Political correctness

I came across this interesting video on political correctness:

Essentially, Marxism was first an economic theory. Because it was unsuccessful in that domain, it changed its focus, so that modern Marxism now focuses on culture as its target rather than economics. The video makes quite an interesting point about the Marxist "Critical Theory" and how it is used as a weapon to silence and create guilt and thus destroy whatever is its target.

At 6:40, the guy in the video explains how:

1. Feminism uses "critical theory" to attack Western civilization's treatment of women, while turning a blind eye to the treatment of women by other cultures throughout history. Thus the economic basis for the treatment of women is ignored, and instead the culture is blamed and attacked.
2. Minorities use critical theory to attack Western civilization's treatment of blacks and other minority races, while again turning a blind eye to the treatment of these races by other cultures throughout history. Thus again, the economic basis for slavery is ignored and instead the culture is blamed and attacked.

It is quite apparent to any intelligent person that economics is one of the unifying principles of life itself. It is one of the pillars of evolution.

Male infidelity

In this post, I will try to explain why, if you are a married woman, in many cases you should not worry about your husband's infidelity, and in those cases where you should, I will explain what exactly you should worry about. I will deconstruct male infidelity, so that you can understand better what exactly you should worry about and what you needn't worry about.

If you are a married woman, and your husband cheats on you, these are the the things to consider:

1. If you and your husband are of similar age, your sexual power will wane faster than his does. The greater the difference in your ages (him being older than you), the luckier you are: the less likely it will be that he will leave you for another woman. On the other hand, if you are older than he is, he is more likely to leave you for another (younger) woman.
2. The likelihood that he may leave you for the other woman also depends on her attractiveness (age, fertility, looks, etc) and character. Needless to say, if you have nothing to worry about, then you have nothing to worry about.
3. If you do not have any children, he will have less familial ties to keep him in your marriage. A study has shown that marital stability increases with increasing numbers of children, up to 4 (and then plateaus).
4. You should always worry about STDs that your partner may bring and pass on to you. Of course, the degree to which you should worry depends on how promiscuous the other woman is. If she used to be a prostitute, then that's a cause for alarm, but if she is not by nature a promiscuous woman, then there is less cause for worry. Of course you can insist that he get tested, though STDs take time to show up.
5. If you live in a society that doesn't enforce the marriage contract or doesn't impose any penalties for leaving a marriage (such as alimony, child support, etc), then you should worry because it makes it easier for him to leave you.
6. If you married your husband in haste, then be fully prepared to repent at leisure. If you married the wrong kind of man, then don't expect your marriage to last. You will have to put in more of an effort than is usual to keep your marriage together.
7. If the other woman got pregnant as a result of the affair and there is a chance that the state may compel your husband to pay her child support, then you should worry because his resources will be going to support another woman's children instead of your own.
8. If the other woman's husband is the jealous type, and there is a chance that he is a threat to your family, then you should worry.

Is there anything good about male infidelity? This is a difficult question to answer. Women are subconsciously in competition against each other, even while cooperating with each other. There is a fine balance between the two. Women will tend to cooperate when they are fewer in number and men are plentiful. Women will compete when they are more in number and men are scarce. Life can at times be a zero-sum game. If other women's marriages fail, it can be to your advantage, but not always. For example, if another woman's marriage fails (thus reducing her fertility), your children will have less competition when trying to find a mate. On the other hand, your children will have fewer potential mates to choose from.

So instead of feeling righteous indignation if your husband cheats on you, try thinking about the issue rationally. Society might expect you to be indignant, and you can put on a show for their sake, but if you secretly know that there's nothing to worry about, then why sacrifice your happiness for what's "right"?

Life is a game

Many years ago, this one time while I was reading random articles on Wikipedia, I came across some articles about Scientology. Soon I ventured in that direction outside Wikipedia and found this incredible article called "Life is basically a game".

Now this philosophy really made a big impact and it stayed with me because I understood games, having spent large amounts of time in my childhood playing computer games. But I couldn't quite directly use this knowledge. In fact, this reminds me of a book I have. It's almost 100 years old, and it's a treatise on the topic of advertising. While the book has some value, I don't really have much of an interest in the subject of advertising. So I keep it, hoping that some day it will bring me some value. Similarly, LRH's philosophy of the Game of Life stayed with me because I sensed that it had value, but I couldn't use it. Also, in retrospect, I can say for sure that LRH didn't quite get it right. One reason might be that there are claims that LRH was heavily medicated, and this would have affected his writings. LRH likely also had dishonest intentions, and as a result he could have deliberately made up all kinds of nonsense, thereby unknowingly and unintentionally producing this little gem. A bit like the monkeys typing Shakespeare.

In any case, a little gem it was, and this knowledge - this wisdom - stayed in my mind, dormant, a key waiting for the right lock to come by.

With my recent studies in sociology however, I've come to understand that all life is basically a game. And it is possible that LRH's philosophy was the key to me recognizing this fact. Here I will try to outline what I've found.

• All of life is basically a game.
• The vast majority of people don't realize that life is a game.
• The tiny minority of people who do realize that life is a game:
• of these, the vast majority:
• don't know the rules of the game.
• don't know the winning and losing conditions, and thus don't know how to measure their success or failure
• can only guess at the rules, and thus can't know for sure whether they're playing by the correct rules.
• The game never ends.
• A person can never objectively know, and ultimately won't care whether he succeeded or failed:
• but his success or failure will depend on the success or failure of those who came before
• but his success or failure will affect the success or failure of those coming after.
• so most people, even if they are aware of the game, don't care about it.
• Success can easily be undone by those that come after.
• Sometimes, failure (but not utter failure) can also be reversed by those that come after.
• No one will ever know whether the rules they're playing by are the correct rules.
• Those who aren't aware of the game use the strategy of "follow the herd", ie. do what everyone else is doing. This is a strategy that works, but only if the herd is doing the right things, which is most of the time because the herds that remain are the ones that did the right things. (Clue!) Sometimes though, the herd may start doing the wrong things.

Execute the criminals

If you believe in evolution all the way like I do, some conclusions are inevitable. Such as: criminals should be given much harsher sentences, and the focus shouldn't be on trying to rehabilitate them. Rather, they should be executed without undue delay, especially if there is even a tiny suspicion that they will commit further crimes if set free.

There is currently way too much compassion being shown to criminals. They are put in prisons whose luxuriousness rivals that of 3-star hotels. It costs an absolutely staggering amount of resources to house these criminals. Ultimately the cost is borne by the taxpayer, who are struggling to raise their own families. Of course, the problem is that too many people are dependent on the "crime industry". The police, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc. People in these professions, like parasites, produce nothing of value.

This crime industry is the main reason why the government is so keen on gun-control. Someone once told me about a labour union strike that happened at his place of work. Unfortunately I was told this story possibly 20 or more years ago, so I don't remember the details clearly, but please bear with me. There was a bulb that needed to be replaced, so he asked the workers to change it, but the workers on strike refused to change the bulb because they were agitating for higher pay. When he tried to do it himself, they prevented him from doing it and instead threatened him with bodily harm. Just like the union workers, the government also refuses to let the common people take matters into their own hands, because then a lot of government-employed people would be out of work. It's just basic economics. Andy Turnbull explains it brilliantly in The Cassandra Papers:

The most obvious problem with the GNP is that it counts all transactions as positive factors, even if they are obviously negative. The ice storm that hit southern Quebec and eastern Ontario in January of 1998 added billions of dollars to Canada's gross national product.

In 1993 the bombing of the World Trade Center in New York added more than a billion dollars to the GNP of the U.S.A. In 1995 the bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City added even more that year and sparked a long-term increase of at least $300 million a year for extra security at US federal buildings.

In Canada Paul Bernardo who raped at least 14 women in the Toronto suburb of Scarborough and who kidnapped, tortured, raped and killed two teen-age girls in St. Catherines added tens of millions of dollars to the GNP. His contribution includes the cost of the police investigation of the rapes and kidnaps, medical and psychiatric treatment for the victims who survived his attention and, after he was caught, his trial and the media frenzy that accompanied it.

If he spends the rest of his life in jail he will continue to contribute to the GNP because the average prisoner costs at least $50,000 a year to maintain and a "special" prisoner like Bernardo, who needs protection from other prisoners, probably costs more. If you believe in numbers, Paul Bernardo was and is a productive member of society.

Read that part again: Criminals are productive members of society. Why? They stimulate the economy. They reduce unemployment (many people, like lawyers, judges, police, etc. base their livelihoods on criminal activity).

But what about the suffering caused to the criminals if we execute them? Assuming anyone in their right mind would care, the criminals will cease to suffer once they're dead anyway.

There is one very real problem: innocent people being falsely found guilty and executed. A best effort should be made to determine if the accused is innocent, and if he is not, the sentence should be carried out without delay. If it turns out later that the one executed was falsely accused, then the accuser can be executed just like the other criminals. Innocent people die all the time: that's just tough. Next time don't be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Other than the economics and morality of it all, why do I think that criminals should be executed post haste? Evolution, what else! Executing them will reduce the likelihood that they will have children. The apple doesn't fall far from the tree, the saying goes. Since behaviour has a genetic component and is inherited from parents, it makes sense to eliminate "criminal genes" from the gene pool. Shocking? Well, think about this: why do you think the majority of people living today aren't criminals and instead law-abiding citizens? Because throughout history, those who committed crimes were often executed. They didn't last long enough to leave many children around. If those criminals were treated any differently back then, there would be absolute chaos in society today. The wolves would outnumber the sheep.

What kind of society are we creating for our children?

What is a marriage and what is it for?

In the post-pill era, it has become necessary to clarify exactly what marriage is and what it's for. Why is this necessary? Because there are now so many alternative lifestyles that it has led to conflicts between those who want to be included, and those who want to keep things as they were.

The purpose of marriage has always been for the sole reason of raising healthy children. Many will mistakenly disagree, citing "love", "companionship", etc. The source of this mistaken belief is the ignorance or rejection of the theory of evolution. The means has become the end. In fact, love and companionship are simply the glue that holds a relationship together, hopefully for long enough until the children are independent. In fact, sex itself is now no longer just a means to an end - it is an end in itself.

Those who have children, but nevertheless think that love and companionship are the most important thing are simply doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. Nothing wrong with that. Still, the arrival of children does negatively affect love and companionship in a relationship, so those who value their love and companionship will limit the number of children they have. An endangered species, but not worth shedding tears over.

Those who don't have children will go extinct, so it really doesn't matter what they do or think anyway. They are simply the props or furniture in the stageplay of life. They may get married and be happy together. They may even be a homosexual couple. But in the end, what's the point of being happy if they don't have children? There won't be anyone like them in the future, that's for sure! So it doesn't matter if they want to get "married", because it's not really a marriage in an evolutionary sense.

Some may want to get married and have children but don't want their own, so they adopt. They may be homosexual couples. As before, if the children aren't their own flesh and blood, then they too will go extinct. But they are providing society a service, by parenting some children who would otherwise be a burden on society.

In the past, before the contraceptive pill was invented, sex invariably led to a baby. When this happened, the fate of the child depended on whether it had a father. Because the difference in outcomes (between those children with a father and those without a father) was so big, one thing led to another and marriage was invented. First time, monogamous marriage is the best possible environment in which to raise healthy children. Nothing else comes close.

So next time you are trying to decide whether some relationship is a marriage, remember that the key ingredient is children. There must be children, or atleast an intention to have children. Otherwise it's not a marriage.

The four kinds of love

I am reading a book called "Why Marriage Matters" by Glenn T. Stanton.

The author explains how there is not just one, but four different kinds of love: eros, philia, storge, agape.

Eros is physical attraction and passion, but it can also be more than that. It need not necessarily be a blind attraction to just anyone. Its object can be a specific person.

Philia is friendship that you feel towards your friends. Philia may be the same as "platonic love". When those who we love in this way are absent, we find life less fulfilling. We feel this way about those special people who we would choose to watch a movie with, walk on the beach with, or share our joys and troubles with.

Storge is familial love. It is love between family members, neighbours, and community. It is a kind of "glue" that keeps the tribe together.

Agape is unconditional love, or love under will. This is distinct from the other three, in that it requires effort to maintain. It cannot spontaneously happen - it can only be created and sustained by a conscious act of will. It cannot be sustained by emotion. This love often acts against emotions, which are transitory. It goes against human nature. This is the kind of love that sustains a marriage through thick and thin, in good times and in bad. He quotes Eric Fromm:

"In contemporary Western culture ... love is supposed to be the outcome of a spontaneous, emotional reaction, of suddenly being gripped by an irresistable feeling."

"One neglects to see an important factor in erotic love, that of will. To love somebody is not just a strong feeling - it is a decision, it is a judgement, it is a promise. If love were only a feeling, there would be no basis for the promise to love each other forever." (1)

He continues:

"A true promise means something only in the context of the possibility that we would not naturally produce the thing promised. We promise our love and commitment to our spouse because we recognize that it is not likely to sustain itself upon our original emotions. Our love is sure to be imperfect because we ... are imperfect. In this context, we make a commitment to our beloved to continue the hard work of refining and cultivating our love."

"The recognition of this aspect of marriage is imperative because it goes right to the heart of why so many marriages don't last. Marriage is hard work and takes a commitment to our spouse and to the idea of marriage." (2)

---

References

• 1. Eric Fromm, The Art Of Loving (pp. 55-56)
• 2. Glenn T. Stanton, Why Marriage Matters (pp. 166)

Why employers should only employ married men

Many social science studies have consistently shown that married men (on average) earn more than either single men or single or married women. In fact, this is the earnings order:

1. Married men
2. Single women
3. Single men
4. Married women

Dr. Warren Farrell documents this in his book "Why Men Earn More" which thoroughly debunks the "wage myth" that feminists use to reinforce their victim status.

The most reasonable explanations for the wage gap are motivation and specialization. Married men, especially with children, are found to be more dissatisfied with their wages and put in extra effort to earn more money to support their families. Single men without children simply don't have the same level of motivation to work, simply because their basic needs aren't being met. They are much more motivated towards other, more fundamental, things instead - like trying to have sex regularly.

Consider the other basic needs. When you are hungry, you can't really concentrate on other things like going to the gym, watching a movie, going to a concert, etc. Likewise if you need to go to the toilet, you can't concentrate on other things. Sex is similarly a basic need that needs to be met just like the other needs.

While work does have a direct relationship with hunger, it has only an indirect relationship with the fulfillment of sexual needs. That is, we satisfy our hunger by working. If we don't work, we don't get paid, and we starve. But most people do not work to get sex. Yes you can work and earn money and spend that money on prostitutes, but for the vast majority of men, such relationships are deeply unsatisfying because this lifestyle is not conducive to having children. Or you could work and earn status and power and wealth and these things increase your ability to get sex, but for most men this is too great an investment to make for a delayed and uncertain reward.

It follows that single men are less motivated to do work, because they've got nothing to work for. To them, life seems meaningless and empty. And they're constantly thinking about sex. They won't admit this of course, yet it's true.

Married men on the other hand, are more motivated because they have a wife and children to care for. Life doesn't seem so meaningless and empty anymore. Also, you don't just have the man's work - you have a woman's work behind it as well. Because a married man is simply more available for work, because his wife frees up significant amounts of his time by taking on domestic responsibilities that the man would otherwise have to do if he was single. In a sense, his wife invests her working potential in her husband's career for mutual gain.

Phyllis Schlafly would often speak at women's colleges in the late 70s and early 80s. She explained to them that even if they worked just as hard, and put in as many hours as their male counterparts, there is one advantage a man has that they'll never have; namely, a wife. And, of course, the response would come back, `Why can't a woman have a house-husband?'. Schlafly would respond, `Good luck finding one'. It's not impossible, but it's very improbable. (1)

If you are an employer, you would be wise to employ only married men. Your second choice would be single men, but only those who are planning to get married and have children in the near future. But if single women are more motivated and hardworking than single men, then why prefer men? Because if these single women are of childbearing age, then they are unreliable and potentially expensive employees - we must assume that they will get married or pregnant at some point in the future and you will have a higher employee turnover or other high costs (maternity leave, job sharing, etc) as a result. If you pass on these high costs to your customers, you will lose business to your more efficient competitors who don't employ women. If you pass on these high costs to your employees, you will lose your best employees to your competitors.

If instead perverse incentives are put in place that makes it "profitable to be inefficient" by penalizing companies that refuse to employ women, and by rewarding those who do employ women, then society as a whole will lose business to more efficient societies. Companies may move overseas, workers may choose to emigrate, etc.

1. Reader reviews of book "The Flipside of Feminism"