Men are in a constant war with one another to compete for the chances to mate with women. Those of them who are "alphas", aka, the ones who have superior genetics and are highly attractive to women, get women easily. Those who possess inferior genetics are called betas. These men get few mating choices. Those of them who have the smarts and ambitions, run businesses to become rich, and this helps with their reproductive efforts somewhat. These betas know that with the genetics they are born with, they don't stand much chance of attracting attractive women. So they hope by having great wealth, they can impress these women. But the amount of money that can made by one man is typically quite limited, unless he's truly intelligent and inventive, which most men aren't. So these beta but smart men need to come up with ingenious ways to get more money than they could on their own, and one big way is by exploiting the labor of other men and women. In other words, they have to become capitalists and business owners and have other people work to make lots of money for them. Now, where do we average-looking women place in this scheme? We are not hot enough to be desired by these men, so, our natural place is to become one of their employees. We work to make these men rich, and in the process make enough to live on, and for those of us who are lucky, maybe enough to raise a family. But we will always be a cog in the economic machine and nothing more. The same is true for our male colleagues. They are neither hot enough to be alphas, nor are they smart enough to be business owners. So their role is to work for the rich men as well. I want the women reading this to realize how men see us. When we are attractive, they want our body. When we are not, they want our labor. This is the true state of the battle of the sexes, with a little bit of economics thrown in the mix.


A word about the role beauty plays in love: Love only exists among blood relatives. The only time it happens for someone who is unrelated is if she is extremely beautiful. By the way, truly unconditional love doesn't exist. People like to talk about it because it's idealistic, it's romantic. But it has nothing to do with reality. Even parents, who are supposed to love their children unconditionally, are largely motivated by cute looks. If babies didn't look as cute as they do, there would be a lot less parental care and love. Furthermore, I am sure we have all heard of the song that goes, "I learned the truth at 17, that love is meant for beauty queens". This captures truth really well. Romantic love exists only for beautiful people. If you are a plain Jane, men will never truly love you like they would a beautiful woman. They might still marry you, however it's only because they want free sex and hot meals.

Who needs books when you can read this

After all this guess who will sign in sirthom

A lot of us like to think that businesses provide us with products or services that improve our quality of life, and this is how they make money. But I can honestly tell you that businesses only care about making money off of you, they don't care about anything else. They don't care about giving you value, nor do they care about increasing your quality of life or raising your happiness. They only provide products and services to you grudgingly, because this is the only way they can get you to open your wallet. If there were a way for them to make money without providing anything of value to you, trust me they would do it. I am reminded of something I read about: there is a jewelry retailer. They make money chiefly off of their diamond rings. One day, they discovered a huge deposit of diamonds in some remote part of Russia. Do you think that this big increase in supply should drive down the prices of diamond rings? No, it didn't. Instead, the company jealously guarded the discovery, then made sure diamond prices remain high as before. But I thought businesses offered products to enrich consumers' lives? A huge deposit leads to lower costs for the company, and this should translate into lower prices for the consumers, right? No, how silly of me. They don't want this huge increase in supply to depress the prices of all their other diamonds, and all the diamonds to be sold in the future. You see, they can make more money by keeping the prices artificially high, despite being able to source diamonds cheaply. Selling diamonds cheaply benefits consumers but not them. In other words, they are only motivated by profit. I hope this real-life case illustrates the point that businesses do not care about increasing your welfare or happiness. They only care about making money off you. I feel that this is one serious and inherent failing of capitalism. Businesses exist solely to generate profit for the owners, benefits to the consumers are entirely incidental.

A related phenomenon is that businesses do provide something, but they overcharge. For example, Starb*cks charging 5 dollars for a cup of a blended drink. These drinks are mostly flavored using chemicals, and these are very cheap. The only thing that pushes up the cost a bit is the whipped cream on top, which also probably doesn't cost them that much because they buy it in bulk. The end result is that each drink probably doesn't cost more than a few cents to make. But look at the exorbitant prices they charge us! I know that they also have overheads such as rent, and they also have to pay their employees. Nobody knows the exact numbers but my guess is that they still make a tremendous amount of money, considering that they have stores everywhere and keep opening new ones. Now, consider food at supermarkets. With improvements in food technology, agricultural practices, transportation and logistics, the real costs of food production are probably very low. But our food isn't cheaper. Where I live, if you go to a grocery store to pick up some ready-to-eat food, you are looking at 5 dollars per person easily, just to have something to put into your belly. If you actually want to eat till you are full and satisfied, it will cost a lot more. I frankly do not believe food costs that much to make. They might say, "oh but we have a lot of other costs". But the thing is, nobody really knows unless they are also in the industry themselves. The way I see it, businesses charge as much as they can, because they want to make as much money as possible. They get away with overcharging since there isn't any real competition. Yes there exist competing chains of grocery stores, but they too overcharge. These competitors' main objective is also to make money, it is not to benefit the consumers. The upshot? Nobody tries to lower their prices to any meaningful degree, and consumers pay prices that far exceed the actual costs of the products. This applies to both blended coffee drinks as well as basic necessities like food. This is a major facet of profit-driven capitalism that has failed us.

Specific to this failing of capitalism, I have a solution. I propose this thing called a low-profit business. Basically, it's similar to a non-profit organization. The staff it employs is very similar to volunteers, except they don't work for free, they still get paid. They get paid so that they can make a living. But they won't get rich. And the actual business' focus is not on making a profit. Its aim is to provide goods and services at the absolute lowest prices. It only aims to make enough to cover wages and overheads, and if there is some money left over, the business can open more stores. These additional stores will all follow the same low-profit philosophy. I want to do this because I want to see if it's possible to have a business that is not solely driven by profit. I want a business that is motivated by increasing human happiness. Imagine this: a coffee shop that charges you only enough to recoup the costs of the ingredients, employee wages, rent and other associated costs. We could be looking at a cappuccino that costs, say, only one dollar. If not that, then at least a lot less than the going rate charged by for-profit major coffeehouse chains. This idea can definitely work. We already have people who are willing to work for free (aka volunteers). This tells me that there exist people for whom money isn't the only thing. Why can't we take these people's philosophy and apply it towards a business? Under my scheme, no one will get rich, however, it won't matter, because everything will be so cheap. People might not be millionaires, but they will all live like one.

While we are on the topic of chains: I believe that businesses should be local. The owner should be local, the staff it hires should be local, because the customer base it sells to is local. I don't want huge multi-national corporations profiting off of local communities, it just means money is coming out of the local area and flowing into the pockets of someone who is from a far, far away place, who has no stake in the health of the community that his business sells to. When people buy and shop local, they are supporting someone who actually comes from and lives in that area. And this person is more likely to care about the health of the community and what happens to it. He is also more likely to spend the money he makes locally. This contributes to the local economy and allows us to keep money locally.

A word about corporations: You will hear a lot of paid shills say if we don't allow corporations to outsource, or hire cheap foreign labor to replace Americans, they will pack up and leave. I say: If corporations go elsewhere, then we will simply pass laws that prohibit them from selling their products in the US. My message to them: if you want to profit off of us, you better be prepared to give us jobs, too. You are a part of the community, and I expect you to do your part to help the community grow. You do not exist in a vacuum. In fact, I would say corporations need us the consumers more than we need them. The true creator of jobs is not businesses. It's the demand of the consumers for goods and services. If corporations leave, other small or medium businesses will appear to take their place. In other words, we don't need them; they need us. Corporations will do well to remember this.

Ultimately, we need to ask ourselves the reason why we have businesses. I believe that the reason is that we have needs that need to be met. As a society, we need goods and services. that is the real reason we allow stores and companies to exist. It is not to make sure business owners get to make lots of money. That is not the goal of the society.

A few more thoughts on businesses:

If I ever come into power, I will ban any companies or businesses that try to induce the public to become dependent on them. One thing comes to mind: the then Monsanto's terminator seeds. Basically Monsanto had patented certain seeds for farmers to buy and use. These seeds were genetically engineered to grow only one harvest. If the farmers wanted to plant more next year, they had to buy them all over again from Monsanto. Shenanigans like this will be made illegal under my rule. I will also ban planned obsolescence. In plain English, it means companies deliberately design products such that they will break down prematurely, so that customers have to keep buying a new one, thus increasing sales and profit for the business. It doesn't produce anything of value, it's purely a way to make money for money's sake. Not mention also manipulative and unethical. The proper way of making money should be to design a product really well, make sure it works as long as possible, so that the customer gets a big bang for his buck. And then, he will rush out and tell his friends to buy this product, because its quality is so good. THIS, is how a business should make money. It is not to make intentionally shitty products that force customers to have to keep buying replacements.

Some companies employ actuarial science to figure out the optimal price that will extract the most profit for them. What does this mean? Basically, they hire mathematicians to calculate the highest price at which there are the most number of people who can afford the product. For example, a cup of cappuccino. If they price it too low, and even though a lot of people can afford it, they won't make too much money. But if they raise the price too high, very few people will be able to afford it, and they end up with less profit too. So they need to figure out the best, most optimal level, the "sweet spot" of prices.

There are corporations who send their female employees to have abortions, so that they can focus on their careers and make money for the owners. This absolutely disgusts me. But it's partly our fault too, as a society. We have set up our society in such a way that any business that isn't ruthlessly cut-throat, will fail and be replaced by another that's cut-throat and ruthless. A company that treats employees kindly by allowing them time off for pregnancy and child-rearing will likely be outcompeted by a company that is not willing to do those things. So, it really isn't any one business getting out of hand; the entire system is set up so that if it's not one company acting this way, it will be another.

When a business lowers the prices of its products, it is not trying to give you cheaper products. Rather they do this to undercut their competitor. They will lower the prices enough to force out their competitor. This is why you will never see truly low prices. And if you do, the low, low prices won't last forever. Once the competition is gone, the business will raise the price back up. This is what Walmart is known for. And while we are on Walmart, I heard that they get away with paying unreasonably low wages to their employees, and then have sessions where they coach the employees on how to apply for state health benefits to supplement their meager incomes. In other words, your tax money subsidizes these people's existence because Walmart is too cheap to pay their workers a living wage. If I ever come to power, I will look into this matter, and Walmart will be in serious trouble.

I have noticed that whenever the topic of foreign workers (and by extension, third world immigrants) comes up, there will always be someone who says people who don't want more foreigners are just "afraid" of competition. I want to ask him, what's so great about competition? You see, his automatic assumption is that competition is always good, especially when it comes from foreigners. And if you don't want it, it's because you are afraid, or some such nonsense.

My position: competition is only good if it leads to innovation. An example: if you compete against, say, the Chinese, they can't innovate as well as Americans, so they might try to compete in other areas. Maybe they make the workers work extra hard. Maybe they will put in huge amounts of over time. The owners might also pay the workers peanuts, so that their products will be cheaper and more competitive. And if Americans want to be able to compete against all that, they might have to make similar sacrifices. This is the bad kind of competition, we don't want that. Now, if the competitor is Germans, the situation is different. The Germans are more like Americans in the sense that they are better at innovating, and their workers are unwilling to work like slaves or to work for poor pay or to work really long hours. So, in order to be competitive, they have to innovate. They have to design truly outstanding products. To compete with that, Americans have to come up with even better products. This is the good kind of competition that we want. My point isn't that all competition is bad. But rather, not all competition is good. I also think it's strange that regular people would embrace foreign workers like that, because having to compete against cheap foreign labor who are willing to work for peanuts only benefits the owner class, regular people don't benefit from it. In fact, regular people lose a lot. Are people being paid to say these sorts of things ? Nobody I know in real life is in favor of foreign workers. This person is, at best, confused; at worst, possibly a shill paid by big money to brainwash us.

There is a related phenomenon: where there are foreigners and immigrants already in the country, and native-born Americans are understandably unhappy about jobs being taken. Some people take a really unsympathetic view towards these Americans. They say that Americans should upgrade their skills or seek further education or anything along those lines, so that they can remain competitive. My response: how would YOU like it if you were put in such a position? To be forced to compete against foreigners who are willing to work for a lot less? Now your days and nights would be filled with endless school and/or training, leaving you little time for yourself and your family, and you constantly have to upgrade yourself lest you lose your livelihood? You would be living in a state of constant worry and anxiety because if you ever tried to slow down your pace to enjoy life, your job could be gone. Nobody was able to answer these questions. Their own job is secure (for now), so they lecture others. I would really love to see how they would react when the shoe is on the other foot. Furthermore, these people get the idea in their heads that people exist solely to make money for their employers. And if they ever cease being useful money machines, they need to go or be replaced. It doesn't occur to them that these workers are people with families and loved ones, and they have their lives that they want to live. The value of a human being does not depend on their financial usefulness.

Currently, in the West, there are a lot of risks involved when starting a business. An entrepreneur can in theory succeed wildly, but there are times when he fails, and when that happens, he can go into a lot of debt. So it's quite risky. And when a business does succeed, most of the profit accrues to the owner. He can and often does not pay his employees in a way that is commensurate with what they help bring in. And in this sense, the workers do not really share in the prosperity, despite the fact they did a lot to help the business succeed. And we can't do anything about it because businesses are private entities, they don't answer to us, they can in theory do whatever they please.

I have a suggestion to improve the situation that will lower the risks of starting a business, encourage more people to start a business, help out fledgling businesses, and ensure workers share in the prosperity that they helped to create. Why don't we have a program where the government specifically invests in start-up businesses? The government will have a stake in a business, either through a loan of money or the providing of technical guidance, analysis, research on the best location for opening the shop, taking on a part of the costs of training employees, helping with retaining staff, making the application for business license and permits easier, and similar things. Basically, being involved and helping out in some way. Helping the owners in a way so as to lessen the risks of starting a new business. And I believe this is good for the economy because more people will be encouraged to start a business. They will see that starting a business is not as risky as before and this would result in more people attempting entrepreneurship. And in return, the business owner will promise the government that he will pay his employees well if his business does take off. Like maybe base their pay on a share of the company's profit. This way, the workers benefit too. The success of a business should not just all accrue to the owner, it should go to the workers as well, people who do the actual work. Also, maybe the government can make businesses promise that they will not outsource their jobs or move their operations overseas, and this protects American workers. If they can't promise these, then the government will withdraw funding or help. The government can also extract a promise from businesses that they will not engage in shady business practices (predatory pricing comes to mind). The government can do this because it has shares in said businesses through its various involvements. And this is just one example, there are potentially many other barely legal, unethical business practices that can be prevented this way. When this happens, everybody wins. And the best part about my idea is that it's completely voluntary. Business owners can choose to refuse government help and go it alone, and this would be totally fine.

I don't know if this is a novel idea or not. Maybe someone's already thought of it. Anyway, I want to create a situation where costs as well as benefits of entrepreneurship are more evenly spread out so that there will be more businesses as well as more people benefitting from the success of businesses.

I've been thinking about marital property in the States, and about how assets are treated and divided in a divorce.

Personally, I think that we should overhaul the system, and treat assets of a married couple as completely separate and individually owned, unless they specifically designate a particular asset as jointly owned. For example, only the money in a joint account should be considered marital property. And only this money should be equally divided in the event of a divorce. I feel that even though marriage is the merging of two people, we need to recognize that the people involved are still two separate individuals, and their assets shouldn't be mixed. This is important when we consider that they might divorce, something that happens quite often. I believe that the way we currently treat spousal assets is not good enough, and it simply discourages people from thinking about marriage. I am sure you have heard these sentiments expressed, usually by men but can be by women too: "I am really hesitant to get married because I could lose half my worth if it ends in divorce." I want to assure people, especially people who have assets, that it is not financially risky to get married.

A related thing. I remember this divorce case, I forget the details, but basically, the husband was a very successful business man, and the wife was a stay-at-home mother. The husband met a new woman so he initiated divorce proceedings. They were trying to determine how to divvy up the assets, which were quite considerable because the husband made a lot of money. Anyway, they ended up in a court, and I believe the judge awarded the wife half, because the wife took care of the home front so that the husband could completely focus on his career. Apparently the judge thought the woman was an indispensable part of the husband's success. I am not saying the wife didn't contribute, I agree that she did in a real way, however, if you think about it, the husband was the one who earned all that money. The wife didn't work and didn't earn any of it, she merely made it possible for the husband to not have to worry about anything at home. Put another way, the wife was necessary for the husband's success, however she alone was not sufficient for that success. She should get some money, but not half. Maybe like 1/5th of the money or some such. A good amount but not half of it. We should treat cases like this really carefully, because I believe the way we currently handle things, we are sending out a message to financially successful men that getting married is very risky, and they could lose half of what they worked hard to earn.

Some might mention pre-nuptials. I just want to point out that these have been over-turned by courts before, so they are not a fool-proof way to protect one's assets in a divorce.

Why do Jews want mass non-white immigration

There are many reasons for why Jews want mass non-white immigration:

1. Non-white immigrants need money to buy things like food, clothes, homes and such. This puts them in direct competition with white people for jobs. This means white people will have fewer and fewer jobs available to them. And in cases when they do find a job, often they have to go down in terms of pay. The end result is that more and more of the white population become unable to support a family, and as such they cannot have a lot of white babies, which is what Jews want. I don't know about where you live, but where I live, I constantly see ads on busses that help immigrants to have their foreign-trained credentials recognized in Canada. This is designed so that they can better compete against white people for jobs. In my country, there is a term called "equal opportunity". On the surface, this phrase means that the employer will not discriminate against someone who is not white. They claim that they are being fair to every job applicant. In reality, they are preferentially hiring non-whites over white people.


2. Non-white immigrants tend to vote against white people. They tend to vote the left-leaning party. In the United States, this would be the Democrats. They prefer policies that favor non-white, immigrant communities at the expense of the rest of the society, which is white (for now). They also tend to vote for the non-white candidate when faced with both a white and a non-white one. And if the choice is actually between a white candidate and someone who is one of their own? You have no idea. The end result is white people losing political power. When the country has enough non-white voters, white people cannot vote themselves out of the mess anymore. Furthermore, non-white politicians are more willing to ignore the will of white voters. They are more obedient to their Jewish handlers and will do whatever is asked of them. You might have noticed this yourself, now more and more positions in the government are occupied by non-whites. This takes away white people's power in a major way. Pay attention to what these non-white officials do. You will see that they often do things that harm the interests of the populace, which for now is white.


3. Non-white immigrants typically are willing to work for less pay. This means they drive down wages for white workers. Not only that, their willingness to work for less means greater profit for corporations, the majority of which are Jewish-owned.

4. This one is a major one, however a lot of people seem to be unaware of it. Jews want to gradually phase out white agents in top federal agencies such as the CIA, FBI, or the CSIS in Canada. This is because in the past there has been whistle-blowing by white agents (Phil Agee of CIA comes to mind). White people tend to have a conscience, and when a federal agent's Jew handler asks him to do something unethical, he will hesitate, and sometimes even come forward to the public. Non-white agents typically do not have such a "problem" and will tend to obey everything their Jew-handlers tell them to do, no matter how immoral. Jews in the CIA especially like to staff their black sites and torture sites with non-white agents.

5. Non-white immigrants also make great foot soldiers for the Big Brother. They get into every aspect of white societies, watching and listening, essentially spying on white people. They do this without realizing it. What this does is that if resistance starts forming among the white population, it will be caught by the non-white immigrants, who are essentially informants for the Jewish-controlled government.

6. Jews hope that some of the non-white immigrants will interbreed with white people. And this is indeed what we see. White people's nature is such that after they interact with someone for a period of time, their brain starts making them like this person. There is an evolutionary basis for this. This is how white people's ancestors evolved. They formed attachments easily to those that they were in close contact with, because back on Mount Caucasus where they evolved, forming a close bond to someone one closely interacted with helped one survive. So by physically putting non-whites in white people's physical space, it leads to inter-racial dating and mating. Jews want this because when a white person has a baby with a non-white person, whose genes are dominant, the resulting child will not be recognizably white. This is a form of soft genocide. A good way to wipe out white people without physically killing them.


7. Non-whites tend to have higher birth rates. Jews hope that by importing non-white immigrants, they will eventually outbreed, push out, and replace the white population. So, either the non-whites interbreed with whites, or breed among themselves, it doesn't matter. Jews love both.

(Continues)