • powered by phpBB psychology of children
  • powered by phpBB beauty and the
  • powered by phpBB where to get free money
  • powered by phpBB baby back
  • powered by phpBB benefits money careers & education
  • hottestbabes
  • powered by phpBB men want emotional support and don\t ask
  • powered by phpBB the people
  • arab harem
  • powered by phpBB night club dancing
  • groups of women images
  • Burning Man Photos Woman
  • powered by phpBB best way to make money
  • powered by phpBB game
  • babes trafficking
  • arabian harem girl
  • powered by phpBB kids game
  • girls harem
  • harem psychology
  • harem hot
  • arabian harems
  • powered by phpBB illegal ways to make money
  • Harem psychology women
  • game theory and evolutionary psychology
  • game theory evolutionary psychology
  • magnet children se
  • Burning Man Women

June 1, 2011

Is this Hate or Love?

Differentiating which one hate you and which one love you is essential for gene pool survival. Let’s try a few sample.

Nazi killed Jews out of love or hatred for the Jews?
Terrorists commit suicide bombing toward hedonist tourists out of love or hatred for the tourists?
Muslim mobs stone those who have sex outside of marriage out of love or hatred for the adulterers?
Religious fundamentalists send people to jail for watching porn or hiring prostitute out of love or hatred for prostitutes and their customers?
Feminist prevent women from being consensually trafficked to mate with rich males out of love or hatred toward the trafficked women?
Government prevent kids from watching porn out of love or hatred for the kids?
Government regulate marriage out of love or hatred for those who prefer different arrangements?
Government prohibit ecstasy, which is far saver than cigarette and alcohol, out of love or hatred for users?

The answer is pretty complex. Quite often we help others not out of love, but simply because our interest coincide with them. Quite often we hurt others out of hatred, but simply because our interests are the opposite of them. However, that, in a sense, are hatred.

For example, we punish thieves not out of pure hate. We simply think that the guy will serve as samples of those who screw us. However, we can count that as hatred too and well, we hate thieves right? In a sense, all of our natures, are simply branch of our main desire namely greed. Others are just names on various ways we achieve that one goal.

US government shot an Airplanes full of civilians because there are terrorists there. Obviously this is not hatred. But is it? Imagine if their own family is in the airplane, would they go the extra mile? It’s simply lack of love because they don’t care enough. So hatred and love is relative too. The shooting happen because the decision makers love more people that could have died than the one in the airplanes. Which is very understandable.

The same way we can argue that terrorists do not hate us, they simply love their own gene pool survival and respect so much they prefer to kill us. Well, that depends on how we define hate and love then, which is getting too complex without math.

Knowing whether people love you or hate you, and how much they do, is essential. Underestimating hatred can be catastrophic.

Written in front of concentration camp is a writing “Arbeit macht frei”. Jews didn’t realize that the Nazi hated them so much. They think the Nazi are some body that can be worked out. So they surrendered their gun. They comply with the laws. And they’re death as predicted by anyone that understand true human nature of getting in each others’ way.

People of Baghdad surrendered to Mongol. They didn’t realize how much hatred, or intensive to hurt, Mongol’s have against those who do not surrender early.

Again whether hatred is justified or not will be a different issue. Usually those masked heavily as love are the one least justified.

May 23, 2011

Why We Do Not Consider Stoning and Other Various Prohibition Against Sex Outside Marriage as Genocide?

Namely, genocide against those who don’t feel like getting married.

Imagine of some countries prohibit commies/non commies, or any specific group of people as unfit to reproduce. Then we would consider that a genocide.

Imagine if that country start stoning commies/non commies, christian/non christian, muslims/non muslims, for reproducing (or attempting reproducing :) ). Then it would be genocide.

Even if members of those oppressed group can simply switch, they may not feel like switching.

What about those that don’t feel like getting married?

In some countries, for example, kids born out of wedlock do not get birth certificate. If this is not extermination of unmarried people then what?

Yet there are countries prohibiting all sex outside marriage? Why we do not consider that as genocide? This is more than just market distortion. It’s market distortion that strike deep into the population’s very own gene pool survival. Freedom loving people breed less kids because of these laws.

March 19, 2011

How to Persuade People to Use Atheistic Explanation of Life Issues?

It’s difficult to make people change. But one thing we can do is to show them that they’ve been doing the same thing on most aspects of life. Our Math, Biology, and Physics are pretty much atheistic. We no longer ask bible, or quran, to explain how to build skyscrapper or how to launch rocket on the moon. Here, non religious approach is what people use to get things done and that’s just that.
However, quite often, on what truly matters in life, people resort to religions. People resort to religions to pick a mate, to decide how to deal with others, to vote, etc. That’s because on those area, religions still work. After all religious people successfully reproduce more than atheists. They also tend to be more successful politically.
If we can show them that people can attract mates and be powerful through atheistic understanding, people would at least learn more about secular approach to analyze their problem.
There are many reasonable explanation why people still use religions. It’s basically similar to the reason why people use emotion or instinct at all rather than purely their ratio.
The more something is important, the more that thing is hardwired in our brain. In other word, to successfully reproduce in the gene pool, humans do not need to think. They just need to follow their instinct and feeling. Quite often the way to win is to hurt others. Such thoughts are often hidden deep in humans’ subconscious mind. People want to feel that they’re good but being good is just not the way to maximize their profit.
Instinctively, for example, humans want to get rid competitors. Deep inside, people want to control, enslave, and kill others. However, they need a veneer. A way to justify that things are good. Here, religions give them the veneer. Religions allow them to get the benefit of screwing others without having to feel bad about themselves.
Hence, it doesn’t matter how wrong religion is. As long as religious people keep having that edge, people will be religious.
So how do we persuade people to see the world from atheistic points of view?
Still by showing the benefit.
There is a progress in science. First science works on aspects of life with cooperative aspects. It doesn’t hurt anyone to believe in Newton’s mechanic. It benefits everyone that the truth show up. When it comes to economic truth for example, things start getting controversial. Even though free market countries are richer, many do not like it. Hence, for many years, people do use religions to select their economic system. After all, science maybe true, but young, and religions may be irrational but old and proven. So for a while religion is actually on the side of capitalism and more religious countries are richer because they are capitalistic.
Then science catch up. Now, we no longer need religion to see that free market works. We have plenty of evidence that wealth of a nation depends on economic freedom. So, science then start answering economic issues replacing religions.
Politic and sexual selection, however is more controversial than even economic. The zero sum aspect of the game is greater. For every piece of power held by one guy it’s less power for others. For every one hot babe that picks you, there will be another male that would have to pick someone uglier or jerk of to Miyabi.
Making the world a better place is not a big turn on. Humans are selfish. The one that masked their selfishnest are quite often the one most selfish because they want to get rich by screwing others.
The easiest way is to persuade them to read evolution theory of course. But why bother reading evolution theory?
Well there is something in evolution theory that explains how to attract mates beyond what religions teach. There is also plenty of atheistic analysis on politic. Robert Green, Matt Ridley, are great sources of this type of thinker. People with atheistic understanding of these aspects tend to have an edge. People that think that God gives mandates to leaders, will be easily controlled and exploited by people that knows that power comes from barrel of guns to those who control the army and the media. Giving this benefit will motivate people to at least learn, understand, and use atheistic evolutionary psychology to get the most in life.
Most ideologies, and religions, for example, will tell you that beauty doesn’t matter. Evolutionary psychology not only predict that beauty matters a lot, but also correctly predict that people will try to convince you otherwise.
After all sexual selection is pretty much a zero sum game. One’s victory always means another defeat. Hence, evolutionary psychology and game theory would correctly predict that most religious guidance on how to get laid will not only be wrong, but will quite often be the opposite of what’s true.
If you’re a hot woman and you want to attract a high quality husband, you’d have a much better chance if you show some cleavage than wearing burqha. Quite obviously many will compel you to do the opposite. Most males do not want prince charming to see your beauty. Also most girls want to get rid pretty girls from competition.
Here, an atheistic girl, will get better mate, if she understand evolutionary psychology. Hence, she’ll have intensive to study evolutionary psychology, and will be sympathetic to atheistic causes more.

Incoming search terms:

  • powered by phpBB explanation

March 6, 2011

Often Fraud or Force is Necessary

Say I tell Brad Pitt, Bill Gates, Donald Trump, and Michael Jordan. “Don’t rape women okay?” Then I tell them further, “If women prefer some other males, it’s women’s right.” I bet Brad Pitt will say something along, “Okay. Sure. Why not.”

Now tell that to some ugly fat poor dumb guy on the street. Or better yet, what about telling that to any normal mediocre men. Let’s just face it. Most males won’t get laid easily unless they prevent women from picking other males. Even if they can, the quality of women they get will be much reduced.

Let’s face it. Many males won’t get laid if prostitution is legal. Many males won’t get laid if sex outside marriage is legal. And if those males are truly fucked up like the Taliban, they won’t get laid if women can work because they are so messed up women would rather work and be single rather than picking them.

Well that’s their problem, say most libertarians. I agree. It should be their problem and we shouldn’t even think about it. It’s not how real life work. Interests of those who are not our target market influence us non consensually. It’s just a fact of life.

In politic, everyone is, in a sense our target market, depending on the size of gun they point on our head. We still need to persuade them not to pull the trigger. To persuade people to do something that’s not their best interest, either force, fraud, or appeasement is necessary.

Hence, persuading Afgan males to respect women’s individuals’ right is just not going to work without fraud or force. Libertarianism simply don’t serve the best interest of those with little or nothing to offer.

Those with something attractive to offer do not need to resort to force to get customers. It’s not to the best interest of the rest, quite often, to get along and embrace freedom.

“You can’t eat freedom,” says a pro socialist guy when I asked “What can we achieve outside of free market that we can’t achieve inside?” Of course I would argue why the hell that kind of people survive in the gene pool in the first place, but that’s another issue. My idea on that is something most libertarians don’t agree anyway.

I must admit he’s correct. Freedom works for those with lots of positive things to offer for others. It’s simply not to the best interest of many voters to simply pick freedom. To counter dictatorship of the democracy, we would need either a tyrant (force), a religion (fraud), or a little socialism (appeasement). Only religious countries can maintain high gini index.

Libertarian insist on not becoming politically powerful. So force is out. Also they do not like forcing religions. So fraud is out. Then they don’t want to appease the poor. Then they insist that the power that be shouldn’t tax or harm them. That’s what you wish. You and what army?

Try telling free market proponents that they shouldn’t use terror and Milton Friedman will say something along, “We never bother to did we?”

Now, try telling terrorists that they shouldn’t use terror. It wouldn’t work. Free market proponents do not need to use terrors. Free market is sexy. It brings wealth to countries embracing it. People want free market. Most Hong Kong people at least.

Now imagine if you want to turn a society into something more like the Taliban. Not even democracy is stupid enough to go there. Certain things won’t work without terror.

To make people do something that’s not their best interest, either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary.

It’s not to the best interest of typical terrorists to avoid terror.

The same goes for hungry welfare recipients, and most shagless males. Either appeasement, force, or fraud is necessary. Appeasing everyone is expensive. Forcing everyone require mights, which means numbers. Fraud is trickier in our informational age.

At the end, it’s easiest to simply appease those cheapest to appease if we want to maximize libertarianism in any country. By appeasing those who are cheap to appease, we can avoid having to appease those who can’t be appeased.

Typical solution in western society is to appease the poor with socialism, trick the shag-less males with romance bullshit, and fight the terrorists. I think they’re on the right course. What else should they have done?

Now, western society, like any society, overspend money on socialism. That’s because most of those appeasement inefficiently go to hard liners that is expensive, or impossible to appease. Also the money go through politicians first that have intensive to make the problem bigger than smaller. That’s why people like Milton Friedman argues in favor of straight forward negative income tax.

Milton however, doesn’t address the most fundamental problem in democracy. It’s simply too profitable to breed in democratic countries because everyone else pays the bill. Straight forward negative income tax will encourage the least productive members of the society to breed like rabbit. Perhaps, combined with kids’ tax, like in China, things will work out.

February 15, 2011

Killing Wives

When mongols attack persia, many husbands would rather kill their wives than to letting the women get rapped by mongols.

The fact is, from evolutionary psychology perspective, males see little differences between women being rapped by others and women consensually choosing others. They both lead to the same gene pool survival outcome, the extinction of the male.

Hence, that explains, all the honor killings we see all over the world.

December 29, 2010

Do Some People Care They’re Getting Extinct

You don’t care.

Many do. And that’s why they prohibit so many things. That’s my answer to Mama’s question.

Many do care about their gene pool survival and instinctively opposes anything that get in the way of it. They’re hardwired to do so by their genes. Think of them like pests. Pests just have to survive by eating food. The same way religious bigots just have to prohibit free sex to persuade women into marriage. They’re like pests.

And when libertarian choose to be childless, I guess non libertarian have won then. Then you wonder why most people are not libertarian. They’re decendant of those who aren’t.

And you, I guess the faithful have won again. They made you realize that you don’t really want to survive in the gene pool anyway.

Looks like everybody win. If the poor stop making kids, ah we need more population. If the productive start making kids, ah the world is full. Shouldn’t that be the other way around?

I mean, price of cars are artificially made high by prohibition of import. The same way cost of raising children is artificially made high by alimony, child support (that often don’t go to the child), etc. That’s not market mechanism. If government want kids to be supported, government should impose a constant obligation, say $5k/year per child, irrelevant of the parents’ wealth. The purpose of higher child support cost for the rich is to punish the rich for making kids. You fearing that punishment then become childless.

As for ideas that I want to leave on, it’s simple.

1. Just like we should stop producing B&W TV when demands for it no longer exist, the same way we should stop producing people that are unemployed. Humans’ reproduction, as well as production of anything, should match market demand.
2. Like TV, the market will sort of take care of it. Just get rid welfare program, and women that pick the rich will have more grandchildren. Those who produces what the market want will be richer. They can “hire” more women to make more kids should they choose, or inherit more money to each of those kids. Or just have fun all they want. Redistribution of wealth makes welfare parasites attractive for women. How does that make you feel ha?

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress

Loading...