Posts Tagged Genes

Marines that Pee on Talibans end Talibanism than Those Killing Talibans

Discover guaranteed proven new safe way you'll love and save money. 

YOU can EASILY Get girls/guys you want if you understand

Why rich smart males do not want to get married and why do unattractive people want everybody to get married?

or you can grab

Gene Pool Survival Guide with How to Learn Math e-Book for Maximum Saving

Written by world's #1 life guru. Also a mensa member that won international math competitions. There are ways to get what you want effectively. The most effective ways are almost always politically incorrect yet done by every winners. Math and common sense can see through important obviously true laws of life that most people will simply deny.

Knows the truth. The truth will, besides getting you laid and rich, set you free.

Spirits are the true self. Our bodies are just tools used by the spirits, the genes, the memes, the religions, to propagate itself.

Kill a taliban, and more bodies will born to replace used bodies.

Pee on Talibans. Spread porn. Hire afganistan hot babes as sex workers, and any Taliban will be over in no time.

That’s why people hate porn so much. Porn exterminate them faster than gun. They’d rather get shot than letting porn spread. What ever they hate, do it, and bigots will be exterminated quickly.

Incoming search terms:

  • afghan teen
  • harem fuck

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Introductory Evolutionary Psychology

It’ll be brief. The long version is deleted by mod.

Try evolutionary psychology.

It differs from homo economicus in one small detail.

  1. The genes rather than than the individual are the one maximizing their self interests.
  2. The genes have only one goal. Reproduce.

Basically it explains why we are very altruistic toward our children. That’s because we are mind controlled by genes that will successfully more reproduce if we sacrifice our life for our children.

It’s not mainstream because it often reach politically incorrect conclusions.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200706/ten-politically-incorrect-truths-about-human-nature

It can also be incorporated into homo economics by taking into account that humans’ interests are weighted average of his genes interests. Humans that are common nowadays are descendants of humans that successfully reproduced in the past. Hence, traits that are common nowadays are traits that facilitate reproductive success.

Basically it put a more definite answer to self interest in homo economicus. In homo economicus, humans max out their self interests. However the self interests of humans are weakly defined (it can be anything). Evolutionary psychology says that those self interests are not far from maxing out reproductive success.

It correctly predicts that, given enough food, humans have far higher motivation to acquire mates and prevent other humans from doing so than just accumulating money.

For example Helen’s face launched a thousand ships due to the king’s desire to acquire a high quality mate. People kill and die for religion that curiously justify prohibition of others’ mate acquisition.

Far fewer people would kill or die for money. A cop once told me no amount of money is worth killing for in western civilization, for example. So desires to acquire mates and prevent others from doing so is far more motivational than money.

Here is another interesting aspect of evolutionary psychology.

If you ask a religious person why his religion tell this or that, that religious people will say, “What would Jesus/Muhammad/Buddha do on similar circumstances?”

That theory is hard to verify.

If you ask an evolutionary psychology the same question, they would as, “What would a chimp do on a similar circumstances”. The result from evolutionary psychology is surprisingly accurate, far more than the religious “theories”.

For example, what would a chimp do when a stronger chimp see another weaker chimp having sex without his permission? We would expect the stronger chimp would beat up the weaker chimp and prohibit all sex without permission from alpha males/ co alpha alliances.

What would a religious human do when they see a politically weak human having sex outside marriage? We would predict that politically powerful human would punish the weaker humans and prohibit all sex outside marriage.

That’s exactly what we observe in nature.

Soon, we’ll understand this enough that we can see how different policies by governments would affect bride price or prostitution price for example.

Incoming search terms:

  • group naked women
  • pictures naked women holocaust
  • holocaust jews
  • harem women
  • modern day harem
  • naked slave groups girls
  • evolution women
  • the innocent hipocrite
  • naked women holocaust
  • picture of afghan kids
  • naked group women
  • picture group naked girls
  • Photos to naked girls forever
  • photos a naked life
  • naked women in market
  • pictureof nakedwomen
  • women slave pics
  • women in the see
  • the holocaust jews
  • Teens harem girls
  • slave naked women market
  • psychology the holocaust nakedness
  • psychology market cycle
  • pro-life hypocrisy
  • pro life hypocrisy
  • Preety asian naked in group pic
  • Pictures of naked Jewish religious women
  • naked group pictures
  • naked group girls pictures
  • naked girls group photos
  • group pictures of naked women
  • group pictures of naked
  • group of naked women picture
  • group naked vomen photo
  • group naked pictures
  • group naked pics
  • free/group/pics/of/naked/women
  • bilder mit life
  • BEGGING POOR TEEN
  • group shots of naked females

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why I am doing all these?

Why free market forever? Why the site? Why all the writing?

Have you ever seen kids begging on the street and then some other kids bigger than them collect money from those little kids. That’s what I see every day I go out in my country. No body care about those kids.

Yet when one those poor teen (say after legal age) or her mom would prostitute her self or be second/3rd wife to rich males that can and want to afford her, every body screams exploitation.

Also, I am not blaming anyone. I am not blaming those people for being hypocrite. Evolution theory already predict that they will be like that. I understand.

All those people do not know what they’re doing. Those who know don’t speak and silently become dictators and politicians making sure that those who speak don’t know. Those who do know and speak wouldn’t be believed anyway.

And that’s the whole point of being an effective hypocrite. Humans are not just hypocrite, they are very good and effective at it.

Successful hypocrites are those who somehow can maintain far different images than reality. In zero sum games like pursuance of power and sexual selection, we expect lies, effective successful lies, to prevail over truth.

By the way, the explanation to those apathy toward begging kids is simple and scientific. We don’t care about kids begging on the street because we indeed don’t care. Evolution theory predicts that humans do not care a lot about those that are non relative, too dissimilar or non reciprocal.

For altruism trait to reproduce it must somehow improve reproductive success. Caring for kids begging on the street doesn’t. It works for all species. Not just human.

Caring about women choosing to be prostitutes or 6th wife does improve a man’s reproductive success if you can count that as caring.

Humans, as chimps and gorillas, also do not care about their kind. However, males in power, such as voters, do not want women to pick other males that indeed have better more attractive offers.

That would effectively force women to aim lower, hence improving the bigot’s reproductive success. So most males primates want to prohibit many consensual choice. One great way to do that is to punish women that pick better offers.

So they get more followers to support their agenda, they need to come up with something else to mask their intent. None of those are scientific of course.

From religion, to women’s dignity, etc. All are well, non scientific. How do you proof or disproof that getting paid for sex raise or lower dignity?

It’s not science. It never is. We’re lying. We’re not interested to explain truth. We don’t use science to lie big to public. It’s tougher.

That’s what humans are. Humans are irrational and come up with irrational nonsense to justify what they want to do deep inside. They’re hypocrites, very effective ones.

We hold this truth with plenty of evidences that humans are different. Because we are not equally healthy, smart, productive, diligent, attractive, and aggressive we have different rules. Different rules serve different people. So each of us want the world to be governed differently.

Some of those rules have strong zero sum aspect. All we care is getting as many people as possible to believe what we believe and support what we support. We don’t care about truth.

So we lied. So we encouraged faith, so others would believe it anyway despite lack of or instead of evidences.

And neither religions or atheism are there to blame. Ask any religious engineers and I am sure he knows how basic physics work. Ask any atheists why they oppose prostitution/polygamy and most likely he doesn’t use science either. I bet he’ll use vague non scientific words like “dignity” or “respect for women”. Actually that’s the easiest way to see when someone is lying. He used vague words.

The problem is indeed in the structure of the game itself.

When we cooperate, like in understanding bricks, mortars, and light bulb, we are honest. When we are in zero sum game, like when we decide who should be in power or which guys and girls hotties can pick, we are liars. That’s the most profitable course. Of course that’s what everyone does irrelevant of whether they are religious or atheists.

Well at first my reaction is indeed hatred.

I am a mensa member. I won an international science competition. Schools are boring to me. Yet I was forced to take classes I don’t like due to evil political process.

I saw parents of low IQ kids bitching about how governments should do more to regulate education. Any billionaires in silicon valley knows that the problem is not government lack of involvement. The problem is some kids are just dumber. Why no body can see the obvious?

Finally, I had low IQ ex boyfriend and some future ex husband wanting to kill me for reasons I didn’t understand. Obviously I did nothing “wrong” against them.

Yes I had and may still have a lot of hatred and I wanted to just exterminate all those bigots. That’s what any males would do. It’s in my genes.

However the more I learn, the more I realized that it’s not as easily avoidable as anyone would have thought. It’s as if everyone in a sense already do “the right thing”. That I am the one that’s odd out.

Everyone is like that. That’s what being human means. We’re not angels. We’re human. That’s what human do. Being hypocrite, lie to each other, and then kill each other. The greatest human is Tao and the greatest Tao is not far from just normal human. Those normal humans are the variants of our species most successfully reproduced in the past.

Think about it. Say humans are killing your tribe. You can say, don’t kill, killing sucks. The problem is, if killing is only sucks for you, why should killer stop killing? The “right thing” is of course to kill back, to bullshit back, to prosecute back and so on. It’s the natural thing. Any rational or experienced players in such situation will all do the same thing.

And that’s where we are now. We are killing each other, bullshitting each other. It’s not just sucks for us, it sucks for the other side too. Just ask any kids that got bombed by airplanes or get slaughtered by suicide bombing. Obviously stopping killing and bullshitting each other would be profitable.

However, we will not get out of this (karmic?) cycle of mayhem until we understand what’s really going on.

That’s how I got passionate of helping as many people as possible to understand evolutionary psychology. Making it mainstream. So we can see what’s the problem and come up with better solutions for all of us. Why not put all those questions used to be answered by fairy tales, religions, ideologies, and other nonsense and use science to see what’s really going on.

A long time ago, Adam Smith convince the world that that humans are selfish. By properly understanding it we slowly manage to improve humans’ gross domestic product 300 times.

For God so love the world he send Adam Smith so that any country whose people believe in free market doesn’t have to be poor but can enjoy great wealth.

Well, we are selfish, but slightly different than pure selfish. We’re also bigotic, loving, caring, xenophobic, greedy, envious, vengeful, grateful, etc. Properly understood of what we would do and why we do it there is a lot more to achieve.

The world without war, and poverty is very easy to achieve. Altruism is not the answer for poverty for the same reason morality is not the main answer for prosperity. We’re still selfish bastard just like our ancestors and yet we are all far better off thanks to capitalism and globalization. Altruism is never a good answer because humans are selfish or govern by genes who are. Still, we will be prosperous without having to stray far from our nature. Think about it.

Now, don’t be selfish. Buy the e-book.

 

Incoming search terms:

  • naked women group
  • harem slaves
  • hareM GIRLS
  • oriental harem slave
  • life
  • modern day harems
  • naked harem girls
  • my name is jim thio and i am a mensa member i won international science olympiad and once ranked highest in my country i could answer 4 out of 6 putnam exam problems
  • group picture of naked women
  • naked slave girls at an oriental market
  • woman in harem
  • NAKED WOMEN
  • what evil humans do to each other
  • slave girl markets
  • pictures of naked slave girls at the market
  • pictures of slave girls doing
  • naked harem slaves
  • being a harem slave girl/pics
  • female slaves in oriental harems
  • harem girl pictures
  • harem imagines
  • harem slave girl market
  • harem slave girls
  • harem slave mating
  • hareme moderne
  • javanese pattern
  • حريم

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why we let the rich get richer?

I think you should read all the other answers first. Like Eric. This is for the cynical:

It’s the cynical answer. I know. The more ethical answer is because it’s “fair”. However, for how “fairness” somehow becomes reality requires a little “process”. Fairness, is not just moral. It’s practical, and profitable. It took times for us to realize it, but we finally did.

The basic idea of is that under capitalism, people get rich through productivity. So it doesn’t matter how they get rich, they are benefiting everyone else.

The problem with that idea is, while seems fair and noble, is not actually how things work.

In ancient time, emperors are rich and unproductive and the people “let them” even more than people let the rich get rich now.

Why?

Emperors are strong. Some people know enough politics and enough business skills to lead. If some peasants would protest, emperors would kill them along with their families.

People are selfish. They do not max out their profit based on their income like in sunday school economy class. People maximize their profit based on their power.

Here is an easy way to see this. Deep inside, all species, including humans, just want to pass on their genes to the next. If we want to see how much power some men have, just look at the number of wives they have. Emperors have a lot. Capitalists do not. Capitalists, while rich, are not powerful, and hence don’t get “what they want” as much as emperors.

So issue is not merit. The issue is power. However, merit and power has a positive causality. To get power, you need people to agree. For people to agree you need to benefit them. That’s in a sense merit.

If we really do not like disparity of success, shouldn’t we complaint about disparity of power instead?

In fact, how power often override productively earned wealth is the very reason why people complain why the rich get richer. Complaining against the rich pays because the rich are weak and who knows we can rob them. Complaining against the powerful doesn’t.

So the question then become obvious. If the rich are weak anyway, why the mass, which are stronger, let them be rich? That seems to be the heart of the question. Forget about right and wrong. It’s not real. We’re selfish. Why do the mass let the rich be rich? Why not tax the rich to death and grab the money?

Actually they did. Ask jews, armenian, borgueis in China and tax payers in US.

But then the world stop doing that.

Let’s examine first how the world become the way it is.

300 years ago, a wise sage, Adam Smith, wrote wealth of nations. Now the best and brightest among us have choice. They can still make money productively or they can be dictators. Before the latter is the only choice. Before the only way to get truly rich is to be king. As the former start becoming lucrative, that’s what many smart people do.

Things don’t go as well as planned. Money is not equal with power. Well money is a form of power. There are far greater power than money. Namely political power.

Armenians and jews learn this the hard way. They earned money productively, cause resentment, and get killed.

However, the word seems to have a karma like behavior (though i still don’t think it’s as perfect as Buddha think it is).

Imagine the world where the productive get slaughtered. Would you bother being productive? Any society that fail to embrace free market are riddled with corruption, and political strife. Everyone is worst off.

We’re not dumb. We always come up with ways to move our self to equilibrium that’s “better”. What works in some is then tried in others. Through experience free market tend to produce good results. So the rest of the world follow and do it.

So the question of why we allow the rich to get richer is because it is toward our best interest to do so. Should we not, the best and brightest among us will become corrupt and dictators we will all pay the price.

Some may think that we shouldn’t because disparity of wealth is “bad”. Well, just look at emperors. Just look at disparity of wealth and power in socialist countries. Disparities always exist. Do we want that to happen because somebody is more productive or do we want that to happen because somebody has more gun?

Here is another way to look at it.

The smart can:
1. Be dictators
2. Be corrupt
3. Be productive

The mass can:
1. Support free market
2. Support socialism

For thousands of years we’re on 1,2 strategy. It’s natural then that we evolve into 3,2. It’s more lucrative.

Before, even though I am rich productively, I will still be affraid of being sent to some concentration camp by the powerful. Knowing that I try to be powerful, which is not very productive. It’s to the best interest of society then to guarantee my right to live and spend money as I please. As that get taken care of, I start becoming productive.

You see how the process works? You see how both businessmen and the mob benefited?

Now recently something even more interesting happen. It’s called globalization.

The best and brightest among us has the 4th option. They can live. They can move their factories to China to avoid minimum wage oppression, for example.

This put countries to be more like business. Each countries can only charge so much out of their productive members. Too much, and like customers they shop around.

Imagine the world before globalization.

I produced a light bulb. Someone else make better light bulbs. So I pay thugs to kill him. Now I sell more light bulbs. I generated more revenue and profit. If the extra money is bigger than the thugs’ cost, of course I do that.

In fact, that’s what happened in third world countries for years. Rather than spending resources productively, they spend resources bribing politicians to give them favors and quite often literally send thugs. Disparity of wealth happen anyway. Politicians get richer and richer.

It’s only natural. In a sense, it’s not too unfair. If the people are ignorance and resort to force, it’s natural that someone that’s not ignorance, namely the corrupt politicians, collect the money instead.

Political influence on biz created some form of niche that politicians simply fill, like businessmen.

Now under globalization, if I send thugs to beat up competing stores, I will still have to compete with chinese. No win solution. It doesn’t pay to pay thugs anymore.

Now those who used to be thugs and corrupt politicians obviously do not like globalization. That’s why they keep fighting for a while, become terrorists or something. But again, karma will work again. People are fed up with them. They’re getting killed. And good system, like free trades flourish again.

So the answer of why we let the rich, rich, is because they/someone else will be rich anyway even if we don’t let them. It’s just that they’ll be rich through ways not favorable to us.

Hei what about another option. I can lie. I can trick people that the government is fair and then screw the productive. Or I can trick the people that free market doesn’t work. Again, this gets difficult due to proliferation of internet. Truth prefails over falsehood thanks to abundant information.

Now, perhaps, just perhaps. The people still want to be a socialist. Well some socialism could work. Libertarian would argue it’s wrong, but I am a cynic. I care only about profits, not right and wrong.

As we see in Denmark it sort of work. However, that’s because people in Denmark is smarter. It takes skill to rob from the rich and give to ones’ self. Also it can only go so far because if they charge too much, the productive can always go somewhere else.

Most countries are not that smart. They do not know political science. Hell, they believe in religions. They do not understand that humans maximize profit. They think people are moral. They do not see that humans’ interests create morality. They think it’s God.

If I were a businessmen in that country, I would just bribe the religious leaders. Why bother being nice to the people if the people will blindly obey whatever nonsense the religious leaders spit out rather than seeing by themselves what’s good for them and whether they’re getting what they want.

This is of course what religious leaders want. That’s why, in countries like Indonesia we have pogroms against those who think differently. That’s why we have censorship that keep people in the dark. And that’s why Indonesians are not as rich as the rest of the world.

In a sense, that’s like karma too. The more ignorant the people, the poorer they will be. The more they tolerate or accept terrorism, the more terrorists will there be, raising biz costs.

After evolution and experience, the most lucrative system even for the poor is capitalism. Due to information age, everybody knows that. That’s why capitalism prefail everywhere. That’s why we let the rich getting richer. Because it’s most profitable for us, and because now we know it. Because human race has tried everything else and doesn’t perform as well as this.

Incoming search terms:

  • real harem
  • asian harem
  • pregnant harem

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 sLAVE
  • harem of women
  • harem girl
  • women group naked
  • evolution of women
  • real harems pictures
  • Harem × Harem
  • hot femael harim pics
  • naked of women group
  • psychology of men who have harems
  • woman harem
  • women harem
  • дети и секс
  • attr money now
  • harem naked
  • harem man
  • beauty
  • do females or males produce most offspring
  • evolution game theory actual prediction
  • game theory evolutionary psychology
  • game theory in psychology
  • group of females
  • group of hot women
  • harem de rael
  • harem evolutionary psychology
  • harem hot
  • نكد الحريم

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Supply is Not Elastic

I understand that many libertarians would curse me when I said about what I think women want.

They’re right. I don’t know. Not only I don’t know, statement about what women want are often used as justification of very anti libertarian agenda. So naturally libertarian hates that statement.

Government, encourage marriage and prohibits prostitution under assumption that marriage is “good” and women want life long legally binding marriage anyway. Libertarian argues that it should still be up to women.

Evolutionary psychology position is that prostitution is preferable to most women and that’s the very reason why it’s prohibited. Moreover, simply giving bigots benefit of doubt like what Libertarians do just won’t cut it.

In the absence of evidences, that’s heavily censored, in area of life politically significant, faith triumph over science. It’s just fact.

But why? Why all the effort to regulate sex?

This is probably the biggest difference between libertarian and non libertarian. Libertarians, especially entrepreneurs, match what they produce with what the market demand. So libertarians do not care what the market actually demands. All they want is honest signal of what the market wants so they can fulfill it.

Does it ever occur to us that most people cannot match what they produce with the market demands?

You have a factory of cement, for example. Then suddenly governments’ embrace globalization. That means your factory will just be junk. You can’t easily change that.

The same goes for beauties. If suddenly we realized the obvious that males want the pretty, can ugly women match the market demand and be prettier?

No. In fact, if there is any pattern in sexual selection is that anything “sexy” is most likely genetic. What we’re buying when we pick a mate are genes. Beauty is in demand precisely because women can’t earn it, at least not easily.

Having a high paying jobs will also have huge genetic correlation. High paying jobs are often high paying precisely because workers can’t easily choose to be able to do it. Otherwise I would have been a heavy weight boxing champ.

Libertarians positions are:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

I like libertarianism. I must admit that those 2 positions are factually correct in most area. In some area, the 2 positions are simply false.

Areas where those 2 positions are false are area where supply is not very elastic. Those are precisely the area where governments often interfere, though arguably shouldn’t.

In fact, inelasticity of supply is the very justification of most unmeritocratic rules agreed even by some of the most hard core libertarians called objectivist.

“Forced altruism may be justifiable for things beyond their control,” I’ve heard an objectivist say.

“It’s not fair to hold people accountable for things beyond their control,” says others in justifying that a defendant is innocent on ground of insanity.

“People can’t be programmer anyway no matter how high programmer’s salary is,” says my socialist friend.

To which those with the least to offer simply say that things are not within their control. “Every body wants to be rich but well, I am poor here against my will,” says a cradle to grave welfare recipients.

What I mean by not very elastic doesn’t mean it’s totally inelastic. In fact, I am of the opinion that many things we think is inelastic is actually very elastic in a quite unintuitive ways and those unmeritocratic norms will produce whatever typically unmeritocratic norms will do, namely unproductivity.

Those are elastic in politically incorrect way. The way the supply is elastic is outside our box and hence looks inelastic. Heavy anti market regulations, for example, will create demand for corrupt officials. Well, we don’t teach that in school or public success coaching do we?

Imagine what happen in most normal goods. Say demand for fish drops. Then price of fish will drop too. The drop of the price of fish will also drop supply of fish. At the end the price of fish won’t drop that much. In the short time, price will drop. That’s because of the huge sunk cost fish industry has put. At the end it won’t matter match. Price drops but not a lot in the long run.

The same for steel or car factory. Say demand for car suddenly drop due to competition in china. It’ll be just like fish. Except that now the sunk cost is bigger. The number of jobs lost is bigger. The political pressure, something libertarians never take into account, to prohibit car imports will be bigger. That explains why for so many years we do not have globalization.

Most libertarians will simply tell those car industry workers, “Tough.” Yea they can’t change job. It’s easier for them to pressure government to prohibit import then to change them self. Let’s just face it. That’s what they do.

Now what about sexual demand?

Say men prefer the pretty (they do, we do, I know). Say men only pick the pretty. Now, does that affect the ugly?

Libertarian position is:
1. What ever 2 consenting parties agree to do, it’s no body else’ business.

In most products and service it doesn’t. However supply is NOT elastic. Ugly women can’t just be pretty. Men picking the pretty will drop the value of ugly women.

Libertarian position is:
2. What people typically want doesn’t matter. What matters are what each individuals want.

Again, what people typically want matters a lot on supply inelastic goods. That’s because what people typically want decides the market price.

If porn is legal, ugly women will go extinct. I must admit American girls are typically prettier than Indonesian thanks to porn.

Now what about supply inelasticity itself. Didn’t I say that that those are actually elastic?

Take a look at car factories, for example. In short terms, it’s not elastic. They already had a car factory. A sudden price drop means their factory is worthless.

The keyword here is sudden. How sudden? Because if it weren’t sudden, then they could have chosen not to build cars in the first place.

What about poverty? That doesn’t seem to be elastic. We know they can’t afford their babies.

But they can choose not to make them in the first place. Yes but even then is not elastic enough. The need to procreate is stronger than the need to live. Let’s face it. That being said, most women in Asia wouldn’t want to make babies without some financial commitment, while most women in Europe do. Welfare program do encourage breeding among the poor.

However, if those women really want to reproduce can’t they just pick rich smart males first and get say, some financial commitment?

Rich smart males, like any males obviously want as many hot women as possible. No society will ever run out any kind of males. Males are, how can I say it? like sperms. Expendable. I start seeing libertarian bottles flying toward me here.

Expendable unless they’re rich or provide some other values toward the ruling elite/society/whatever. Women always produce some form of value because getting pregnant sucks and hence has high market value. Even women marrying other males provide some values to most males because she takes out a competitor. Not so for women doing it outside marriage.

Men often do not produce any value whatsoever for other males and hence are more likely expendable.

Now, here is another fine point. Women cannot easily pick the rich. Consensual contract to reproduce between adults are heavily regulated against women picking rich smart males.

Prohibition of prostitution is one of them. Lack of right to decide child support commitment before conception is another. Not to mention a price fixed in marriage where women always get half and more unless the males perform some complicated legal maneuver first. That ensures that most rich males are not available on marriage and prohibition of prostitution means they can’t easily commit money otherwise.

So at the end, as we see, unmeritocratic rules, namely welfare program for the poor and prohibition of prostitution for the rich does heavily affect the supply side of poverty. Namely it encourages women to pick the poor and breed poor guys with the same preferences, including voting preferences.

Supply is actually very elastic when it comes to humans’ reproduction. It’s just that the elasticity doesn’t come out of individual direct choices. It comes out of sexual selection choices, which imply extinction of some genes and proliferation of others. That one is just not palatable enough among voters.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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?

Incoming search terms:

  • free market child support

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Marriage is Consensual

[quote=FerrisHilton;1048296]A true capitalistic economy thrives on the concept of buyer discretion. Morons get hosed and those who are diligent in their research and purchases get good products and a generally efficient lifestyle due to their smart purchases.[/quote]

Great. Buyers’ discretion. What about if buyers decide that they want short term marriage, or polyandry, or polygamy, or same sex marriage, or prostitution and they want to practice that openly? I thought buyers and sellers usually write their own contract. So what the fuck is legislators doing writing the contract for them.

Imagine if someone’s put gun in your head and you give your wallet. Is that consensual?

There is a fate worse than death, called extinction. A robbers can say, “Don’t life till I say it’s okay.” There is a power greater than those who can kill you, namely the power that says, “Don’t get laid till I say it’s okay.” That power is weaken, but still societies can greatly restrict many form of relationship that directly competes with marriage.

If some people can prevent you from getting laid unless you get married, does that make marriage consensual?

Would you give your wallet to robbers if the alternative, namely living without surrendering your wallet, is easy? I don’t think so.

Would people get married if all alternatives are legal and can be practiced openly for all to do? I don’t think so. Well, at least there are very good reason why 50% of babies are born outside marriage in US, compared to in Arab. The alternatives are the market choice. Will be even more so when government interfere less. I actually write another topic for this.

Basically “fairer more explicit” deals will attract better objects. Porn, for example, in contrast to burqha, will attract the pretty. However, as better objects move to better market, buyers will find those on the original market “worse”. So buyers too will move to better market. At the end, everybody moves.

This process called adverse selection explains why insurance companies, and eventually ALL/MOST insurance companies, want to discriminate you based on your genes. Discriminating insurance companies is a “fairer more explicit” market. Governments of course prohibits that.

It’s the same reason why religious ideas get worst and worst. With internet and science, all the better ideas already fly to those better market where ideas quality can be more easily measured.

The same way marriage will be replaced by better market. It just that for that to happen, the alternative market will have to be legal AND seen. This is something government prevent with criminalization and censorship. But their power is cracking out.

You think marriage is consensual. Well many think David Cooperfield eliminated liberty statues. There is a trick on things. Yes you can have cakes and eat it too.

Marriage is like an operating system. There is a network effect. We think everyone use windows so we use windows. Imagine of all mac users must use mac only secretly? Imagine if Microsoft censors all Mac ads. Can you consensually say that people buy microsoft’s product consensually?

We don’t have national operating system. Why do we have national language or national fucking agreement? Why government endorse one consensual deals over the other?

Well porn is censored for minors. The same way, escort, while legal, can only be done secretly.That’s promotion of one system over the others.

As I said, it’s not about the interest of the consenting parties. It’s the interest of those who wants to control the party. Why alimony is so expensive?

Imagine if it’s cheap. Then Beatty Chadwick can just marry strings of women and divorcing them latter. The women may not mind. The other males would mind.

Religious bigots just want to dominate the operating system market. No I am not blaming them. I am blaming everyone now, especially my self, for not trying to be as evil as them.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pandora and Eve. Same guys (or girls)?

The story of Pandora is very similar with the story of Adam. Both want to know something and somehow their acts of inquiry leads to the source of “all evil”. Is it truly evil or perhaps, illusion of evil, or perhaps awareness of evil, to be more exact?

Many have suggested that the forbidden fruit is really “sex”. Why?

Sex is always a sacred topic. Why sacred? Well, that’s because we call it that way. Why do we call it that way? Because we don’t want others to question our stories.

But why sex? We don’t call stock market sacred. Well, we sometimes call power as sacred too actually claiming that God or something beyond our power, control and comprehension, decide things to be the way they are, if we like those things.

Sex is indeed special. All of us are essentially selling the same product. Those who fail to sell themselves as sex objects will go extinct while those who succeed will inherit the earth. There is no alternative. There is no substitute product. We can’t just back of from that market and sell something else.

We can fail to sell everything else but if we manage to breed like rabbits, our bloodlines will still be the one surviving in the gene pool and will inherit the world and all the contents.

The way we evolve, when we’re not at war we’re in a race. To avoid quick death we either agree to be partially enslaved. Once we got our chance, it’s our turn to impose our terms on others.

Humans are quite likely not created and definitely not equal. A few generations from now, all that we achieve, all that we have gained, all wealth we have accrued, will go to the descendants of whoever makes the most kids. Call it tax, socialist revolution, genocide, lawsuits, redistribution of wealth, public school or whatever, all the wealth of the rich will slowly or quickly dribble down to those who manage to make kids. Yes, most will go to our kids. However, what proportion of future kids’ genes will be our genes?

In survival for whoever can find something that works, a few will be winner and get a few most beautiful girls. Fewer still will be big winners and mate with thousands begetting thousands of kids. Some will never mate. The rest settle for a stalemate called monogamy.

All of us will then want to win as big as possible. Whoever win, especially win big, will then do it at the expense of others. Most of us will try to win as much as possible and that means screwing everyone else.

Humans then do many things to prevent others from winning. Most societies have various ways to prohibit various consensual sex acts. Hence whichever humans have power over others can increase their reproductive success by separating their target market from tougher competitors. Poor countries have laws against inter religious marriages. Democracies have laws against polygamy and prostitution.

Those who are in power decided morality. The powerful are also the one that can utilize force more. It’s not a coincidence that the more countries are harsh on consensual acts, the more that countries are lenient toward non consensual acts. Those are just samples of societies where forces prevail over competition.

But still the biggest weapon humans have against another is the belief that all these doesn’t matter. Who do not want to get all the chicks while the rest of the world work slavishly and earn money for them? As much as possible humans want to trick all other humans to get the shorter end of the stick.

Those who question can understand. Those who understand can change the world toward his interest, which often means our expense. We don’t want change. So we don’t like questions. Hence, we call sex sacred. We said God created marriage and define that marriage according to our interests.

That is why any knowledge that might enlighten us to what’s really going on will always be a forbidden fruit. Norms and laws tend to look down upon porn and commercialized sex. The former allow us to dream a better winning life’s purpose. The second establish market price clearly pointing the objective truth of what humans truly want in sex, what they’re willing to offer or accept in exchange of it, and how much.

On the other hand, fairy tales that help keep most humans in the dark will be treated as holies. Those stories that can convince as many as possible to be nice hard working celibate monks, will be exalted to the highest degree.

Now, why sex is sacred again? Well, if life is a running race, we want to trick others to walk or crawl slowly. That trick is called morality. We do not want those we trick to know too much or question the social structure we create for them. Lest their eyes will be opened and they will become like us, knowing what’s truly behind all this morality and hence, pecking order and power structure that govern their lives.

Those who are enlightened will not be so docile in the future. Why should the king get all the babes? If God don’t make him a king, does that mean I can be a king too if I successfully rebel? They then become dangerous. That’s, in a sense, source of all evil isn’t it? We call it evil because those we tricked no longer do what we wish.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,