Free Market Forever

May 16, 2012

Why Porn is Essensial for World Peace

Even if it’s true that porn reduce your libido, it’s actually good for world peace. Who need males killing each other because each want too many real girls?

We could see it in a different way.

Porn allow us to have higher standard.

We no longer just want girls. We want the cream of the crop. We no longer want marriage. We want to be in control. To have something that make her do it. Carrot.

And perhaps some stick.

Now I am not suggesting rape.

Say you’re not married to her. Say she leaves with you. Where would she be if she stop performing? Now that’s sexy. To keep shelter on top of her she need to keep “performing”

Also remember that your biggest problem is not girls don’t want you. Your biggest problem is competitors.

So one natural ways virtually ALL humans do in ALL countries is to actually block competitors. They become cockblockers.

Properly understood, this can work to your advantage. All those guys richer, smarter, taller, than you, are cockblocked by religious conservative. Bill Gates can’t just hoard women.

Do you even ever think why abusive relationship like forced marriage is more politically correct and acceptable than sugar babies for example? It’s cockblocking. The more healthy the relationship is, the more people want to prohibit it.

Unfortunately cockblocking works against you too. Properly understanding that will help you see the narrow path to genetic salvation. When to take advantage of cockblocking and when to go through it.

Only peacocks have their reproductive success fully decided by females’ consent. Either peacocks or humans in a totally libertarian country, which doesn’t exist.

March 8, 2012

Why Eugenic Measure is Not Necessary and Why Simple Libertarianism Will Work Better

I am not sure what I can categorize with eugenic.

There are 3 eugenics movements.

1. Fascist. Government decide those who are unworthy and neutralize or sterilize them. Quite often, our smartest subspecies, like the jews, are the one getting slaughtered. I am against this.
2. Techie. My kids can regrow limbs. Okay that’s cool. But it’s kind of freaky and can’t be done on large scale yet. I think it’s people’s right to do so.
3. Libertarianism. Yap simple normal standard libertarianism without even trying to be eugenic. Most of them don’t even think they’re eugenic and hate eugenics.

I believe that the third way will naturally improve humans’ genetic quality as a very nice side effect. Yap the 3rd is actually very eugenic and that’s what I want to explain.

This is the idea that I want to promote. That simple libertarianism have eugenic side effect.

Also many people think that unbridled capitalism will cause war, famine, great disparity of wealth, income inequality, violence, women oppression, etc.

I think the opposite. I think pure libertarianism or at least something closer to libertarianism from what we have now will eliminate poverty, reduce income inequality, reduce war, reduce violent, help the poor, etc. Not that I consider all those goals ideals, but if that’s what ideals for you, libertarianism is the key even for that.

Most people in western civilization think that libertarianism will be disgenic. I think the opposite.

Libertarianism varies but it at least support decriminalization of:
1. Explicit sugar babies agreement (currently illegal due to anti prostitution laws)
2. Consensual women trafficking (currently illegal despite consent under contemporary anti trafficking laws)
3. Porn
4. Drugs or saver drugs like ganja. Pure libertarian support legalization of all drugs and moderate ones support saver drugs like ganja.
5. Buying and selling organs

6. Elimination of welfare program

Pure libertarianism oppose redistribution of wealth at all. Some moderate ones like Milton Friedman advocate negative income tax. Both tend to be eugenic.

Why will this be eugenic?

I think the real reason behind dysgenic tendency doesn’t come from free market. It comes from government.

1. Monogamy actually ration females in equal share for everyone. It ensures the dumbest most stupid and violent males will get a wife anyway. Those males can get females simply because it’s illegal to pick more attractive richer males. Attractive males tend to be best sellers, and quite often already married. Monogamy means women can only pick singles. Also marriage laws are very hostile against the rich. Many rich attractive males simply don’t want to get married. Free sex is simply not toward the best interest of beautiful women that can get tons of financial support for her beauty. Polygamy ration females on the whim of politicians, that get votes from the poor. In Iran, for example, government want to pay cash for those who breed. Sugar babies eliminate this issue and libertarianism will legalize that.
2. Anti women trafficking laws prevent women in countries where they are oppressed from fleeing to better countries with better system and richer males. If women can consensually move, males in every countries will have strong incentive to make their country rich, embrace capitalism, etc. Women will be less oppressed everywhere because otherwise they’ll simply move.
3. Even though most women prefer the rich, not all are pretty enough to get rich males. Well, porn will ensure that the ugly don’t get picked.
4. Cheap availability of drugs will give the poor and “fuck up” people something else fun to do besides breeding.
5. If organ selling is legalized, parents can inherit more wealth to their children when they die. Also the rich can live longer and reproduce better.
6. Pure libertarianism opposes welfare. This will obviously very eugenic because it’ll make the poor starve. But pure libertarianism is not even necessary. Currently government spend so much money supporting “our children”, which often is simply not ours, at least not biologically. This provide strong incentive to breed especially among the poor. Welfare recipients deliberately produce many kids so they can collect more food stamps. If government spend the same amount of money for those with kids and those without, that incentive will be reduced.

So what do you think?

Next post would be on why socialism is not necessary and why simple libertarianism will work.

December 21, 2011

Women Study 101

AB: But the traffic doesn’t help me.  That’s the problem.  Either they comes and start putting pictures up holding their cocks in thier hand, or the women are trying to sell themselves for money, etc.  That doesn’t help me at all, just hurts me. ANd most of the traffic hits the home page and leaves so to Google it makes my site look like it is not interesting to visitors.
AB: Porn traffic is the worst traffic I can get.
AB: I appreciate you trying to help though.  Thanks for thinking about us.
T: very funny
T: so what with women trying to sell themselves for money. Isn’t that what all beautiful women do :)
AB: Yes, but not in that way.  Our women are more subtle ;)
T: I see
T: now it make sense
AB: Our women want a lifetime income, not a quick upfront one time payment :)
T: Straight from the horse mouth :)
AB: Yes, I’m married to one of them
T: You have married 5 of them and it’s correct all the time.

November 5, 2011

Why Marriage is like Concentration Camp?

In mid 20th century there was these highly industrious smart, productive, funny, ancient and wise people called the jews.

They’re endangered species now. These people underestimated their government’s hatred against them.

The same way today, there are capitalists. Most of those underestimate others’ hatred over them.

The jews underestimated Nazis’ hatred toward them. They think they won’t get screwed. “We are useful to them. Why would they kill us?” They said to themselves. They failed to realize that:

1. The mediocre hate the smart. That’s why Nazis hated jews.

2. The lazy hate the diligent.

3. The unproductive hate the productive.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from reaching their full potential.

The same way most people fail to realize that:

1. Mediocre men do not want women to only pick the rich. That’s why they prohibit prostitution.

2. Singles do not want people with mates to keep getting mates. That’s why they prohibit group marriage, polyandry and polygamy.

3. Ugly women do not want women to be judged by their beauty. That’s why they prohibit porn.

4. The less competitive hate those who out compete them or have potential to do so. The less competitive always want to prevent those better than them from achieving their full potential.

All these are half obvious already. Yet most people don’t know.

The fascists justified killing jews by claiming that the jews are inferior anyway. If it were true, why not just let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Inferiority is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

The fascists also justify prohibition of prostitution by claiming that prostitution is such a bad deal no women could possibly want that anyway. If it were true, why not let the market decide? Not a rhetorical question. Bad deal is a very vague concept. In a very reasonable sense, the truth is actually the opposite.

So the Nazis pulled out a trick.  “Work will set you free,” said bigots. “Just register your arms and wear star of David band for ease of identification,” said the Nazi.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something was suspicious. What business government has in identifying who were jewish and who were not? They should have asked.

The same way, religious bigots and feminazis are pulling tricks. “Get married first before having sex,” said religious bigots. “Women are not sex objects and should not be judged solely by their beauty,” said ugly feminazis.

All those seem pretty innocent.

Yet something is suspicious. What business does government have in regulating marriage?

What business does ugly women have in controlling how we think? When men think of women as sex object, we usually mean the pretty right? So why the ugly care?

But many jews didn’t see that the Nazi wanted their extermination. What else could they have wanted? By registering their guns they are easy to disarm. By wearing stars they are easy to identify. And by being in concentration camp they are easy to exterminate.

The same way many of us do not see that those wanting us to get married want nothing but our extermination and suffering. What else do they want?

By getting married government has power to define what marriage mean. Government can ration mates in equal share for everyone by allowing people to only pick singles.

By getting married judges have justification to prosecute the rich with hefty alimony. The justification, as ridiculous as it sound, is that you agreed to that indirectly when you get married.

By getting married people make it easy for government to screw them.

Little did the jews know that hatred against them would matter far more in concentration camp than outside.

Outside concentration camp, hatred against jews matter much less. The jews can still fight, flee, or run.

Inside concentration camp, they’re toasted. Literally.

The same way, little people know, that hatred of those who are not competitive are far less influential outside marriage than inside marriage.

Outside marriage, you decide terms of your mating.

You can change partners, and hence providing intensive for the other side to behave fairly toward you. You can decide your own contract. You can share a more desirable partner, or be shared. It’s up to you.

Women typically can aim at far richer males outside marriage. Richer smart men can aim at more women outside marriage. It’s happening anyway thanks to higher and fairer income disparity globalization bring here.

Inside marriage, the will of all those bigots matters. A girl will have harder time aiming for the rich inside marriage. Rich males are afraid of having to pay big alimony and will not marry unless the women are smoking hot if at all. All those alimony laws are destructive only to the rich. Think about it.

Fascists ensure that rich men that still get married are pretty much screwed, hence ensuring that only the poor are available to marrying women.

Hence, the result

Read more about Beatty Chadwick here.

Check more here for more horror stories.

If you are a beautiful woman, getting laid by rich smart males willing to support you in exchange of sex or reproductive service is very easy. The richer the male, the more he wants you. Finding a male that are willing to risk going through those horrors for nothing is obviously difficult. The richer the male, the less likely he wants marriage.

Notice that genocide pictures I showed you above is quite typical. Most concentration camps’ Nazis to jews relationship does end up badly, for the jews. The experience are different. Some get burned, others get shot, another get gassed etc.

Notice that Beatty Chadwick’s case is quite typical. Most marriage does end up badly, for the productive. Experience varies. Some go to jail, others paid huge lifetime alimony, etc.

Perhaps the jews think that outside concentration camp, fascists can still kill them anyway. True.

But it’s much harder to kill them outside than inside.

As more and more are outside, fascism will starve and get weaker.

The same way many think that outside marriage, fascists can still control their life anyway. True.

Fascists can still prohibit prostitution. Fascist can still declare that cohabiting partners are married, hence effectively instituting forced marriage. Fascist can still prohibit prostitution. But fascists will have much harder time running your life outside marriage.

As more and more babies are born outside marriage, fascism will starve and get weaker.

A lot of hatred was there in the design of concentration camp. They got gas chambers, they got chains, they got guards with guns. Concentration camps were there to kill jews. Shouldn’t jews be suspicious?

The same way, a lot of hatred is there in the design of marital laws. They got life time alimony proportional to men’s income. They got judges ordering males to support kids that are not biologically his. Marriage laws are there to bankrupt rich smart males. Shouldn’t all rich males be suspicious?

Trust your government?

Remember genocide. Remember Beatty Chadwick.

Never again! we let fascists influencing who should stay in the gene pool. Yes in both cases (I am tired of writing the same thing twice), many will deny that.

Do not trust your government. The same government that claim to define what’s best for your kids are the same one that would send those same kids to ovens and roast them slowly. Just ask any holocaust survivor or Beatty Chadwick.

Never forget. Government sucks. Free market is awesome. Free market forever.

Incoming search terms:

  • afghan eyes
  • powered by phpBB beauty pics
  • powered by phpBB funny free
  • jews funny
  • jobs for ugly females

August 27, 2011

Morality Has Many Definitions

Morality has many definitions. The following are some reasonably intuitive ones:

1. What I want. I define immoral as people not doing things I want. At least that’s how most politicians think. Samples: watching porn is immoral because I don’t want you to watch that. I’d rather that I watch that my self.
2. What those in power want. Obviously you need real muscles so not to get ignored by those you want to control.
3. An art to cooperate. Those winning war and economic competition tend to be more just than those who aren’t.
4. What ever people believe to be moral. I like this definition more because it’s actually disprovable and verifiable. Then we can use evolutionary psychology to see how different idea of “morality” evolves.
5. Altruism. That means it’s important to teach others morality while not practicing it our self. A very common phenomena in the world.
6. An honest way to maintain reputation. Making money honestly is lucrative too and you don’t want to risk that for a small stealing. Of course, hypocrisy can be even more efficient.

In fact, taking money from the hapless can be common and moral, as in tax, at least in the eye of the parasites.

Morality is simply the interest of those who are in power. So yes, if you really think you can get away with it, and you’re in power to do so, just do it.

That’s what IRS did. That’s what pro health care people did. That’s what corruptors did. That’s what everyone that opposes free market did. Of course they don’t want competitors so they call it immoral.

If everyone else do it and you don’t, then you also act immorally namely that you are unfair to your self.

Just don’t steal mine though. I posted millions of thieves conviction record to avenge my stolen properties. But hei, after getting fined for threatening the thieves and contemplating morality for 8 years, I sort of understand. I don’t blame no thieves for that. Of course they did that.

Also, you sure you won’t get caught? If you are, chance is it’s over

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.

September 30, 2009

Marriage Can be VERY DANGEROUS

Obviously marriage can be very problematic as

http://wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2758

shows.

Yet information promoting marriage like romance were legal and information promoting free sex like porn is illegal for minor. Also many alternatives to lifelong monogamous marriage is illegal, like prostitution, contract marriage, concubinage and so on.

I know a beautiful female friend that wants a divorce. She can’t unless her husband has a mistake first. Not being rich enough to the next best competitor is not a mistake. Being able to attract other mates however are. Of course this rules favor the less competitive partner of the marriage. This is the most stupid non meritocratic rules I’ve ever seen in any contract.

We are told that when we get married we agreed to be loyal till death due us part. How do they know? Were they there when we write the contract? No. They know because that’s the only kind of contract people can make when get married.

I can spam thousands of forums. I can promote any petition. I can do anything I can help to end or at least discourage marriage ALL over the world.

Of course I know the real reason why religious bigots demand marriage institution is because they cannot get any mate if humans are free to choose their mates AND the terms of their mating.
I bet all those feminists that demand that women should fight as soldiers in front lines are ugly. I partially agree with them. If they’re ugly why not? But why prevent the pretty from being porn star?
Who’s with me?

September 28, 2009

Who are the victim of victimless crime?

Easy answer is none by definition.

But let’s look at reality for a while.

When I was young I was forced to take so many classes that I do not think are useful. In one point of view, the classes are useless. Students, however, took those classes anyway because they are forced to take those classes where they memorize dates and names of irrelevant events.

That’s one point of view. Another way to easily see that is to see courses taught by private sectors in private tutoring industry. While many parents send their kids to learn more Math and English, no body send their kids to learn national ideology or history. In no private tutoring courses students have to memorize dates and names. That shows that most parents, as informed consumers, do not think those mandatory classes are useful. Case close.

Here is another point of view by the way. The classes are useful. If it weren’t useful, it wouldn’t have been taught. Think it this way. It took enough political will to force millions of people to do something. It must be useful…. To somebody… with enough political cloud to make it happen.

All classes that are taught in school, public and private, are useful for the curriculum makers.

Will those that are useful for the curriculum makers useful for students? It depends. Under free market, students’, which are consumers’, best interests are properly aligned to the interest of the producers, including the curriculum makers. When governments can “regulate” curriculum, all bets are off.

The same way, who are the victim of victimless crime?

In one point of view, none.

But wait. If there is really no victim, it wouldn’t have been a crime. Think about it. It takes enough political will and power to prohibits many from doing a certain thing. Somebody must have had their interests, not right, hurt by those criminalized acts.

Who?

Simple. Competitors.

If porn are legal, many males would rather watch porn, rather than mate with ugly women. That means extinction for ugly women. It’s no wonder that many feminists insist that all women should become soldiers, astronauts, or anything where beauty matters little. Those are ugly feminists. They complaint that women shouldn’t be a sex object. Why? Because they aren’t.

Who are the victim of women trafficking? The women being trafficked? Think again. Many of those trafficking are consensual. If you live in a country where males want to cut your clits, wouldn’t you rather be a prostitute or porn star in richer countries? Women prefer the rich. It’s natural that women from poor countries want to move to richer countries so they can mate with richer males. I am not arguing that all women prefer the rich. I am arguing that it is very reasonable that such movement CAN be VERY consensual.

But when feminists argue that women trafficking hurt women, they are correct too. Not the women being trafficked mainly, especially if the act is fully consensual. Women trafficking from poor countries to rich countries hurts two kind of people. It hurts ugly women in rich countries that do not want to compete with women from poorer countries that ask for less and are often prettier. Women trafficking also hurt the poor males in poor countries, that see now that their prettiest girls move to richer countries instead.

Hei. I am from a poor countries and I too was sad that the prettiest girls from my high school are all in US and Europe. However, it just motivates me to make more money so I can import their replacement from China. Most males would simply choose to prohibits such trafficking.

What else?

Free sex. Does it hurt somebody? Of course. Free sex, like free trade means free competition. It of course hurts those who are not competitive.

What else? Protection of minor? From porn? I remember a story about kids that are grown inside a vase so that their body ended up like the vases. It’s not good for the kids, but good for the kids’ raiser that want to sell the kids to circus. That’s what public education and anti porn regulation really is all about. They want to grow kids in their vases, till it’s too late to reverse the damage.

Years we learn biology in school, not once we are told that women prefer the rich and males prefer the pretty. Yet we have to memorize so many other facts that are irrelevant to our lives. Why? So we grow exactly the way the vase makers do.

Rather than thinking that porn is dangerous from minor, wouldn’t it make sense to think that censorship is the one that we should protect our children from? Imagine if you’re aware that somebody kidnapped your child and grow her in a vase. Wouldn’t you want to break the vase (and kill the kidnappers) rather than agreeing that your kids should be protected from non vase influences?

What’s interesting with all these criminalization is that for some reason, most of us, quite reasonably, do not believe that competition has victim. Most of us believe that it’s part of the game and that’s the way it should be. Competition is the main, if not sole, reason why humans want to do better than others for others. Hence, people that want to promote criminalization of victimless acts need to LIE.

There goes all form of nonsense arguments. Sometimes what they said is simply vague. Some feminists may argue that porn “demean” women. It’s vague accusation. What does demean mean? Which women? Is having more freedom demeaning? Is having more power to decide what to do with your life when you all consensual acts are legal demeaning? Is not having to agree with bigots and slave owners but free to choose demeaning? Arguable. Hard to say. It’s vague.

Other bigots will resort to religions based on faith. It’s hard to argue against fairy tales as we all agree.

Most people will not get married if all alternatives are legal. What kind of stores would demand that you can only buy from that store only if you agree to some form of exclusivity agreement and be loyal customer till death do you part? Some stores might do that but most simply don’t.

Perhaps promoting science and evolution theory will help shed light to what’s the real issue is. Books like “Selfish Gene” or “The Red Queen” have pretty much becoming mainstream and help cornering religious bigotry.

Only time will tell.

Powered by WordPress

Loading...