Confusing Obvious Real Motives

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

No matter how obviously ridiculous your beliefs are, I know it won’t change.

If I can choose between being a plaything for a pretty women or be a respected husband of an ugly women, I too would choose the former.

Whether something is a plaything or not is just “play”. What truly matters is whether kids can go to school and college or not. Whether your kids will get good education or not. Most importantly, whether your spouse have good genes or not.

I understand that in western civilization it’s different. You guys have welfare. So women have LESS incentive to pick the rich.

In Asia, we don’t have that. Women that pick the poor will just take full consequences of her choices. That is, many ended up having to raise kids on her own or her parents’ money. Many ended up becoming prostitute after the guy left. The poorer the guy the easier for him to just “left”

A lot of the issue is about people’s motivation. I am a businessman. My job is to properly motivate people and that means knowing the truth about what they want.

Voters job is to come up with a “nobel” lies to hide people’s true motive.

If you put gun in front of people head and he gave you your wallet, I would say that the gun motivate the victim to give up wallet. A liberal may say that the gun has nothing to do with wallet transfer statistic because love is blind and all thick walleted victims only want to give wallets to robbers for totally different reasons. The politicians job is to confuse the obvious.

The same way if you give subsidy to women that pick poorer males in the form of welfare, of course there are more women that pick the poor. Yet everyone says it’s not the issue. People just think that love is blind, etc.

If you set child support proportional to a man’s wealth, of course there will be less rich men that are available to women. Yet everyone acts that it’s not the issue. People theorize that the rich just want to concentrate their wealth on fewer kids, etc.

If you prohibit polygamy, of course there will be less women that share a man openly. Yet everyone acts that it’s not the issue. They just say that all women value exclusivity way more than money, etc.

If prostitution is illegal, of course most women do not want to be one, yet everyone acts that it’s not the issue. People just say that prostitution is so degrading no body wants to do it.

If you impose minimum wage, of course somebody will not get a job because the market can’t clear. That “somebody” will usually be black due to racism. Then, we see black people selling dopes for less than minimum wage. Yet everyone acts that it’s not the issue. That the racist minimum wage laws are not made for exactly this purpose. They think it happens due to lack of government funding for education yada yada yada….

I also believe that when whites fight over child support, the real issue is not the real interest of the child. They just want to collect the child support money from the non custodial parent. Of course, Valerie will swear up and down, it’s not the issue.

Why I Sometimes Use Words Like Chinks?

Actually I may have known that chinks mean something derogatory though I don’t feel the words.

However, sometimes I feel annoyed with all these “protecting minority” attitude. I feel, as a chinese, want to say, we don’t care what you think. Just embrace free market and let’s make money and more money so everyone is happy. Not sure how other chinese feel though.

Root of all evil is trade restriction. Minimum wage is there to artificially protect whites from having to compete against black. War on drugs are really war on blacks. Hitler wouldn’t have been able to kill many jews if jews can easily immigrate to US. Talibans would pay a high price for stoning their women if those women can simply move to other countries with more attractive offers.

No women would have to put up with poor abusive wife beating husband if that women can be concubines to richer smarter millionaires.

Yet we have all these hypocricy of protect minority, protect women, yada yada yada…

As some of those people that are supposedly “protected” I want to say, enough.

Well, you want to protect some chinese? 10 years ago some burglars stole my digital camera and stuffs. Why not impose death penalty against repeated burglars and legalize drugs. I am sure most people, chinese or not, will feel much more protected.

@Harold, don’t get a wife. EVER. But do breed. Now how exactly you do that is where the question is.

I had sunday school teachers that get orgasm weekly from me. She did it for free. Beware of girls that do it for free. She may actually want marriage.

I have another girl that want to divorce her husband and be my concubines. Those were 2 beautiful girls. Some of the most beautiful girls in my high schools. Daughters of rich people.

So I learn from my experience. At the end, as my business coach told me, you always pay 🙂 But may be there’s a cheaper way. The book is about to show what the problem is. I am still seeking solutions.

Do Mediocres Oppress the Highly Talented People

Do highly talented people oppressed? Relative to what? Relative to pure libertarianism? YES. BIG YES. I like to call that “game balancing” rather than oppression actually. Yea it works the same way.

Under totally free market, the highly talented people would have out reproduce the rest leaving the rest extinct. The fact that it’s not show that there is some oppression. A very understandable one, for better or worse.

Sample:
It costs far less in money and time to educate the smart. Government make the cost relatively equal.

Education is designed so everyone move at the same speed.

As a start up I am willing to hire talented people irrelevant of degrees. I think judging qualification based on degrees is very misleading in favor of mediocres. Oh this guy has completed 20 years of education. Damned, so what’s his IQ? However, this you must have a degree is institutionalized. Company need to put degree as requirement so they can justify hiring immigrants for example. Government say, oh we do not have enough people with computer science degree in US so yes you can hire immigrants.

The truth is, IQ alone worth far far more than degree for programming jobs.If left to free market many companies would hire based on IQs. That’s why your interview questions are often filled with puzzles by the way. They actually want to know your IQ but they cannot do that, so they circumvent it by saying let’s answer this puzzles.

Why do government want to “protect” jobs for blue collar workers?

The main advantage of having high IQ is you can do things others cannot and hence deserve getting paid more. Well, government simply protect jobs that anyone can do and force people whose jobs require high IQ to compete with asians. Good luck.

In US, you cannot discriminate people based on IQ, even if your job is programmer. I wish more people would put their IQ in their resume. It’ll make it easier for me to hire candidate.

IQ is not the only advantage that’s hidden underground. Anti porn advocates effectively force sexy women to cover their “talents” and for the same reason. That is, no body would pick the ugly if the pretty show off their talents well.

Even after all those “oppression” designed to oppress the high IQ and other talented individuals, the talented end up richer. Then what? What’s their birth rate? Why those highly motivated to positively contribute to society has low birth rate?

Anti porn, anti prostitution, anti polygamy, and myriads of other land mines are there to make sure everyone is equally successful in the gene pool. However it’s tilted too much to the left that the poor and mediocres actually end up having more kids. That’s effective genocide against the talented so they can’t even inherit their talents.

You said something that you wish I will never have a job controlling people’s life. I can assure you, your politicians is way way way way way way way worse than I am. Why not beat them up as you said. I am sure they more than “bother” your friends.

New Theory on Voters Behavior

n economy we are told, simplistically, that humans maximize their wealth and then gain happiness by spending their wealth for consumption.

I think I want a closer model that can also extend to political realm. Humans want power. They will use their power to gain happiness. Happiness are often obtained by unhappiness of others, usually the very rich.

For example. Say I want to explain why drug is illegal. Using theory #1 it doesn’t make sense. Even if it were true that drug is dangerous, why in the earth people would go the extra mile protecting others from self inflicted danger? It presupposes that society love you more than you love your self, which is a great over estimation of society’s love by a factor of 1000. However, theory #2 fit perfectly.

Voters want power, namely power to decide drug you use.
Any drugs that’s fun, save, popular, and cheap are prohibited. Here, theory #2 correctly predict what will be prohibited.

Why people opposes organ market?

Theory #1 doesn’t make sense.
Voters want power, namely power to decide who live or die.
Any method where the more productive can live longer is politically incorrect. That’s also why US have national health care.

Why sugar relationship is grey area (it may be legal, it may not be)?
Theory #1 doesn’t make sense. When the rich make kids, their kids don’t take welfare check. That means less tax.
Voters want power, namely power to decide who get the girls.
Any method where the rich can get girls in ways that do not lead to some catastrophic surprising financial shock is either illegal or politically incorrect.
In fact, that’s the very reason why marriage is so politically correct. It often financially devastates rich males, like Tiger Wood.

It also explains why child support is set proportional to a man’s wealth. It’s not to support any child. It’s to ensure that reproduction is financially devastating for the rich.

Here, theory #2 correctly predict what’s politically correct or incorrect. Can a relationship financially devastate a rich man that are surviving in the gene pool? If yes, like marriage, then it’s politically correct. If no, like prostitution, then it’s so politically incorrect it’s illegal.

In fact, I think all opposition of free market can be explained by this desire to enslave and effective bigotry.

Yes the capitalists aren’t like that. But they’re minority.

What I want, What I really really want

I don’t care. I don’t mind paying. What’s the point of making a lot of money if not to shower girls that you want to sleep with and our biological children.

I do not believe in love at all. It’s just bullshit. Others may believe it, I don’t. Not me. Not most beautiful girls that I know.

Maybe those with less to offer, like poor men, or ugly women, would consider love, romance, loyalty, fidelity, as valuable.

Not me. I want beauty (and tits). I want good genes, not love. I don’t mind paying if that’s what it takes.

My love is expensive. I love my self, I can’t love another. Romance don’t turn me on. BDSM would.

Exclusivity? You kidding. I like switching girls. In fact, I like 4 some. I also don’t mind sharing. I don’t see what fidelity is for as long as I don’t end up paying child support to kids that are not mine.

Guess what, most males are like me. The richer the male, the more he is like me. You want exclusivity from a rich playboy under thread of life time alimony? Good luck.

Ask all the other male. If we all try to get what we really really want and not what society says we should want, women will be whores. It’s simply more efficient.

If no woman want me I’ll just play video games. Not like sleeping with women is a necessity.

To me, they’re just another toy and reproductive tools. If some women do not like men with my preference, say they want love, go ahead, find other men. I won’t complain, I won’t say it’s wrong, I won’t judge, I won’t force.

Economy of murder

Anyone will murder a person if and only if subjective $ value of that person to me – political costs of murdering – murdering costs – “drops (such as wallet)” < 0. Babies have low sunk investment costs even from parents (at least till they enter college). Also murdering them is legal. It doesn’t have drops but I’ve heard their organ can be sold at black market. So they got killed. The same goes for cows, chickens, cats, mosquito. You don’t murder your friends and families because they’re useful for your own reproductive success.

So when someone is “murderous”, which variable differ? By the way I don’t have moral value. I just try to understand things. Trying to predict humans behavior the way they really behave, instead of the way they claim why they behave.

Are women responsible for child support?

Are women responsible? Well they chose to mate with someone poor. The thing is, what choices do they have? So many other choices are blocked under the pretext of protecting them.

Look at those mother of terrorists. Are they responsible for breeding more terrorists rather than more bankers or scientists. Sure. If they want to mate with bankers or scientists instead, say they go all the way from afghanistan to be sex workers or sugar baby for Bill Gates or Tiger Wood, then what?

Feminazis will scream it’s exploitation!!!

With so many restrictions, societies effectively choose for women.

Monogamy means women can only pick singles, which mean those that don’t sell (yet).

Anti prostitution laws means maximum wage for sexual service = 0 unless on some loophole such as marriage or unofficial shelter or deal with cash.

Alimony means women can only sell her self for huge severance pay proportional to man’s wealth.

Anti women trafficking means that women can only choose males from his own country no matter how mess up that country is so women from richer countries do not have to compete against immigrants.

What about if a woman think, you know, I’ll change my pricing scheme. I don’t need 50% of Tiger Wood’s wealth. I’d rather 1% of his wealth. Society will call that women a whore and prohibit that under the pretext of protecting that very woman.

Then, that same woman may ended up marrying a drunk wife beating unemployed wife beating middle class. Then what? It’s super legal because it’s subsidized.

Of course what most males want is not really protecting those women from anything. What males want is to ensure women choose them. That means getting rid better alternatives. The better the alternatives the more incentive males have to prohibit it. Then they just claim that it’s so bad no women would want it anyway even without prohibition.

The World is Full

Why is it that those productively making the world a better place keep thinking that the world is full for their kind and those who are making the world a worst place don’t care?

If you don’t breed, someone else will. If you don’t grab those girls, someone else would. That someone else may be worst than you. Why not let the girl decide rather than self imposing what’s best for her?

Kids need their dad. Fine. It’s an issue.A billionaire with 100 kids can’t spend enough time for each of his kid. Reasonable. However, if he refuses to be daddy, someone else will be the daddy. That someone else may just put babies in drop box. And that’s legal.

Also when the rich and productive want to breed people say the world is full, greedy, glutonous.

If the poor want to do the same with YOUR money, then it’s human’s right.

Go figure.

Anyway I’ll submit some drafts to some publishers.

I suspect, though not sure, that everyone deep inside just want the poor to breed and the rich to go extinct. I mean, the law in every countries are like that. Hatred against alpha males or something.

Issue with Polygamy

My issue with polygamy is not really the poly. It’s the gamy. When it’s called marriage, we bet government blessing is there. With government blessing comes government’s regulation.

In western country it means monogamy, to ration females in equal share for everyone. Yap, that’s what it really is.

If socialism is money socialism. Then democracy is power socialism. And monogamy is simply reproductive success socialism.

In muslim countries polygamy is legal but free sex is not. That means only the powerful (or their friends) can get laid. No wonder they kill each other a lot to gain power.

Why not have something commercialized and more “market driven” where every body got exactly what they want rather than what other think you should want?

Oh wait, it’s called prostitution, yap, illegal in both western and muslim countries.

That being said, I probably wouldn’t be able to get my beautiful wife is prostitution and polygamy is legal. So I learn to realize that everything is part of the game and adapt.

We All Need More People on Our Side

Among many justification for socialism, this one actually make sense. The ming and the sung in china also fall due to wealth disparity.

The poor, which has no land to defend anyway, don’t bother fighting. Government then perform a belated response of redistributing land and confiscating property for “national defense”. This results in the rich switching side to mongols.

However, most socialists measure simply worsen poverty. Socialists take money from workers via income tax, while giving it to aristocrats and land owners via bribes, infrastructure building, and corruption.

Most proponent of capitalism, like me, are or was actually not very rich. We just want to be rich and socialism get in the way of poor people wanting to be rich.

Say I am a poor person that want to be rich. I can
1. Work hard
2. Produce children.

Option 1 will lead to wealth but taxed. Option 2 will lead to poverty but subsidized. Go figure.