930 AM CST! Today! TUNE IN AND SHARE YOU BASTIDS!
Monday, April 13, 2020
Sunday, April 12, 2020
"Coromance"
"Coromance - When a girl you've developed an online relationship thru skype or zoom during the pandemic flakes and ghosts on you when it comes time for your first real-world date."
Though we discuss it at a bit more length in this podcast, I thought it would be good to make a short note to all you boys out there developing "coromances" through Skype or Zoom.
Do understand that when the "all clear is given" that VAST majority of these women will refuse to meet you in real life. Oh they may agree to a date. Oh, they may agree to a time. But they will flake on you at the last minute.
Please have the experience and self-respect to expect this to happen in the future. Do not get your hopes up that you will meet in meatspace and go on to have a long last and fruitful relationship. You are being used for attention because they are bored.
You may now continue on with your regularly scheduled quarantining.
Though we discuss it at a bit more length in this podcast, I thought it would be good to make a short note to all you boys out there developing "coromances" through Skype or Zoom.
Do understand that when the "all clear is given" that VAST majority of these women will refuse to meet you in real life. Oh they may agree to a date. Oh, they may agree to a time. But they will flake on you at the last minute.
Please have the experience and self-respect to expect this to happen in the future. Do not get your hopes up that you will meet in meatspace and go on to have a long last and fruitful relationship. You are being used for attention because they are bored.
You may now continue on with your regularly scheduled quarantining.
Sponsored by:
Friday, April 10, 2020
Wednesday, April 08, 2020
The Case to Bring Back Dowries
Focus, if you will, solely on the financial and economic.
Forget principles, morality, ethics, and philosophy and merely focus on transactional economics. Labor, money. Time, cash. A pure accounting of labor committed, versus labor received.
And what you will realize is that nearly every man today has a right to demand a dowry.
If you don't know (or never knew) what a dowry was, it was a payment the father usually made to his would-be son in law to take his daughter off his hands and care for her into the future. This was based on the premise that women did not work, would likely bear children, would stay home to rear said children, and would in a purely accounting sense be a financial liability to the family, earning no income. And so, the would-be husband would be entitled, if not required, to some kind of financial recompense to take the financial liability of a woman off the hands of her father.
Fast forward 300 years later and I ask a very simple question;
How is it any different today?
If there was a time young women were not a financial liability, but an asset, it was the boomers and Gen X'ers. These women were workers, they were employed, and they did take care of themselves. But today's generation of young women (who are also at the age of marriage) do not present young male suitors a similar financial proposition or condition. Matter of fact, most young women today are horrifically bad financial liabilities, and any young man who commits to them risks tanking his own finances.
This isn't primarily due to young women not working. They most certainly do, and at labor force participation rates higher than any generation of women past. But the financial liability nature of most young women today is due to student loans and the education scam that destroys their finances. Young women, too cowardly to commit to a real degree like STEM, are lured too easily to go $120,000 in debt for worthless liberal arts degrees that offer them no employability. Worse, the indoctrination they receive in college weaponizes them against men, instead of making them partners and lovers in life to help one another. And with the repeated indoctrination that women should NEVER rely on a man, the end result is not only often a girl who is a financial risk, but is a girl no man wants. Endebted, talentless, unemployable, and ideologically programmed to be against men, marriage, family, and love. Even women trained in STEM, who are imminently employable, are often times indoctrinated to be antagonistic towards men, increasing the risk of divorce, adding a huge legal risk to a financial one as well.
Traditionally, logically, and "accountingly," such a proposition would require some kind of financial compensation for the legal and financial risks of committing to a modern day western woman. And today, young men (or any man) is well within his rights to demand such a modern-day dowry. But since most boomer and Gen X fathers have no money (and are likely financially compromised through matrimony as well), demanding a dowry today is moot. No father today is going to pay a "dowry." Besides, you're asking to marry his "pwesschiouss wittle pwinccessss" and "nothings too good for daddy's little princess." Thus demanding such a dowry is going to be a non-starter.
This leaves us at an impasse.
Most men simply cannot afford to take on that risk, and even with a dowry the non-financial risks are just as costly and daunting as the financial ones. Yes at the same time, men are biologically programmed, nay, compelled to want to get married and have kids. And so what is likely going to happen is what's been happening for quite some time now - men are balking. They're going to punt.
The increase in cohabitation and the abandonment of marriage is a sign of men waking up and eschewing the legal and financial risks marriage presents to them. Simply punting on marriage and family formation, postponing them until men have their personal finances together is another consequence of this. Men abandoning it altogether and women opting to start their own family through IVF is a third. And such marriage-avoidant behavior will continue as the internet educates men about the unacceptable legal and financial risks marriage presents to them (or, frankly, they just saw their dad get butchered in divorce court).
And so what we've seen this past 20 years, certainly the past 10 will continue. With no "theoretical dowries" and marriage being such a bad deal, more and more men will simply leave the marriage market because they can't afford it. What relationships show promise will end up in co-habitation, but nothing as traditional as "till death do us part" - most again ending after a few years. Young men, who typically have precarious finances themselves, will choose Maslow's hierarchy of needs of food, clothing, and shelter to survive, rather than risk their ability to feed themselves on a family that has a 50% chance of ending in divorce. And there is seemingly no signs of the training women receive to not need a man abating. Women have, are currently, and will be further programmed to "never rely on a man," viewing them once again as adversaries, making them less feminine overall and therefore less desirable to men.
What I don't think most people realize about marriage, particularly women, is that the price of marriage has been so skewed, so inflated these past couple generations, it's more costly than men's biological-hardwiring is strong. And whereas you may think you have a monopoly on this product of marriage/family/love, the empirical data is showing men are punting. Porn, NEET-dom, lack of exercise, video games, the decrease in marriage, or just confirmed bachelors, men are indeed leaving the traditional marriage market. It's not what they want to do, but what they're forced to do. Unfortunately, for any trade to happen in economics, both parties need to be better off after the transaction. You need to consider whether the price you're demanding can be willingly afforded (or afforded at all) by the counterparty. And given all the risks associated with marriage, as well as the financial, psychological, emotional, even political risks women are bringing to the table these days, it's doubtful even dowries will convince men to return to the bargaining table.
_______________________
Sponsored by
THE PENCE PRINCIPLE
Check out Aaron's other cool stuff!!!
Tuesday, April 07, 2020
Monday, April 06, 2020
Good Morning, Coronachan!!! LIVE!!!
Tune in for your daily constitutional of MANDATORY MIRTH!
930AM, CST!! TUNE IN!!!
Sponsored by:
930AM, CST!! TUNE IN!!!
Sponsored by:
Sunday, April 05, 2020
Friday, April 03, 2020
Millennials: The Largest Sociological Disaster in US History
An excerpt from the book "How Not to Become a Millennial." Would make for some great quarantine reading while you're all cooped up over the weekend.
"Whether you realize it or not, we are all witness to the final and concluding days of the largest social experiment in the history of America. Not only in terms of the number of test subjects involved, nor the decades of time it took to conduct, nor the complete scope of the experiment, but in terms of what this experiment boldly set out to do – prove that humans knew better than nature.
On one side of this experimental debate is 2 million years of human existence, honed by trial and error, wars fought, mistakes made, and untold amounts of pain, suffering, toil, and strife. But after 2 million years and 100 billion human lives we derived the cultural norms, golden rules, and codified laws that culminated into the “conventional wisdom” that governs humanity today.
On the other side we have 50 years of the “social sciences” and the still-living “social scientists” who work within them. In a mere half a century, .0025% of the time humans have existed on the planet, these
“professors,”
“doctors,”
“politicians,”
“philosophers,”
“fellows,”
“adjuncts,”
“researchers,”
“grad students,” and
“social scientists”
with their
“theories and hypotheses”
“studies and research papers”
“experiments and tests”
thought they knew better than human nature. That humans had the cognitive ability to not only master the physical sciences such as physics, medicine, biology and chemistry, but master and understand the infinite and unquantifiable social inter-workings between human beings themselves. That, yes, you could study physics and inevitably land a man on the moon, or virology and inevitably cure a disease, but we can also study the human mind and humanity itself, solving all social ills such as politics, war, crime, discrimination, oppression, tyranny, poverty, even bullying. And if we can just unlock these hidden secrets from the social “sciences,” these social “scientists” can usher in what nobody else in history could.
Utopia.
And so these social scientists set out about 50 years ago to unlock the secrets and algorithms of humanity. They’d study politics, economics, sociology, religion, history, government, linguistics, communications, and sexuality. They’d study psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, women’s studies, the human mind, and people’s genders. They’d study Latino-cultures, Afro-cultures, Anglo-cultures, Asian-cultures, Aboriginal-cultures, and “international relations.” And they’d study zoology, anthropology, marriage studies, familial studies, early childhood development, education, and special education. Every possible angle, aspect, inch, and trait of humanity they would study. And soon, after decades of time and billions of hours of research, an impressive body of work started to form. Hypotheses were tested, theories established, and ultimately these social studies codified into official disciplines of academic research. The social scientists were so close to unlocking the secret to utopia they could taste it. They just needed a test subject to prove they were right. A human guinea pig to turn into an ubermensch. Preferably, an entire generation to truly usher in utopia on a nationwide scale, ultimately validating the social sciences, as well as themselves.
Thankfully, this ideal test subject was already in the making and at the ideal time too. By the 1980’s the social sciences had evolved into a formalized study just itching for its first legitimate test subject. Also, it really wasn’t until the 1980’s that significant government money would flood into academia, making these experiments financially possible anyway. But most importantly, by the 1980’s the perfect test subject was already being born – the echo boom. They were called the “echo boom” because they were “echo babies” of their parents – the Baby Boomers. Consequently, like the Boomers, they too would become a large, pronounced, and distinguishably different generation from others. But they would also become a social scientist’s dream-come-true as they would all be born into the same economic, political, and sociological environment.
You combine these four traits:
- a codified, maturing academic study whose theories needed to be tested
- adequate funding
- an entirely distinguishable test-subject generation being born
- all happening at that same time
and you had the perfect storm to finally and conclusively test all of the social sciences. You had the ability to see if the billions of human hours and trillions of government dollars were wasted or invested. You even had the chance to witness the utopia we were promised being born. And the generation that was going to make this all possible, the generation of human test subjects who would usher us into this utopian world would be the echo-boomers.
AKA…
the Millennials."
"Whether you realize it or not, we are all witness to the final and concluding days of the largest social experiment in the history of America. Not only in terms of the number of test subjects involved, nor the decades of time it took to conduct, nor the complete scope of the experiment, but in terms of what this experiment boldly set out to do – prove that humans knew better than nature.
On one side of this experimental debate is 2 million years of human existence, honed by trial and error, wars fought, mistakes made, and untold amounts of pain, suffering, toil, and strife. But after 2 million years and 100 billion human lives we derived the cultural norms, golden rules, and codified laws that culminated into the “conventional wisdom” that governs humanity today.
On the other side we have 50 years of the “social sciences” and the still-living “social scientists” who work within them. In a mere half a century, .0025% of the time humans have existed on the planet, these
“professors,”
“doctors,”
“politicians,”
“philosophers,”
“fellows,”
“adjuncts,”
“researchers,”
“grad students,” and
“social scientists”
with their
“theories and hypotheses”
“studies and research papers”
“experiments and tests”
thought they knew better than human nature. That humans had the cognitive ability to not only master the physical sciences such as physics, medicine, biology and chemistry, but master and understand the infinite and unquantifiable social inter-workings between human beings themselves. That, yes, you could study physics and inevitably land a man on the moon, or virology and inevitably cure a disease, but we can also study the human mind and humanity itself, solving all social ills such as politics, war, crime, discrimination, oppression, tyranny, poverty, even bullying. And if we can just unlock these hidden secrets from the social “sciences,” these social “scientists” can usher in what nobody else in history could.
Utopia.
And so these social scientists set out about 50 years ago to unlock the secrets and algorithms of humanity. They’d study politics, economics, sociology, religion, history, government, linguistics, communications, and sexuality. They’d study psychology, psychiatry, philosophy, women’s studies, the human mind, and people’s genders. They’d study Latino-cultures, Afro-cultures, Anglo-cultures, Asian-cultures, Aboriginal-cultures, and “international relations.” And they’d study zoology, anthropology, marriage studies, familial studies, early childhood development, education, and special education. Every possible angle, aspect, inch, and trait of humanity they would study. And soon, after decades of time and billions of hours of research, an impressive body of work started to form. Hypotheses were tested, theories established, and ultimately these social studies codified into official disciplines of academic research. The social scientists were so close to unlocking the secret to utopia they could taste it. They just needed a test subject to prove they were right. A human guinea pig to turn into an ubermensch. Preferably, an entire generation to truly usher in utopia on a nationwide scale, ultimately validating the social sciences, as well as themselves.
Thankfully, this ideal test subject was already in the making and at the ideal time too. By the 1980’s the social sciences had evolved into a formalized study just itching for its first legitimate test subject. Also, it really wasn’t until the 1980’s that significant government money would flood into academia, making these experiments financially possible anyway. But most importantly, by the 1980’s the perfect test subject was already being born – the echo boom. They were called the “echo boom” because they were “echo babies” of their parents – the Baby Boomers. Consequently, like the Boomers, they too would become a large, pronounced, and distinguishably different generation from others. But they would also become a social scientist’s dream-come-true as they would all be born into the same economic, political, and sociological environment.
You combine these four traits:
- a codified, maturing academic study whose theories needed to be tested
- adequate funding
- an entirely distinguishable test-subject generation being born
- all happening at that same time
and you had the perfect storm to finally and conclusively test all of the social sciences. You had the ability to see if the billions of human hours and trillions of government dollars were wasted or invested. You even had the chance to witness the utopia we were promised being born. And the generation that was going to make this all possible, the generation of human test subjects who would usher us into this utopian world would be the echo-boomers.
AKA…
the Millennials."
Thursday, April 02, 2020
How Men, and Only Men, Can End Poverty in a Generation
I will be as clear and blunt as I possibly can so there is no confusion.
I have found a way to end poverty.
And not in some convoluted, complex way that involves a ton of government money, agencies, and socialism. Nor in some pie-in-the-sky social worker/liberal arts major way that relies on foolish and childish idealism.
No, I have found an easy, affordable, even unstoppable way to end the majority of poverty, and in a generation no less. It just relies on the responsibility of men.
The way this idea can stop poverty is because in a very 300-like manner it targets poverty at a choke point. It puts an end to it before it can happen. And therefore since the poverty never occurs, we can spend a fraction of the time and money preventing poverty from happening, instead of addressing it (in a much more costly manner) when it does. We just need to target and prevent the number one cause of poverty and prevent it from happening, and that number one cause is unaffordable and unwanted children.
Though politically unpopular, the fact still remains that children (specifically unaffordable/bastard/non-nuclear family/unwanted ones) are the number one cause of poverty. They directly increase the denominator in all measures of wealth by increasing the "capita" in all per capita measures. They cost $250,000 to raise (whether it's you or the taxpayer footing the bill). But the real cause of poverty is that it diverts a ton of time and effort on the part of the unprepared parents, who now have to rear children they can't afford instead of invest in themselves professionally and educationally to the point they would have otherwise been able to raise children outside of poverty. This not only condemns children to (and is the cause of most) poverty, but is what keeps entire families poor - unaffordable children. And no matter how politically incorrect it is to point out this harsh truth, it's infinitely more humane than bringing millions of unwanted/unaffordable children up in poverty and broken homes.
Now I have no delusions of society, the government, or the general population growing a spine, becoming adult, and having these come to Jesus talks about the real and underlying causes of poverty. Too many government workers, politicians, social workers, and employees within the welfare state depend on impoverished children and their families for a living. The Democrat party alone needs broken homes, poverty, and unwanted/unaffordable children in order to stay in power and survive. And lets be perfectly honest, some truly vile and selfish women have no problems bringing children into broken, impoverished homes for attention, revenge, child-hostage-love, and a government check. Many, if not the majority of the population are too vested in childhood poverty and poverty in general to give it up. They profit off of it too much.
But here is where the brilliance of this idea comes in.
Because whereas in a democracy we have more or less made it clear through our voting that we prefer to make it a right to bring children into this world - even at the expense of the taxpayer - whether we can afford it or not, it is also because we're a democracy that certain rights are enshrined to the individual. And just as gun lovers covet their precious 2nd amendment right to own guns, so too and to equal measure do women/feminists covet their reproductive rights. It is their body, their choice. Women are the final arbiters of whether or not a zygote makes it past the finish line. And it is women who determine whether a child is born into this world (no matter how much cost it may saddle the taxpayers with).
But just as much as women love their reproductive rights, by law and principles men too should have the same rights. And though a male pill is still yet to be developed, there is one reproductive right men have that women don't - vasectomies. And the vasectomy is the ultimate trump card in this poker game of reproductive rights.
As mentioned before, vasectomies are the 300 Greeks at Thermopylae because it prevents poverty in the form of unwanted/unaffordable children from even happening. Sperm never reaches the egg, thus a zygote is never formed, thus rendering a woman's right to determine whether she aborts the baby or births it moot. There is no child.
This not only stops poverty dead in its tracks, but bypasses all the pain, agony, costs, and mental anguish men and women go through when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, custody battles, abort/bring to term, etc. There are no dead beat dads, baby mama's, baby daddy's, and lets not forget the trillions of dollars taxpayers would save not only in direct costs, but lower crime, educational costs, and government baby sitting cost as well. And whereas a lifetime of child support can easily run into the 100's of thousands, a vasectomy on the cheap can cost around $500. $3,000 if you want to be real spendy. Men will rarely find an investment with a higher rate of return.
The trick, though, is how do you get all men to get a vasectomy? And the answer is simple - we just take a lesson from the feminists, democrats, leftists, and activists who support reproductive rights. You start a "raising awareness campaign."
Just as (in general) the political left has spent billions over the years "educating" and "raising awareness" for women about their reproductive rights, a similar measure should go into educating men about "vasectomies." I would also argue (just as the left does) that there should be taxpayer money available to pay for men's vasectomies since the left clamors for the same treatment of women and abortions/birth control. You put up enough billboard advertisements, run enough ads on Facebook, and make it a mandatory part of K-12 sex ed, and we can prevent poverty from ever happening, by stopping it at its source - the sperm. And just like a vaccine for measles or Tetanus is standard, so too would be vasectomies for men.
But before you start jumping down my throat, claiming forcing men to have vasectomies is tyrannical, you are missing the main selling point of this idea. Nobody is claiming all young men would be forced to have vasectomies. The benefits of having a vasectomy are so huge, if properly educated and informed, nearly every man would voluntarily be getting one. It really is the "raising awareness" aspect that stands between us today and a poverty-free world tomorrow. But also since "reproductive rights" are so holy and sacrosanct among women, there's not a damn thing in the world the government, leftists, feminists, or social workers can do to stop men from getting vasectomies (and thus taking away these varied leftists' fiefdoms). It is the free will, the free choice men have to get a vasectomy without the permission of the government, the state, feminists or anybody else that makes this idea so effective and feasible. It is 100% in men's control to not only shore up and protect their finances by inoculating them against unwanted children and "oops" pregnancies, but by consequence stopping poverty dead in its tracks.
The only real problem is the incredible ignorance that is out there when it comes to men getting vasectomies. I've had many readers think I had my balls cut off when I said I had a vasectomy. Men also think there's no way to have children ever again when you can have sperm directly extracted, a vasectomy reversed, or just store some sperm at a sperm bank (all of which are infinitely cheaper than an unwanted child). I've even been accused of promoting eugenics in "preventing the black man from breeding," when it's quite the opposite - preventing you from breeding NOW so you don't destroy your life, so that at a later point in time you can have a child THEN when it won't damn you to a lifetime of crippling poverty. But whatever misunderstandings the general male population has of vasectomies today, with the proper education, information, or simply sharing this idea with fellow men, it is in men's best personal financial interests to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which in turn is also in society's best interests in eliminating poverty.
Naturally, there will be howls and screams from people vested in the poverty of others as see their fiefdoms threatened by a generation of men getting vasectomies. Women who looked to spermjacking or baby daddies as a means to make a living, are going to be very upset and frustrated. I am very curious to see how feminists would react when men demand equal "choice" and reproductive rights as they've championed for women. And mark my words, no doubt about it. Various political forces will enact laws to prevent men to get vasectomies on a scale I'm imagining.
But these political forces aside, it's moot. Men today have the right to get a vasectomy. It's of incredible benefit to men as it's in their direct personal financial interests. It's in the benefit of future, theoretical would-be children as they would be raised in stable homes, and not poverty. And it would achieve something humanity and economists have failed to achieve these past 2 million years - end poverty. It's so compelling I may go full leftist and start a non-profit to help "raise awareness" about the benefits of vasectomies, even raise funds to help out particularly poor men to make sure they don't have kids they can't afford. But regardless of how we achieve this, the larger point is it's in men's hands and men's hands only. Feminists, women, democrats, the government, socialists, have all failed to end childhood poverty, because, truthfully, they don't want to end it. They profit off of it. We now have the ability to end it in a single generation. I sincerely hope you research and investigate getting a vasectomy.
_______________________
I have found a way to end poverty.
And not in some convoluted, complex way that involves a ton of government money, agencies, and socialism. Nor in some pie-in-the-sky social worker/liberal arts major way that relies on foolish and childish idealism.
No, I have found an easy, affordable, even unstoppable way to end the majority of poverty, and in a generation no less. It just relies on the responsibility of men.
The way this idea can stop poverty is because in a very 300-like manner it targets poverty at a choke point. It puts an end to it before it can happen. And therefore since the poverty never occurs, we can spend a fraction of the time and money preventing poverty from happening, instead of addressing it (in a much more costly manner) when it does. We just need to target and prevent the number one cause of poverty and prevent it from happening, and that number one cause is unaffordable and unwanted children.
Though politically unpopular, the fact still remains that children (specifically unaffordable/bastard/non-nuclear family/unwanted ones) are the number one cause of poverty. They directly increase the denominator in all measures of wealth by increasing the "capita" in all per capita measures. They cost $250,000 to raise (whether it's you or the taxpayer footing the bill). But the real cause of poverty is that it diverts a ton of time and effort on the part of the unprepared parents, who now have to rear children they can't afford instead of invest in themselves professionally and educationally to the point they would have otherwise been able to raise children outside of poverty. This not only condemns children to (and is the cause of most) poverty, but is what keeps entire families poor - unaffordable children. And no matter how politically incorrect it is to point out this harsh truth, it's infinitely more humane than bringing millions of unwanted/unaffordable children up in poverty and broken homes.
Now I have no delusions of society, the government, or the general population growing a spine, becoming adult, and having these come to Jesus talks about the real and underlying causes of poverty. Too many government workers, politicians, social workers, and employees within the welfare state depend on impoverished children and their families for a living. The Democrat party alone needs broken homes, poverty, and unwanted/unaffordable children in order to stay in power and survive. And lets be perfectly honest, some truly vile and selfish women have no problems bringing children into broken, impoverished homes for attention, revenge, child-hostage-love, and a government check. Many, if not the majority of the population are too vested in childhood poverty and poverty in general to give it up. They profit off of it too much.
But here is where the brilliance of this idea comes in.
Because whereas in a democracy we have more or less made it clear through our voting that we prefer to make it a right to bring children into this world - even at the expense of the taxpayer - whether we can afford it or not, it is also because we're a democracy that certain rights are enshrined to the individual. And just as gun lovers covet their precious 2nd amendment right to own guns, so too and to equal measure do women/feminists covet their reproductive rights. It is their body, their choice. Women are the final arbiters of whether or not a zygote makes it past the finish line. And it is women who determine whether a child is born into this world (no matter how much cost it may saddle the taxpayers with).
But just as much as women love their reproductive rights, by law and principles men too should have the same rights. And though a male pill is still yet to be developed, there is one reproductive right men have that women don't - vasectomies. And the vasectomy is the ultimate trump card in this poker game of reproductive rights.
As mentioned before, vasectomies are the 300 Greeks at Thermopylae because it prevents poverty in the form of unwanted/unaffordable children from even happening. Sperm never reaches the egg, thus a zygote is never formed, thus rendering a woman's right to determine whether she aborts the baby or births it moot. There is no child.
This not only stops poverty dead in its tracks, but bypasses all the pain, agony, costs, and mental anguish men and women go through when it comes to unwanted pregnancies, custody battles, abort/bring to term, etc. There are no dead beat dads, baby mama's, baby daddy's, and lets not forget the trillions of dollars taxpayers would save not only in direct costs, but lower crime, educational costs, and government baby sitting cost as well. And whereas a lifetime of child support can easily run into the 100's of thousands, a vasectomy on the cheap can cost around $500. $3,000 if you want to be real spendy. Men will rarely find an investment with a higher rate of return.
The trick, though, is how do you get all men to get a vasectomy? And the answer is simple - we just take a lesson from the feminists, democrats, leftists, and activists who support reproductive rights. You start a "raising awareness campaign."
Just as (in general) the political left has spent billions over the years "educating" and "raising awareness" for women about their reproductive rights, a similar measure should go into educating men about "vasectomies." I would also argue (just as the left does) that there should be taxpayer money available to pay for men's vasectomies since the left clamors for the same treatment of women and abortions/birth control. You put up enough billboard advertisements, run enough ads on Facebook, and make it a mandatory part of K-12 sex ed, and we can prevent poverty from ever happening, by stopping it at its source - the sperm. And just like a vaccine for measles or Tetanus is standard, so too would be vasectomies for men.
But before you start jumping down my throat, claiming forcing men to have vasectomies is tyrannical, you are missing the main selling point of this idea. Nobody is claiming all young men would be forced to have vasectomies. The benefits of having a vasectomy are so huge, if properly educated and informed, nearly every man would voluntarily be getting one. It really is the "raising awareness" aspect that stands between us today and a poverty-free world tomorrow. But also since "reproductive rights" are so holy and sacrosanct among women, there's not a damn thing in the world the government, leftists, feminists, or social workers can do to stop men from getting vasectomies (and thus taking away these varied leftists' fiefdoms). It is the free will, the free choice men have to get a vasectomy without the permission of the government, the state, feminists or anybody else that makes this idea so effective and feasible. It is 100% in men's control to not only shore up and protect their finances by inoculating them against unwanted children and "oops" pregnancies, but by consequence stopping poverty dead in its tracks.
The only real problem is the incredible ignorance that is out there when it comes to men getting vasectomies. I've had many readers think I had my balls cut off when I said I had a vasectomy. Men also think there's no way to have children ever again when you can have sperm directly extracted, a vasectomy reversed, or just store some sperm at a sperm bank (all of which are infinitely cheaper than an unwanted child). I've even been accused of promoting eugenics in "preventing the black man from breeding," when it's quite the opposite - preventing you from breeding NOW so you don't destroy your life, so that at a later point in time you can have a child THEN when it won't damn you to a lifetime of crippling poverty. But whatever misunderstandings the general male population has of vasectomies today, with the proper education, information, or simply sharing this idea with fellow men, it is in men's best personal financial interests to prevent unwanted pregnancies, which in turn is also in society's best interests in eliminating poverty.
Naturally, there will be howls and screams from people vested in the poverty of others as see their fiefdoms threatened by a generation of men getting vasectomies. Women who looked to spermjacking or baby daddies as a means to make a living, are going to be very upset and frustrated. I am very curious to see how feminists would react when men demand equal "choice" and reproductive rights as they've championed for women. And mark my words, no doubt about it. Various political forces will enact laws to prevent men to get vasectomies on a scale I'm imagining.
But these political forces aside, it's moot. Men today have the right to get a vasectomy. It's of incredible benefit to men as it's in their direct personal financial interests. It's in the benefit of future, theoretical would-be children as they would be raised in stable homes, and not poverty. And it would achieve something humanity and economists have failed to achieve these past 2 million years - end poverty. It's so compelling I may go full leftist and start a non-profit to help "raise awareness" about the benefits of vasectomies, even raise funds to help out particularly poor men to make sure they don't have kids they can't afford. But regardless of how we achieve this, the larger point is it's in men's hands and men's hands only. Feminists, women, democrats, the government, socialists, have all failed to end childhood poverty, because, truthfully, they don't want to end it. They profit off of it. We now have the ability to end it in a single generation. I sincerely hope you research and investigate getting a vasectomy.
_______________________
This post sponsored by Bachelor Pad Economics!
THE FINANCIAL ADVICE BIBLE FOR MEN!
Check out Aaron's Other Cool Stuff Below!
Wednesday, April 01, 2020
Monday, March 30, 2020
A Laundry List of Lessons Millennials Should Have Learned By Now
Below is the Table of Contents to "How Not to Become a Millennial." It is an exhaustive 425 page study on the failures, mistakes, catastrophes, and disasters of the Millennial generation, and the solutions to them.
The solutions - unfortunately, like most solutions - cannot turn back time. Solutions only work for those with a future or for those who have not destroyed their lives, rendering the book more of a salvation guide for Gen Z and an academic study for those with a mere intellectual interest in generational parasitism and warfare. If there's any benefit for the Millennial reader, it would be sanity to know that "no, it's not really your fault."
Regardless consider purchasing a copy for yourself or for any young person you wish to spare the fate of the Millennials.
The solutions - unfortunately, like most solutions - cannot turn back time. Solutions only work for those with a future or for those who have not destroyed their lives, rendering the book more of a salvation guide for Gen Z and an academic study for those with a mere intellectual interest in generational parasitism and warfare. If there's any benefit for the Millennial reader, it would be sanity to know that "no, it's not really your fault."
Regardless consider purchasing a copy for yourself or for any young person you wish to spare the fate of the Millennials.
TABLE
OF CONTENTS
Part I THE DISASTER
Chapter
1 – The Largest American Social Experiment 10
Chapter
2 – The Guinea Pig Generation
14
Chapter
3 – The Worst Failure in American History
39
Chapter
4 – Never Trust Anybody Over 30
106
Chapter
5 – The Teacher & Professor Boomers
113
Chapter
6 – The Political Boomers
118
Chapter
7 – The Feminist Boomers
125
Chapter
8 – The Psychology Boomers
130
Chapter
9 – The Boss Boomers
138
Chapter
10 – The Parent Boomers
167
Chapter
11 – Boomers v. 2.0
187
Chapter
12 – The Lying Industrial Complex
196
Part II THE RECOVERY
STOP BEING STUPID
Chapter
13 – Your Dreams are Stupid
207
Chapter
14 – Stop Majoring in Stupid Shit
223
Chapter
15 – You Are Not Independent Minded,
Unique
or Smart. You are a Conformist
239
Chapter
16 – Yes, You Have to Pay Back Your Student Loans 243
Chapter 17 – Your Career is NOT
the Most
Important
Thing in Life
253
Chapter
18 – Lazy People Work Twice as Hard
263
TRAITS VS. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Chapter
19 – Your Gender Has No Value
269
Chapter
20 – Your Race has No Value
288
Chapter
21 – No, You Do Not Have a Mental Illness
296
Chapter
22 – No, You are Not a Balbasaursexual
303
Chapter
23 – Your Politics Have No Value
309
Chapter
24 – Accomplishments vs. Traits
316
STOP
BEING UGLY
Chapter
25 – Big is Not Beautiful
322
Chapter
26 – Soy is Not Sexy
332
Chapter
27 – Stop Mutilating Your Body
339
Chapter
28 – Have Pride in Your Public Appearance
345
MEN UNFORTUNATELY EXIST
Chapter
29 – Sperm Donors and Taxpayers
353
Chapter
30 – Fathers are Not Optional
362
Chapter
31 – Men are Not Toxic
376
IT’S
OK TO BE A WOMAN
381
ADVICE YOUR FATHER SHOULD HAVE
GIVEN YOU
Chapter
32 – The World Does Not Owe You a Living 383
Chapter
33 – You Are Not Oppressed, Discriminated
Against,
or Unlucky. Life Just Sucks That Much.
402
Chapter
34 – Everything is Your Fault
412
Chapter
35 – Self Love is for the Worthless
418
Chapter
36 – Other Humans are
the
Only Thing That Matter in Life
426
Socialism: "Failng at a Country of 1"
This is an excerpt from the book "How Not to Become a Millennial." It delves into various metrics of how to measure socialism/communism's success rates, but of particular note, it focuses on the smallest unit in society - the individual. I leave the intrigue and intellectual suspense for those who actually go and read the full excerpt, but it's a very valid point and one that behooves a response from socialists/communists.
"Before a pharmaceutical company can sell a drug to the public it has to go through an inordinate amount of research, clinical trials, testing, and approval processes. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions in research and investment just to get a drug to market. And though some people may say it’s a bit overkill, it is necessary to thoroughly test a drug before unleashing it upon society because if inadequately tested it can kill people.
But what if you had a drug that had somewhere between a 1-10% success rate? That after nearly 150 years of trial and error, human experiments, 50 lab trials, and about 100 million deaths, you had some pharmacists claim they tweaked this drug and “This time it’ll work?” Chances are you would not take that drug. But while no such drug exists, an economic ideology does with that exact same abysmal track record. And that ideological drug is socialism.
While we won’t delve into detailed historical economics and numbers, the short version is this. Socialism has worked roughly 1-10% of the time depending on how you want to measure success. “World owes me a living” acolytes cannot rush fast enough to point to the Scandinavian models of socialism as proof that socialism can work. And in those countries, yes. Under very unique sociological, demographic, historical, and temporary conditions, a variant of socialism seems to work. But for every Norway, for every Sweden, and for every Denmark there are 10 counter examples of socialism failing. Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ecuador, Greece, Zimbabwe, China, East Germany, Somalia, and more recently Venezuela. So when you compare these five countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) to all other socialist economies (both past and present), they are the exception. Not the rule. Socialism fails in 9 out of every 10 countries it’s tried in.
If you want to use a different metric, instead of comparing countries, compare populations living under these two respective socialist systems. Yes, the Nordic countries all provide very high standards of living for their citizens…all 25 million of them. But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 2 billion people who lived/suffered under the “not-so-nice” socialist systems. Furthermore, for every lucky Swede or Icelander who’s enjoyed this rare strain of successful socialism, four non-Scandinavian socialists were outright killed or starved under the “not-so-nice” socialist systems. So when you consider the 2 billion people who lived in utter squalor and filth (not to mention the 100 million who died), this drug of socialism has only worked on 1% of the human test subjects it was tested on.
But let us forget countries and history, famines and genocides. Let’s go to something much more microcosmic. Restaurants. Specifically, “socialist restaurants.” Though the concept sounds contradictory it’s not because there has been a handful of restaurants and co-ops that have tried to operate under a socialist business model. And some of the principles they operated under included things like living wages, no profits, no pricing, and employees deciding everything by committee. And while everything seemed all nice and wonderful on paper, in every instance they failed. Apparently, simply letting your customers “pay what they could afford” or having employees run the restaurant by committee weren’t sustainable business practices. Regardless, this behooves a very interesting question. If socialists can’t even run a restaurant, how in hell’s name do they think they can run an entire country? The track record of socialism is already an abysmal 1-10% success rate, but the more industrious socialists among us can’t even get a restaurant off the ground. Chances your rank and file “world owes me a living-‘ers” are going to do even worse.
Finally, let us go to an even more microcosmic level than restaurants. Let’s go to the most granular, atomic level we can in humanity – the individual.
As a single bachelor it is actually quite easy to take care of myself. I make very little money compared to most people, but my expenses are so low and technology has made everything so cheap, as long as I don’t buy a new car or get a Master’s degree in Poetry at Middlebury, I’ll likely never starve or suffer true poverty until I’m dead. But even with the unemployment rate below 4%, there are millions of people who cannot even do the most basic of economic obligations to society which is to support themselves. Millions of people want free healthcare. Millions of people want bailouts. Millions of people want the minimum wage arbitrarily jacked up to $15. How have you so poorly mismanaged your life that in this world, with this technology, and this economy you need other people to help you out? And though there are certainly exceptions to be made for things like crippling student loan debt, unforeseen medical problems, recessions, accidents, etc., how can an otherwise physically-able, single individual not support him/herself and dare demand other people work to support them?
The answer is moot because the larger point isn’t why they are unable to support themselves. It’s the fact they can’t take care of themselves. They need other people’s money to live. And if they cannot take care of themselves, a mere “Country of One,” then they are absolutely not capable of taking care of an entire country. And just as these individuals’ lives are a mess, the socialist economic system they’d impose on society would likely be a mess also.
This is debatably the largest argument against the world owing people a living. Most socialists can’t get a restaurant off the ground, let alone support themselves. They cannot even get a working model of socialism to work in their own, individual lives. And this in the face of an already uphill battle where socialist economies have at best a 10% success rate. You throw in the abysmal track record of socialism, with 2 billion people in poverty and 100 million dead, and you are risking the world’s population on a horrific economic system that’s killed more people in peacetime than the fascists and nazis did during war. All so you can play video games or work some bogus, government-created job as a “diversity journalist” at NPR. You are certainly a fool for thinking socialism is going to work. But you lack any morality trying to foist it upon the world."
__________________________________
"Before a pharmaceutical company can sell a drug to the public it has to go through an inordinate amount of research, clinical trials, testing, and approval processes. Pharmaceutical companies spend billions in research and investment just to get a drug to market. And though some people may say it’s a bit overkill, it is necessary to thoroughly test a drug before unleashing it upon society because if inadequately tested it can kill people.
But what if you had a drug that had somewhere between a 1-10% success rate? That after nearly 150 years of trial and error, human experiments, 50 lab trials, and about 100 million deaths, you had some pharmacists claim they tweaked this drug and “This time it’ll work?” Chances are you would not take that drug. But while no such drug exists, an economic ideology does with that exact same abysmal track record. And that ideological drug is socialism.
While we won’t delve into detailed historical economics and numbers, the short version is this. Socialism has worked roughly 1-10% of the time depending on how you want to measure success. “World owes me a living” acolytes cannot rush fast enough to point to the Scandinavian models of socialism as proof that socialism can work. And in those countries, yes. Under very unique sociological, demographic, historical, and temporary conditions, a variant of socialism seems to work. But for every Norway, for every Sweden, and for every Denmark there are 10 counter examples of socialism failing. Cuba, North Korea, the USSR, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ecuador, Greece, Zimbabwe, China, East Germany, Somalia, and more recently Venezuela. So when you compare these five countries (Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark) to all other socialist economies (both past and present), they are the exception. Not the rule. Socialism fails in 9 out of every 10 countries it’s tried in.
If you want to use a different metric, instead of comparing countries, compare populations living under these two respective socialist systems. Yes, the Nordic countries all provide very high standards of living for their citizens…all 25 million of them. But that’s a drop in the bucket compared to the roughly 2 billion people who lived/suffered under the “not-so-nice” socialist systems. Furthermore, for every lucky Swede or Icelander who’s enjoyed this rare strain of successful socialism, four non-Scandinavian socialists were outright killed or starved under the “not-so-nice” socialist systems. So when you consider the 2 billion people who lived in utter squalor and filth (not to mention the 100 million who died), this drug of socialism has only worked on 1% of the human test subjects it was tested on.
But let us forget countries and history, famines and genocides. Let’s go to something much more microcosmic. Restaurants. Specifically, “socialist restaurants.” Though the concept sounds contradictory it’s not because there has been a handful of restaurants and co-ops that have tried to operate under a socialist business model. And some of the principles they operated under included things like living wages, no profits, no pricing, and employees deciding everything by committee. And while everything seemed all nice and wonderful on paper, in every instance they failed. Apparently, simply letting your customers “pay what they could afford” or having employees run the restaurant by committee weren’t sustainable business practices. Regardless, this behooves a very interesting question. If socialists can’t even run a restaurant, how in hell’s name do they think they can run an entire country? The track record of socialism is already an abysmal 1-10% success rate, but the more industrious socialists among us can’t even get a restaurant off the ground. Chances your rank and file “world owes me a living-‘ers” are going to do even worse.
Finally, let us go to an even more microcosmic level than restaurants. Let’s go to the most granular, atomic level we can in humanity – the individual.
As a single bachelor it is actually quite easy to take care of myself. I make very little money compared to most people, but my expenses are so low and technology has made everything so cheap, as long as I don’t buy a new car or get a Master’s degree in Poetry at Middlebury, I’ll likely never starve or suffer true poverty until I’m dead. But even with the unemployment rate below 4%, there are millions of people who cannot even do the most basic of economic obligations to society which is to support themselves. Millions of people want free healthcare. Millions of people want bailouts. Millions of people want the minimum wage arbitrarily jacked up to $15. How have you so poorly mismanaged your life that in this world, with this technology, and this economy you need other people to help you out? And though there are certainly exceptions to be made for things like crippling student loan debt, unforeseen medical problems, recessions, accidents, etc., how can an otherwise physically-able, single individual not support him/herself and dare demand other people work to support them?
The answer is moot because the larger point isn’t why they are unable to support themselves. It’s the fact they can’t take care of themselves. They need other people’s money to live. And if they cannot take care of themselves, a mere “Country of One,” then they are absolutely not capable of taking care of an entire country. And just as these individuals’ lives are a mess, the socialist economic system they’d impose on society would likely be a mess also.
This is debatably the largest argument against the world owing people a living. Most socialists can’t get a restaurant off the ground, let alone support themselves. They cannot even get a working model of socialism to work in their own, individual lives. And this in the face of an already uphill battle where socialist economies have at best a 10% success rate. You throw in the abysmal track record of socialism, with 2 billion people in poverty and 100 million dead, and you are risking the world’s population on a horrific economic system that’s killed more people in peacetime than the fascists and nazis did during war. All so you can play video games or work some bogus, government-created job as a “diversity journalist” at NPR. You are certainly a fool for thinking socialism is going to work. But you lack any morality trying to foist it upon the world."
__________________________________
Check out Aaron's other cool stuff below!
What I Learned from the Lingerie Clearance Rack
Barely awake and quite groggy, the current girl I'm dating the night before had sent me a link to one of her favorite lingerie stores where there was a Corona-inspired clearance sale. Perhaps aiming to take advantage of the stay-where-you-are quarantine, this lingerie store was hoping people would get frisky instead of divorced.
But while clicking on the options/colors drop down menu I noticed a very PAINFULLY CLEAR fact - the only lingerie that was on discount was for small and petite sizes.
If you were a...ahem..."heftier" woman you were plain out of luck. The only lingerie they had in stock was small and petite. But while this boded well for svelte women who kept themselves in shape, this was just another snowflake on the avalanche of anecdotal evidence of the decay and decline of women's physique and femininity.
I charter companies and the marketing departments therein with the knowledge that they know their market. Shapes, sizes, trends, fads. But when a specialized company in a specialized industry orders too many small/petite sizes, that it has a glut, the reality on the ground is even worse that what it is in the marketing meetings.
And I get it. Food is ample. Everybody (men as well) is getting obese. Beauty at any size. And who wants to work out? Besides, working out is submitting yourself to somebody else.
Fine.
And I guess I'm also too exhausted to care to point out, yet once again, the sky is blue, water is wet, and there is no damn physical inspiration in the population anymore. Lingerie - the presumed artistry that is reserved for pretty canvases - has now lost all point and purpose. Scratch yet another thing to inspire, prompt, and invigorate men. If you need to find one, you'll find them further ensconcing themselves in their parents' basements playing video games.
But while clicking on the options/colors drop down menu I noticed a very PAINFULLY CLEAR fact - the only lingerie that was on discount was for small and petite sizes.
If you were a...ahem..."heftier" woman you were plain out of luck. The only lingerie they had in stock was small and petite. But while this boded well for svelte women who kept themselves in shape, this was just another snowflake on the avalanche of anecdotal evidence of the decay and decline of women's physique and femininity.
I charter companies and the marketing departments therein with the knowledge that they know their market. Shapes, sizes, trends, fads. But when a specialized company in a specialized industry orders too many small/petite sizes, that it has a glut, the reality on the ground is even worse that what it is in the marketing meetings.
And I get it. Food is ample. Everybody (men as well) is getting obese. Beauty at any size. And who wants to work out? Besides, working out is submitting yourself to somebody else.
Fine.
And I guess I'm also too exhausted to care to point out, yet once again, the sky is blue, water is wet, and there is no damn physical inspiration in the population anymore. Lingerie - the presumed artistry that is reserved for pretty canvases - has now lost all point and purpose. Scratch yet another thing to inspire, prompt, and invigorate men. If you need to find one, you'll find them further ensconcing themselves in their parents' basements playing video games.
Sunday, March 29, 2020
"Local Artists" at Coffee Stores - The Great Pole Podcast
If you're looking for a pretty damn good podcast episode to listen to may I recommend this episode of The Greasy Pole podcast? (MP3 here).
I'd link to Adam's site, but I got some kind of bugaloo internet thing preventing me from visiting.
I'd link to Adam's site, but I got some kind of bugaloo internet thing preventing me from visiting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)