Dear Tom Woods’ Elite

Upon conversation with various Elite members, it became apparent that my intentionally imprecise language in my original post caused needless conflict as they did not reflect my actual, more nuanced views.

As an apology, I clarified my original post below. I had a certain image in my mind of who I was talking to originally and I unfairly broad-stroked those who took my message as speaking to them personally:



Stop being ashamed for being White and surrendering to greater Tyranny from the importation of individuals who self-identify with Collectivist-leaning tribes.

Not all cultures are created equal. Liberty-leaning tribes should be preferred.

If it so happens that individuals who identify with Liberty-leaning tribes disproportionately (ie. 94%) have less concentration of melanin in their skin (derisively called “White” by SJWs), then it is simply a coincidence.


If you self identify with the above (despite my attempts to make it clear it doesn’t apply to you), please comment before and we can schedule a broadcasted debate.

White Race vs White Culture: Does it Even Matter?

I know many of you don’t like to think in terms of race, religion, or identity groups.
Do you realize that EVERY OTHER RACE does though?
They are Collectivist in culture, thus they see things in group identity (race, religion, etc.)
THEY see you as WHITE, and have no desire for “integration.” Just look at all the “ethnic enclaves” they create in your cities. Look at their mono-racial countries. Try walking through through them and you will be stared at. Try marrying their daughters and see the reaction.
You’re not privy to the private conversations they have about WHITEY.
To them, you will ALWAYS be an outsider.
If I had to pick an enclave to be in, it would be one made up of WHITES. There is no close second.
Please stop committing cultural suicide. Liberty’s ONLY bastion is with WHITES. Sure, correlation doesn’t mean causation, but when the correlation is so strong, the distinction becomes irrelevant.
If they don’t disavow their collectivist roots, don’t let them in.

Consider What You’ll LOSE for Thinking Differently

I’m starting to feel sympathy for those who maintain their hallucinations. They simply cannot control it and to believe otherwise would result in their destruction (from their perspective).

It’s not about REASON. It’s about SELF-INTEREST to pass on one’s genes.

If you happen to perceive yourself to potentially lose the following by dissenting from the Collective, can you necessarily blame their minds from protecting them from utter, genetic destruction?

You might as well be asking them to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.

I have friends (in Los Angeles & Seattle) that for merely holding Trump sympathetic views have essentially risked all five of the below. They remain silent about it, but they talk to me to vent.

1) Sexual partner
2) Friends & family
3) Job
4) Hopes
5) Past

I imagine being in the situation my friends are in, trapped from being able to truly express who they are. Their only option is to flee the insanity and enter an area where they won’t be punished. Where they can have a chance to procreate.

Otherwise, the mind must self-sabotage. Stop the questioning. They must convince themselves to agree with the Collective. Or they will go insane.

It is the mind’s mercy to shut down free-thought.

REASON is overrated.


And if you consider that you have a family to raise, that’s an even greater incentive for you to shut your mind down. Much more evil things, than entertaining different views, have occurred for the “sake of the children.”

Homeless People and Anarcho-Capitalist Values on Personal Property

Mixed emotions about this one in regards to Personal Property rights.

1) Infringement on City owned streets has its own contradictions, though I’m fairly certain on Privately owned roads and sidewalks, vagrancy would not be allowed. In that situation, these homes would’ve been rightfully removed.

2) Assuming it’s a communal road by an HOA (which is acceptable for AnCaps?), vagrants would not be allowed either.

3) My interactions with numerous homeless and going through my share of horrible employees, I have no sympathy for homeless people in that area. There are rare exceptions, but much of the time it has to do with mental illness and substance addiction. Sure, you can make the intellectual argument that $10/hour minimum wage makes it difficult to find work, but I’m quite familiar with numerous restaurants that pay under the table with staff that simply can’t speak English. Most of the homeless portrayed CAN speak English.

If any of these homeless, speaking fluent English, could easily replace one of these illegal immigrants who can’t speak English in these restaurants, then why aren’t the homeless willing to at least work those jobs?

I have numerous housekeepers and maintenance staff that can’t speak any English. The reality is that none of these homeless people would be able to keep the job due to their own deficiencies. Whether the homeless have control over their own deficiencies or not is a separate question.

4) Illegal immigrants manage to not be homeless in the same area. What is the difference between the illegals and the homeless who can work in the US legally?

5) The interview of the homeless man who loves children, and was once a mechanical engineer. He says there are no jobs, and shows that some kid would like the toy he found in a dumpster dive. That’s someone who doesn’t understand Human Capital.


Somehow, I believe Reason is attempting to portray these homeless people somehow as victims to State Tyranny. I agree that the optics make it SEEM as though something is off, but this seems more like mistaken perception of “the oppressed” vs “oppressor” that SJWs love to use.

From the Rothbardian perspective on violations of Property Rights, I’m not seeing the problem.


This brings up a separate question on how many homeless people there would be in an AnCap society. This video hints that $1,200 homes are sufficient for the homeless and they call it “home.” Based on this definition, and without Government thugs that call these structures “unsafe for habitation,” these homeless would be able to support a standard of life they find acceptable at a much lower cost. You could imagine entire neighborhoods filled with $1,200 homes and lots on private property. Most likely they would not be in the City since you can’t make much profit from that, but there would most likely be entire towns that support that kind of lifestyle. Thus, by definition, they would no longer be “homeless.”

There’s nothing wrong with having the ambitions for a simpler lifestyle. By many accounts, living in a $1,200 home is most likely still better than how most humans live on the planet. They would still be ABOVE AVERAGE. And if you were to look at the Quality of Life in relation toward the existence of humans in the last 500 years, the Quality of Life doesn’t look so bad.

As a single college student, I was quite content sharing a small bedroom with all my personal belongings. Of course, that’s seen as being okay because it’s portrayed as simply being temporary. With different priorities in my life, I could imagine maintaining such a lifestyle and being content.


The Contradiction of Anarcho-Capitalism and Procreation

How do you reconcile the fact that a pure Democracy inevitably leads to Tyranny?
Even in an Anarcho-Capitalist “reset,” the number of Collectivists would still outnumber the Individualists (r/K selection theory). No amount of “education” will change their personal preferences. It seems it would inevitably lead back to coercion. Them rabbits WANT a strong man to order them around.
What hope is there?
The inherent contradiction I’m seeing is that the only way to maintain an anarcho-capitalist state is through a malevolent Dictator, fighting off the inevitable sociopaths who want to gain power.
Yes, Natural Rights default toward Anarcho-Capitalism, but the genetic condition & psychology weighs heavier on procreation. These contradict one another.
Sex wins.

On White vs Asian Culture

I have special insight toward the Collectivist cultures of South East Asians and Indians (dot not feather). The only Individualists I’ve seen arise from those kinds of cultures are those who have disavowed. They have no choice. To be an Individualist in a Collectivist culture means to be pariah. “The nail that sticks out gets hammered.”
Why do you think there are so little minorities in the Liberty movement? It’s not because Liberty is INHERENTLY Racist. It’s because the ONLY way for someone to be INDIVIDUALIST requires them to DISAVOW their entire social / familial / cultural roots (ie. Collectivism). That’s a real hard sell except for the most hardcore of Individualists. Who is willing to limit their sexual, mating partners unless they have some sort of sexual advantage (ie. intelligence, looks, money, etc.)?
If the ultimate goal is Individualism (rather than Collectivism) in a Governmental system, then why would you want to allow the importation of Collectivists into a “Tyranny of the Masses” (AKA Democracy) system?
The cause of Individualism would’ve been better preserved if voting rights were limited to groups of people that statistically speaking, skew on the side of Individualism. The data suggests that the original, White, male land-holders were generally an accurate metric for Individualistic preferences in Government.
It is for this reason that I proudly say I disavow my Korean culture. I embrace White culture. Historically / Culturally speaking (not genetics per se), Individualism arose from the West, and not the East.
My children will be raised to recognize Individualism / Collectivism in various cultures. Hopefully they will disavow Collectivism and the cultures that support it. It just so happens that White cultures are the ONLY ones who embrace Individualism.

Moving to Puerto Rico for Act 20 / 22 Tax Incentive: Live Free or Die

I posted this cover photo in a Facebook group I started [Act 20 / 22 Puerto Rico Tax Incentive Forum (Moderated)] and posted this statement along with the image.

I’m debating whether or not I should put such a politically charged image for this group. Let there be no illusions that the PRIMARY reason for your move is to save on your income taxes. You will face challenges to live in Puerto Rico, including the vilification by many of your peers (and strangers) for participating in a “tax haven” and for not paying your “fair share” to society (AKA “social contract”).

If you cannot come to grips with freeing yourself from Government tyranny (which is the initiation of force to expropriate your wealth, AKA Taxes), then the cognitive dissonance of “avoiding your social responsibility” will ultimately cause you to fail in the transition (I know of at least one example).

In other words, unless you’ve been deprogrammed from the public education system and mass media to see taxes for what they are (the legal theft of your 100% rightfully earned gains through voluntary means), the cognitive dissonance and guilt you’ll feel will ultimately result in you giving up and moving back to the States.

If “Live Free or Die” makes you uncomfortable, then you will want to question your premises before you make the move for your own mental health. If you embrace “Live Free or Die,” then the extra freedom you gain from having less expropriation will result in increased mental health. I also imagine you’re getting as excited as I am with the anticipation of better ways you could utilize the tax savings than the Government could.

For resources to help you get deprogrammed, I recommend the following, extreme remedies:

My Idiot Son Built a Real Estate Empire from Millions to Billions of Dollars in 30 Years

– Imagine one of your sons taking over your hotel empire / business.

– 40 years later and he’s in his late 60s. The empire your son built is worth billions from the millions you first built.

– You would be proud if you were still alive. Your grandchildren are all proud to be executives in the empire you started.

– Your son created tens of thousands of jobs, numerous high level and high paying management positions, paid millions in taxes, billions to vendors, charities, lived a lavish life style, owned hundreds of hotels, started hundreds of other businesses, succeeded at most, and learned from his mistakes.

– All of this while developing one of the most famous brands on Earth.


Your son decides to run for political office and now will probably be President.

This is what they say about your son:

“I don’t like him because he’s an idiot. Just because someone is billionaire doesn’t mean they’re smart. It’s easier to become a richer man when you start from wealth already with all the advantages it brings. Wealth itself is not an indication of intelligence. Justin Bieber has millions of dollars to his name. Would you call him particularly intelligent?”

“He declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy four times during those years. He’s lost more money than he’s made. He’s had more consistent financial success being the star of a reality show than he’s had actually running a business.”

“If he’d just conservatively invested his money when he inherited it he’d be worth more than he is now.”

Afraid of President Trump? How About Presidents in General

Good points made on the perversion of the Presidency itself.

If you’re worried because a madman may wield the power of the President’s position, perhaps you should think about reshaping the position itself more than being worried what sort of madman you put in the position. If it’s not Trump, then it’s going to be some other madman.

There are some powers in the Presidency that NO ONE PERSON should have. Don’t hate the player. Hate the game. And if you go back far enough, it started with Presidents like Abraham Lincoln who crushed State’s Rights.

Unfortunately, the important questions are being sidelined by the “word police” and virtue signalers making nonsensical arguments based primarily on emotion. Okay. I get it. You don’t like the guy.

Can we focus on the bigger questions? Like why does the Presidency have so much power that letting in one madman like Trump or Hillary could possibly destroy the world?

It’s like Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Warriors getting pissed off at White people, business owners, police, and perceived Racism. To be most effective for change they should be focusing on tearing down the drug laws which are probably the single most contributing factor toward single-family black families, poverty, incarcerations, crime, and community destruction.

A crucial step in preventing a Trump (“literally Hitler”) Tyranny, is to decentralize power from the Federal Government back to the States. Education, Abortion, Marriage, Gun Control, Minimum Wage, etc. If you’re so concerned about Trump starting WWIII, then why are we allowing the Federal Government to have a standing military? Perhaps State militias which can be called upon to cooperate in times of joint national defense is more appropriate.

The Founding Fathers were correct in placing the enumerated powers via the Tenth Amendment. Unfortunately, the Progressives and Warmongers dismantled the controls for their causes of “social justice.”

Well, guess what happens when you create the monster that is the Federal Government? Guess what happens when you diminish State’s Rights? You eventually get an absolute madman in a place of unprecedented power.

The answer is not to replace the madman with a madman you prefer. The better answer is to slay the beast and prevent these madmen from having any power to do any meaningful damage.

Take the power back away from the Federal Government and give it back to the States.


Watch this video and reflect on your emotional reaction. Confident, Cocky, White, Successful, Confrontational, and Direct Male with a Crude sense of humor. Feel threatened or do you feel entertained?

Now watch this video made by Hillary, which, as pointed out by Scott Adams (Dilbert Guy), is actually a pro-Trump ad:

Consider the reality that both haters and lovers of Trump will watch the exact same videos and have exactly opposite emotional reactions.

Just as a reminder, my political views match closer toward Rothbardian Anarcho-Capitalism. Trump’s policies do not match up with what I would personally want as a President. But remember, we’re not primarily talking about policies here. This is essentially a popularity contest that is very personal to the individual, and then the individual will make up reasons after the fact considering them to be “rational.” It’s a “shorthand” our mind plays on ourselves in order to conserve brain power.

Being a real estate entrepreneur that is confident, cocky, Korean, successful, confrontational, and direct male with a crude sense of humor, I relate to the Donald, so it’s easy for me to understand his appeal. Being raised in a very conservative, Korean Christian church, I’m very familiar with the beta-male, religious, stick up their ass, no sense of humor, types. This was also my appeal to Mark Driscoll. I can assure you that I’ve “offended” quite a bit of people with my “style” over the years long before this most recent election cycle. The same people who are put off by Donald Trump will also find themselves put off by me since I exhibit a somewhat similar style, though I will make dirty jokes on the level of Joe Rogan, Louis C.K, Seth McFarlin, South Park, and Will Ferrel.

Reddit’s /r/the_donald very much reflects my humor. If you enjoy /r/the_donald we’d probably have a fun time together. If you’re horrified by /r/the_donald, you’ll most likely find me horrifying as well.

From this initial emotional reaction of whether or not “you like the guy” comes additional loaded terms such as: liar, crooked, racist, sexist, bad character, etc. Technically speaking, we are guilty of these “sins” to one degree or another. The intent of using these labels by detractors, however, are primarily to reinforce the initial emotional reactions of the haters. This is exactly the same techniques that were used against Mark Driscoll. Specific actions each individual has done can be discussed in order to bolster the severity of the “sin,” but the level of objectivity put into that research is severely hampered by how emotionally invested one is of their initial reaction.

I’d be more empathetic if people would simply say, “I don’t like Trump because he just rubs me the wrong way.” Instead, they try to hide their initial emotional reaction behind “the issues” and ambiguously charged terms that haven’t been rigorously researched. If you feel strong indignation from the mere fact of someone questioning your beliefs, it may not mean you’re wrong. It just means that you may want to properly recognize those emotions as being part of a normal biological response, rather than projecting those emotions at the individual that is questioning you.

I’m not so much “pro-Trump”, as I’m “anti intellectual laziness.” And I will admit, when I see intellectual laziness, it does trigger me in a primal sense due to various childhood experiences. I’m aware it’s an issue and I’m trying to work through it to be more sympathetic by better understanding the “moist robot” theory. I have my good and bad days like anybody else.