Why People that Don’t Want Children Have Children?

Free access to scriptures religious leaders try to censor

Got that free. Self publish.

I need ways to make this catchy. I am concerned about human happiness.

Why should people that do not want children have children?  In fact, why should anyone that doesn’t want anything have that thing?

That one is obvious. Here is what’s not obvious. How do we measure how much we want something? The objective way is to measure the amount of money people are willing to pay for that thing.

Government hurt the poor. Poor people that postpone making children will get less redistribution of wealth and actually taxed to support those who do.

You don’t think the system is stupid? No body is happy when government subsidize anything. It simply take power away from the consumer to government that can decide what to subsidize.

Evil cannot be cured. Stupidity can.

Number of Children the Rich and the Poor Have Have a lot To Do with Welfare

Show me a sample of a millionaire with 10+ kids that are not bankrupted by child support? Actually show me a sample of a millionaire with 10+ kids.

Barbara, don’t throw the rich don’t want kids to me. Not even one of those millionaires want children? C’mon….

I can think of Osama bin Laden kind of males. It seems that you do need to kill or be violent if you want to win in gene pool game.

Here is another thing about gene pool survival. 1000 years ago, your wealth would have been gone. It’ll be redistributed to your children or seized by government or thieves. All that’s left, 1000 years from now, is how many descendants you have.

Harold, I have only one daughter. I do not wish to go extreme and make more till I am a millionaire. After I am a millionaire, what should I do? Obviously my wife can’t pop another one out. Divorcing her will be expensive. She told me she doesn’t care actually if I have another girls but sort of angry and not contemporary problem anyway.

Sigh… I’ll just get rich first and think about it latter.

The fact that rich people have fewer children than poor people have A LOT to do with welfare and child support. Without welfare, the poor won’t have grand children, and those smart enough will not have children at all till they’re rich.

Without huge child support payment set up by the state rather than by the woman being impregnated, cost of producing children will drop among rich males and the rich will produce more children.

Harold, this is too obvious.

Most of Us Will Have Almost No Descendants 1000 Years From Now

Actually it’s worst in Asia. Gengish Khan Y chromosome mutation shows up in 2% of Asian population.

So this is how gene pool survival works.

Most of us will have very few to no descendants 1 thousand years from now.

Some of us will father the rest.

How to compute?

Well, each of your children is half your descendant. So if you have 2 children, you have 1 descendant in the next generation. That number may decrease or increase.

After 1 thousand years, it may actually go to 0.

If you count each of your children as 1 descendant then yea, it’s hard to go extinct. But if you look at your proportion of DNA in future generations, it can go up or down.

This is another thing interesting.

Look at ancient people with more descendants.

Those are
1. Kings (power)
2. Adulterous males (those who sleep with tons of others’ wife).
3. The rich?

In Asia, it’s usually the first way.
In europe, it’s kind of tricky. Having many women is politically incorrect no matter how honest and victimless you do it. So you might as well go all the way bang other’s wife.

But why others’ wife? Why not single girls? Because kids need support. In Europe it’s impossible to openly support many women. So you need some sucker cuckold to do that for you.

The rich? Hmmm… Not sure. In ancient China, and seems to be in ancient china only, people do have more children by being richer.

Power is the best predictor on how many children you have rather than wealth. Ancient emperors have tons of children.

What about women?

Women that pick the right men will also have more descendants. The way descendants work are some kind of partnership. Your children will successfully reproduce if and only if their mom’s children do.

So, one easy way to see what women want is to look at the kind of males that were successful at producing children in the past. Women that pick that kind of males were also successful in the gene pool. Those women then have the same preference with their motherly ancestors.

Of course, humans are not that conservative. Nowadays, with welfare males having more children than millionaire, it’s not strange that women prefer a poor stud rather than a rich man. That’s especially true if she’s married and will have money anyway no matter what she does.

Another reason why no rich smart men should ever get married.

Sometimes the Muslim makes a lot of sense

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2279972/Anjem-Choudary-Hate-preacher-pocketing-25-000-year-benefits-calls-fanatics-live-state.html?ICO=most_read_module

A controversial Muslim cleric who lives off benefits is urging his followers to also sponge off UK taxpayers by claiming their ‘Jihadseeker’s allowance’.

Anjem Choudary, who in the past has planned to disrupt the minute’s silence on Remembrance Sunday, also openly mocked hard-working Britons, calling them ‘slaves’.

What this guy said makes a lot of sense. Punishing the productive and rewarding parasites is so idiotic and idiots always end up becoming slaves. It makes perfect sense. To do it and expect any other outcome is what’s bizarre.

And yes, religion, being made thousands of years ago, are free from liberal bullshit. There is no way any religion would teach giving away welfare. Religions that do that will have all their followers extinct.

When some idiots do, expect abuses.

While generally, follow-up reporting of The Sun’s article was restricted to other tabloid newspapers, on 12 January Choudary was asked to clarify the matter by ITN reporter Angus Walker. Choudary replied “The money belongs to Allah and if it is given, you can take it. You don’t lie and you don’t cheat – that is what the prophet said. I am not doing anything illegal. —

He got a good point. So people are being paid to produce children while the rich cannot make as many children as they can afford. Genius.

Actually even if it’s not given, if the society is so stupid that penalty for corruption is low anyway, why not do it?

When People Commit Evil in the Name of Religion, Should We Blame the Religion or Human Nature?

Human nature. And that’s precisely the problem with religion. Most influential religious dogma are simply sugar coated human nature. The fact that it needs to be coated shows that it’s actually something we would normally be repulsive.

I don’t know if God is behind any religion. Maybe God is indeed behind the original religion. A BIG IF, whatever that mean. However it means practically nothing because we’re not following the original religion. We are following modern interpretation of ancient religion.

While I don’t know if God is behind any religion, I know for sure that corrupt officials and tyrants are behind most religious doctrines.

Religious dogma are mostly simply interests of religious leaders. Ever heard christians want false prophet to be put to death? It’s in the bible, but no christians will want to condemn Benny Hinn for speaking false prophecy. Benny Hinn is pro family and people embrace prejudice.

Yet christians would be the first to condemn prostitutes, gay, and alcohol, most of which are only lightly mentioned, and possibly not an issue at all during the bible era. The 2 women that brought their case to Solomon were prostitute and they openly address the king for justice.

Even if God exist, 95% of religion, is not will of God. It’s simply will of those corrupt officials that want to raise meat price and enslave us.

However, religion is the tool of tyrants and religious leaders. Why would you embrace tools of tyrants and religious leaders.

Religion, at least now, is not helping. It just muddy things up.

If I told you, you got to pay me cash or God will send you to hell, you would have figured out that obviously I made that up.

The same way religion is like that. There is always the interest of some religious leaders in every religious doctrine. I don’t mean the interests in the past. I mean interests now.

And no, it’s not by God’s mercy we have air to breath. We evolve for trillions of years to live through oxygen. God didn’t create oxygen for us. We adapt to our environment. Maybe I am wrong. Not that wrong.

Even if God exist, I would rather learn from a jew than a muslim. The jews I know are as clueless and questioning as I am.

Is Religion Forced down the Throat of Individuals?

There is this theory, there is reality. In theory there is no coercion in religion. After all, any political power that force believes down the throat will face fierce opposition.

In practice, without coercion, religions have lost their main use, namely  a way to get others to do what you want. What can religions do nowadays? Offer better peace of mind? Much fewer would buy, like in Denmark.

So, we got this game where so many “pressure” is done on those who don’t obey and then people hypocritically say there is no compulsion.

There are. There always are. Tons.

For example, in Indonesia, religious leader has power to prohibit importation of meat due to halal issue. Many indonesians, muslims or not, don’t care about the issue. Even reasonably devout muslims may not think it’s a sin to eat chicken slaughtered by machines, which is the normal way to do so.

However, that power is the religious leaders’ bargaining position to make money. Now, the price of chicken in Indonesia is the highest in the world. So is the price of beef. Then recently we found out some corruption case involving, leaders of religious party.

It’s the same game, again, and again and again.

They said, no coercion. But every body has to obey their fatwa of not importing cheaper healthier meat. This is in a country that’s not so rich where children need more nutrition.

Think about it. Of course, you’re going to say, but that’s not what Islam is. Of course it isn’t.

From the beginning, it’s never really about the original religion, whose political circumstances have mostly been irrelevant. From the beginning it’s always power and what those in power want.

Political leaders look upon faith that are most useful to persuade people to die for them, and they promote and enforce it. That’s it.

To be fair, it happens everywhere. Monogamy and feminazism is just another religion shoved down the throat without coercion.

Why Should Countries Embrace Meritocracy?

Because if they don’t worst things will happen. Humans are greedy and selfish. Blocking honest productive means to produce wealth will make them earn wealth through other means.

Just look at other countries where governments redistribute wealth. Look at China during Mao.

Why would some people work hard all their life if he cannot inherit his wealth to his children. If every kids have the same chance to succed, why should I work harder if I am not going to either have more kids or my kids won’t have better chances?

Now, welfare recipients can afford more children than billionaire. Some made 40 children and get away with it. People can just breed and put kids on baby drop box.

A billionaire won’t be able to make 40 children because the child support laws will haunt him.

So what’s the point of being productive? If people don’t bother being productive, everyone is doomed. Why earn money to support those who hate you and want to enslave you?

Many voters get in the way of honest people earning wealth. Many deny basic freedom, such as freedom to smoke ganja. They are slave owners and we are the slaves. Why work hard for those slave owners?

The problem is not religion

the problem is not just islam or religion. It’s an everlasting problem. Class struggles if you call it.

Everyone wants to rule everyone else. That includes ensuring that everyone leave everyone else the fuck out alone (libertarian), ensure that everyone pay more money to them (socialists), ensure that no body have fun without their approval (conservatives). Yada yada. Power struggle between slaves and slave owners. It’s never ending.

At first I was conservative because I am diligent, then I am libertarian because I love freedom, then I can understand some liberalism because feeding the poor is cheaper than killing them, then I am apathetic. Everything is just part of the game. The only thing right is, does it serve me? That’s what everyone else are doing with few deviation anyway.

Look at Singapore. 1.5 times US percapita income with no resources. Very meritocratic. Yet, you get death penalty for smoking ganja and not democratic. Why? Simple. If it were democratic, it wouldn’t be meritocratic.

We can’t have it both way. Some libertarian adopt anarcho capitalism. Fine. The problem with anarcho capitalism is we’re already there. Just think of all government as protection racket business and pick those you hate least.

Or better yet, move around and pick what you love best in each country.

Make another google and enjoy paying only 1% income tax and that alone shows that freedom is possible, without changing the world. Then bang women in Asia and you don’t have to fear child support. Then move to socialist Europe and enjoy all the public expenditure you don’t pay tax on.

At the end, ideally, each country will ensure that those who pay are those who enjoy or spend, but that’s THEIIR job, not you. Your job is to abuse whatever system they come up with and whatever flaw in their system is.