A "PhD in Manosphere Studies"

So I am hiking and in the back of my mind a thought or observation is trying to get out. It's centralled around the purpose or reason why one would get a degree in "Women's Studies." And I don't know if it was a neuron that was jolted into place or perhaps the Rumpleminze finally wore off of one of my neuron receptors, but the epiphany finally exploded to the frontal lobes:
BLAMO!

"How stupid would a PhD in "Manosphere Studies" be?"

The question seems obvious or maybe simple. People have been kicking around a "male studies" department recently and most of us on some level know to poo-poo the idea because it is outlandishly stupid.  "What would be the point" most men would ask, and we'd dismiss the idea and its originator as stupid.  But the epiphany is not so much in the question being asked, but taking the same logic, consequences and ramifications of asking that same question and applying it to "women's studies."

If it sounds ludicrous to offer a "PhD in Manosphere Studies" then how galactically stupid of an idea was it for somebody to come up with "women's studies" as some kind of viable or legitimate field?  Additionally, how naive and gullible did millions of sheeple have to be in order for it to grow legs and make it this far a legitimate academic field?  In short, the idea of a man (or a woman) getting ANY kind of degree in "Manosphere Studies" is so outlandish, so stupid, it provides the clear vantage point, void of blinding politically-correct bias, needed to realize the true foolishness and stupidity in treating "women's studies" as a legitimate field.

And so Lieutenants, Agents in the Field, and Junior, Deputy, Aspiring, Official or Otherwise Economists, let us go down into this rabbit hole with the intent of fully exploring it and snuffing this rabbit out.

First is the inanity of the idea.  To offer a study of one's traits half the population are born with is on the level with offering a college program in studying the color of the sky.  As I said in "Worthless" (SPECIFICALLY warning minorities and women about the pitfalls of spending $100,000 in studying hyphenated-American studies that have NO job prospects) traits are something you are born with.

You're not special because you're "female."

You are not special because you're "Hispanic."

You're are not special because you're "straight."

You are not special because you are "male."

And you are not special because you're "black."

You just simply ARE these things.

You didn't "work" at becoming them.  You didn't study or engage in academic rigor to hone your skills at being "male" or "black."  You just "are."  So to study mere traits you had nothing to do with and then somehow champion them as "skills" or something to have "pride" in or (worse) to turn these mere traits into "achievements" deserving of reward is nothing more than a childish, lazy, selfish, self-absorbed, ego-driven, love-fest.  It serves no practical purpose except to stroke your ego.  It's ludicrous.

But again, don't listen to mean ole sexist me, view it from the perspective of majoring in "Manopshere Studies."

Not only would I, but every other guy out there (I'm guessing) would say,

"Why the hell would I study myself?  I already know enough about myself, live with myself 24 hours a day, and I don't really define myself by my race or gender.  I'd rather study something new, develop a skill or consume new knowledge.  What could I possibly gain by paying some washed up professor $4,500 a class to learn about "being me" or "being male?"  It's stupid."  

Regardless of which approach we want to use, ANY study of a person's gender has no practical application.  The concept of such studies is point blank absurd.  They should/should have NEVER existed in the first place.

Second, the absurdity and the lack of any outside, practical purpose in women's studies behooves the question:

What type of people major in this crap?

But before we can ask who majors in it, I have a very thought-provoking question - who started it and how did it all get started?

I mean, who woke up late at night with a brilliant idea, rushed to their bedside table, broke out the pen and paper and wrote down:

"Let's create a college program so poor female college students can spend thousands of dollars getting a degree in themselves!  And not just that, but we'll offer MASTERS and DOCTORAL programs in what it means to be female!  Of course there will be no employment prospects to such a degree.  And of course the same could be achieved merely in reading books about female philosophy and psychology.  And heck, it's not like we don't converse about this anyways amongst ourselves.  No, let's make women PAY FOR IT!"

I want to know who came up with that idea.

And, on a related note, how do you just "poof" make a new college program without "experts" or "predecessor experts" who established the study?  Who were the first professors? Without PhD's in women's studies, did some women just self-decree themselves as the "lords" or "masters" of the "field?'

Well Cappy Cappites, what do you think?

I already looked it up (and DAMN am I good), but let's see how good you are at predicting what the "founding mothers" of the first "women's studies departments" looked like (not physically, I'm talking profiles, backgrounds, psychologies, education, resumes, etc.)

I'll give you a couple seconds.

Go ahead, jot down your predictions.

Think hard.  Take from lessons the ole Captain has provided you before.

Couple spaces so nobody cheats.










Are you ready?

OK, here we go.  From Wikipedia (which I know some of you have a problem with, but just let me roll here):

The first accredited Women's Studies course was held in 1969 at  Cornell University.  The first two Women's Studies Programs in the United States were established in 1970 at San Diego State College (now San Diego State University) and SUNY-Buffalo. The SDSU program was initiated after a year of intense organizing of women's consciousness raising groups, rallies, petition circulating, and operating unofficial or experimental classes and presentations before seven committees and assemblies.^[2] Carol Rowell Council was the student co-founder along with Dr. Joyce Nower, a literature instructor. The SUNY-Buffalo program was also the result of intense debate and feminist organizing led by Elizabeth Lapovsky Kennedy, and it was eventually birthed out of the American Studies department. In 1972, Sarah Lawrence College became the first institution to grant Masters degrees in Women's History. Throughout the later 1970s many universities and colleges created departments and programs in women's studies, and professorships became available in the field which did not require the sponsorship of other departments

So right there, the women's studies department was just created out of whole cloth by a bunch of 60's hippie activists. There was no precedence for the "study."  There was no demand for such a field.  It wasn't in response to societal need for it.  It wasn't an outgrowth of an already-existing field that warranted its own department or program.  And there certainly was no practical application for a field outside academia.  It was merely a bunch of activists who didn't want to grow up, face the real world and get real jobs.

But what I get a kick out of (and what you should have jotted down on them there notes in front of you) is the profile of some of the people in the entry:

Worthless majors - (BA's in anthropology, Masters in Art History, etc., proving they never had any intention of working real jobs in the first place)

No Real Work - (all jobs are in academia, government or non-profit, they need OTHER people's money to live, they are NOT independent)

Crusaders - (by the fact they decided to create an unneeded program, financed by taxpayer money, NOT to help women, but merely to help themselves first and foremost)

Upper middle class/rich - (my favorite is the one where her daddy was a NEUROSURGEON.  Yes, "independent" I'm sure she'll claim to be)

In short, they are nothing but crusaders.

So "let us be clear."  The founders of "women's studies" departments had no desire to "bring about justice and equality for women."  They are crusaders, they are hypocrites.  They care FIRST AND FOREMOST about themselves and have no problem abusing a GENUINE noble cause (in this case, the equal treatment of women) so they can profit from it at taxpayer expense.  They are spoiled, upper income, brats who absolutely FEARED mathematical and genuine academic rigor and instead NOT ONLY chose to major in worthless, cake easy fields, but to CREATE A NEW ONE OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH.  They merely used the "oppression of women" as the Trojan Horse to rationalize it and no politician would dare call them out on it in fear of being labelled a sexist. It's the same game plan socialists, leftists, feminists, liberals and communists have been playing this entire time.

So to answer the previous question - what type of people came up with/major in this nonsense?

Answer?

Not adults, these are politically motivated charlatans.  These are little children who are the opposite of independent.  They are scared little children who never wanted to compete toe-to-toe, on a level playing field in the real world, and they certainly don't want to produce anything of value society might want (though I'm sure they're happy some STEM majoring nerd created their government-financed Apple products).  They are hypocrites claiming to be independent (while needing constant outside sources of financing for their "careers" as they hide in academia and the public sector) and are doubly so when they claim to be for "women" (when in reality they use women for their personal profiteering and really couldn't care less about women's happiness and success).  Ironically, contrast that with the theoretical would-be founders of "Manosphere Studies" and you're pitting public sector economic deadweight against engineers, programmers, doctors, soldiers, accountants, entrepreneurs, economists, husbands, fathers and laborers who actually do produce something of value in society, are genuinely independent and because of this CERTAINLY have more authority and legitimacy in starting a "Manosphere Studies" program than any feminist founder ever did a "women's studies" program.

Now, third.  As my posts are prone to do, they flare up emotions (the secret ingredient is "truth"). I know truth and reality have the tendency to make people who are living lies get upset because we expose the type of people they really are. But perhaps a different approach will convince you I'm truly not biased or have some kind of vendetta against women, but perhaps (GASP!) I might actually care about women (in that I would prevent the likes of this from happening).  So allow me to introduce some humor, though I'm no less serious about what I'm about to say.

The PhD's passed out at The University of Man should be recognized by the National Association of Accredited Colleges and Schools as just as legitimate as the PhD's in "women's studies" passed out at "accredited" institutions.

Not joking, I'm as serious as a heart attack.  The Manosphere is just as legitimate, if not, a superior "institution" to most women's studies departments.

One, just as much intellectual thought and debate goes into the Manosphere as the average women's studies department. Matter of fact, we're more intellectually honest (in that we're acknowledging a PhD in Manosphere studies would be pretty freaking stupid) and we have no ulterior motive (sayyyyyyyy extorting the taxpayer for make-work-government-financed academia jobs that produce absolutely nothing of value?)  Two, unlike women's studies, the Manosphere's aim is not political, but practical.  It is NOT the oppression or subjugation of women, but merely the maximization of happiness between the sexes.  Unlike women's studies, it is not an "us vs. them" or a "right the wrongs of our oppressors," but an intense desire to find out and establish the truth as to what is the optimal relationship between men and women in all aspects of life (work, marriage, friends, sex, social, etc.) so that men and women may prosper and be happy.  Three, we do have more legitimacy in our founding in that the majority, if not ALL of the members of the Manosphere are independent men (and women) who work for a living and are not hypocritically willing to go through the charade of creating a whole academic department just to score ourselves some government cheese.  And fourth, the fact the open-source nature of the Manosphere in it's unprofessional, non-accredited, unordained form, is providing such an intellectually equal rival or "challenge" to "women's studies" is NOT an argument for a "male studies" department, but rather, quite the opposite.  It's an argument to eliminate every "women's studies" program out there because it exposes just how inane, stupid, absurd, worthless and useless those programs actually are. 

Besides, even if you tried to make "Manosphere Studies" a legitimate college program you could get a degree in, it wouldn't work.  Real men couldn't stomach the hypocritical and parasitical reputation that would come with it.

(This post sponsored by "Worthless."  Want to irk a liberal arts major who no doubt is going to increase your taxes?  Buy "Worthless" 100% guaranteed to anger, enrage and peeve your Unicorn Studies-majoring friends!  But Worthless now!)

Winner of the Cappy Cap Logic Challenge

Almost forgot! 

The winner of the Cappy Cap Logic Challenge was Anon 1217PM. 

If you recall the challenge was to link the abuse children were heaping upon the bus driver and forms of "bullying" teachers to the lack of fathers AND how the victims of this bullying were largely to blame for their own predicament.

Anon 1217PM answered:

Could it be that the people (meaning teachers and educational bureaucrats) that are victims of this sort of thing are the same people that support so-called "socially progressive" causes, including the feminist position that extolls the virtues of single motherhood and plays down the importance of father figures and men in general? Most teachers do have left-wing, socialist political views.

Anon 1217 contact the Captain and get your free "Behind the Housing Crash" or "Worthless," your choice.

Joe Soucheray Rips Mayor RT Rybak a New One

Most of you are unfamiliar with Minneapolis politics.  However, you don't have to be.

Liberal big city mayor blames murder of innocent 5 year old inner city youth on lack of gun control laws.

Conservative talk show host lights him up like a B-24 over Berlin.

It will make you smile.

Correct

I just would say they use a religion ("socialism" "green" "global warming" "Islam" "Chrisianity" "any religion") to rationalize and legitimize taking the wealth, and thus by default, enslaving other people.

That is human nature.  And our forefathers (in America) fought against it.

Good thing we villainized them and all that icky, yucky, gross, oppressive freedom they tried to give us.

Bush is Now in the Lead

If I recall my numbers correctly, this officially puts GW in the lead over Obama when it came to jobs during his first time.

I now await the media to claim this IS the worst economy in 50 years.

Waiting, waiting...still waiting.

Oh, wait, let me guess. We've changed the definition or "success" from economic to some amporphous unicorns and hippie definition so we can keep on rationalizing taking other people's money.

Dear Mexican Restaurants

When I ask for "Tabasco Sauce" I want Tabasco Sauce.

I don't want those cheap knock offs you have sitting on the table.  "Tapatio," "Chipolte" or that damn sauce that has about as much kick as a quadriplegic slug - "Chalupa."

I want the spicy, hot, vinegar fuming TABASCO.  I want no girls to want to kiss me for the next month.  I want to sweat while I'm eating.  I don't want your "in house sauce" that is about as hot as saw dust.

You're probably one of those parents who buy their kids the knock off brand of Lego's or some other cool toy because "it's the same thing."

NO IT'S NOT!

We want our freaking Tabasco sauce.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

The Entire Population of Earth

Recession Medicine

It wasn't until I uploaded this did I see the "black Face" advertisement.  However, I was originally intending to get the same comedy duo's skit from "Stormy Weather" found this one, and since it's essentially the same skit, I'm keeping it up here.  It irks me that we'd attach "black face" to something as clever and witty as this:

No S Sherlock

Heh, like you needed a study.

The Costs of Playerhood

Roosh in his book "Day Bang" explains arguably the key ingredient to being a player.  It isn't confidence.  It isn't working out or looks.  And it isn't money.

It's failure.

It's knowing that you are going to get shot down the majority of the time and to simply keep at it until you inevitably succeed.  Oh sure, there are some things you can do to "tighten up" your game (environment selection, practice, situational awareness, working out, clothing, etc), but even Roosh admits players at the top of their game will have a maximum close rate of around 40%. 

Now, the reason I bring this up is because (hubris and arrogance aside) I was a player.  And when I was a player, my friends would always ask, "how did I do it?"  I'm not particularly tall, I'm kind of skinny, when I was at the "top" of my game I least physically fit, and for the majority of my 20's I was making less than $30,000 per year.  But sure enough pretty much every hot girl that walked into the dance scene was mine.  If there was a social event,  I would be "that short skinny guy" who brought the "Russian ballet dancer" to the party (true story).  If I wanted to and had enough forewarning, I could pretty much guarantee myself a pretty girl for a date.  The irony is of course, that's what people saw from the outside.  The finished product.  The tall drink of water on my arm.  What they didn't see was the behind the scenes action of how sausage was made and thus thought it was all puppies, chocolates and unicorns.  They didn't realize there are genuine and severe costs to being a player, costs so great it makes you quit.

First, understand the time commitment involved.  Again I reference Day Bang (though I'm sure Roosh mentions this in all of his books), where Roosh, right up front addresses the amount of time you will have to commit in order to succeed.  He does not beat around the bush, likening being a player to a sport.  You NEED to practice, regularly, everyday, 3 hours a day to get good at it.  And he's right. 

Now, did I go out and treat it like a sport?  No, but I did get to the point of being able to remove any emotion from getting shot down.  And I did get to the point to not take any personal offense or umbrage when a girl shot me down.  It requires you give up a little bit of humanity and treat it like a genuine, real and passionless game.  You almost have to get to the level of ignoring the fact the girls are fellow humans and look at them more like hurdles or benchmarks to overcome.  I never achieved 40%, maybe at best 30%.  But for all the tall drinks of water I brought into a club or a party, there were at least 7 or 8 that shot me down.

Regardless, the point is not how you need to become dispassionate about it (though that helps), it's to point out some math.  To get shot down 7-8 times just to get one date means you got to spend at least 2 hours failing before you get that 15 minutes of success.  And that's a low estimate.  The average guy is more likely to spend at least 10 hours getting one date, the majority of that time will be spent being shot down.  Consequently, unless you can remove your soul a little bit from this process, it will start to affect your personality, ego and self-esteem.  Both of these (the time commitment and the constant assailing of your ego) are costs that often go unnoticed in the sausage-making process that is known as "playerhood."

Second, say you do succeed.  Again, to the outside observer, all they see is you punching above your weight with that tall drink of water on your arm.  "See" being the key verb here.  They don't TALK to the tall drink of water.  They don't LISTEN to the tall drink of water.  All they see is her physical beauty, 95% of the time is her best and only asset. 

Until a woman has a child, gets divorced, has to support herself or goes through some other life-trial or tribulation that builds character, you can expect an inverse relationship between the looks of a woman and her personality.  The old adage - intelligence, sanity and beauty, pick two - applies here.  Out of the 200+ women I have dated (not lying) there was a DIRECT and STRONG correlation between their beauty and their insanity or lack of intelligence.

The drop dead gorgeous blond that took all the oxygen out of the air at a hangar dance I went to?

2 DUI's, 1 year of "cosmetology school" and kicked out of her parents' home, on again off again collector of welfare.

The Russian ballet dancer?

Former mail order bride of an American sergeant who abused her while they had sex to the point she was hospitalized and was thusly thereafter afraid of sex.

The hot latina that I was going to impress with tickets to the opera? (I was young and stupid)

Wasn't ready until the doors to the opera were closed and we had to wait till intermission (I did not wait till intermission).

The professional trainer?

Talked 3 hours straight.  I LITERALLY got TWO SENTENCES IN.  What did she talk about?  Her ex-boyfriend THE ENTIRE TIME.

The hot ex-girlfriend of a Minnesota Viking whose parents were also billionaires with direct family ties to the Kuomintang party of Taiwan?

Threatened suicide when I didn't buy her a soda at a gas station in St. Louis Park.

Now, I could go on (and on, and on, and on), but you get the point.  You just see some guy driving a Ferrari down the street and envy him. YOu don't see the drama and psychological BS the poor guy has to pay maintaining such a high-maintenance vehicle.

Third, speaking of costs, you still have to spend money.  This can be controlled or limited to a certain extent, but if you want to be a player you at minimum have to GO OUT.  That includes (on the very cheap end) gas to a coffee shop and at minimum $5 for coffee.  On the average end, $10 in gas, $20 in drinks for yourself, maybe even $5 in covers.  AND YOU HAVEN'T EVEN GONE OUT YET.  This is just to get into the game and start wooing potential candidates for a future date.  The dates themselves (if you follow Leykis 101) should not cost more than $40, but heck, that's what you drop on them.  That again doesn't consider ancillary expenses, let alone your time.  You prorate your time at $20 an hour, with $20 in gas and $20 on actual expenditures on your date, you're looking at total costs of at least $100 each date.  Figure a low-end player gets 4 girls a month, 48 girls a year, that's $4,800 a year ON VERY CHEAP DATES, the real figure is certainly higher. 

Now you throw all these together and what do you have?

An already impoverished 20 something blowing AT LEAST $5,000 a year on dates, not to mention committing an amount of his finite time that is equivalent to a part time job ONLY to get shot down the majority of the time and SHOULD HE SUCCEED, it is a 95% guarantee the dates will be pure psychological torture.

Now, you do that for 10 years and (not to be crass) I don't care how long the legs are, how nice the boobs are, or how great the sex is (usually pretty bad), there IS going to be a burn out rate.  I personally don't know how the likes of Roosh, Roissy, etc. do it.  In the end other aspects of life start to appeal to you. 

A quiet night on your own listening to Johnny Coltrane, playing video games, hell, even reading a book is better.  You discover working on motorcycles proves more enjoyable than dating Bambi the Drama Queen.  You discover studying a foreign language proves more intellectually rewarding than suffering another outting with Monique the Sociology Major-Turned Realtor.  You discover hanging out with your buds having a cigar will provide better life-long memories than suffering another ignorant-laced conversation about politics with Lilly the "I'm a Progressive Feminist" Liberal.

The point is, playerism and playerhood is all great and wonderful.  But there's nothing wrong with you if you decide to give it up and opt for more of a MGTOW type lifestyle.  The reason being is it's your life, not theirs.  You don't have to spend your precious few moments on this planet suffering the drama and psychoses of tall drinks of floosy.

"Run Bambi, Run!"

People who remember the 70's will get the cultural reference.

I am laughing because they killed the goose that laid the golden egg.  Of course, leave it to the media to portray the wife as the victim (poor lady, only got a million dollar lake front property and $2000 a month in rental income) who was greedy enough to go back for more.

Call it capital flight, call it going Galt, going ghost, call it whatever you want, the goose that laid the golden egg is dead.  And you killed it.

VIP Room for Ladies Night

Huge heaps o' scorn was heaped upon me for failing to include Susan Walsh and Haley's Halo in the Ladies' Night Linkage at the Cappy Club.

Little did you all know THEY had VIP reservations with the Cappy Club and just showed up fashionably late.

The Father Could Not Be Reached for Comment

Wow, lost a real winner there!  How will society move on without this idiot?

Obama Ain't Reagan

Another reader-suggested metric to use, and arguably better than my own - employment to population ratio - ie - the percent of the population that is working (indexed to when the presidents were inargurated).  Again, Reagan was able to get the country back to it's original level.  Obama is still hovering at the lows.  And despite what Obama's supporters contend America wants (a government check), most people want jobs.

Unemployment Race

The political "scientists" (read, morons who couldn't do long division) like to point out that Reagan while rounding about his first term had horrible polls, and thus use this as conclusive proof that Obama will get re-elected.  That of course assumes Obama would have the same track record as Reagan in terms of not just lowering unemployment, but as quickly as Reagan did (which he hasn't).

And don't get me started about youth unemployment and how they're abandoning this socialist, elitist Harvard preppy in droves.

Ladies Night at the Captain's Club

This is going to be sloppy.  Just got back from a weekend trip of riding a motorcycle through the Black Hills and NOT contributing to GDP.

if I miss any of the ladies it is not out of animosity or indifference or forgetfulness.  Just uhhh...bachelor like...ummm.."failings" (yeah, yeah, that's the ticket!).  

Oh SNAP!

Well SURE!  If you think the media is there to report factual news and get to the truth, well then, yeah, of course you're going to be upset you moron.  But everybody knows THAT'S not what they're there for!  (moron comment obviously not intended).

I have a post in the making called, "Are we going to have to repeat this stupidity 30 years from now again because a new generation of self-entitled spoiled brats didn't suffer their Volcker Recession?"  Clarissa just opines about the Republicans failing to deliver the necessary fiscal reforms without worrying about the religious right.

I don't care about Obamacare or the SCOTUS because it's out of my control.  Here is some analysis.

When HR and political correctness took over the forest service.

Because Putin is not a pansy.

But math and personal financial management is tough.  Wont' my future husband take care of me?

Wish her a happy 24th birthday.

So sorry, no new weather records broken for you to claim it's global warming...or change...or (what's the next word they'll develop so they have no requirement to explain themselves?)

"The Good, The Bad and The Cappy"

OK Cappy Cappites, time for a little experiment.

I'm off to the Black Hills this weekend (again, because, we'll, they're there).  However, I'm going to test this Amazon Affiliate link thing whilst away.  Below is a poster (and a link to it).  It is the coolest poster I have ever seen and I bought one when I was in Vegas, however, you can order it on Amazon.

I am fully aware that this poster may not be the most desired product by the lady readers of Cappy Cap, but for those of you economists out there who do love "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" I would strongly recommend this poster (I have it hanging in my office actually and it starts some interesting conversations).

 

My goal is to see if I can earn enough money to pay for my $20 gambling spree I shall go on in Deadwood.  It would give me warm fuzzies to see if there was $20 in my account to fund my gambling addiction.

Make sure you enjoy the decline today.

Anybody Know Peter Schiff?

The problem I run into is if they're too big, they won't consider even looking at my book.  But if somebody knows them, they may consider it if a copy is brought to them by their contact.

Still waiting for Ezra Levant to read the book I sent him!  Ahem ahem!  Cough cough!!!

Clean It Up Boys

Again, it seems I have to remind people the single worst thing I have to do is delete a comment, that is otherwise brilliant, but full of vulgarity. 

I will tolerate the occasional and well-placed curse word, but a tirade of cursing and disparaging language will not make it.  Please clean it up.

Debt Costs You Marriage

Lauren Dollard graduated from Fordham University in 2008 with $157,000 in debt, including interest. "My boyfriend won't marry me because of my debt," she says. "He doesn't want it attached to his name (I know, this could also be an excuse)." She said she would trade her "fancy private school education" in a heartbeat to live "as an independent adult."

 Uh, no dear, he's not looking for excuses.

Hopey changey kiddies!  Hopey changey!!!!

We Don't Need No Stiiiinnnnnking Fathers Linkage

If fathers were more prevalent and manly in society, 90% of the "childhood psychoses" would disappear over night...but then where would all the "child psychology" and "social work" majors find employment?  And we all know it's MUCH more important for people who can't do math to have make work government jobs than psychologically healthy children.

Yes, because consumption is the only thing that matters (as i pointed out before).

Well sure, if you think education should be about the children, you moron.  But everybody knows that's not what schools are for. (I am of course joking about the moron statement).

That's too complicated for the teachers to figure out.  Therefore we will not be pursuing that idea.  PS you're racist.

Fact- fat is gross.  If you want to argue, I suggest you focus on the first word there.  But this is taking it a bit too far.

I shall answer Clarissa's question (which is a good one).  The reason women (married or not, working or not) do the majority of the housework is because of one simple thing - women's standards for tidiness are multiple times higher than men's.  We are OK with an upturned shoe in the middle of the hall.  You decree it a "filthy mess" and declare war on it.  We men will clean the house to the point it is sanitary.  You can clean it to the point of perfection if you want.  We guys have more important stuff to do in life.

Saving a 17 Year Old

Let me tell you a story.

Was at a bar/restaurant last night.  Within the group of people I'm at is a mother-son combination and a (frankly) overweight, ugly middle aged woman (henceforth referred to as "the OUMAW").

The mother and the OUMAW are tag teaming this poor boy about what to do when it comes to matters of the ladies and courting when he heads off to college/the real world.  And all the advice is absolutely wrong, only guaranteeing he'll be fed to the meat-grinder at a faster rate.

"Be nice."

"Be sweet."

"Be kind."

"My husband who does what I tell him and makes the money.  You need to  become like him."

I speak up.

"Look, don't be nice.  Be a jerk.  I mean, don't be abusive, but the last thing girls like or want is the sappy overtly sweet nice guy.  Be aloof, master back-handed compliments.  NEVER be desperate."

"Don't have kids.  They cost too much money and they'll take away from your fun with your wife, IF you choose to have one."

"Date LOTS of girls. TONS.  That way you'll have some fun initially, but realize just how many poor ones are out there, making sure you'll know when you find a really good one or the "right one."

"Realize you are not inferior to girls.  ESPECIALLY at your age.  When you get older, you'll realize just how childish they really are reading "People" magazine or watching TMZ or Jersey Shore.  Just because they're cute, does not mean they're smarter than you, let alone that you want to date them."

Naturally the mom and the OUMAW we enraged.

"NO!  DON'T LISTEN TO HIM!!!  LISTEN TO US!  WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT!"

Their response was interesting because I don't for a second believe they weren't trying to help the boy, they love the kid.  Their response seemed visceral, automated.  As if they were prompted by instinct, rather than thought.  Regardless, merely telling the boy "don't listen to that bad bad man over there" was not enough.  The mom and especially the OUMAW had to then "debunk" me and thus the interrogation/attempt to "expose" me began.

"So, what you just live alone all by yourself?"

- "Yes."

"AHA!  So you're all alone!"

-"No, I have friends and a girlfriend back in Minnesota.  And I've made some friends here in South Dakota."

"So, is she some like mail-order bride or something that doesn't have a mind of her own?"

-"No, actually she's an engineer and makes more money than I do."

"And she tolerates your attitude?"

-"Matter of fact, yes, she likes the fact I'm the male and I am willing to draw the line in the sand and stick to my guns.  She cooks for me, treats me very nice, and hangs out with me and picks on me.  She's also hot and doesn't mind getting dolled up in lingerie."

As the interrogation went on it was becoming apparent to the ladies (AND the boy), that their plan was backfiring on them.  I was living proof that everything they said to the boy was wrong and that just because they were older, didn't mean they necessarily wiser in this particular department.  Losing the battle they switched tactics (and dare I say, were curious how about this minimalistic/maxi-fun approach to life I had.)

"So you obviously don't have children, do you?"

-"No, I had a vasectomy."

And that was adding fuel to the fire.

"SO YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO HAVE CHILDREN????  WHY DON'T YOU WANT CHILDREN!???"

I then calmly leaned over to the boy, almost as if I was ignoring them, but spoke loud enough so everybody could hear.

"Look, kid, you know how much you cost to raise?  $500,000.  When it's all said and done, your mom and dad dropped HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON YOU and that doesn't even include accounting for their time.  You don't have to go to college, you don't have to slave away.  You can live on the cheap, drive your motorcycle around, hell, buy a boat and a house and eat great food ALL if you don't have children."

Naturally, instead of listening to the words coming out of my mouth and focusing on the point I was trying to make, this merely sent the ladies' emotions into a tizzy.  They thought I was saying the kid wasn't worth it.  That he was a mistake.  Sure enough the responses of "he's worth every penny."  "I am so proud of him."  "I would do it all over again" blah blah blah blah, came pouring in.

Thankfully you could tell by his eyes he did not only take umbrage to the statement, but was digesting precisely the point I was trying to make.

Emotionally upset, the OUMAW started to tear in even more, but what is nice about this little "philosophy" the Manosphere, or heck, just single or childless people have, is that it's unassailable.  There's really no emotion involved in it.  I don't get agitated when people tell me they want to have 5 children and grow organic chickens.  It's their life. But the OUMAW was obviously insulted I chose to lead my life my way and she was having none of it.  Additionally, she wanted to intervene in this poor boy's life, send him on a path SHE deemed the "right" one and dissuade him from my (obviously) "dark side of the force life" of motorcycle, freedom, hiking,  and minimal responsibility.  Ergo, I had to be "stopped."

With a smug tone she said, "So, do you RENT or do you OWN your apartment?"

Internally I rolled my eyes.  She had no idea just how intricately familiar I am with real estate and the economics thereof.  She also had no idea how far away I could see this one coming.  I played the game.

-"I rent."

"Oh, so look at you!  You don't even have equity built up in your house.  You're so blah blah blah...."

I interrupted.

-"I own rental property back in Minnesota."

"Oh." she said.  "Well that's good, I own a house too."

I responded (knowing how she bragged about how her husband made all the money),

"Yeah, but my husband didn't pay for my house."

Hooo!!!  Hooo!!!!!!  The OUMAW did NOT like that.  But it's not because I was implying she wasn't an independent woman.  It was the fact I highlighted she TRULY WASN'T an independent woman.  That and in the eyes of the boy I was just furthering my particular authority in this conversation and debunking hers.

The fireworks were continuing and the boy was paying very close attention.  He was noticing how the women were being irrational, emotional and trying to knock me out, whlie I just sat there, very calm, dispassionate, spoke the truth, didn't get riled up, but stuck to my guns.  At no time did I say his mom or the OUMAW were wrong or not trying to help him, I merely was presenting the other side of the same coin, a "male" or "older brother" side of life.  I wrote down Dalrock, Roissy, The U of Man and a couple other blogs on a napkin, gave it to him and said,

"Look, when I was your age, we didn't have the internet.  But what has happened since it's development, is it has allowed millions of men my age and younger and older to compare notes about dating.  And what it has enabled us to do is detect trends, patterns, observations, etc. and see what works in the dating world and what doesn't. But most importantly, it makes it so young boys like you DO NOT have to suffer the bullsh#t we did when we were your age.  Your mother and the OUMAW obviously do love you, but it's only one side of the story.  You need the guy's side."

He went off on his merry way as he had to work the next day, and I was happy I saved another soul an inordinate amount of pain in his future.

Now the moral of the story is not "warm fuzzies" the Captain probably saved the kid a lot of pain.  It's that I am still shocked that there are women out there who think it their place to lecture men about the lives they choose to lead.  The vehement response I got when I merely said things like;

"I don't want kids."

"I live on the cheap."

"I dated lots of girls."

BLAMO!  I'm an evil cad and I must be lectured.  And not only must I be lectured, they have every RIGHT to come in and lecture me.

But there's another aspect to it - you forget there are people out there like that.

It's akin to when I worry if the advice we give young men today is relevant anymore.  Have relations between young boys and girls changed so that boys don't need this philosophy?  I don't want to give him advice that would have worked in 1992, but would only serve to hurt him now.  And then I see some news story about girls having pregnancy pacts in high schools or something, and know these poor boys need us more than ever.

And here it is the same thing.

I forget there are people out there who almost unconsciously deem themselves not just your superior, but charter themselves with the right to intervene in your life and tell you what to do as THEY SEE FIT.  And while this applies to a wide range of people (abusive husbands, controlling wives, etc. etc.), I am intrigued how common it is when it comes to courting/social-sexual dynamics between men and women, and when the men merely speak truth from the hills -

"We like long legs, big boobs, long hair."

BLAMO!  That is somehow "wrong."  THat is "bad" (even though it is genetic programming).  And that is more than enough of an excuse for women to come in and not just lecture you, but REALLY try to get you to change.

But above all, it provides some amazing hindsight as to just what an uphill battle us older guys had when we were young boys being lectured by the women in our lives.

You're shallow for liking long legs.  You're shallow for liking big boobs.  You should LOVE a woman for her personality.  And be nice and be kind, and buy her flowers, and open doors for her and write her poetry, etc. etc.

How any of us came out of that brainwashing, let alone on our own accord, is amazing.  But this brainwashing and indoctrination is still happening.  And therefore fellow members of the Manosphere, like Batman, we gotta be there for the boys.

Carry on gentlemen.  Carry on.

Stockton City Council FAIL

 

FAIL

Wow, "three year associate of arts in interior design" AND a graduate of "Leadership Stockton?"  Is this like where they issue medals for 24th place?  Good lord, what the hell were you people in Stockton thinking this lady would do?  Arrange the furniture in an artistic way so then Wells Fargo repossesses city hall it looks nice?  Nice going Miller, you once again prove the liberal arts is a place for people who can't do basic math.

 

 

 FAIL

You will see a correlation of people who sit on school boards (where there is of course never enough money for the chillllldreeennnn) and their inability to manage finances.  Because why should they?  They never had to before?  Just make the rich pay more.  I was going to give Canepa some bonus points for running a business, but nepotism is not acceptable.  FAIL.

 

Thank you for your service -  FAIL

While Ms. Eggman gets a bit of a reprieve for her military service she decided to flush it all down the toilet with Bachelors, Masters and Doctorate degrees in El-Crapo Studies.  I wonder if she ever took an accounting course in her 13 years of college education...oh...wait!  Of course not!  Money is limitless according to the humanities!  Does she have any practical application outside running bankruptcy municipalities?  Probably not.  FAIL!

 FAIL

Wow, if there's a poster child NOT to attend degree mills or correspondent schools, Mr. Fritchen is their boy!  Once again a MASTERS degree proves nothing about an individual's ability to provide a tangible, practical service (like the advance complex mathematics of "ADDING" and "SUBTRACTION" in "BUDGETS!").  Oh, and was he on the "Parks and Recreation" commission for 8 years?  Yeah, right, like you had ANY intention of getting a real job.  FAIL!

EPIC  FAIL

Let me list the countries the Peace Corps have been to that have improved because of their visit.....OH, that's right!  ZERO!  And surprise surprise, IS THIS YET ANOTHER person with public school experience?  What were you idiots who voted this moron in thinking?  That she was going to take her extensive "well building" experience for impoverished villagers in third world countries and maybe sing Kumbaya and that would solve your financial problems?  Wait, wait.  Let me guess.  Most of you who voted her in did so because you were never even AWARE of the financial problems because Jersey Shore was on.  Oh well, you get the government you deserve.  FAIL (for both the mayor and the voters)

 

PASS

Where the heck was this guy?  Oh, wait, I bet probably drowned out by the bickering about "reading initiatives" and "peace rallies" by the above five.  And I bet he was considered the "mean one" when he attempted to introduce some fiscal reality.  Perhaps District 1 could secede from Stockton and form their own SOLVENT city.  Of course I don't know for a fact as I have not looked at voting records,  but I'm merely testing my Crusaderism/Worthless degree theories here.  PASS.

As Rome Went, So Will America

But (to quote Michael Savage)

"You don't want to hear about that.  You want to hear about some guy who hit a ball over a fence."

God damnit, you will enjoy the decline, whether you like it or not.

It's Called "Capital Flight"

But you knew that already.

I Envy Cooks

I am not musically gifted and I down right must have a psychological impairment when it comes to cooking.  Ergo why I envy people so who can do

this

and

this.

Then again it could be genetics.  My dad could burn water.  I also remember him cooking a Tombstone pizza and leaving it in there for so long it curled up like a thick Frisbee.

"Weather" Does Not Compensate for Poverty

One thing I love about liberals who live in liberal states or towns is when you got them on the ropes about the economic decline and decay of their state or town, they will always, ALWAYS cite three things that universally excuses their craptastic economies:

1.  The weather
2.  The culture
3.  The restaurants

Me - "I don't pay state income taxes in South Dakota."

Minnesota Liberal - (scoffingly) "Yes, but you have to LIVE THERE!  Huh huh huh."

Me - "I don't have to bail out billionaire professional sports teams."

New York Liberal - "Yes, but you don't have Thai food.  Huh huh huh."

Me - "Unemployment is below 5% meaning I have a stable job and chance for advancement."

California Liberal - "Yes, but we have great weather.  Huh huh huh."

Of course, they only do this because deep down inside they agree with you and hate paying taxes just as much as the other guy, but since they're liberal their ideology comes first, even before themselves, which is delusional.  And since we're dealing with irrational and delusional people there's nothing we can do to convince them otherwise.  This relegates us to the only thing left to do - mock them.

So here's some mockery.

"Hope the weather is worth it. Huh huh huh."

Children, IQ's, and Idiocracy

Oh, I know all the right people will get upset, but you see, when you've got nothing left to lose, you find great entertainment value in truth.

For example children correlate strongly with lower IQ's, lower standards of living and higher corruption.

Now get very angry and indignant about these facts and blame me or George Bush for it.

Tornadoes Fear Me Linkage

Really hard to enjoy the decline when stuff like this happens.  Then again, it reiterates that's your only option.

Fellow blogger gets cancer.  You can help him out here.

I have always wanted to read about the Soviet economy in that (like its nuclear armament), it was overestimated.  Perhaps not on purpose either, a lot of the Soviet strategy was to bluff and lie (don't all communists?).  The US fell for it, but still a good book about the realities of the Soviet economy would be interesting.

I have said it before, the problems with the US is not our politicians, its the collapse and decay of our people at the cellular level.  Mangan agrees.

At the "peak" of my game a lot of my friends wondered "how I did it?"  They didn't see the psychological costs and drama of dating many women at the same time.  All they saw was the numbers and physical beauty.  They did not see the suicide threats, the assaults, the husband she failed to mention for three months, or the girl taking off her shirt and then wondering why I was trying to kiss her.  It's enough to make millions join the MGTOW movement.

More lengthy and deep stuff from Badger.

I have never hit a woman.  I have, however, been hit at least 6 times by a woman (all uncalled for, so please don't bother with the jokes or the presumptions).  Equality purists would say "well, it's time to start treating women as genuine equals," but I will instead simply institute a new policy- report any assault, no matter how minor, to the police and pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.  The days of slapping men and thinking you can get away with it are over.

Some desperately needed light heartedness.

And some more desperately needed light heartedness.

God this was a dreary linkfest.

On an eccentric note, your Captain is going to try buying a suit online since he could never find true, white suits available in clothing stores.  Remember, if you're going to buy something, do the Captain a favor and buy it from the Amazon link to the right.  He gets a 6% commish on the purchase!

Stupid for Investing in California

From our Californian Agent in the Field.

Might as well head to Cuba with a Trillion Dollar Bill and give it to Castro.

We're Taking You With Us

One of, if not "the" single thing I hate about teaching is answering a "wrong question."

A "wrong question" is where the student asks a question that is based on false or erroneous premises, and thus it's not enough to simply answer the question.  You have to:

1.  Spend time explaining or deconstructing their false premises so they get the correct ones.
2.  Explain to them the correct premises/how it works in the real world.
3.  Then reanswer their wrong question, hoping to god they understood your deconstruction/rebuilding of their premises.

And I fear with this topic, I'm going to have to do the same.  So in an attempt to be preemptive and efficient, let me explain a couple things about economics, so that when I do make my point EVERYBODY will understand.

First, understand there is no such thing as "money."  Money really doesn't exist.  It is only a means by which we track and account for how much labor somebody gave up for "payment."  If you look at the economy all it is, is really people just exchanging their finite time on this planet in barter for goods and services that either extend, maintain or enhance their lives (write that one down because that sentence right there is worth about 12 college economics textbooks)

Second, understand there is nothing inherently valuable about money.  The only reason "gold" or "paper dollars" have "value" is because they can be traded for something that DOES have genuine value.  Food, gas, a desk, a computer, a video game, etc. etc.

Third (and this is VERY important), what is "wealth?"  What makes a person or a nation "wealthy?"

I'll tell you this.  It's not money.  Because money is a piece of paper or rare metal. There is no inherent value to money.  It is the STUFF MONEY CAN BUY that is WEALTH.

And it is here people are confused about economics.

Understand that a person who is "rich" or "wealthy" is not "rich" or "wealthy" because they have "a lot of money."  They are rich or wealthy because they can afford STUFF and THINGS they can CONSUME to MAINTAIN, ENHANCE and EXTEND their lives (write that one down too for the "Economist Book O' Gold")

In short "wealth" is not the currency or money you hold.  Wealth is all the stuff you can produce.

This is why Adam Smith wrote the book "The Wealth of Nations."  He wasn't talking about billions of "dollars" or "yen" or "rupees."  He was talking about all the stuff that improves and enhances our lives.  He was talking about nations' abilities to produce things of value - food, booze, clothing, games, cars, electronics, styrafoam, trees, cattle, dogs, cats, minks, furs, jewelry, diamonds, motorcycles, etc. etc. etc.

Because if you think about it, a dollar doesn't do anything for you.  It is the STUFF the dollar can purchase that does something for you.

So all the wars, all the votes, all the progressive taxation is NOT about somebody else's "money," it is about getting other people to forfeit their time to pay for the stuff you want to consume while sacrificing none of your time at all.  It's about making other people pay for your "stuff."  It's simply just slavery.  This is the base level modus operandi of all humans and cultures since the dawn of man (you may also write that one down in the "Economist Book O' Gold.")

Now, since HOPEFULLY I've deconstructed your previous beliefs that economics is "all about the money" and made you realize it's all about "the stuff."  So now let us talk about grocery stores.

I know a lot of you on the left think you're entitled to "basic" things.  Food, clothing, and shelter.  I've seen some people even proclaim they're "entitled" to health care, education, and even cell phones.

But let's get back to reality for one second.

Who provides "food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, and cell phones?"

If you are a liberal (and I'm not mocking you here) you believe in a philosophy or political ideology of the "Great Liberal Economic Oort Cloud."  The reason you believe in this is because (and admit it please) you have been too lazy to bother with studying economics, how economies work, let alone - thinking it through.  Therefore, you just throw up your hands into the air and think the government/business/industrial complex "figures it out" for you.  There's this "highly complex" economic-political-social-governmental-god-like entity that is WAY too complicated for you to understand that just farts out jobs and only truly intelligent people like Barack Hussein Obama can understand.

But in reality, just like money, there is no government.

You TRULY fail to realize that the "government" is nothing more than you and me because we are all in this boat together, and we simply voted our neighbors, colleagues and friends into office.  "We" are "the government."  Therefore the solution to our current day economic problems....nay....EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PROBLEMS resides within THE PEOPLE.  The "government" cannot do anything just like "the corporations" cannot do anything because both are merely composed and controlled by us - the people.

So who provides the "food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, cell phones" and general "stuff" humans wage war over?

We do.

Not the government.

Technically not the "corporations."

It all boils down to people, because there is no other "entity" or "creature" on the planet to provide these things

By this time, I hope we're all still on the same page.  We have thus far covered that it isn't money that matters, it's the actually goods or services MONEY CAN BUY that matters.  STUFF matters.  AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT we have dispelled the delusion that "government" or "corporations" are entities to themselves able to create "magically" jobs, employment, wealth and income.  There are "technically" no such things as "governments" or "corporations" as they are nothing more than amalgamations of people.

People - you and me - your brother and your sister - your neighbor and your enemy - are ULTIMATELY responsible for this nation, for this country and for our economic success and future.

So since it is on the people, let's talk about two distinctly different types of people in our modern day America.

I like to be simple so I categorize the many groups of Americans into two simple categories:

Producers

and

Parasites.

Since there is no GLEOC and the success of this nation and all others depends on the individuals, you either carry your weight and support yourself or you don't.

"Parasite" is not meant to be a pejorative or mocking term.  It is meant to be an ACCURATE term.

Take emotion, political bias, or whatever you want to use to excuse your erroneous thinking out of it, the definition of a parasite is some thing that lives off of others.  And there's a ton in these here United States.

Anybody who collects a government check (bar social security, though, some will argue) is a parasite.

I don't mean that to be insulting, I don't mean that to be derogatory - it's simply the truth.  If you collect a government check you are NOT supporting yourself and therefore living off the slave labor of others and are a BONAFIED PARASITE.  You DO live off of others.  If "others" didn't exist, you WOULD NOT exist, end of story, no discussion, take your bleeding liberal heart emotional-therefore-irrelevant arguments elsewhere. 

However, that does not so much irk me as I am willing to accept as much as the next man that people get down on their luck.

What irks me is when 50% of the population collects a government check AND HAS THE AUDACITY TO DEMAND MORE,  AND CRIMINALIZE THE HOST OF WHICH IT'S PARASITING OFF OF.

There is no end to the "rich doesn't pay their fair share" or the opposite side of the coin - woeismeism.  
So a short message to all of you who think "the rich should pay more" to compensate you for;

YOU majoring in a stupid degree and taking on $100,000 in debt to pay for it
YOU breeding children you couldn't afford and never bothered to think about
YOU being too lazy to put down the booze/drugs to find reliable employment
YOU for choosing a cushy government job and daring to demand people who actually produce something of wealth to pay for your bloated government salary and pension
YOU for just be a pathetic, lazy, moronic parasite who expects other people to pay for you

"YOU" cannot live without "US."

WE produce the STUFF.  WE are the people who actually produce the goods and services that have value and people want and need.  YOU need US more than WE need YOU!

We're the ones that produce the groceries to keep your "WIC Accepted Here" BS grocery isle full of the food you need.

We're the ones that go to school for 10 years to become the doctors to provide you "free health care" when you decide to get knocked up for the 5th time before your 25th birthday.

We are the ones who engineer the buses and cars you ride to enjoy the roads WE designed with OUR MONEY you used for bus fare.

We are the only reason you live and exist today.  Without us, you would not exist.

That's not an opinion.

It's not a "wish."

That's not political bias.

It's a fact you have been shielded from by liberal politicians and an ignorant voting population that votes to take our money to pay for your parasitic (again, not insulting - just true) lives.

You're not "independent."  You're not "cool."  And you're certainly not "oppressed" or "tyrannized" over.  You're just parasites enslaving other people who actually produce STUFF and things of value.

Now, you can get all pissed off at all those rich people, and never spend a calorie of energy looking at how much they pay in taxes to pay for your parasitic existence, but here's another shocking bit of fact-

Hate us as much as you want, we're taking you with us.

You can vote to tax us to death.  You can vote to make it illegal to be successful.  You can villainize "profit" and "wealth" all you want. However, in the end, you WILL realize that we are your life line.

We are the ones producing the food, the clothing, the shelter and the STUFF you NEED TO LIVE.

We are the ones that are producing the doctors, the surgeons the nurses and the RA's to take care of you. The food that goes in your mouths and the 4 illegitimate childrens' mouths you have.  We are the ones producing EVERYTHING you need to live.  And you produce NOTHING in return (maybe more illegitimate children, who the hell knows).

But you DARE want to piss us off, or tax us to the point it is no longer in our best interest to play host to your parasitic lives? OR you DARE to attack us because you are envious, bigoted, and hate filled?

Go ahead.

Because if we go down, we're taking you with us.

And what's funny, is we don't have to try because we're the ones producing all the stuff.

So I dare suggest for those of you who think you're "oppressed" or "disadvantaged" as you snort coke, knock up girl #14, get knocked up by guy #15, major in philosophy or some other obvious galactically stupid decision, to take your complaints and the consequences of your stupid decisions, shove them, and have a strong belt of STFU and be THANKFUL we're paying the taxes to shield you from the full costs, consequences and catastrophes of your inconceivable stupidity.

"The Cappy Cap Logic Challenge!"

Can you meet the challenge?!

The easy part is to link this to the lack of fathers.

The hard part (and where we will test your economist mettle) is to explain how the majority of victims brought this upon themselves, have only themselves to blame and the delicious irony that has resulted (and consequently sweetened our official "Enjoy the Decline" drinks!).

Your choice of a free copy of "Worthless" or "Behind the Housing Crash" will be mailed to the person with the timeliest and clearest/most correct logic.

California Idiots

Seriously, how do you people elect these morons?

Oh, wait!  That's right!  You guys are morons yourselves!

I love when he's asked if the plan would be "pre-tax or post-tax" and he "doesn't know."  Just shows you how liberals don't think things through because they're too damn lazy to think of the consequences.  Just barf feel-good, puppies and unicorns legislation out there and collect the votes of the idiots you just bribed.

Alexander Discovered Rocks and Dirt

An interesting observation I've had Cappy Cappites.  Another mountain-hiking inspired epiphany brought about by the fact my MP3 player stopped working (it's amazing how many epiphanies I have while hiking without my MP3 player).

This one is the observation that after long and grueling hikes and climbs, after thousands of calories of energy burned, and after much planning, plotting and scheming about how to summit a peak

in the end

when you finally get there

every peak

has had nothing more than dirt and rocks at the top.

Some had snow, but all had dirt and rocks.

And this an epiphany did make.

Understand that I was brought up poor and in Wisconsin.  Wisconsin does not have mountains, but when my friends at school returned from their summer vacations and showed me pictures of Rocky Mountain National Park or Glacier or Yellowstone I was literally mesmerized by the pictures.  "Whats up in those mountains?  Where are these mountains?  Whose been there before?  Did you climb to the top of them?  Why not?"  I had never seen such a thing with my own eyes, but my visceral response was that I NEEDED to climb them.  I NEEDED to see what was up there.

Quite pathetically, when we would visit my grandparents in Minnesota we would drive through a bluff region of Wisconsin, the peaks of which never went more than 200 feet, but to a human only 1/4th the size of a full grown adult, they may as well have been mountains.  All I wanted to do was climb them and I would beseech my father to pull over and let us climb just one of them

"No, we have to make it to Tomah before 7PM."

So blame it on unfulfilled child psychological reasons, when I finally had the money and the residency near mountains BLAMO!!!!  I climbed every mountain I could.

In the Black Hills there is only one peak (Crooks Tower) that I haven't climbed that is of any significant height.  I've hiked straight through the upper part of Badland's National Park both east-west and north-south.  I did Halley's Peak in Rocky Mountain National Park as well as Deseret's Peak in Utah.  And since the Big Horn Mountains are withing 3 hours drive to the west, I've been tackling several mountains and lake hikes there.

But as time has gone on and I've fulfilled more and more hikes a very sad observation came to me - I'm the only one doing these hikes.

Oh sure, occasionally I've had a friend or a Meet-Up hiking buddy join, but the vast majority of my hikes are by myself.  And the reason they're by myself is multi-fold.

1.  I'm in excellent shape.  Not to brag, but to do a 16 mile hike with a 4,000 foot elevation gain and all under 8 hours, there's not a lot of people who can keep up with me.

2.  I have minimal obligations.  When it's Friday afternoon and I finish up whatever project or call I'm working on, BLAMO!  I'm out the door driving to a mountain range for the weekend.  I have no children, I have no wife, I have no car payment, and I can afford the gas and lodging (assuming I'm not camping).  If I decide to go, not only can I afford to go, I CAN go because there's only one person to account and accommodate for.

3.  I just plain have the desire to go and climb mountains and take long hikes.  As a kid when I first saw the Badlands from the main road, the badlands formations went on forever.  It made a young boy's mind wander and ask "what else is out there?  Who has been out there?  What will I find if I go out there?  Can I make it out there?"  That has never left me since the 8th grade and now when I see a peak or a map or a lake or just a far off butte, my brain is predisposed to wonder what treasure I will find AND it provides my the psychological determination to commit myself to that hike.  Regardless, most people do not have that curiosity nor that determination.

Getting back to point, regardless of the reason, what I find myself doing more often than not, is summiting a monstrous peak, finishing a dehydrating hike, or just plain achieving an impressive physical feat only to turn around, look around and see I'm the only guy on top of this mountain.  Or I'm the only guy returning to my Chevy parked in the Buffalo National Grasslands.  I'm the only one shouting for joy that I found a rare fairburn agate in Ardmore, SD. 

There's nobody there.

Now what makes this depressing is NOT that I'm alone.  I know all of you "nursing home scare-tactic freaks" always love to say, "you'll die ALL ALOOOOOOONE!"

That is not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is what happens when you start to master or excel in a certain field to the point you no longer have peers or people you can associate with or compare against.  There's nobody to turn to and say,

"Hey, we did a kick ass job! Don't you agree!?"


You don't even have rivals or enemies to compete against.  Tesla had Edison.  The Joker had Batman.  Hogan had Colonel Klink.  There was at least SOMEBODY to provide a standard against.

But, if you are fortunate enough to excel in whatever hobby it is you choose to pursue, and you continue to progress in that endeavor, there will be fewer and fewer people you can relate to.

Now I didn't bring this up to get all sappy and sad on you guys, but as a sincere and legitimate observation for those of you in the Manosphere AS WELL as any woman who achieves excellence in whatever field or hobby intrigues her-

There's only rocks and dirt at the top.

Men of the Manosphere, REAL men, men who follow their genetic and intellectual programming will ALWAYS pursue some kind of study or discipline that interests them in an attempt to master it.  Not only will the majority of men succeed, they will be interested by multiple disciplines and hobbies and also excel in those as well.  But there is an ultimate drawback or a disadvantage for men in the Manosphere embedded in our nature

We have unlimited time and financial resources to dedicate to these intellectual pursuits.

Much like my hiking is put 3 standard deviations to the right of the mean by the fact I have no children, no wife and no obligations, so too are all of your personal hobbies and intellectual pursuits.  In having no family, no wife/husband, no children, just yourself, you have an INORDINATE amount of time and resources to dedicate to your own interests and desires.  With such an amount of resources you will not only quickly master whatever hobbies or pursuits you're interested in, but rapidly surpass your married/obligated peers to the point you'll be all alone.

You'll be the Jimmy Hendricks of guitar players.

You'll be the Duke Ellington of Jazz composers

You'll be the Cappy Cap of the fossil hunting, motorcycle riding, ballroom dancing, economists.

And you'll have nobody to compare, compete or just plain converse with.

Now, does this mean I'm advocating you self-handicap yourself and not achieve your own personal best just so you can have a social life? 

Hell no. 

All it means is that you are on the fore-front, the vanguard, the production-possibilities curve of whatever particular interest piques you.  It also means that you are more likely to go down in history as an "expert," a "connoisseur" that will be remembered for your advancing of the field.  It is just an observation and a somewhat-of-a-warning that if you do decide to focus on your own potential, it's a guarantee you'll achieve it, but it's a warning as to just how few people there are at your level when you do.  And like me when it comes to fossil hunting, or Roosh when it comes to visiting different countries, or Victor when it comes to mastering self-discipline, you will be that "freak" 4 standard deviations to the right of the mean.

Or to quote an Alexander the Great quote:

"When Alexander saw the breadth of his domain, he wept for there were no more worlds to conquer."

I'd Like Some White Privilege Please

What is that disease or psychological disorder where people hate themselves?  In the meantime I'm still waiting for the unfair advantages my skin color is supposedly supposed to bring me.

Out-Freaking-Standing

From our American Agent in the Field.

Remember, buy Worthless.  It's worth every penny.

The 12 Year Life Expectancy of the "Tax the Rich" Plan

Some quick back of napkin economics here fellow junior, deputy, official, aspiring, or otherwise economists!

So I was on another hike, enjoying the decline, like I do, and got to kicking around a couple questions about wealth.  Specifically,


"How long could "the poor" live off of "the rich" if we finally decided just to confiscate and redistribute the wealth like so many of our democrat and socialist friends would like?"

First understand a couple statistics and facts.

One, there is an estimated $62 trillion of wealth in the US currently.

Two, the "rich" defined as the top 20% own 85% of it, so $52.7 trillion.

Three, of the $3.6 trillion federal budget, $2.2 trillion or 60% of that is spent on wealth transfers.

Four, the states spend roughly the same amount as the feds and have roughly the same percentage going to wealth redistribution (again, this is "back of napkin" economics, not "break out the Cray super computer and run complex models that will fail anyway" economics).  So add another $2.2 trillion for a total of wealth transfers of $4.4 trillion.

Now, if we decided to "stick it to the rich" and "solve everybody's problems" and confiscated all $52.7 trillion of those hated rich people and divide it by the $4.4 trillion in resources the "poor" consumes, that wealth transfer will last them a whopping:

12 years.

Now I'm being INCREDIBLY optimistic because I'm ignoring a couple things.

First, this assumes you can just confiscate the wealth of rich people without it having a direct impact on the market value of that wealth.  If you decided that 80% of the wealth was to be communal, the stock market would tank, immediately driving the wealth that could be confiscated well below $52.7 trillion.

Second, this also assumes the economy would even continue to function so the parasitic classes could spend their stolen-gains on said goods and services.  With 80% of the wealth taken out, I doubt grocery store owners, energy producers, engineers, doctors, and all the people that produce the actual STUFF that gives your $52.7 trillion in cash value would bother showing up for work.  So this essentially ignores the fact that the grocery stores and car dealerships would be empty and very optimistically assumes the dollar would still be accepted as a medium of exchange.

Third, it also assumes the "rich" sit idly by and don't ship their money offshore.  That all those lawyers and accountants are on vacation at the same time so as the legislation slowly moves through congress, rich people are completely unaware of the handgrab coming their way.

Of course, real economists such as you, me, our lieutenants and agents in the field know the economy would collapse immediately, but I still like to argue with the mental handicap of an envious and lazy liberal who deems themselves entitled to other people's money.  It proves, even with their rosy assumptions about how the real world works, that their ideology is impossible.

Enjoy the 12 years!

The Return of Aramis

Aramis is a cologne that my grandpa wore.  I remember the smell quite distinctly because I believe the nerves in your nose are most closely related to memory in your brain or some other such thing I've heard.  Of course when I smell Aramis I immediately get a smile on my face because I remember my loving grandpa.  The same thing happens when I smell chlorine in a pool (because the rare times we'd stay at a hotel with a pool as a kid) and when I smell the combination of lawn mower exhaust and freshly cut grass.

I bought a bottle of Aramis in college and used it sparingly.  At first because I would save it for "rare" occasions, and then because the girls I would date would say they liked "Drakar" or whatever the fashionable cologne was that weekend.  So 19 years later I still have about 1/4th of a bottle.

But then something funny happened.

A female friend of mine said she "LOVED" Aramis.

Because of the smell?

No.

Because of the company?

No.

Because of some other reason I couldn't guess?

No.

It was because her dad wore Aramis and it reminded her of him.

Now not to get into girl-daddy issues, but this little tidbit of knowledge got me thinking:

"What if you were to wear all the old colognes that were popular amongst men back in the 70's and 80's when the girls of today were little daddy's daughters and were regularly exposed to the scent of that cologne?


Would it remind them of dad and thus see you in a more manly and attractive fashion?  Would it remind them of their youth, making them happier and thus more agreeable to your presence?"

I have no proof, but I'd be curious to see if you male lieutenants out there might want to try to carry out an experiment.  If we were to look up the most popular colognes of the 70's and 80's among 30+ year old men, wear them while out and about, and see if there is a discernible effect.  Heck there may be one already.

I just know Brut cologne never worked regardless of what year it was.

No Houses for Sociology Majors

Heh heh.

Oh, I love when reality strikes.

"Vengeance is The Captain's," Sayeth the Lord

Anger, defense, and retribution are all good things in the hands of good men.

Take that away from them or criminalize them for it, there will be nobody to defend you or society when the bad men, who are equally equipped and will never jettison those traits, walk in unopposed, almost mockingly so and destroy your lives.

And yeah, I'm engaging in "sensationalism." 

No Good Comes of Horses

Horses AND "KHOMA."

Though the two usually go together.

If you don't know what "KHOMA" is then I suggest you read this.

You could wipe out third-world poverty if American women simply donated money to charity instead of maintained horses.  But no, no.  Pretties horsies iz so pretteez to looksies ats!!!  Yeah pweettty horsieeeeessss!!!

Besides, what's a few hundred million child-deaths due to malaria compared to a pretty shiny pony?

God I hate horses.

Housing to Recover?

If you look at the supply side, I'd have to say yes!  Only took 6 years to finally bottom out, but it looks like housing is slightly recovering:

Oh, but wait!  There's the other side of the formula - demand.

And with unemployment still high, fresh college graduates and yoots who tripped over their own slobber to vote for Obama crushed under student debt and no disposable income, not to mention ever increasing property taxes, there is a fraction of the demand as there was previously.  I sincerely doubt there will be "booming" property prices...at least until the presidential election is over and people WITH MONEY have genuine hope in the future of the country.

Recession Medicine

Heh.

Remember, it's more important for government bureaucrats to have jobs than for the rest of you to have them. 

Fan Mail

Sir,

MBAs are totally degraded, as we know.

Atabasca University (distance learning) published today the list of
the 183 graduates from it program, here are my findings:

- 166 people provided their names, most their places of employment
- 48 of them (28.9%) work for government (hospitals, education boards,
city of this and that, etc.)
- 22 work for banks or investment funds (13.25%)
- 8 work for hi-tech companies (4.8%)

You can analyse it however you want, but I have some suspicions as to
what your commentary might be.

I have one with two comments:

- How can it be that the government sector accounts for a third of all
MBAs? What are they doing that is so important? Getting a well-rounded
education?
- I am 100% sure my taxpayer's money is paying for all 48 MBAs in the
so-called public sector. I have no objections with some MBAs for key
people (there was one from Ministry of Defence) being paid by
taxpayer's money. However, I do object to 30% of the MBAs in 2012
being paid on my dime. Some examples of what I think to be wasted
taxpayer's money (unless it can be proven otherwise): Interior Health
Authority, Heffley Creek, BC (a town I never heard of needs an MBA
there?); Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (they couldn't get one
ready made in Toronto? are you kidding me?; City of Ottawa;
Electical/Mechanical Contractors Association; City of Mississauga.

And an encore comment:

- I look forward to male advancement and mentoring programs in
government, since males account for less just under 50% of MBAs earned
by government operated authorities, despite males having longer
careers in industry than females.

I'm surprised it's only 30% government workers.  The only people with money are those in the public sector....and well, those kids whose parents are mortgaging their retirement to put little Suzie or Jimmy through an MBA program....

of course in the laughable hopes....

they'll make enough money....

to pay off their parents....

via nursing home financing...

and visits....

which will never come.

Enjoy the nursing home decline!