In Andersen's story, there is a rabbit that race with a turtle. The
rabbit thinks that it's so fast anyway it should wait for the turtle.
The story goes that the turtle is so determined to win it does its best
and win. Now what about if the rabbit greedily try to win as much as
the turtle. There will be no way the turtle will win then. So what
would turtles do?

In Indonesia, we often sing songs, "Halo Halo Bandung." It tells
about an event where Indonesian fights the Dutch by burning half of
Bandung.

I've heard a story from a Chinese Indonesian that explains that the
event is not as heroic as it sounds. He said, at that time the Chinese
are herded to forests. The males are separated from the females. Then
the city is burned. Because the refuges knew before hand that the city
would be burned, most refuges bring all their gold and precious
material. The three resources (males, females, and gold) are allocated
in the following way. The females are raped, the males are killed, and
the gold seized.

Although racial tensions have greatly diminished in Indonesia, out of
fear of Chinese's capital's flight, I still remember 7 years ago,
where there were riots against ethnic Chinese in Indonesia. In
Indonesia, a mere kissing in public is punishable by 10 years in
prison. Smoking in some area can bring $5,000.00 fine. In some area in
Indonesia, women are forced to wear religious scarf to "reduce" sex
crimes.

Yet that who commit and organize mass rape is not brought to justice
till now. I mean, if government wants to reduce sex crimes, why not
just get tough on criminals? That's how things are done to scare
productive individual to pay taxes. At the least, it'll help a lot
not to organize mass rape in the first place.

Just a few months ago, Indonesian's vice president, Jusuf Kalla told
Chinese to either tolerate a possibly discriminating laws or face
another prosecution.

It makes me wonder, why the Chinese? Why some people in south east Asia
despised Chinese? Are they misled?

I've heard about the prosecution of Jewish people in Europe. The
justification for their prosecution is often hard to believe, but hard
to disprove either. They supposedly kill Jesus, which is a Jew by the
way. Most Europeans are Christians, which is a branch of Judaism. All
twelve apostles were Jewish. It's ridiculous that the religion
created by the Jews was interpreted in a way to prosecute Jews.

Latter Hitler accuses the Jews of causing world war. World war 2 is
caused by restriction of trade. Because German cannot get natural
resources, and cannot buy it, they try to get it through war. It's
not Jewish fault. It's protectionists fault... in other country. But
it's the Jews again that were blamed. Why the Jews?

In China, bourgeois and students were slaughtered under communist
rules. The capitalists are kicked out to Taiwan. Why bourgeois? Why
students? Why capitalists?

In US, businessmen can get sued black and blue with ridiculously high
cost lawsuits. Why businessmen?

Then I've heard Martha Steward went to jail, Bill Gates are blamed
for monopoly, McDonald are fined more than $1 million because one
stupid lady pour coffee into her own lap. Why Martha? Why Bill? Why
McDonald?

What about the rest of us? The mere act of making honest money is
punishable by tax. There are so many regulation concerning immigration,
sex, jobs, and schools. If a foreigner lose I-94 document, he can get
fined for US$3,000. When a person argues against income tax in US
court, he'll be fined for US$50,000.00. A whole family commits
suicide once they saw the penalty. If you don't pay your parking
ticket, cops will lock your car, it'll costs thousands of dollars to
release it. A father is forced to pay for kids whose DNA test has shown
that the kid is not his kid due to legal technicality.

There is no argument whatsoever that the penalty is so disproportionate
to damage cause. When good people make mistakes, it doesn't matter
that the mistake is small. It doesn't matter that the mistake is
undeliberately done. It doesn't matter that the law it self is so
difficult to understand and open to interpretation. People simply shrug
it off and say it's the law. If he doesn't like being punished just
obey it.

It doesn't matter that the law used to nail those people are often so
twisted and complicated; people simply blame them for "arguably"
break the law.

And it's not there... Thomas Arthur Green is convicted under polygamy
laws for legally marrying and divorcing several women in succession
(never simultaneously). So he's not actually committing polygamy, but
his acts of cohabitation with several women constitute polygamy anyway.
I don't see how Thomas coerces or fraud the women into anything. Why
he is sent to jail?

Till now I still hope, and yearn that a thief that steal my properties
get heavy punishment so I can post his conviction record all over the
internet. Yet, for such obviously deliberate mischievous, un-victimless
act, governments' do little, if at all. Yet there's room in jail
for guys like Thomas.

For acts that are obviously not victimless and involve some non
consensual victims, penalty is often light and the probability of
getting caught is low.

Governments often appease rather than punish. Conviction records of
thieves are not available in internet to protect the thieves'
reputation. Some companies are given tax deduction for hiring thieves.
The argument is that if the thieves have enough opportunity, in the
form of implicit welfare, they don't steal.

But why appease? Why not just resort to more punishment. That's the
way it's done against productive people. Heavy threat of punishment
for not paying tax, not appeasement is what's used against productive
financially responsible humans. Penalty to get people to pay tax, to
get father pay child support to a child he doesn't own, where the
support is disproportionate to the child need, is enforced through
heavy punishment.

Yet for thieves and other crooks, it's just appeasement after
appeasement.

Why?

One word: Envy.

What do the Chinese in Indonesia, the Jews in Europe, Martha Steward,
Bill Gates, McDonald, productive individuals, and Thomas has in common.
They're successful in some important way. All of the above, except
Thomas, is successful financially. Thomas is successful in some other
ways. He is successful at seducing many females.

And middle class hate successful people. It turns out the kind of
success Thomas has is somewhat related to the kind of success the
others have. What's the link?

Gene pool survival.

Our instincts are built for gene pool survival. Those whose happiness
and pleasure inducing algorithm, in other word, preferences, matched
what worked in the Gene Pool in the past are the kind of humans that
are common nowadays.

We like to have sex because sex improved gene pool survival. We avoid
shit because eating shit decrease gene pool survival.

Gene pool survival is almost a zero sum game. What does that mean?

Under capitalism, we can make a lot of money in ways that's mutually
beneficial. Money wise, Capitalism is NOT a zero sum game. The main
issue in Capitalism is not who should get the money. In capitalism, the
main issue is how to make more money for the good of all.

However, because the earth is getting full, gene pool survival issue is
more about who will be in the gene pool than how to get bigger pool.
When one gains more the other get less.

With capitalism, one country can be richer and richer. So a person can
make so much money without hurting others' interest right?

Wrong... Depend on what you mean by interest. When a male makes so much
money, he'll become more attractive to females. Then more females
will choose to share him than be the only one for other males. Such
males, the alpha males, will survive well in the gene pool. This of
course hurt the gene pool survival of less capable males.

Hence if A chooses an act that profits him by $10 and profits B to by
$1, B will still hate A. That's because A's and B's instincts are
built for gene pool survival. A will try to mate with as many females
as possible. Because A makes more money, more females will be attracted
to A, reducing females available to B.

That's the reason why many losers in US are pro communist. Those
workers are already benefited under capitalism. However, they are envy
that the productive even earn more than them.

A preference is then developed among many humans to stop, prevent, and
if possible, exterminate superiority. The preference manifests in envy
and unexplained hatred to those that is superior to them. But how does
everyone detects superiority? By achievements. That is why those who
achieves more are often those that are hatred.

When you are successful, expect hatred. It doesn't matter how you do
it. You can do it in the most fair, consensual, and beneficial ways as
possible. Still someone, somewhere, somehow, will come up with who
knows what fairy tales to somehow justify that you're wrong and that
you shouldn't do it.

You may not mean to offend them, but the mere acts of being successful
offend people, especially losers, enough.

You can make a lot of money honestly while providing many jobs for
others. Then what? Then someone, that takes jobs, rather than creating
it, will say that you have to use inferior technology so you can hire
more workers. Someone that works from 9 to 5 will say that you're
enslaved by money because you want more after you have enough. Then
they accused you of greed and somehow greed is evil.

Politicians never accuse you of greed for wanting someone else money,
it's always somewhere around wanting your own money. Then when all
things fail, they'll just kill you, like the Jews.

Then what should smart more capable people do then?

One solution is to proceed as usual. Make a lot of money through
capitalism. And then bitch when you get killed. That's what
libertarians, and many Jews, and Chinese do all over the place.

Their cause is just, but not a winning one. After all, if you're
death, even if you're right, you're not really a winner right.
Others will just prejudicially conclude that you're wrong. They're
envy to you. They want people to believe you're inferior. The more
you show otherwise, the more you offend their cherished believe. The
more they're mad. The more rich smart males show that they make money
honestly, fairly, productively, the more the poor will get mad.

Another solution is to stop being too successful so not to offend envy
people. Now it's pathetic. First of all, people want to exterminate
those superior than them. Hiding achievements won't help. It's the
genes they want to kick out. Up to the 10th century, the Jews practice
polygamy. Thanks to inquisition killing of their dumb, and lack of
prohibition of marriage against smart scholars, Jews' are smarter,
which soon leads to richer. Jewish males consensually attract more
females. Polygamy happen when one male successfully win the heart of
more than many females, which is natural for rich smart males.

Needless to say the other Europeans' males are mad, but too embarrassed
to say frankly what the real reason is. So to appease the Europeans, a
rabbi prohibits polygamy where customs prohibit it. The prohibition's
true purpose is to ration females in equal share for everyone manner to
all men. The pretext varies from religious, ideology, females' interest
(usually something vague, like dignity) to who knows what now.

Then what? Does the prosecution of the Jews ended. No. History shows
that Jews kept being prosecuted till the end of WW II.

Second, out of all less capable people needs, the most impossible to
satisfy is envy. You can provide welfare parasites with food, shelter,
job, etc. You can do so with little or even no sacrifice. Yet, if you
want to satisfy their envy, the sacrifice will be too great because the
very thing they ask is your failure and suffering, not any gain on
their part.

I like the third solution. Did you ever notice that Saddam, Suharto,
Evita, Marcos, Kim Yong Ill, are pretty smart. They "balance" their
financial achievements with military and political achievements.

Dictatorship is simply a natural answer against stubborn cultures that
fail to embrace meritocracy and individual freedom. Winners will be
winners anyway. If not through capitalism, through dictatorship. If not
through productivity, through corruption.

Problem solved, for the actor that's willing to fight fire with fire.

Hei, what can we say? It's the society that deviates from
meritocracy. If the rest of the population wants to deviate from
meritocracy, it's natural that what maximizes one's profit is not
what maximizes productivity as a whole. Perhaps that'll teach all
society a lesson in meritocracy. Any deviation from meritocracy will
simply make everyone lose.

Isn't there a more humane solution?

Yes there is. There is a time when superior people and inferior people
live in harmony. Soldiers under the command of Zhuge Liang, knows that
their life expectancy is an increasing function of Zhuge's IQ.

The Jews also get more respects among European not after they appease
Europeans more, but after one Jew, Einstein, help builds nuclear bomb
for the lesser evil, suggesting how valuable smart people is for a
society. Doing so shows that being smarter benefit less capable humans'
gene pool survival too.

The time when people live in harmony is when they have common enemy. In
other word, war. I sense problem in this solution. So bear with me
okay.

The Old Testament in the bible, for example, suggests of attacking
other countries, kill all the males, and grab the females. Apparently,
few things are serious sin under Christianity, save polygamy and
watching porn.

Anyway, the acts mean males can have many females, and the rest get a
share too. The existences of the smart people then help improve the
gene pool survival of the other males. Am I suggesting that? Ugh...
No...

But there is a humane capitalistic libertarian version of that. In many
countries, women are treated badly. They have to wear burgha, or hijab.
They can't work. Their clitoris is cut, etc. They can't pursue
Britney's career. Not surprisingly, countries that treat women badly
are poor countries. Women are attracted to wealth. Poor people cannot
resort to positive intensives, they use negative intensives.

Why not invite those women to be prostitutes for rich countries. Then,
when A enriches himself by $10 in a way that enriches B by $1, B can
use that $1 to hire prostitutes from Mexico, or Ethiopia. Hence, a
capitalistic act of earning more money will please other males too.
Poorer countries will have fewer females. They breed less. That'll
solve their poverty problem.

However, no amount of bribing will persuade pretty females to
consensually mate with the bottom 20% of male population. That's why
we have all this sex laws restricting consensual sex. So that there are
enough females for those bottom, financially irresponsible, less
capable males. If only there's a way, perhaps it'll be easier to
just tell those bottom 20%, you're out of luck...

So far, I've talked about males' interest. What about females'
interest? Females just want the best gene, if not money. What
constitute best vary from females to females. However, wealth and power
are proven signals across the glob.

Like males, females are benefited the most when they have choice. Let
them choose. As long as you give females consensual choice rather than
force, they'll be better off. Ugly females, out of envy, will
prejudicially argue that many consensual offers to females hurt
females' interest. Ignore them.

Is this newsgroup appropriate for this type of message? Want to
comment? Do so at:

We need women's vote to fight of the oppresion of the lesser cocks.

Please vote with your sexual selection.
http://petitiononline.com/sexwith

Cotam