Soon there will be no standards or rigor in life.
And Gen Z will end up as the Millennials.
Cappy tirades against
the fraggie vaggies at Spotify who are triggered by Joe Rogan,
the difference between "on" and "off" strip in Las Vegas,
and promotes the 1099 superior race life.
He also talks about the necessity of men and his hiking with Atham and Elkins.
Direct MP3 here.
(also SUBSCRIBE TO THE OLDER BROTHER YOUTUBE CHANNEL WHICH IS NOT CAPPY'S REGULAR CHANNEL!)
"Achieving Minimalism: Theory and Practice" is now available for enrollment. Simply click here or on the image below, and you will be taken to the class page where you can peruse the class outline and enroll if you so choose. Enrollment will end on September 30th, but those who enrolled will have 45 days to complete the class.
The price is $499 and as mentioned before will not be of much use to veteran readers/viewers of my content. However if you are new to my work and don't have the time to consume, let alone sift through all my material (which at last count tallies at 3,000+ posts and 4,000+ videos) this class may be of use to you, especially if you have trouble:
It won't solve all your problems, but I'm confident it will most certainly help.
See you in class!
Unfortunately, young people today have been so conditioned that college is not only necessary, but the only thing they have in life that a global pandemic that requires they stay home has still only taken enrollment down by 2.5%.
If you "conservative parents" had any balls, you would forbade your children from attending a physical college, let alone attending a liberal arts college period, which would deal the death knell blow you all so desperately want to deliver to the left.
But you won't because "nothing's too good for Daddy's Little Prince/ss."
This one simple thing you traditional parents could do, but you won't because in the end you're all a bunch of cucks.
Oh well. I guess we'll have another generation of brain dead, NPC Millennials on our hands.
Against communism most of you may be, there is some incredible wisdom in letting some states go commie.
First, you never know. Communism might work this time in spite of it failing every single time before. And if politicians and social scientists can find a way where nobody has to work and we can all be infinitely wealthy, by all means, try it out on a population of 40 million Californians before applying it to 320 million Americans. And if successful, share your secrets to success and end poverty not only in the US, but the world forever. You'll be the biggest heroes in human history and will have genuinely advanced society more than any humans in the past.
Second, failing that (which it will fail), why force the entire country to participate in this experiment when the track record of communism is so horrific? More often than not, communism kills and impoverishes its participants, faster and more effectively than a hot war. It's a drug like meth that has done nothing but destroy the lives of those who get addicted to it. But instead of trying to argue with the average American idiot that they shouldn't take this drug, let's grab the 40 million guinea pigs of California, force them into communism, and see what happens. Lets see what lab results occur when we give a state full control and ownership over its citizens, before rolling it out for the remaining 49 states. I've always laughed at the occasional story where a "communist" or "commune" restaurant opens up, only to collapse a few short years later when none of their customers pay and their employees never show up for work. And I've pointed this out to people advocating communism saying, "Look, you guys can't even run a taco shop, what makes you think you can run a state?" I think a test group of 40 million datapoints would be more convincing than a mere one off socialist restaurant financed by government grants.
Third, I can't think of a state that deserves socialism more. California with its Californians have been sanctimonious, arrogant, faux intellectuals who have pushed their politics not only on its citizens, but the rest of the country. Be it through its large presence in the house of representatives, to the tech giants of Silicon Valley lecturing us via virtue-signaling over their platforms, video games, and movies, California and Californians think they know better.
Well??? Prove it. Stop talking about going full socialist and do it at your state, county, and local levels. Vote in communists, confiscate all private land along the coast, nationalize all the farm land in the valley, take ownership of Google, Yahoo, Apple, and the entire tech sector, and implement whatever other non-financial communist policies you want like environmental laws, recycling laws, thought laws, educational laws, sex-relationship laws, everything. If we're going to do this, let's do it right and do it 100% so we know what happens to a country when communism is implemented.
Fourth, and this is where Californians and Californian politicians will try to squirm out, you get no help from the other 49 states. You do not get a bail out of a penny of federal money to trial balloon your socialist experiment. You do not get to tax expatriates who leave California for Texas. You do not get to complain about capital flight. You do not get to complain about brain drain. You do not get any outside help from the outside world as that is proof positive communism is an unsustainable economic system. These past 20 years Californians have not only wanted socialism, but they've made it their religion, sanctimoniously drawing personal and spiritual value from it. If you're so invested in it, then make it work. It reminds me of the speech Gregory Peck gave to David Niven in "The Guns of Navarone."
And finally, California's business owners.
I am not so much talking your local farmer or your small time restaurantier. I'm talking the big, large, corporations headquartered in LA and Silicon Valley. Most of the business owners are leftists, and not just leftists, but use their companies to advocate and push for socialism. Through the media, Hollywood, or social media, every day the rest of America gets to hear your sermoning and lecturing about how the rest of the country should be socialist AND how noble and caring your company is for advocating the same.
Well then the Mark Zuckerbergs, the Hollywood studio owners, and the Tim Cooks of the world should gladly give their companies to the State of California, forfeit their own personal assets as well, and start walking the walk they're advocating for when they're talking their talk. Those assets are the only and best shot of California raising the funds to implement a socialist society, and the very first people that should be dragged up to Sacramento to be told they're forfeiting their companies and assets to the State are those business owners who've been fellating the State and socialism this entire time.
Idealistic as this sounds, understand this is already happening to a certain extent and is why I'm telling California to "just go for it." California's taxes makes it the largest defacto shareholder of all private industry in the state. Its state and local regulations make its non-financial world the Orwellian nightmare come true that many socialists want (consent forms for sex, hyper regulation, indotrination at the schools, etc.). The people want socialism. And even your business leaders are advocating for it.
So what's stopping you California?
For once we have the opportunity to see a real and large state implement communism without a shot being fired. You have a "bold leader" in the form of Gavin Newsom who is obviously willing to implement communism. And a population that is for it too. Furthermore, it has been the dream of millions of social scientists, government workers, an ordinary American liberal arts majors to see socialism realized in the United States. Welllllll??? We're waiting!
Naturally, I know this will fail. Naturally, if Californians put their money where their mouths are, they will destroy their economy, society, and make the whole state look like feces-adorned San Francisco. It will be the worst peace-time failure of an American state in all of US history. But just like a child doesn't know eating too much ice cream will make him sick, you need to let these modern day petulant little children get what they want as there is no other way to learn. And thus, instead of forcing communism on the rest of America, not to mention we could all save ourselves DECADES of life and time arguing about economics in the future, let's have it out right now. Let's see California implement socialism. Let's see what happens. By all means gorge on all the communist ice cream in the world you want. It will be the most productive economic experiment ever conducted in America and the entire country, even California, is bound to benefit from it.
Hey cool Gen Z'er kids!
Want to end up like the Millennials?
Well make sure you don't by reading the book below!
As I've said before the vast majority of my readership would not tangibly benefit from this seminar, especially if you have your financial house in order. But if you are young or simply want to stop spending as much as you make, this seminar would certainly be of benefit and profit to you. It is $499 which is indeed pricey, but is designed to save you an equivalent amount of time/money/resources to actually get you to the point where you are:
- spending less than you make
- budgeting your time wisely/NEVER PROCRASTINATING/NEVER BEING LATE AGAIN
- eliminating commutes from your life
- limiting how much worry/stress you waste in life concerning yourself over things that ultimately do not matter
Additionally, I will be publishing my essay "Sanity is the Future of Wealth" which is a good companion piece with this seminar on minimalism. Once it's published, I will send you a copy in the mail if you so desire.
If you are interested or know somebody who is, e-mail me here and I will notify you when the seminar opens for enrollment. CAPTcapitalism@yahoo.com
And excerpt from "How Not to Become a Millennial"
But why were the Boomers so bad at raising the Millennials? Why did they give such horrible advice? Matter of fact, why were they so bad at life themselves? They did more drugs than any generation alive. Raised the national debt to record peace-and-war-time levels. Made divorce and breeding half-siblings an Olympic event. Destroyed the nuclear family and millions of their children’s lives. And a full 2/3rds of them can’t even afford retirement. And keep in mind this isn’t the old trope of the younger generation always blaming the previous one. The Boomers are empirically and objectively an absolutely abysmal generation (which is the subject of an upcoming book). How, after having every possible advantage in life and insisting they knew better than everyone else, is it they were wrong about pretty much everything?
The answer can be found in a quote by G. Michael Hopf in his book “Those Who Remain,”
“Hard times create strong men.
Strong men create good times.
Good times create weak men.
Weak men create hard times.”
And the Baby Boomers are indeed weak men.
If there was ever a generation born into good times it was the Baby Boomers. The 1950’s and 1960’s were the golden era of US history. Unemployment averaged around 4%, even going into the 2%’s for a couple years. Economic growth was twice that of what we have today. You didn’t need a college degree to apply for entry level positions. And those entry level positions could afford you the American dream on one income replete with a house, spouse, car and kids. But perhaps the biggest advantage the Boomers had growing up is the incredible luxury of having both a mother and a father present in the house at the same time. This nuclear family, combined with the other socio-economic factors, made the Baby Boomers’ upbringing the most idyllic the world had ever seen. And with their WWII generation parents starkly reminded of the horrors of the Great Depression and war, it was a guarantee their children would be the most pampered and spoiled in then-as-of-yet US history.
The problem with good times, however, is that it destroys people’s ability to value. If everything is handed to you, paid for by your parents, or the good times are just simply rolling, nobody has to suffer, sacrifice, or pay a price to get what they want. And it is simply not mentally possible to value anything unless you have paid a price for it. But if you have to toil, work, suffer and slave merely to stave off poverty or simply to survive, you become acutely aware of what does and does not have value in life, including things like food, clothing, shelter, freedom, your fellow man, and yes, even your children.
In this sense the WWII generation had an incredible ability to value. They knew what was important in life because they had to work so hard to get it. But the Baby Boomers had none, because (though in a well-intended attempt to make sure their children never suffered) the WWII generation deprived their children of their own ability to suffer, thus value, thus making them the weak generation the Boomers turned out to be.
The problem with being weak men, in having no ability to value, is that you inevitably need something of value in your life. You need a reason to get up in the morning. Something to cherish. A reason to live. But if all your basic needs are met, and you’ve never had to pay a price for anything, you are mentally incapable of valuing or appreciating anything in life. Thus, in the mind of a weak, spoiled man the only thing of worth, the only thing you have in your life is yourself. And thus you become solipsistic, self-centered, and incapable of selflessness, altruism or love, because only you matter in your own mind.
This doesn’t mean that the Baby Boomers weren’t capable of loving their children, caring about society, or being well-intended. But it does mean that for many of them their own self-interests trumped everything else in life, especially if push came to shove. And if you don’t believe it, simply look at all the different types of Boomers you’ve ran across in your life and look at the actions they took, not the words they said. What you will find, via their own actions, is that most of the Baby Boomers were primarily motivated by four things (or a combination thereof):
A fear of real work, toil, suffering or sacrifice (laziness)
And these things superseded everything and everyone in most of these Baby Boomers’ lives. Including their Millennial children.
Was on Rollo's show yesterday and talked about how the internet, but especially webcam sites, have fundamentally changed the labor market. We also discussed how "old order thinking" has forced young women into outdated corporate careers as the "pinnacle" of success, while the future economy is online as a 1099 Superior Racer. Worth the listen, especially if you're a younger man or woman so you know where opportunity in the future lies, NOT where old washed up boomer feminists and professors says it does:
Doing more research for my upcoming seminar "Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women" and what do you know intrepid young Millennial and Gen Z'ers. Women with tattoos have self-esteem issues (if you can even trust psychological studies such as these).
"Despite the limitations, our cross-sectional design provides preliminary empirical support for the notion that young women with tattoos have significantly lower self-esteem as compared to women without tattoos."
Also, today is the last day to sign up for the Rule Zero online seminar, so e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.org if you wanted to.
You guys think I'm joking when I try to convey just how stupid and naive Minneapolis folk are, here you go.
On October 2nd through the 3rd I will be speaking at an online seminar with the guys at Rule Zero. Each of the 10 speakers has their own topic. Mine is going to be "Analyzing the ROI of the Pursuit of Women."
While my model is about two pages long and it's final number tallied at the bottom calculates the actuarial chances of finding a woman in today's market that will make you happy, the sub-data that goes into this monster of a formula is interesting (and depressing) unto itself. Not so much because of the dire statistics it indicates, but because of what it tells us about young women today in terms of their behavior, choices, and desires.
In this case the percent of women that are both overweight and obese of child bearing age.
This is such a damning statistic because it tells us young women would rather eat food than attract a man. This means, by choices women put forth in the real world (not what they may actually "feel" inside...whatever that means), women would rather eat more than fall in love. Cryptic and cold as that may sound, it's true. Women's public behavior today shows very clearly what their priorities are and attracting a man ranks below "Another Hoho" or "Exercise."
Now, admittedly, men are only slightly better when you look at their obesity rates. And that is true, much as men might pine for a svelte women that's in shape, they are equally hypocritical when it comes to putting down the hohos and hitting the treadmill. And while I could make the statement that men are more interested in a woman's physique than women are men's, thus it's incumbent upon women to lose the weight first, it's important to look at why both sexes are practically hurting each other being the overweight disgusting slobs they are today.
Right as it might be to point out the revolting levels of young-adult obesity, remember that until very very recently in human history, starvation was the number one problem facing all of humanity for nearly all of its existence. The human body has evolved to become incredibly efficient with food, what sparse food it could find for the first 2 million years of human existence.
But with the advent of farming technologies, the agricultural revolution, and bio-hacking the genetic code of various crops and animals, we've been able to solve hunger. So much so I've seen "poor kids" go from genuinely skinny, underfed children to fat, bloated tubbies dining at the 7-11 on their single mom's EBT card. Humans have not necessarily gotten lazier. The technology to make food has just advanced that much quicker. So quick our genetics cannot evolve fast enough to account for it, thus why your average young woman is 5'4" and 165 disgusting pounds.
Still, evolutionary or genetic reasons why only 40% of young women today are attractive, doesn't change the slim (or rather should I say "not so slim") pickings men have today. Women simply cannot shuck their genetic conditioning and put down the food, thus making reality women prefer food over men. Additionally, the same condemnation can be made at men, being the disgusting pigs they are. So if either of the sexes wants to have a happy life (which requires a handsome/beautiful person from the opposite sex to attain), I suggest we all start losing weight. But since it is women's beauty that prompts men to ask women out, and thus initiating a potential relationship, it's incumbent upon women to inspire men to do so. Besides, you women love to lead and "change the world." Let's see some of that "strong, independent, girl boss" leadership we've been hearing so much about these past 40 years.
(Oh, and if you are interested in attending the seminar, e-mail me at email@example.com)
Big corporations are waking up and are doing more to destroy the obsolete university system in the US than any one else.
I cannot explain how happy I am to see the pain and process people now have to go through to NOT pay back money they stole from other people.
I was invited to speak at the Rule Zero seminar, which will be held online October 2nd and 3rd. And while the lion's share of the speakers' topics will be on how to get the girls, mine will take a more actuarial and practical approach - "Analyzing the ROI on the Pursuit of Women." AKA - "Maybe You Ought to Rethink Getting The Girls."
Regardless, mathematically calculating the "ROI on the pursuit of women" has forced me to dust off the ole economist skills, fire up my model programming abilities, spend hours pouring over data, and spend just as many hours merely thinking about whether said data and said model is calculating precisely what I want it to. And while this is the first attempt of it's kind to measure "the ROI of the Pursuit of women," the data I've compiled thus far is amazing and insightful, just as it is depressing and tragic.
While you'll have to sign up for the seminar to find my complete findings (which you can do by e-mailing me here: firstname.lastname@example.org, and to forewarn you, it's $597), I did want to share a unique subset of data as I believe it not only conveys to both men and women just how much work goes into finding your "special someone, but also shows two completely different dating strategies between the sexes, which in turn might help you adjust yours for better chances of success.
This subset of data is "# of people you will date before getting married." It's key to calculating the ROI of the pursuit of women because dating is a very costly and necessary endeavor (for men) in order to find a wife. Dating, however, takes on a very different nature for women because while it is a time investment on their part to go on dates, they actually profit from it economically as the majority of dates are paid for by men. Additionally, women do not "get dates" as much as they accept or reject them, further reduing whatever time investment they need to find a potential husband. This difference is made very clear in the number of dates the average man goes on before finding his wife compared to the number of men women date before finding their husband.
Average # of Women Men Date Per Marriage = 70.22
Average # of Men Women Date Per Marriage = 10.8
In other words, men date roughly 7 times as much as women, implying investment costs 7 times that of women.
But whereas a 7:1 ratio is very interesting in any activity between the sexes, there's an additional interesting tidbit within the data. For whereas the female data is relative stable averaging around 11 men per marriage, the men's data is slightly bimodal. The vast majority of men only manage 20 women to date before marrying (a majority of which is 10 or under), but another group of "serial daters" forms breaking the 100 and even 200+ line.
Interestingly enough (when age data was provided) these are not necessarily your older men who lived long enough to date that many women, but men in their 20's, 30's, even 40's, who were epitomal "players" that just dated a TON of women, almost to the point it would have to be a part time job. Furthermore, many of these men never reported marrying, just dating, posing the question if they even had intentions of marrying and should therefore even be considered in the analysis.
Regardless, if you have a keen eye you'll notice that there are not as many data points as a serious statistician would like. And as is often the case in economics, "You don't go to the war with the army you'd like. You go to war with the army you got" and this is the data I got. The data comes from a highly un-scientific video I put together since there was no other data or studies available measuring how many people an individual dates before marrying, so (like many economists) I had to go and create the data myself. But if you were a kind and charitable soul and wanted to help improve the integrity of the data, posting the following in the comments section would definitely help:
1. # of people you dated
2. # of times you were married, and
3. Your sex
4. AND NOTHING ELSE because I just need numbers, not a story or editorial about why or who or what....LADIES.
Additionally, if you were interested in attending this seminar, you can certainly e-mail me here at email@example.com, but tune into a pre-seminar show where me and the other speakers at the seminar discuss our topics and provide a little bit more information: