Wednesday, October 31, 2012

From our Indian, Eskimo, Finlander Agent in the Field

Actually, his heritage is even more complicated than that.  I'm currently working on a flow chart to diagram it, but we'll just say our "Indian Finlander Agent in the Field" to simplify things.  Regardless, he introduces an ingredient I was unaware of about the American (and well as Canadian) Indians.  Namely the refusal and bigotry against "things white" even though such things would help.  What's interesting about our Finlander/Indian Agent however, is that he is a capitalist, independent thinker amongst a people that are typically not (think being the one conservative at the scores of college parties).  Which begets some interesting questions and observations, one in particular I've had.

From our Agent:

I am Kindjal.  Let me describe a phenomena called Schrodingers Business Plan.  Whenever a white man has an idea which will help an indigenous people, it is simultaneously alive and dead.  It's alive because it would promote life, but it's dead because a white man thought of it.  Everyone knows that the Schrodinger paradox ultimately describes something that's dead.
Cappy's posting was followed by a bunch of reader comments explaining why it can't be done.  If Apollo 13 can survive a catastrophic hull breach 200 thousand miles from Earth, then indigenous people can find a way to implement Cappy's idea.  Sure there's differences in laws and business structure from region to region, but the basic idea can be modified for each individual case.  Indian tribes hire lawyers to do sort out these kinds of details.
Some years ago a very similar idea was presented at a meeting of my tribe here in Alaska, the Kenaitze Indian Tribe. The idea died because the idea was presented by a white man who is a friend of mine  He is a white man who wanted prosperity for his half-breed daughter.  Do you know what she did instead of getting a nice job working for a wealthy indian tribe?  She overdosed on white man drugs and died.  But at least the tribe stopped an uppity white man from living out his evil colonial fantasy.  He has a dead idea and a dead daughter.  Red Power!
When I was a little boy, an elder of mine boasted that white school teachers who go to the village to work off their student loans had to learn village culture or they wouldn't be accepted.  I looked into her eyes and I knew right then that white teachers won't be accepted no matter what they do.  I saw the gloating in her eyes and it was evil.
White men habitually quote Socrates when discussing important things, "I know that I know nothing."  To me, this means for everything that anyone knows, white people know one more thing, and I admire them for knowing this thing.
What irks me more than anything is that the Indians (both Canadian and American) have it within their power to become richer than the Cayman Islands or Bermuda.  They could become veritable Hong Kongs overnight.  But because they've never buried the hatchet from over 200 years ago for transgressions of people who are long dead they let that irrational hold-over hatred prevent themselves from advancing, and (in my humble opinion) surpassing their socialism-obsessed white peers.  I don't say this to score "diversity" points or favoritism amongst the Indian community, I say it because  it's economic and true.  Indians, if they decided to use their sovereignty, could easily poach US and foreign businesses and in doing so become richer.

Love, Lust, Booze, High Heels and Stabbing

Probably the most addictive thing i've read recently and will want to read part 2.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Parental Goals Should Target Your Child When They're 30, Not 13

This will be short.

Good parents realize that their goal, when raising children, is not to be "best friends" with them.

It is to raise them so they are independent, productive, law abiding, interesting, successful and mentally healthy adults.

Ergo, no matter how hard it may be to tell a child "no" or even have a falling out with them when they're young, that IS in the best long term interest of the child and IS truly loving your child because that IS what is going to make them successful as adults.  In other words, you don't manage the kid for "today" you manage the kid for when s/he is 30.

Of course, that is too hard for some parents, especially considering a lot of parents today have kids not because they want to bring another human being into this world, but because they view the child as a consumer item.  Like a Lexus or an IPad, "it" is an accessory.  And if "it" starts becoming difficult you placate "it" and try to calm "it" down.  You dare don't try to discipline "it" or teach it any kind of value structure.  And it's ideal if you can outsource the rearing and upbringing of the child to daycare or the public schools.  Then you don't have to really deal with "it."

But what's funny is the people I know and read about that have "its" and not "children," have "its" for very greedy reasons.  Specifically they want an "it" so they are not lonely.

You know all the flak me and the other men in The Vasectomy League caught for not wanting to have children?  What is the NUMBER ONE CRITIQUE they ALWAYS cite and threaten childless people with in vain hopes they'll scare us into joining their misery?


Oh yeah?  What do you think is going to happen when "it" realizes just what a piss poor job you did of bringing "it" up in terms of preparation for the real world?  What happens when they reach their 30's and discover just how much you shielded them from the real world and they cannot function socially, romantically, or in a career?  When "it" can't find a job because you didn't provide "it" with any kind of financial guidance?

I'll tell you what "it" is NOT going to do.

Visit you in a nursing home.  "It" will,  by about the time "it" is 35-40, realize just what an outstanding job you did as a parent and react accordingly.

Thankfully, however, there is good news.

You'll have me and the entire Vasectomy League of men as company in the nursing home.  And we are quite a motley crew!

Cargo Cult

Sounds like a band, but it is actually something I read about by Ludwig Von Mises.

Kill the Inner Beta Before He Kills You

Rollo writes a mandatory piece and I will simply add a related note here in that I think suicide is an under-addressed topic here in the Manosphere.  Additionally, I believe it is a genuine threat.  Manosphere readers are predisposed more than most to commit suicide, so allow me this dark and macabre lesson to help prevent it.

First, let me start off by saying that pretty much every male friend I have is NOT as happy as he was 5-6 years ago.  And the reason for this universal "less-happiness" is simply economic.  The economy sucks, and men have been disproportionately affected by this.

Bad economic times coinciding with higher rates of depression and suicide is nothing new, and certainly explains why most of the men in your life (as well as women) are down.  But there are some other factors here that explain why I believe men are more depressed, BEYOND what a bad economy should warrant, namely political

Second, not to get political, there is really no future for this country.

People often accuse me of being a pessimist, a party pooper, and a downer.

I'm none of the above.

I'm an economist and a realist who doesn't swallow BS like "hope and change" and doesn't vote for spectacularly incompetent men because they have nice pecks.  I instead spend HUNDREDS of hours every year pouring over data, charts, statistics and numbers.  I want facts, I want data.  I want reality.  I have more economic knowledge in a milligram of my ear wax that the entire democratic voting population does in all of their brains as they blow $6 every morning on Starbucks and never ponder how the electricity stays on or what happens when the sewers don't work because "Don't Trust the B in Apt 23" is on.

Therefore when I say something like, "the country has no future" infinitely-less-informed people's reaction should not be a dismissive,

"he's just a pessimist." 

Their reaction should be

"OH SH!T!  How bad is it?"  

Or, to analogize it another way, imagine I just came up from the bowels of the Titanic, all greasy and wet, blood running from my forehead, with a huge plumbing wrench in my hand as well as a panicked look on my face and said,

"We're going to sink!" 

And you all laugh, pat me on the head, and then re-direct you attention back to your Gibsons

Yeah, that's what it feels like.

Regardless, I'm not the only one paying attention to projections, forecasts and data.  Most other men in the Manosphere are too.  Maybe they're not the SAEG (TM) economist I am, but they know enough that 100% debt to GDP is "bad."  They know what a trillion dollars is, and they know spending $1 trillion more than what we take in is "bad."   And because they have this knowledge and are not blissfully ignorant like the galactically ignorant morons that put a fraud like Barack Obama in charge, they are further depressed because they know what's coming.  Economic stagnation at best, collapse if worse.  Regardless, no future.

Third, you throw in the whole feminism ruining women thing and taking away men's primary biological drive, but we've beat that horse to death.  I merely wanted to include it.

In the end, you put all this together you can see why a lot of them are depressed, a lot of them are down, and a lot of them may conclude suicide is the answer because there really isn't much to live for.

It would normally be at this point in the article I say,

"Don't do it!  There's so much to live for," 

but I can't.  My response is much more somber.  Not that I'm FOR suicide, but rather the reasons I'm going to give you to live are not pie in the sky fluffy bunnies type reasons people normally give suicidal people to live, but the  stone cold real world reasons you should live.

First,  "There's so much to live for" in today's economic environment is an outright lie.  You have had your economic future taken away from you.  You've have your financial future taken away from you.  Your career taken away from you.  Your family (likely) taken away from you.  Your whole life has been taken away from you.  WORSE STILL if you were led to believe this was the greatest country and you could do anything, the heights from which you crashed down from were much higher and much more painful upon landing.

So if you're to the point you're kicking around suicide, chances are you REALLY DO have nothing to live for.  I believe you.

But (and here's the kicker) you have no compelling reason to die either.

Say life is really bad.  Really, really bad.  You have no reason to live.

Well join the club.

You're certianly not alone.  It's not like there aren't 100 million American adult males who aren't in your same situation.  Just because you don't have anything to live for BASED ON TRADITIONAL DEFINITIONS OF WHAT YOU SHOULD LIVE FOR doesn't mean there isn't stuff you can't do.

So you don't have a career.  That's just more free time.
So you don't have a family.  That's just more disposable income, freetime and a zero percent chance of getting divorced..
So the country is going down the toilet.  Collect a welfare check with no guilt and while you still can.

The solution is not to kill yourself.  The solution is to

1.  Forgive yourself and realize it is not your fault you don't have a future or life didn't turn out the way you hoped it would
2.  Change your mentality from what you "want" to what you "can get."  ie-realize the environment has changed and adapt to it mentally and physically (becuase you have no other choice).
3.  Live the rest of your days doing that while you have the opportunity to do it and make the best of it.

Second, at least change your environment before you try to commit suicide.  Go overseas, live overseas, do something.  Changing your environment will at least get you out of the environment where you thought it was hopeless.  Usually when people contemplate suicide it means they think it isn't worth living HERE in THIS PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT.  So the least you can do before you off yourself is give a try at another life.  Stop paying your mortgage, amass as much money as you can, and leave.

Besides, what's the worst that can happen?  They "repossess" your house?  Your wife leaves you?  Your credit tanks and you can't find another job?  You were just considering suicide a couple minutes ago.

Third, there is so much to do and see on this planet.  My fossil hunting, mountain climbing, motorcycling, writing, ballroom dancing, tornado chasing is not by accident.  Like most men, I too was at the precipice one time of suicide.  Nothing serious, but the thought did enter my mind and my mind said, "well before we go, we gotta do all this stuff then" and boom, my life became much more interesting.  I abandoned my career and women as my primary motivators in life and pursued fun.  It was almost as if experiencing enough pain to think about suicide was a benefit because it put things in context and made me not just change my life for the better, but change my life so it fit into reality.

You too may as well go and do what you want.  Go to Italy, get into race car driving, eat ice cream, breed wiener dogs, whatever you want to do.  Because once you pull that trigger, it's not like you can go back and decide to start taking hang-gliding up as a hobby. 

Fourth, following along the same lines that suicide results in the worst option - death, that leaves you with pretty much EVERY option available on the table.  What I mean by this is things you wouldn't do if you knew you were going to live and suffer the consequences are NOW viable options.  Namely, criminal.  I am NOT ADVOCATING THIS, but philosophically merely pointing it out.  Specifically, since finances are one of the primary reasons for suicide, why not rob a bank and see if you can get away with it?  The alternative was death, so what the hey (though I wouldn't rob a bank because there actually isn't a lot of money there.  I'd recommend starting up a "green company" and getting a government loan as you pay yourself $2.5 million per year in salary with no intention of it being profitable.  It's totally legal, but it's still theft sanctioned by democrats, environmentalists and Obama cronies.  Make sure to throw a couple thousand towards Barack's campaign.)

So in short, yes, I know times are tough.  Yes I know some of you literally, veritably, actually have NO REAL reason to live.  But that is because you are genetically and socially programmed to view a very small handful of things as "reasons to live" - work, family, career all of which are under assault, if not, completely destroyed by now in the US.  You haven't opened your eyes wide enough to look and see there are other reasons.  Additionally, what else you got to do?  You in a rush to die?  Why not chill out and hang out with the living? Explore the world a little bit.  Collect a government check.  Adapt and abuse the socialism that's been shoved down your throat.  Avail yourself of all the freebies socailists have voted in. Accept the fact you can't get what you want, but can take what you can get.  Besides, as I said before, you can't come back.  So you might as well make the best of a decaying society here while you're here simply because you have no other choice.

Most Addictive 1950's Toy

Hey, you remember this toy?  My grandpa had one, couldn't put the damn thing down as a kid.

Why the Soviets Banned Maps

My god.

What gets me is that today, I have to argue and fight like the underground AGAINST something so evil.  That society today is SO STUPID and SO IGNORANT they can't see that this is where socialism ends.

Communism IS the greatest evil perpetrated upon the human race.

Seek Dating Advice from Men, Not Women

Though I do like Susan this is a perfect example of where you would not want to take the advice of a woman vs. that of a guy simply because women do not date women and therefore can't give advice on what works.

The Father Could Not Be Reached for Comment

oh, I'm sure the kid will come out fine.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Government Replaces Husband

It's not that hard to understand why.  The government doesn't beat you (yet, anyway).  The government demands nothing of you and holds you to no standard.  The government is your sugar daddy.  The government is your employer.  The government is your safety net.  The government can and will be your co-parenting partner.  The government will educate your children.  The government will take care of your children.  The government will take care of you.  And above all else, you don't have to have any of that icky gross sex.

Remember, this is what single women were programmed to believe:

Living in Your Car

So I did my "get rid of your stuff" video and several of the comments were people talking about living in their cars.  I figured today there must be some kind of sub-culture where people do live in their cars and probably have made an art of it, and BAAM!!!  What do you know?

The idea of living out of your car intrigues me on several levels.

One, with all the hiking, adventuring and mountain climbing I do, it inevitable that I would have to sleep in my car at times.  Additionally, if you can avoid paying for hotels, you can take what would be a mere week long vacation and turn it into a two week vacation with the money you save.  It wasn't until quite recently anyway that I allowed myself to sleep in hotels.  I would either push onto my destination staying awake the extra 8 hours and saving $70 or I would find a wayside, get 4 hours sleep and finish the trip.  Regardless, it was interesting to see my experiences taught me most of what he presents in his video/blog.

Two, if the SHTF living in a vehicle I believe is going to be the default option for a lot of people.  Myself and most of us here i believe have the mental fortitude to do that, but I wonder how many preppy suburbanites who rely on their daily Starbucks would have a mental break down.  Oh, and no nesting in the car.

Three, in my pursuit and obsession with minimalism, I am intrigued by the savings power of living in a vehicle.  STick with me here.  How long would you have to live in a car, essentially rent free, to save up enough money to just pay for a house?  Or heck, pay for college.  Assume $750 a month and that's about 15 years for a $150,000 house.  Not likely to do that, but it is possible.  Additionally, consider the freedom.  With no mortgage or rent to pay, your living expenses are just food, gas, and toiletries.   If you can make some kind of income off of the internet, then you can pretty much just drive where ever you want making "homeless" a term of freedom, not a societal class.

Four, I was going to say the one drawback of this would be it would kill your love life, but after thinking about it I'm not even sure about that.  How many loser musicians do you know that mooch off of girlfriend after girlfriend?  You're not playing "Dirk Winthrop Investment Banker" game, but poor starving, impoverished loser man game.  Certainly better than being a nice, reliable guy.

Dave Wahlstedt

I'll try to be brief because I don't want to do too much economic-talking-over-heads.

What I never understood in Minneapolis was how property owners were unable to link their excessively high property tax bills with the pro-spending politicians they kept voting in.

And trust me, people, Minneapolis property owners were pissed (and they still are).  Property taxes increased by 300% when I lived there on my dinky little duplex.  The services did NOT increase 300%.  Of course we got things like $50,000 drinking fountains, "Walk Ambassadors," green roofs, all politically correct and liberal things, but of course none of the property owners that paid for such waste benefited from it.

But the real reason (and it isn't political)  I'm writing this piece is to try to explain to everybody (liberals, conservatives, liberatarians and greenies) is why you should be afraid of increasing property taxes and should be voting for Dave Wahlstedt.

Namely, the value of your home or property.

Without going into a lot of economic theory and whatnot, in short what drives the value of an asset (be it your home, stocks, a business, etc.) is the fact it generates some kind of income.  Yes, I know your home doesn't generate income, but it theoretically does and can in the form it saves you rent or it could be rented out.  This technicality aside, stick with me.

The reason why income is the only thing that gives an asset value is because why else would somebody buy it?

Nobody is going to buy a rock from me.  "Cappy's Rocks" would not do well because rocks unto themselves do not generate income.

Nobody is going to buy sticks from me.  "Cappy's Sticks" would not do well because sticks, unto themselves, do not generate income.

But somebody might be a stock from me.  Stocks pay dividends.  Stocks generate income.

Somebody might buy a business from me.  Businesses generate profits.  Businesses generate income.

But what if you tax a stock, dividends, profit or income?

Say I had a stock and it paid $5 a year in dividends.  Depending on the market, the price of that stock might be around $20.  But if you tax my dividends and I only net say, $3, am I still going to pay $20 for it?


Another example are pre-1958 Cuban companies.  A bit obscure of a reference but the point is still the same.  Say you had a rum company down in Cuba.  It makes money.  It's profitable.  That business has value.  So to an acquiring company or just any ole investor they would be willing to pay a price for that asset because it generates a profit.

Uh oh.  Here comes Fidel and Che!  And they now nationalize the company, effectively taking it for themselves.  All profits go to the glorious people's republic.  Does that business have any value any more?  No, why would anybody buy it?  Cuba would not allow any profits to be paid (plus communists just outright repossess the property).

The same thing is happening here (and across the nation) to our houses, our homes and our properties.

Say you bought your house in the Longfellow neighborhood for $200,000 back in 2002  And it could be rented out for $1300/month.  You couldn't keep all of that because you have to pay property taxes (and other operating expenses such as insurance, repairs, etc.).  Let's say the property taxes were $200 a month.  So you net $1100/month in rental income.

Uh oh.

Hennepin County and Rybak need more drinking fountains and bike paths and green roof tops!

So by 2012 your property taxes are now $600/month. 

Your property that WAS generating $1,100/ month in net rental income is now only generating $700.

That's a 36% drop.

Now, in economic theory (and reality) that means the value of your house should be 36% less, so roughly your $200,000 house is only worth $128,000.  And yes, you may not rent it out and not care about rent, but when somebody is going to buy it they are still going to look at the property taxes and not only say

"Whoa!  $600/month???"

They're also going to notice

"WHOA!  Taxes keep going up here!  There's no way I'm buying."

So even though you're not renting it out, the fact remains that house is no longer an asset, but quickly becoming a liability.  Specifically a perpetually increasing and never ending payment to the county and the city.

Now you may poo poo this basic economics lesson.  You may see that property values in Hennepin County are actually increasing slightly and dismiss this.  But hear me and heed this warning.

The simple example I provided about does not account for all the other factors that affect housing.  BUT IN THE END if property taxes DO NOT RELENT and DO NOT GO DOWN, Minneapolis WILL become a Detroit.

And the reason why is very simple. 

Liabilities do not have value. 

I don't care how nice your house is, if the property taxes keep going up (no matter what noble, liberal claptrap the politicians claim it will go to pay for) the value of your house will go down to ZERO.  Your single largest investment will have no value.

And the only people to blame for it will be the voters who kept voting to fleece themselves because they do not understand this basic economic lesson.

So vote for Dave Wahlstedt for commissioner.  Not because he's a conservative or a liberal, but for yourselves.

An Aspiring Engineer Runs Into Progressive Credentialism

I remember being asked similar questions when I interviewed for jobs and internships.

"What extra cirricular activities do you engage in?"

I, truthfully engaged in none.  I was too busy studying all the time was that other thing I did...OH, THAT'S RIGHT!  I was WORKING FULL TIME AND GOING TO SCHOOL FULL TIME so I could put FREAKING FOOD on the table and PAY FOR MY FREAKING RENT.

I didn't have time to join the "Yeah for Us Self Esteem Diversity of Leftist CSR Puke Club" or the "Daddy's Paying My Way So I Can Hackey Sack All Day and Night Brigade," let alone the money to join the "Fratboydouche Hat on Backwards as We Pound Down $5 Shots Society."

So, lets see if we here in the Manosphere can help this kid out because lord knows it isn't going to be some HR priss asking him whether he join the right club or did the right thing.

Anybody got a job or a internship that would fit his qualifications?

On a related note, somebody sent this to me.  (warning, it's painful)

Now compare and contrast the post above by the college KID and the 40 year old HR professional.  The kid is talking about building electric cars while the "adult" is talking about binders.  Does a FREAKING YOU TUBE ON BINDERS!!!!

For advice!


Binders!!!  THis is the cutting edge  of Industrial Relations????

I'll go into this in much more detail since we have a lot of new readers, but for now kids, the lesson to learn is to avoid HR at all costs.  Find the hiring manager.  Go straight to him.

Also, remember THESE ARE THE PEOPLE screening your resume.  They are the FRONT LINES OF DEFENSE IN OUR LABOR MARKET, ensuring the highest quality of labor gets the job.  So if you DON'T get the job or an interview you are supremely qualified for, don't feel bad.  There's nothing wrong with you, it's HR.

Cripes, freaking binders.

Nuclear Powered Rationalization Hamster


This takes the cake. 

Men who are 35+ and have never married are now considered to have some kind of psychological problem and are "losers."

No, no, it couldn't be the quality and caliber of women in this country is so low men are either postponing it, outsourcing it or abandoning it all together.  No, can't possibly be that, because, well, that would put the blame SQUARELY where it belongs.

My god the legs on the rationalization hamster must be huge from all that spinning.

Economic Justice, Social Justice, & FACIAL Justice

Reading some Murray Rothbard.  And I wanted to share an excerpt from one of his essays because I found it not just to be incredibly insightful, but incredibly eerie.   Specifically, the book he cites and how the book, though intended to be fiction when written, is sadly too close to being a reality today.

Older egalitarianism stressed making income or wealth equal; but, as Helmut Schoeck brilliantly realized, the logic of their argument was to stamp out in the name of "fairness," all instances of human diversity and therefore implicit or explicit superiority of some persons over others. In short, envy of the superiority of others is to be institutionalized, and all possible sources of such envy eradicated.

In his book on Envy Helmut Schoeck analyzed a chilling dystopian novel by the British writer, L.P. Hartley. In his work, Facial Justice, published in 1960, Hartley, extrapolating from the attitudes he saw in British life after World War II, opens by noting that after the Third World War, "Justice had made great strides." Economic Justice, Social Justice and other forms of justice had been achieved, but there were still areas of life to conquer. In particular, Facial Justice had not yet been attained, since pretty girls had an unfair advantage over ugly ones. Hence, under the direction of the Ministry of Face Equality, all Alpha (pretty) girls and all Gamma (ugly) girls were forced to undergo operations at the "Equalization (Faces) Centre" so as all to attain Beta (pleasantly average) faces.

What it goes to show you (which is the whole point of Rothbard's essay) is how liberals, leftism and socialism are not just for the equal redistribution of wealth, but the equality of EVERYTHING.  Status, power, looks, etc.  Nobody can be better or worse than anybody else in any regard.  And the only way to achieve that is to kill the individual and replace it with not just economic communism, but social, psychological and personal communism.  Nobody is unique, everybody is the same.

Rush Limbaugh and his "Uglo-Americans" was not a bit. It was great insight.

Sunday, October 28, 2012

Getting Rid of All Your Crap

"Discovering He Was a Beta"

Have to hand it to Haley and her continuing take down of Boundless.

Stupid Nuclear Family

With their husband and wife and kids.  Going on family vacations and developing memories together.  Having fun during the holidays.  What do they know!?  Ain't none of them enjoy cosmopolitans like the girls in Sex and the City!

Saturday, October 27, 2012

Why Communism Killed the American Muse

This is an important one.  So I want you to pour yourself a martini, get a nice comfy couch and light up a cigar.  You'll be strapped in for a while on this one.

Though traffic has improved drastically when I started posting about the Manosphere, I occasionally get the question,

"Why did you switch from economics to The Manosphere/Feminism?"


"Why did you abandon economics for all this Manosphere stuff?"

And the answer is simple.

I haven't. 

While a higher percentage of my posts could be deemed "Manosphere" the reality is that economics and The Manosphere (or the fight against feminism) are actually one and the same.  And not only are they one and the same, I contend the most cutting-edge, evolutionary developments in economics are not in central banking, nor international finance, nor the demise of fiat currency.  The furthest, most deepest front lines of this economic war between communism and freedom is where The Manosphere and feminism are duking it out.

Right off the bat it is not obvious how battling feminism is related, let alone, part of economics, let alone "the cutting-edge" of economics.  And in all intellectual honesty it wasn't until I sat down to figure out this post did I realize how they are indeed one and the same.  But what originally alluded me to think the two were related was the fact my "transition" from economics to "Manosphere" was very natural.  So natural, I didn't even realize it was happening.  So natural my readers didn't know it was happening.  All of the sudden my blog, as well as others, were writing about both economics and the Manosphere, suggesting the two were at minimum VERY closely related and tied together, at least philosophically.

So what makes them the same?  Well why don't you take a big swig of your highly alcoholic drink, take a seat and be prepared to be floored as I lay down some serious "Super Awesome Economic Genius" (TM).

First, we have to ask ourselves what is the most important thing in life to humans?  Some will say riches, some will say wealth, some will say health, but those are all wrong answers.  The correct answer is "other humans."  The reason why is that out of EVERYTHING on this planet, humans are the most interesting, entertaining, dynamic and intellectual things we'll ever run into.

For example, have the most advanced XBox video gaming system out there. It is still finite.  It is still non-sentient.  It cannot think, it cannot challenge you, and cannot engage you beyond what it is programmed to do.  It is limited.  The only reason it CAN challenge you (within the confines of what it's programmed to) is because OTHER HUMANS programmed it that way.  Furthermore, what do most people with video games do to maximize their fun?  They go online and PLAY AGAINST OTHER HUMANS, suggesting it is human interaction, not a pre-programmed pixelated campaign to kill Nazi's or zombies that provides genuine stimulation to people.

Another example - when do you cry?  Chances are when you ding your car or sell your boat, etc., you don't cry.  But when a family member or a loved one dies, you cry.  Why?  Because a human is the only thing you can really love, as well as love you back.  You could even make the same case for pets in that pets, though not as advanced as humans, have some of the same characteristics.  They are not finite, they are not programmed, dogs certainly have personalities, they are dynamic (meaning they don't do the same thing over and over again like a robot), and you can interact with them.  A Ferrari, you can't.

In other words, have all the things you want.  Super computers, Ferrari's, an awesome career, you name it, there is nothing more advanced and engaging that another human being.  It's what we're programmed to respond to, it's what we're programmed to be intellectually stimulated by, other humans are the most important thing in our lives.

Second, since human beings are the most important things in our lives, which ones mean the most to us?  Of course we don't PERSONALLY KNOW every one of the 6 billion humans on the planet, but the ones that are important to us fall into three categories - family, friends and loved ones.

It is here we must discern between men and women because, after all, we are trying to tie economics to the MANosphere.  Additionally, we have to make some assumptions that are not going to apply to every man in the world, but will hold in general.  Specifically, we must discern the order or hierarchy in which the average man values the above three - family, friends and loved ones. 

In general, the average man is going to love

His wife first.  Sometimes TIED with his children for first, which means HIS FAMILY comes first.
His children second
And parental-extented family TIED with friends for third.

This doesn't mean he wouldn't lay his life down for his friends.  This doesn't mean he would abandon his friends once he found a woman (though that does happen).  This is just ordering these for the sake of intellectual discussion.

Regardless, the point is the single most important thing in a man's life is his wife and children aka HIS FAMILY (not his parents, cousins, siblings, aunts, etc.)

Third, since a man's wife and children are the most important things in life for him, how does a man go about getting a family?  He has to attract a woman to become his wife.  And how does he do that?

He goes out, kicks ass and takes names.

The "kicking ass" and "taking names" primarily manifesting itself in the form of economic production.

This means he goes to school, learns a trade, stays in shape, develops a personality, develops hobbies, invents, creates, innovates, invests, enriches himself and does everything within his power to increase his marketability to attract a woman.  In short he becomes the most powerful economically productive unit in all of society.

However, it doesn't stop there.  It's not like he's running a marathon, passes the finish line and then quits once he attracts a mate.  He must keep going and continue being the powerful economic production unit he is because chances are there will be little kinder that need taking care of. 

So in short, the majority of economic production in this economy is incented and prompted by a man's strong psychological and instinctual desire to compete for a woman, secure a mate and then start and maintain a family, resulting in an economic model that looks like this:

However, there are some significant ancillary benefits to having effectively every man in the country working this hard, being this creative and being this productive.  Namely pure economic dominance for the US.  With all men engaged in the economy, working their best, trying their best, uninhibited by government regulation, taxation or politics, there was no doubt which country was the #1 economic power in the world. Additionally, in being the #1 economic power in the world, the US could afford not just the largest,but the most advanced military in the world ensuring our safety.  So while the above model is on the micro-economic level, the macro-economic model looks like this:

Now here is where it gets interesting.

Let's just say, "hypothetically" you are an enemy of the United States (or any free and successful country). You are a communist psy-ops specialist in the Soviet Union.  Or heck, just a communist ideologue from the Frasier School that wants to ruin the US.  Whatever your origins, you are a communist that wants to destroy the US.  You envy its economic wealth, you envy it's economic production, you hate how it's dominant and #1, and it really grinds your gears they did it by letting people be free and do what they want.  You know you can't take on the US militarily, so how do you bring about its demise efficiently, effectively and cheaply?

Well if you look at the two charts you'll see two bottlenecks or weak spots than can bring the whole thing down.

You target the wife/women or the family.  PREFERABLY the wife/women because that's the first bottleneck before a family is created.

And now your are starting to see why feminism, The Manosphere and economics are related.  Since the majority of this country's (an any other free country's) economic production is based on a man's desire to live a happy life by getting married and (sometimes) having children, if you can destroy the quality and caliber of women, let alone the incentive to get married or have children, you can destroy the economic productive capacity of the United States, and thus the country itself. Thus, you see that feminism really isn't about "helping women."  It is nothing more than an thinly veiled economic and political attack against the US, freedom and capitalism.  This is why I call it "Killing the American Muse."

I didn't know what a "muse" was, until I read this Sinfest comic and looked it up.  A muse is (in societal terms) a woman that instills creativity, innovation and determination in a man.  ie-any babe that stirs our souls and we think might be marriage material.  You see this all the time where if a hot babe walks by men suck in their guys, puff out their chests and do whatever they can to impress her.  However, to be a true muse you must not just be good-looking, but also inspire the man, incentive him to do great things, work hard, etc., which requires you are nice, kind, witty, charming, and supportive.  The qualities and characteristics of a woman that makes her a good wife, creating the saying "behind every successful man there is a woman."

Of course, if you look at what feminism has done and intends to do to our women, you can see it is in COMPLETE opposition to these qualities and traits. You are not supposed to support the man.  You are not to help him out.  He is the enemy.  He is your oppressor, you are not a team.  You will co-lead. He will compromise.  You will be difficult, you will be belligerent, you will get in his face, you will nag, you will whine, you will complain, you will make demands. You entitled girlfriend!  You will have a career, ef the family and ef him, you can have it all, test-tube babies, turkey baster babies, career comes first, I'm a cougar, I can date younger, EPL, Sex and the City, 40 is the new 25, I'm a heroic single mom, you go grrrrl.  Vote for higher taxes, men should pay more, we're oppressed, the wage gap, evil patriarchy, free day care, free health care, free education, Obama's pecks, won't somebody please think of the children, I have my masters, where's my cushy 9 months a year government job?  Big is beautiful, you're so shallow for liking skinny girls, you should love me for me, shame on you for liking that type of girl, we're going to shove fat acceptance down your throats.

Well how the hell is THAT kind of muse going to instill ANYTHING in a guy but sheer disgust?

Simple, it isn't.  Feminism never intended to "improve" the American Muse.  Feminism is nothing more than a cover for communists to destroy it and thus destroy your incentive to produce.

The question is, though, are they succeeding?  And the answer is sadly yes.

In corrupting and destroying the quality and caliber of the average American woman, these veritable communists have completely disincentived men from participating in getting married, creating families and forming careers.  Men are getting married much later, and some, not at all because of the various legal and financial risks involved.  Men are having less children not just because they can't afford it in today's economic times, but BOTH parents MUST have careers!  Children be damned.  Worse though, (for the rest of society anyway) is that men are completely abandoning their traditional male roles and checking out of society altogether.  Not that they aren't dating.  Not that they aren't working, but they're not "manning up" as so many bewildered western women would like them to.  They are realizing just how little money it takes to support one man and choosing the path of least resistance.  They are living at home, not going to school, not bothering working hard, not trying their best, not inventing vaccines, not becoming doctors and not aiming to "achieve something greater."  They are making just enough money to get by, live their lives, smoke some cigars, drive some motorcycles, service their needs and then die.  Thus, the new micro-economy is looking like this:

Pay particular note to several items in the new economic model.

1.  The amount of green (economic production) is a lot less.  This is in part because the guy no longer has any calling to be a husband or a father.  That job has been replaced by the government.  The guy no longer has anything to do with the "mom" or the "children" and therefore only needs to produce the amount of economic production that is necessary to support himself.

2.  Also note the significant amount of "faux" economic production.  Namely the welfare spending of the government and the "make work government jobs" that are disproportionately filled by women.  Also, notice such an economy of nothing but teachers, social workers, therapists, counselors, etc. is unsustainable, thereby requiring additional financing by the Chinese (again, not real economic production).

3.  Notice the disconnect from the guy.  The guy is standing alone, separate from the upper half.  This means he is not only alienated from the economy, but also socially alienated.  He has no family, he has no children, and if he does, thanks to divorce chances are he is more or less removed from that as well.  He may as well be removed from this entire economy and country, and this shows in more and more men looking overseas for not just jobs, but families and lives.

4.  I didn't draw it, but the upper half of the economy will inevitably demand the "guys" below pay more in taxes to support the government-daddy-hubby matrix.  More schools, more health care, free day care, etc. etc., just look at what the feminists and communists are clamoring for and you'll see.  Additionally, this only provides further incentive for the guys below to work less, if not, collect a government check themselves, if not consider green pastures in other economies.

Ultimately though, the above model results in something that is loathed by BOTH ardent feminists and religious conservative types - the HATED Peter Pan Syndrome Man or "Manchild."

With their primary incentive (women) to engage in economic production eliminated why should they?  Without a potential future wife, let alone children, they can stay at home and bang on their drums all day because the average man needs a mere fraction of the money to survive and support himself than the average woman does.  Oddly enough, men seem to be OK with this.  It's other people that are having the problems.

The feminists/communists are pissed because these naive men were supposed to keep on working to pay the taxes to support their socialist utopia (though I doubt most feminists think that much about budgetary economics and fiscal policy).

Religious types are angry because these men aren't "manning up" and creating more Christians/Muslims/Jews/Etc.

Women are angry because "why can't I find a maaaaaan?"  And "where have all the good men gone!?  Why, I have my triple masters in social work and I'm an independent strong woman!  You know, that's what it is!  Men are sexist pigs who are just intimidated by a strong, independent woman like me!  You probably want one of those hot, long legged, big boobed women!  Well, you know what, you're shallow!  If you don't like me and my muffin top, then you're not good enough for me!"

Meanwhile today's marrying-age man (most likely VERY aware of the divorce his father went through in the 80's/90's) is noticing some of the benefits of bachelorhood, XBox and scotch.

Regardless, the larger point is not the socio-romantic consequences of the "Man Child" or "Peter Pan Syndrome."  It's the economic consequences.  Communists, poorly dressed as feminists, have taken the one thing that truly matters and has given men reason to live throughout history away from them- a wife, and consequently a family.  Without that incentive men have no reason to work hard, innovate, create or excel except for themselves.  Some, yes, will go onto try hard and create riches for themselves, but most others will merely create enough economic production to "get by" pursuing leisure over labor (besides, with this economy, like they have a choice).  This wreaks havoc on the economy in that by taking out that one bottleneck (women) feminists have effectively sent the US economic engine into a coma, producing a mere fraction of what it's capable of doing.

Ergo, we here in the Manosphere aren't "bashing women" because it's a "he-man woman's hater club."  We aren't here because we find the battle of the sexes interesting.  And we aren't here because we're whining.  We're here for economic purposes.  We are identifying, warning people about, and assailing the single largest economic threat to not just this economy and other free-market economies, but to freedom across the globe.  Feminism is NOT about women, it is a Trojan Horse for communism.  And all the accusations in the world of us being "sexist" or "misogynist" will never stop us from pointing that out and exposing feminism for the evil it truly is.

Hey, did you like this post?  Then go buy something (that you have to buy anyway) on  The Captain gets a commish and it keeps him from having to work a real job in banking, and keeps him writing good stuff like this.  Besides, it pisses off all his previous banker employers that he's successful and they're stuck dealing with problem loans and collecting collateral.

Friday, October 26, 2012

Free to be You and Me

"Because while Marlo And Friends were singing about how you could be anything you wanted when you grew up, I was looking around me at the time (mid-70s) and seeing that what most boys and girls apparently wanted to be when they grew up was DIVORCED."

It's pretty funny, but also serious.  I cannot relate because, first, I never saw the show, but, second, I at a very early age learned to distrust my teachers.  I was Calvin, I knew teachers didn't care, I knew they were the enemy.  However, teachers were not the only source of emo-gender-neutral-modern-day brainwashing that was shoved down my throat and so unawares I was still consuming the blue pill in other ways.  As you get older you see the brainwashing very clearly.

Regardless, read the whole thing because it does brilliantly detail and explain the true costs generations of both men and women have paid for ignoring our differences.

Thursday, October 25, 2012

The Ego Welfare Program

You, no doubt, already know about regular "ole" welfare.  You know, the government program/s that used to go to help people down on their luck, but today goes to anybody who's too lazy to work?  Yeah, that program.

Well, that's nothing compared to another, often unheard of government program, the "Ego Welfare Program."

You see, how it works is that for SOME people it isn't just enough to get money for nothing.  No, their egos would be bruised.  They would have to suffer the shame and scorn of knowing they were parasitical.  So instead they join the Ego Welfare Program.

How the Ego Welfare Program works is you have to register VERY early in your life starting in kindergarten.  Specifically you enroll in a public K-12 school district and take their "inflated ego" and "sense of entitlement program."  It's a 13 year program that starts at age 5 and runs until you turn 18.  In that program you learn how important, special and smart you are.  How you are destined to do great things because, without doing anything, you're already great!  Parental support is optimal for this program to work, but teachers are more than capable of instilling egos and entitlement mentalities into participants of this program on their own.

Next, the Ego Welfare Program requires you attend college and earn a liberal arts degree.  Doesn't matter what, just get a liberal arts degree.  Though not required, you are then strongly encouraged to get as many masters degrees in the liberal arts as possible.  Social Work, Early Education Development, Educational Leadership and other outright worthless BS, the basic tenets of which could be summarized on one 8 x11.5 sheet of paper.

After completing this second stage of the program you are 100% guaranteed by the NEA and the US College Administrators Association to have an ego and entitlement mentality that can only be rivaled by others in this prestigious program.  However, and here is where the genius of The Ego Welfare Program comes in, you are not employable even in the slightest, thereby making sure you have to go on SOME welfare program.  However, since the regular ole welfare program is too shameful, you have the benefit of STILL COLLECTING WELFARE, STILL BEING A PARASITE, but WITHOUT ALL THAT NASTY SHAME!

You get a government job.

Yes, your job is completely unnecessary.  Yes 1 private sector employee could probably do the job of 20 public sector employees.  And yes, there functionally and economically is NO difference between you and the local EBT/welfare bum.  But you get to claim you're "employed" *wink wink* thereby sparing your precious ego.

/> sarcasm

I will say it again for the cheap seats.

I have more respect for the welfare recipient, EBT recipient, government subsidized health insurance recipient who knowingly and admittedly steals from the taxpayer.  S/he is at least being "honest."

It is the millions of spoiled brats that graduate with degrees that don't offer society anything and through the democrats/socialists in our government lobby for more government programs and government investments (read -Solyndra, and the score of other failed solar companies) merely to provide them jobs.

The problem is it isn't really a job.

It's the most expensive government program that only exists for the sole purpose of sparing worthless people's egos.

(this post made to lay the foundation for another post that will be coming in the near future).

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

For Every Cigar Smoking Man

Been trying to do this for the past year.  Don't know why I didn't look it up before:

Help the Captain Choose a Video Game

Figured I'd stand a better shot consulting the thousands of minds that populate the Capposphere rather than consulting a ton of reviews.

Looking to get a relaxing video game like Civilization where you build up a society, fight off others, and inevitably try to dominate the world.

I absolutely LOVED Civilization II way back in the late 90's.

What I hated was how the Civilization series then got INSANELY complex.  Soon you have to worry about spying, diplomacy, a bunch of peripheral BS that made it impossible to play even at the slowest time setting.

Any recommandations for a similar such game that is not going to make me pull out my hair?

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

Top Shelf

Coming soon:

And yes, I WAS tempted to make the pages black with white text, but I didn't!

Tolerant Liberal Thugs

Click on the picture and the link.

This is just another reason why you need to carry mace and a gun.

Why the Left is Afraid to Study Economics

From the Democratic Underground

Given this, how can you ever be broke? Answer, you cannot be broke. The U.S. government is not in debt simply because it can create currency to pay off the debt, and our creditors gladly accept our currency as payment on our debts. You see, the world needs our dollars because the world needs oil, and in order to buy oil, you need dollars, which means that the world needs to stockpile dollars, and that means that the U.S. can print all of the money that it wants without incurring massive hikes in interest rates to attract lenders. 

Seriously people.  I'm not making this up, but then again, it kind of confirms what we already knew.  Liberals and leftists are completely ignorant and clueless when it comes to economics.  They've been too lazy to bother studying it, let alone, understand it.  However, you'd think as they grew up, inevitably adult curiosity, let alone intellectual maturity and honesty would drive them to starting to figure it out.  Of course they don't, they merely double down and get more bitter.  But I think I've finally figured out why that is.

They're afraid.

Afraid of what?

Afraid that they'll inevitably realize they've been wrong this entire time.  That they're not as smart as they thought they were.  That they weren't as brilliant as their teachers told them in the 10th grade.

Only thing I'll add is notice how in the third paragraph the author describes what the "ideal" leftist economy would look like.  Also notice it's unsupportable and unsustainable because nobody is producing anything of value.

Seeking Advice from Women

Worst advice I EVER received from anybody when it came to dating girls came from my mom.  Some of the zinger of gems she provided me was:

1.  Women don't like jocks.  Yuck, gross, who likes those sweaty guys.
2.  Women like nice guys.  Be nice to a girl, be kind, be her friend.

and when I got stood up by a girl I was really looking forward to going out with back in college, she said,

3.  Well maybe she got hit by a truck.

Which is why Roosh's advice is not just hi-freaking-larious, but it is also true.  You do NOT listen to a woman when it comes to seeking out advice about dating women. (language and crassness warning, file complaints elsewhere)

While Roosh does hit on some of the main reasons why this is, there is one that stares us all in the face, but we don't see it:

How many women does the average woman date?

The real reason you should NEVER listen to a woman about how to go about getting a woman to like you or go out with you is because most women never try to date women.  It would be like asking General Patton how to write poetry or Barack Obama on how to grow an economy.

The people you should ask advice from when it comes to dating women are the world's best experts who have billions of years experience in the field.


Monday, October 22, 2012

Buying Cars You Can't Afford

For the young lieutenants out there:

Micro-Capital Flight

Short one and them I'm going. 

Filled in for a buddy of mine who runs a security company last night.  I worked this gig before.  Basically baby sitting the adult children of DT Minneapolis as they are released from the night clubs around 2AM to make sure they don't puke, urinate or fight too much on the client's parking ramps. 

There are multiple ramps, but we meet at one to get radios, any kind of briefing about the evening and whatnot.  Once I met with all the other guards, I was enroute to the ramp I was assigned.  As I went downstairs from the "HQ" ramp I noticed a soda machine missing in the hallway that was there a no more than a year ago.  Last I saw it, however, it was tipped over as some of the local nightclubbers tipped it over.  Naturally the owner of the soda machine removed it since it was not profitable and was only going to get damaged.

Immediately my brain (which is gifted with SAEG - TM) realized what economic phenomenon I was witnessing.

Capital flight.

You see, it doesn't have to be the entire productive class fleeing France thanks for Hollande's 75% confiscation tax.  Nor does it have to be Zimbabwean's money flowing out of the country to invest in western companies' stock as a hyper-inflationary hedge.

Capital flight can be as simple as something as somebody deciding to move their sole soda machine out of DT Minneapolis.  It was obvious s/he wasn't going to make any money.  It was obvious the locals and club goers were not going to respect their property.  It was obvious there was no reason to put a soda machine there.

But what i really like about the now-missing soda machine is the "empty shelves of communism" aspect of it.  Admittedly, it was only one soda machine, but economically it was NO DIFFERENT than an entire grocery store whose shelves were empty.  What's better is who does it hurt?  If you think about it, it's the night-clubbers.  They now no longer have the opportunity to enjoy a soda as they stumble their way back to their cars.

Of course this microscopic economic phenomenon was unnoticeable to the drunk thugs and dregs of society as they walked by.  And that's another thing I like about the missing soda machine.  It's silent, it's clandestine, you don't notice it.  It's the reason why neighborhoods, cities and countries don't just "collapse" overnight going form pristine, vibrant communities with economic growth and low unemployment to the ghetto.  It's why they slowly, deteriorate and die out, the deterioration of which is unperceivable to the naked human eye.  It's also why people wake up one day and start asking, "what happened to this community?  Do you remember when it was nice."

Perhaps disappearing Coke machines is what gives economic rats like me the foresight to flee sinking ships.

Collecting Cans and Crawfish

My first job I took at the age of 3.  I was a thief. 

My dad, piss poor due to piss poor decisions, made it so we (my brother and sister) had to share a large McDonald's soda in an effort to save money.  He would strong-arm bites out of our REGULAR hamburgers (because Big Macs was what only the rich kids could afford - and you CAN follow up with any of my relatives and they will attest to this) because he himself couldn't afford a burger for himself and needed us to "share." Christmas was nothing more than a ruse for our parents to excuse what should have been normal purchases for children implied with parenthood (clothing) as "cherish gifts" while toys were never at the forefront.  What kid doesn't want another freaking sweater from St. Nick.  Toys were rare, pants were common.  And if we dared to complain, "Jesus will send you to hell" or some variation of material possessions being evil.  And so VERY early on I realized that if I was going to make any money, it wasn't going to come from my parents.  It was going to come from me.

My exploits into capitalism were amateurish at best.  My very FIRST foray into enriching myself was rummaging through the coats in the closet at the age of 3.  Scouring the pockets of every coat, I would manage to find loose coinage, the value of which I was unaware of because I had no concept of "cents" let alone currency.  Whatever it was, I was excited when I found a quarter with its intricate eagle design and intuitively knew it was worth more than the bland, boring Jeffersonian nickel. 

Technically this was theft.  I was stealing from my parents.  So at the age of 4 I went professional.  I earned my money the honest way from the Milwaukee County Zoo.


Well, the soda machines had a fair amount of loose change hiding underneath their structures which permitted an already skinny 4-7 year old to fish out with his arm and make off with.  Every year and every trip to the zoo I would ignore the animals and go straight to the soda machines.   I think one day I made off with about $2, which was a fortune in 1980 dollars.  To hell with the alligators and gorillas.  I was making bookoo coin.

By 1981 I decided to become very entrepreneurial and try my hand at salesmanship.  I was going to sell frogs at church.

"Sunday Vacation Bible School" - which was nothing more than the worst, most boring form of baby sitting for Christian parents too lazy to take care of their kids during summer - was mandatory for me, dad was the pastor.  But there were benefits of being the preacher's kid.  Namely the exhaust port of the church made for a great humid environment where frogs and toads would spawn on the north recessed basement window of the church.  I would hop down.  My brother, 2 years my junior, would lower a bucket with a string attached to it.  I'd load up the bucket with frogs and toads, hop back up and then stand at the entry to the church in anticipation of the Sunday Vacation Bible School students.

Why in anticipation for the Sunday Vacation Bible School students?

Because according to the Wisconsin Synod your children were required to bring offerings to Sunday Vacation Bible school and we knew those kids would gladly hock the 25 cents their folks gave them for a frog instead of donating it to some collection plate.

Our brilliant, grandiose capitalist plot would have succeeded had it not been for the observant teacher who, while handing out the collection plate, realized more than a normal number of children were holding frogs and toads and not one of them had cash nor coin.

Again, you ask any of my relatives, and they will attest that all of the above is 100% true.

Now, admittedly all of my early ventures into business were that of a naive toddler who didn't know "bounds" "rules" "limits" and..well..."law."  But when I was 8 I can honestly attest to having my first REAL  legitimate job.

I went straight.  I started collecting cans.

My dad, after divorcing, moved out to Michigan, where we would spend summers with him.  At the time you could get a whole 10 cents per car, and sometimes you'd get a full 20 cents for a large glass beer bottle.  Knowing I would get another sweater and no candy for Christmas, it was, despite my age, a very CLEAR sign of freedom to me that if I collected enough cans I could buy myself whatever I wanted.  NOBODY could stop me, I was in complete control of my future.

So I spent a summer collecting cans.

Dumpster diving.  Going to the beach to solicit empty beer cans from the locals.  Knocking on doors.  And over the course of the summer I earned myself a full $100.  I collected 1,000 cans, the 1,000th of which the recycler gave back to me as a trophy. (I actually turned it into a trophy, until my step dad threw it away assuming it was garbage).

However, I had a side business.  My 8 year old self knew the importance of diversification.


Specifically, fishing out crawfish from the Black River in Michigan and selling them at 5 cents a pop to the local bait shop.

This was not as lucrative as collecting cans, but between my siblings and myself, we would literally "clear the market" of unwanted cans and bottles within a week in the town.  You could tell there were less cans and I intuitively KNEW it was because we cleaned house the week before.  Once collecting cans became less lucrative, we'd focus our efforts on our crawfish operations and increase our profits.  I was able to turn a bucket of crawfish into several boxes of Nerds and Tart n' Tinys at the local gas station.

From there I ended up working as a shit shoveler in the 7th grade.  And I don't make that up, I was indeed a shit shoveler.  I worked at an industrial greenhouse where we had to shovel and mix various sorts of manure with various sorts of ingredients because different types of manure have different nutritional properties for different plants.  After that I worked at a locker plant cleaning up dead cow parts.  After that I laid sod and installed retaining walls for a landscaping firm.  And after that I played campus cop at the U of MN (which I think most of you are familiar with).  

Now, why did I bring up my entire pre-adult resume?  Well certainly not to get an "awww, wook at da cwute wittle Captain."

I bring it up because I am done listening to the excuses of the youth today who think they have it tough who, by the age of 25, have never worked a real job that even comes close to what I did back in 1980 as a kindergartener. 

Whether it's been tutoring these adult children or trying to teach them in college or whether it's the latest incarnation of OWS/hipster purified douchebaggery, I'm done with it.  I'm sick of it.  I have no patience for these spoiled brats.

You little children have NO CLUE, NONE  as to what it takes to succeed, let alone merely get by and support yourselves.  You have parental subsidy, governmental subsidy, all of which not only shields you from the full effects of the real world, it stunts your growth from ever becoming a real adult.  Worse still, it spoils you in the truest sense of the word.  It decays you, it destroys your worth.  It makes you a worthless human being because instead of offering something of value to society, be it a skill or labor, you offer nothing.  And even worse than that you are entitled.  You demand, because of your mere existence, other people take care of you.  You're entitled to this.  YOu have a right to that.  Gimme food, jobs, health care, housing and spending money.

While all you've managed to do in your entire life is spend your daddy's credit card and drive mommy's car.

Ultimately it is the reason I don't care about the "plight" of college students.  NONE of you come anywhere near supporting yourself, and certainly nowhere near to the point you can claim you're "independent" (feminists, women's studies majors, pay particular note).

No, you are for the most part the most pathetic excuses for "adult" human beings I've ever witnessed.  And while admittedly, I was not the most "normal" 7 year old, at the age of 7 I was already more of a responsible, independent adult than most of you were, or ever will be, even at the age of 32 while you live in your mom's basement.

So the next time you protest something being unfair while your mom and dad and Obama are paying for 99% of your expenses (of course, all the while you claim to be an "independent adult") just look at the little 8 year old dumpster diving for cans and realize he's a better man than you are.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Central Banking 101

If you are like me, you are not intricately familiar about central banking, the case for or against central banking and the likes.  I never really studied the federal reserve/central banking and thus why I don't really comment on it.

However our good friend Save Capitalism has and it would be a good stepping stone into understanding the Fed.

Thank God We Got Rid of Chivalry

Welcome to the club!  All people are treated equally here and we do not discriminate.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Bronan the Barbarian's Guide to Energy Drinks

It's a good start, but mercy there's a ton of drinks missing.

NOS, Xyience, and if you care to go legacy, Rooster Booster, Donkey Kick and Rooster Booster Lite.

Five Reasons Men Should Get Married

Dr. Helen can't find 5.  Can you?  Help the good doctor out.

Friday, October 19, 2012

Divorce is Bad for Ballroom Dancing

From a reader:

I asked a very pretty, slender and young brunette to dance. I asked her for experience level, and she said she had only taken the free lesson once but that she liked to spin. So spin her I did. She was one of the best follows I'd ever led, despite having so little experience she just went where I led her, swung-out and spun as I told her. She just flowed. It was great. She had the warmest smile on her face the entire time...

Contrast to later that evening, an older (at least 50s) woman asked me to dance, so I obliged. She was nearly impossible to lead. She was rigid, immobile, unresponsive and gave me no smile. I've danced with other older women, and most weren't nearly so difficult to lead. 

Though it is not a 100% correlation, I will testify with my now 16 years of dance instruction that divorced women are harder to dance with and for precisely the reasons our fine young reader implied - they are psychologically predisposed against following.

Yes, there is an element of "can't teach an old dog new tricks" but that applies equally to men and women.  By the time a student is 50+ I have seen less aptitude to learn new moves in both sexes.  But divorced women (regardless of age) were more often than not a bear to instruct, let alone dance with.

They'll turn on their own. They'll initiate the dance even though the leader hasn't started.  They'll assume the move you try to start and execute the wrong one, and (should they actually wait for you to start leading a turn) they will IMMEDIATELY execute the turn with no regard to the beat or timing by which the turn should be executed, resulting in them getting out of the turn ahead of the lead and way ahead of the beat.  

Now all women to a certain extend do this when they are learning. They are merely trying to "help," but what I always teach the beginning women in my class is that following is a psychological skill.  There is nothing they can "do" or "start" or "help" with because "helping" "initiating" or "doing" is antithetical to following.  They must RESPOND, not initiate or do.

After explaining this most women get it and start following splendidly.  However, I can almost pick out the divorced women in that they are the ones where my philosophical explanation of following went into one ear and out the other.  They still initiate, they still lead, and some go even so far to say, "well, my partner won't lead, I HAVE TO!" Or, I've even had it so far where the woman giggles and says, "oh, I'm not good at following.  I have to lead" COMPLETELY ignorant to the fact that it goes against the dynamics and mechanics of dancing making it IMPOSSIBLE for her to dance with any one.

Sure enough, they fight, they toil, they get frustrated.  Some even go so far as to instruct their current dance partner (I have them rotate) talking over me, telling him what "he's doing wrong," while I'm trying to address the exact same problems they "think" they're solving.  The field trips ensue and you get to know them personally and I'd say about 7 out of 10 times you find out they're divorced.  The remaining 3 women obviously displaying signs of "Grrrrl Power (TM)" and "moxie" belying their psychological disadvantage to learning to follow.

But rip apart the ladies all I want, there is another side to the coin, and that is the men.  Divorced men, but more so, singles-group men, desperately trying to find a wife at my dance class.  They're there because they either got divorced or never found a gal and it shows.  They plain can't lead.  They're afraid, they take no risks.  The qualities and traits that send women screaming.

They're polite, they look at theirs partner's feet hoping to plagiarize the moves instead of listening to me.  They get railroaded once they dance with the divorcee woman with moxie, telling him how he's screwing up, constantly talking to him so he can't head the beat, let alone me yelling out the moves.  When it comes time to turn the girl, they lift a limp wristed arm up SUGGESTING, not COMMANDING the woman to turn.  They also lack the psychological understanding of the word "leader" and instead think a ballroom dance is done by committee and compromise.  They're almost as bad as the husband who is forced to come to dance class, but plain refuses to participate in an attempt to punish his wife with stubborn poutiness.

The best students I have are what you would expect the best relationships to be - the man is the leader, and the woman helps him and is supportive.  There is no "co-leading" or "committee" or "compromise." Without a doubt the best "couple" students I've had were the happily married couples.  And by "happily married" I mean it was obvious they were still having sex.  The man was the man.  He led, he commanded.  His wife was turned on, had a smile on her face and was only too happy to support and help him.  You knew they would go home and have sex immediately after class.

Of course, I know even though my observations above come from 16 years of empirical experience, they are politically incorrect.  Having "roles," especially traditional ones forced on people or even advocated is verbotten by the leftist thought police.  Divorced, empowered women are GREAT ballroom dancers!  And timid, shy, compliant men are AWESOME ballroom dancers too!  It's just you evil patriarchs applying your "labels" and "definitions" on people as "lead" and "follow" that make the dance not what it should be.  Besides, who are you to say the couple who work as a flawless team to the point they are one on the dance floor is any better than the spineless, limp 54 year old beta male as he futilely tries to lead his 52 year old divorcee partner as she lectures him while he's trying, resulting in what looks to be a disjointed dance akin to a drunk man trying to pilot a revolting dump truck!  That's just your evil, traditionalist patriarchy sexism shining through.


You don't need English to get the punchline.

A Vital Economics Lesson for Youth and Soccer Moms

Saw this and realized it really needs more coverage.  The data is slightly dated, but is very appropriate for all the youth out there (and soccer moms who "just feel like I care about the chilllllldrnnnnnn")

Thursday, October 18, 2012

The Manosphere's Largest Political Influence

It is typically assumed that The Manosphere, as it evolves and gains steam, will somehow "counteract" feminism.  But the truth is we don't have such grandiose hopes or dreams of it bringing the universe "back to balance" in some kind of Jedi Knight sort of way.  Matter of fact we have no dreams at all, truthfully.  It is really just more of a visceral and self-respecting backlash against the communist tyranny cowardly and hypocritically disguised under the cloak of "women's rights."  Men don't carry out "crusades" of a political sort.  We just fight back our enemies till they don't bother us again and get back to enjoying our lives (feminists should take note of that).

However, I did realize something and was able to connect two VERY FAR apart dots.  And this connection made me realize just how much of a threat The Manosphere is NOT to feminism, but to the general trend and political movement of socialism, communism and tyranny.  A threat most liberals and leftists are completely unaware of. 

Most of you right now are thinking that this must go through the eye of "feminism=socialism veiled for women's rights attack destroy" sort of thing.  While that is true AND The Manosphere does fight against socialism in that way, the two dots I connected are much further apart, completely different, AND much more significant.


Black men, and by extension, minority men.

Anecdotal evidence started piling up as I entered The Manosphere.  Houseboy was an ounce of ingredient.  My readership being disproportionately black/Hispanic/minority was another ounce of ingredient.  And it wasn't until I saw some traffic coming from this that I realized I was genuinely onto something and my observation was most likely true. 

In short, black men are pissed.

Pissed at what?

How black women treat them.

And it is here that I must take the liberty of consolidating an infinite amount socio-political observations of millions of black men and hope that I don't miss the mark too much.

In short, black American men are further down the feminist rabbit hole than any other American male racial group.  Specifically, government feminist policies that, in short, replace the father and men with a government check.  Please point to me a community where government check replacing a man has been more successful than in the black community.  Single motherhood is the standard with 70% of black births being out of wedlock.  Politicians at the state, federal and local levels are all too eager to show how much they care for not just "heroic" single mothers, but single MINORITY mothers to garnish more votes and bribery money.  The results to anybody who has been paying attention is obvious.  Black men have literally been replaced by the government.  They have been discarded, they have been outsourced, they have been replaced by society.

But what is the cost?

Frankly, MULTIPLE lost AND ALIENATED generations of black males.

With generation after generation of black males brought up without fathers, who are taught they are nothing, who have nothing to look up to or mold themselves after, and can simply be replaced with a government check, can you imagine the psychological destitution and torment this wreaks upon a male psychology?

Furthermore, how do you compete?

"Compete against what?"  you might ask?

Compete against the politician who uses the trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to pose as the ultra-wealthy bachelor suitor you can never beat.  No one single man (again, regardless of skin color) can beat the politician who has access to trillions of dollars of taxpayer money and promises it to you and your children (as long as you vote for him).  No strings attached, no discipline or "father is the head of the household" necessary.  No, just "here's the money sweetheart, vote for me!"

Meanwhile black males are relegated (sadly, and I don't mean this to sound derogatory, but to point out the truth and sadness of it all) to sperm donors with nothing much else to live for. 

And you wonder why crime is higher amongst black males. 

The reason is there's nothing left to live for.  There's nothing great or better than themselves.  No wife, no family, no children, no future.  Thank you politician douchebag for stealing my woman, stealing my family, stealing my children and stealing my future.  What else do I have to pursue in my life?

Now, I'm not socio-psychologist.  But in my philosophizing and mental meandering I have realized that it is other people that matter the most.  Have the most advanced X-Box 360 game, nothing is more engaging, entertaining and mentally stimulating than another human.  Humans are dynamic, they are not finite or programmed like an X-Box and they conscientiously CHOOSE to spend their time with you IF they deem you WORTHY enough to hang out with.  And that is the TRUE proof or "reward" to another human being that they are worth something.  That somebody else "confirms" or "corroborates" that you are a worthwhile human being in the fact they spend their time with you.

Now ask yourself.

What kind of message do we send to the average black man (or any man, I guess) when we tell him that his intellect, his persona, his soul and his personality doesn't even compare to a government check.  That a piece of paper that warrants purchase of other goods is better than him himself. 

Well I'll tell you what that tells him.  "You're a worthless and COMPLETELY unnecessary POS."

We getting anywhere here now?  We starting to realize the situation here?

Now, my political conclusion or "epiphany" should be pretty obvious by now. 

Black (and minority men, as well as all men) have been completely screwed over by feminism.  However, in the fact that for all men a wife and (maybe) family is the ultimate, darwinistically programmed goal into their genetic DNA, many of them are waking up to the fact that modern day feminism is a bunch of bullshit.  Feminism is against a male father figure, it is against men simply being men, and it PREFERS to replace men with the government.  However - and this is where the VERY INTERESTING political ramifications come in - NO OTHER RACIAL GROUP has suffered MORE THAN BLACKS under FEMINISM which is NOTHING MORE THAN SOCIALISM DISGUISED UNDER THE RUSE OF "WOMEN'S RIGHTS."

So what do you think black males are going to do?

My humble opinion is that black males will wake up, if not (by evidence of the links above) they already have.  And the primary reason is because political socialism, under the guise of feminism, has destroyed anything for them to live for.  Socialists/democrats have taken away their would-be wives, and thus, their would-be children.  Socialism under the guise of "feminism" have taken away their families and thus taken away any sort of future for them.  And it is here that The Manosphere I believe has it largest potential.

Forget fighting feminism

Forget fighting against single motherhood.

Forget whatever feminist goal post we wish to destroy.

The true political influence of The Manosphere is that we delivered the red pill to black males (as well as all other minority males).

And can you imagine what would happen to the political dynamics of the US if all of the sudden all black American males started to man up and started voting republican?

It is here I believe that political bonds are stronger via gender than race.  If push comes to shove EVERY man wishes to have the same thing.  If the Chinese were to invade, a whole lot of racist blacks and a whole lot of racist whites would set aside their differences and repel the red horde. 

I ask why can't we unite to fight the much more serious, realistic and present communist feminist horde?

Why Aren't There Giant Spiders?

So I was curious and I found out.

This concludes our pointless trivia of the day.

Engineering Prevents Stripping

Hey, just saying, you don't hear about "daddy's little girl who majored in electrical engineering resorting to stripping" to make ends meet.

Wednesday, October 17, 2012

For Our Gen Y Readers

This is part 8 of a series.

I started with part 8 because I noticed people start with "part 1" of any series and never finish to the end where the really good advice and intellectual gems are.

So it's like feeding you the ice cream first and then having you try the broccoli.

Mixed Cocktail Linkage

Whiskey.  When I drink whiskey I get probably more confused than when consuming any other drink.  Just like I don't understand why academians are against Israel.  Are they deemed too militant?  They just hate the Western world, of which Israel is part of?  Or is it just something to protest against and avoid a real job?

Vodka.  I drink vodka to gain clarity and avoid a hangover.  Even though they linked to me, the reason I'm putting this up here is Roberto did some excellent research as to the return on investment for a law degree.  Anybody contemplating law should have a belt of vodka and read this.

Tequila.  Nothing good ever comes from drinking tequila.  Just like reading the NYT.

Rumpleminze.  It's so good you forget about your problems.  Matter of fact, you forget to do a lot of things.  Like honoring that date you promised that girl.  Don't worry, flaking out only increases your chances with girls.  So make sure to drink some Rumpie beforehand.

Red Wine.  No good deed goes unpunished, and though, you think drinking red wine is good for your healthy, it will leave you with a NASTY headache.  Just like trying to undelude people who are brainwashed AND FOR THEIR BENEFIT.  Don't drink red wine, just bang your head against the wall and save yourself a couple bucks.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

It's Called "Capital Flight"

and it's a feature, not a bug of socialism.

What I love is how Hollande telepathed his moves 6 months in advance.  Gave the rich and productive enough heads up to get out of Dodge.

Oh well, Profitez de la baisse!

Monday, October 15, 2012

Why Youth Shouldn't Try Until They're 35

Who Buys Brand New BMW's?

Attending college and getting by on just $13,000 per year meant I had to count and track every penny.  So tight were my finances that I not only "knew" when I had taken a girl to dinner, I FELT it in my finances.  I could literally feel $30 poorer the week after I took a girl out because I couldn't afford as many groceries.  This level of poverty has many benefits as it does drawbacks, but one thing it did provide me with was deadly accurate ability to assess whether or not somebody was supporting themselves or living off of somebody else.

This came in particularly useful when you had some idiotic college student claim they were "independent" (notably girls) while they drove a new car.  Within a few questions you found out they "may have" been paying for their tuition, but daddy was financing the car

and the credit card

and the health care

and the rent

and the gas

and the groceries.

Fastforward to today and this skill still serves me well, especially when it comes to commercial lending.   I already know, 9 times out of 10, based on how somebody acts, how much they brag, and how well-spoken they are whether or not they are a viable client, likely to pay us back, or some poser schmoe on the brink of bankruptcy that has (like President Obama) mastered the art of talking a lot, yet saying nothing.  The fancier the suit, the nicer the car, the larger the balance sheet, the more he smiles the more likely he's insolvent and on the verge of bankruptcy.

However, it wasn't always that way because until I got some experience I made one erroneous assumption - if you drove a nice luxury car like a Beamer or a Mercedes then you MUST have had money.  Who would afford such frivolous luxuries unless they were spectacularly wealthy?

It wasn't until I saw the balance sheets of the Denny Heckers and Adam LaFavre's of the world did I realize it was quite the opposite.  The VAST majority of luxury cars you see on that highway are 100% financed to the hilt.  The people driving them are MORE LIKELY to have a lower net asset value than the local waitress cocktailing at the local bar and certainly a lower credit score than your average blue collar worker in the Bakken oil fields.

Still, faux rich posers, trophy wives and criminal real estate developers aside, I have a question - who buys brand new BMW's?  Let alone who buys brand new cars?

The reason I ask is because I can't plain fathom spending the $50,000 on a brand new luxury car.  Whether you have the money or not, isn't $50,000 a tad excessive?  Couldn't you buy a brand new Toyota for the fraction of the cost, better reliability and lower maintenance costs WITH money to spare?  Money that could be spent on other items thereby improving your standard of living?  Heck, the extra $30,000 could put a kid through most of bachelors degree at a 4 year institution.  Why do people buy brand new cars, let alone, why do THOUSANDS of people EVERY YEAR buy brand new luxury cars?  Why is it so common when it just does not make sense?

This is a question that I haven't really spent the time to research and answer, but has nagged me for the past 2 decades.  Thankfully, somebody answered it.  And (as I feared) the answer will not help us improve economic growth or close the trade deficit.