I received a request from some social media internet company that wanted to do some kind of "affiliate" thing with my blog. I always entertain these offers because sometimes they actually pay money instead of "exchange traffic" or "help optimize my SEO." So I said, "sure yeah, what do you got?"
"Well, we work with non-profits" and then he lost me there because no matter what he said after that would be irrelevant and let me explain why.
Non-profits DO NOT SOLVE PROBLEMS.
They don't.
They just don't.
I've asked before for people to provide me a list of social ills non-profits have solved and am still waiting for one. Haiti is still a shithole, Africa is still a shithole, Chicago is still a shithole. racism is still abound, 1 in 5 children are starving in America..matter of fact, if you ask any of these non-profit types they're saying the situation has GOTTEN WORSE and they need EVEN MORE money.
My question is "What happened to the $4-$8 TRILLION we gave you over the past 40 years?????"
Naturally, in the private sector if you handed out trillions of dollars to solve problems and NONE of them were solved, whoever was in charge would be fired. But ahhhhh, there's the problem.
You're thinking logically again.
You see, charity, non-profit and social spend is NOT to solve the said ills of society. It is FIRST AND FOREMOST for the workers in those industries. There is no limit to the MILLIONS of spoiled brat suburbanite high school graduates who go to some third world nation to "help" which is liberalese for "free trip and ego-masturbation hiding the fact I'm a lazy 18 year old who doesn't want to work hard or study math." And they really never grow up, but instead aspire to start their own charities and non-profits (just look at the heads of any non-profit and see if they're engineers, doctors or any real contributors of society, or are instead liberal arts majors hailing from rich families). This results in an entire industry (and a significant part of government) that is nothing more than adult children syphoning money off of charitable people and taxpayers so they can play "incompetent do-gooder" and avoid a real job.
But what pushes the non-profit world from "naive and lazy" to "full blown evil" is where they realize that if they ever were to solve the problem, then they'd be out of a job and have to find real work. This results in one of two things. Either they NEVER solve the problem, constantly begging for more money (the public schools is a perfect example of this) OR they create whole new problems (once the Keystone pipeline was kaboshed, all those environmentalists went on to protest fracking). In other words these people USE AND ABUSE the actually disadvantaged people they're claiming to help and is ultimately why 32 cents on the dollar is actually received by welfare recipients, "Live AID" made some musicians rich while Africans still suffered, and black kids in Chicago suffer a lousy education while the true Uncle Tom eats sushi in the White House.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - I have more respect for the welfareist of the welfare bums because at least they're honest. They just want a free buck and I can at least understand that on a human psychology level. But the scum that populate the non-profit world are a zillion times worse in that they not only want to parasite off of the rest of society, but DARE to claim their actions are noble and DARE to act superior, smug, and altruistic about it.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
Hoarder Economics
While therapists and TV network producers aim to profit off of hoarders, none of them ever get around to actually solving the problem at its genetic level. They treat it, they have interventions, sometimes an increasingly-rare father figure comes in, bypasses them all, and lays down the law. But by and large the phenomenon is one that persists.
However, with my patented SAGE (TM) I have found an economic rationale or “counterargument” for what is the number one excuse hoarders use to explain why they hoard -
“It has value"
or
“I can use this in the future.”
And I think for those of you that must suffer hoarders, it will prove invaluable.
Let us set aside the argument that their basement-dwelling, mold-infested, “Computer Programming Today” magazines from the 1970's really don't have any value. Let us set aside the argument that Beanie Babies don't pay dividends and provide no cash flow. And let us set aside the argument that all those clothes haven't been worn in 10 years and are obsoleted through fashion.
Let's just assume EVERYTHING a hoarder hoards has value.
So where do you store it?
Well, you have many options where to store this stuff. But the problem is that no matter where you store it, it's going to cost money to store it.
A rental facility costs rent.
Your house has a mortgage (and property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. even if you pay the mortgage)
And your apartment also costs rent.
And if you've ever been in realty you know that rent, housing and storage costs are measured by (what metric was that again?) oh, that's right
$/square foot.
This is often the variable the hoarder's brain fails to account for. That even if their stuff did have value, which it doesn't, they are still paying for it in that they must house it SOMEWHERE. And the more stuff they have, the more they must pay. You calculate total storage cost, and the fact they NEVER sell it, the true storage costs are at least thrice any potential value of all the stuff.
Naturally, for genuine psycho-hoarders who have an emotional vestment in their junk this logical economic argument will not force them to start jettisoning their junk. BUT for the “sane hoarders:”
Great Depression generation
People brought up under poverty
A cluttery husband
and pretty much every female in America (yuk yuk yuk)
this handy economic rationale may open their eyes to how hoarding junk is really costing them more in the long run...not to mention grant you that sanity of having a clean house you can finally enjoy.
However, with my patented SAGE (TM) I have found an economic rationale or “counterargument” for what is the number one excuse hoarders use to explain why they hoard -
“It has value"
or
“I can use this in the future.”
And I think for those of you that must suffer hoarders, it will prove invaluable.
Let us set aside the argument that their basement-dwelling, mold-infested, “Computer Programming Today” magazines from the 1970's really don't have any value. Let us set aside the argument that Beanie Babies don't pay dividends and provide no cash flow. And let us set aside the argument that all those clothes haven't been worn in 10 years and are obsoleted through fashion.
Let's just assume EVERYTHING a hoarder hoards has value.
So where do you store it?
Well, you have many options where to store this stuff. But the problem is that no matter where you store it, it's going to cost money to store it.
A rental facility costs rent.
Your house has a mortgage (and property taxes, insurance, maintenance, etc. even if you pay the mortgage)
And your apartment also costs rent.
And if you've ever been in realty you know that rent, housing and storage costs are measured by (what metric was that again?) oh, that's right
$/square foot.
This is often the variable the hoarder's brain fails to account for. That even if their stuff did have value, which it doesn't, they are still paying for it in that they must house it SOMEWHERE. And the more stuff they have, the more they must pay. You calculate total storage cost, and the fact they NEVER sell it, the true storage costs are at least thrice any potential value of all the stuff.
Naturally, for genuine psycho-hoarders who have an emotional vestment in their junk this logical economic argument will not force them to start jettisoning their junk. BUT for the “sane hoarders:”
Great Depression generation
People brought up under poverty
A cluttery husband
and pretty much every female in America (yuk yuk yuk)
this handy economic rationale may open their eyes to how hoarding junk is really costing them more in the long run...not to mention grant you that sanity of having a clean house you can finally enjoy.
Wednesday, June 18, 2014
The Real Threat of the Patent Office
Conservative talk radio is once again just like the Republican Party.
Timid
Tepid
Weak
Polite
and apologetic
when it comes to the patent office reneging on the Washington Redskin's trademark.
"Oooo!!! Ooo!!! Gee Joe I don't know about that. That 'MAY' lead somewhere! Ooooo! Oooo!!! Slippery slope!"
Thankfully I'm not as spineless as they are and I don't care to be fake nice to the "party across the aisle" in the hopes they may someday reciprocate my politeness.
The truth is it was 100% an Obama appointee ideologue's move and it was done 100% for political purposes.
This, in it of itself, does not particularly wreak any damage. Just a political hack with a government position abusing power. However, because leftists are idiots and really don't understand economics, they have no idea just how much economic damage they've potentially caused in turning the patent office political -
What inventor or entrepreneur is EVER going to trust the patent office, let alone come up with a new invention ever again?
Oh, I know, I know, big companies and big Pharma and big chemical companies will still apply for their patents and copyrights, but the next Edison, the next Gates, the next Ford? If they're conservative (or at least capitalists which they usually are) why should they trust the patent office now with their sweat and toil?
The true damage caused by this little political whining cry baby stunt is that a name that really only offends the professional offense-seekers has now completely undermined that concept of copyrights, patents, and intellectual property.
Enjoy that freaking decline.
Timid
Tepid
Weak
Polite
and apologetic
when it comes to the patent office reneging on the Washington Redskin's trademark.
"Oooo!!! Ooo!!! Gee Joe I don't know about that. That 'MAY' lead somewhere! Ooooo! Oooo!!! Slippery slope!"
Thankfully I'm not as spineless as they are and I don't care to be fake nice to the "party across the aisle" in the hopes they may someday reciprocate my politeness.
The truth is it was 100% an Obama appointee ideologue's move and it was done 100% for political purposes.
This, in it of itself, does not particularly wreak any damage. Just a political hack with a government position abusing power. However, because leftists are idiots and really don't understand economics, they have no idea just how much economic damage they've potentially caused in turning the patent office political -
What inventor or entrepreneur is EVER going to trust the patent office, let alone come up with a new invention ever again?
Oh, I know, I know, big companies and big Pharma and big chemical companies will still apply for their patents and copyrights, but the next Edison, the next Gates, the next Ford? If they're conservative (or at least capitalists which they usually are) why should they trust the patent office now with their sweat and toil?
The true damage caused by this little political whining cry baby stunt is that a name that really only offends the professional offense-seekers has now completely undermined that concept of copyrights, patents, and intellectual property.
Enjoy that freaking decline.
Wednesday Night Constitutional
Do not underestimate stupid people.
We should just ban all guns...that way we can use knives.
Didn't we just leave this place?
We should just ban all guns...that way we can use knives.
Didn't we just leave this place?
No Greater Determining Sociological Variable Than Single Moms
Why do we champion such idiocy in society?
Never mind, I know, I know. It helps elect socialists to power by promising a surrogate provider to replace fathers and husbands. At least the children don't suffer.
Never mind, I know, I know. It helps elect socialists to power by promising a surrogate provider to replace fathers and husbands. At least the children don't suffer.
The Most Depressing Podcast Ever
The Black Brigade has another damn fine podcast up, but the news they cover not just makes it the most depressing podcast I've listened to in a while, but only reinforces why enjoying the decline is the way to go.
New Blogroll - Glitter Night
Two posts that intrigued me:
The top 4 Forgotten Military Units.
A review of "The Burqa" - Apparently makes Quentin Tarantino seem tame.
You can visit the main site here.
The top 4 Forgotten Military Units.
A review of "The Burqa" - Apparently makes Quentin Tarantino seem tame.
You can visit the main site here.
Tuesday, June 17, 2014
No Good Deed Goes Unpunished
To give context, I was in all good faith attempting to get this kid to at least RETHINK attending law school. Alas, this is what happens when you try to introduce reality into the Millennial's Dream-World built up by politicians, aloof parents, and an education industry desperate to rip them off of their money.
It's instances like this that makes me happy to hear the never ending news stories of (typically) leftists students getting crushed and their lives crippled by student loans.
It's instances like this that makes me happy to hear the never ending news stories of (typically) leftists students getting crushed and their lives crippled by student loans.
Fuck You Mark Dayton
Fuck you and your spoiled brat children.
(read down to the point where you find out his children run a restaurant and complained to him about the minimum wage hike)
(read down to the point where you find out his children run a restaurant and complained to him about the minimum wage hike)
Tuesday Evening Constitutional
Fat tatted up self-absorbed crusader goes on a crusade because...well...she's got nothing better to do.
El Capitan de Espanol! I was looking for somebody to translate.
College degrees per capita.
Self-sufficiency is better than a college degree. But don't tell professors and their spoiled veal-like suburbanite princes and princesses that.
Oh, just NOW you realize Americans are stupid?
Ghostbusters, 1774 America, and some zingers on Obama.
Uh ohhhh!!!! Google has no problem hiring people without degrees! Oh noezies!!!!! What are the edukated childrenz of Ameriku suppozed to doo?
Speaking of stupid.
El Capitan de Espanol! I was looking for somebody to translate.
College degrees per capita.
Self-sufficiency is better than a college degree. But don't tell professors and their spoiled veal-like suburbanite princes and princesses that.
Oh, just NOW you realize Americans are stupid?
Ghostbusters, 1774 America, and some zingers on Obama.
Uh ohhhh!!!! Google has no problem hiring people without degrees! Oh noezies!!!!! What are the edukated childrenz of Ameriku suppozed to doo?
Speaking of stupid.
The Marksman's Box
A year ago I headed out west for my annual South Dakota trip. I was invited to visit a reader out in Wyoming. He was an older man, but he was a skilled man because when he showed me his little shop (which was an abandoned gas station) he showed me "The Marksman's Box."
It was one of those things that was so simple in design that it was brilliant. It is basically an ammo box, a strap of which you use to sling it over your shoulder or just carry. However, the way the top opens suspends the strap in midair just above the box allowing you to lay the barrel of your gun down using it essentially as a firing platform.
I've been meaning to link to the poor guy for the past year, but then ended up working on various other projects. It wasn't until recently I rediscovered the pictures from that trip did I frantically realize I forgot.
Anyway, he isn't a sponsor because he isn't paying me, but he was a heck of a nice guy with a heck of a nice idea. please consider purchasing one if you're looking for something to carry ammo as well as to help your aim.
It was one of those things that was so simple in design that it was brilliant. It is basically an ammo box, a strap of which you use to sling it over your shoulder or just carry. However, the way the top opens suspends the strap in midair just above the box allowing you to lay the barrel of your gun down using it essentially as a firing platform.
I've been meaning to link to the poor guy for the past year, but then ended up working on various other projects. It wasn't until recently I rediscovered the pictures from that trip did I frantically realize I forgot.
Anyway, he isn't a sponsor because he isn't paying me, but he was a heck of a nice guy with a heck of a nice idea. please consider purchasing one if you're looking for something to carry ammo as well as to help your aim.
Dealing With Adult Children
But the biggest purpose in ensuring that whatever your critics say about
you is a lie is that it ultimately calls into question their authority
and accuracy. No matter how emotional, no matter how enraged, when they
are lying about you it calls into question everything else they’ve said
about you and gives you cache and credibility over them.
Monday, June 16, 2014
Monday Night Constitutional
Stay frosty, boys. Stay the freak frosty.
Some outstanding charts from Susan Walsh. My favorite is the chart showing a near-zero interest from women in hooking up or looking for sex, but a booming interest in dating.
New sponsor "Confessions of an Online Hustler"
Indian accounts of tornadoes pre-colonial days.
Some outstanding charts from Susan Walsh. My favorite is the chart showing a near-zero interest from women in hooking up or looking for sex, but a booming interest in dating.
New sponsor "Confessions of an Online Hustler"
Indian accounts of tornadoes pre-colonial days.
When the Economy Refuses to Play Keynesian Ball
Guy #1.
Good buddy of mine. Realtor carpenter. Busted his ass off when he was young. Fell in love in his early 20's. Lent a girl with big tits a lot of money, never got it back. Didn't matter as through determination and raw effort he inevitably made killer coin during the housing bubble. However, while he was successful he was foolish enough to buy a cabin and a luxury SUV (among other purchases) thinking it would continue forever. Crash hit, he suffered mightily for 6 years. Now, he crawled back, not losing a thing, and is once again approaching $100,000 for an annual salary.
His next major purchase?
A new fishing pole.
Guy #2
Another good buddy of mine. Smart, young entrepreneur. Made a KILLING during the housing bubble as he was a master carpenter and also invested in real estate. Was flying to Vegas on a semi-weekly basis with his wife. Drove a Mercedes and also thought the good times would last. Housing bubble hit. Some of his investment partners proved not to be as solvent or honest as they claimed. His flagship operation went bust. Now, he's rebuilt himself a nice piece of property he bought at the bottom of the bust, built up a stash of cash to pay off creditors if necessary.
His next major purchase?
A cigar with me.
Guy #3
Me.
Never had anywhere near the success of the aforementioned two. Finally found a company to refinance my house. Make enough money on book sales and various internet ventures to put food on the table and travel on the cheap sleeping in crappy motels, if not the rental car. One time, with full time dance classes and full time banking work, almost made $100,000 had I not told my employer to go fornicate himself. Housing bubble hit, reverted to solely dance classes, and once again lived in an illegally furnished basement apartment to make ends meet.
Next major purchase?
Gas for my next road trip.
So what, young lieutenants, do all the aforementioned boys above have in common?
Well, let me tell you.
1. They in their naive youth were more than willing to bust out of the gates, take on life, and become great entrepreneurs or captains of industry.
2. They foolishly assumed what finite and fleeting fortune they did have was going to last forever and either purchased things they shouldn't have or made investments in what is now in retrospect foolish things.
3. After suffering the great recession, having to get by on limited income wherein finances were so crippling and threatening, all of them have (and pay attention to this) ZERO INTEREST IN EVER BUYING ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANT WORTH EVER AGAIN.
And thus the point of my post.
While we three men of occident aren't conclusive empirical proof, we are anecdotes of what I believe to be a torpedoing trend for the Keynesian Obamanauts - people, with the harshness of the Great Recession fresh in their minds, just plain don't want to invest or spend money.
I wanted to see if there was a "Marginal Propensity to Consume" figure on the FRED database to confirm this, but I could not find one. Still, using several proxies you see at least a reluctance or stubbornness as the population becomes penny pinchers a la those who went through the Great Depression.
Gross private investment, though recovering, still isn't back to its historical average:
The Personal Savings Rate (which I believe is actually a good thing) is not playing Keynesian ball
And the velocity of money puts another nail on Obama's record-breaking stimulus spending:
Whatever specific events caused this - crushing finances for 7 years, big titted girls running off with money, foreclosure, ne'er an ounce of job security - the larger point is that what is ultimately driving this fear to spend and invest is psychology. And sadly, for Obama and his Keynesians, they largely ignore psychology, insisting to treat economics as an actual, mathematical science arrogantly thinking they can predict the economy like Newtonian physics.
Since they ignore psychology the economic policies they enact are rendered impotent. For example we do have relatively low taxes historically speaking. But spending is so out of control it undermines the entire future of the economy, driving away any long term investment. Obama can talk all he wants about jobs, but with Obama and the left blatantly spouting off their hatred, envy and desire to steal from the successful, it not only makes it just talk, but further deters any would-be entrepreneurs from trying their best. And ironically, since none of these Keynesian tactics have actually worked, the left has screwed over their most reliable demographic - young people. Additionally burden this demographic with student loans used largely to finance the "Leftist Vampire Professor Industry" and it doesn't matter how much "hope and faith" they have in Obama, they just plain don't have the money to buy houses, cars, and boost the economy.
The end result is what we have now - an economy that could not be more diametrically opposed to textbook economics. Historical (and I do mean historical) stimulus spending, yet a stagnant economy.
For Austrian economists or people who just have their heads out of their asses, this makes sense. For charlatans posing as Keynesians, but who know better (Krugman, etc.), this also makes sense, but they need to come up with increasingly fabricated poppycock to keep the spending gravy train going. For the rest of the economists out there this simply does not compute. But then again, most economists spent way too much time obsessing over math, let alone they actually believed the leftist claptrap they were fed in school. Alas, the price one pays for a lack of intellectually honest and independent thought is confusion and forced cognitive dissonance.
Enjoy the decline!
Good buddy of mine. Realtor carpenter. Busted his ass off when he was young. Fell in love in his early 20's. Lent a girl with big tits a lot of money, never got it back. Didn't matter as through determination and raw effort he inevitably made killer coin during the housing bubble. However, while he was successful he was foolish enough to buy a cabin and a luxury SUV (among other purchases) thinking it would continue forever. Crash hit, he suffered mightily for 6 years. Now, he crawled back, not losing a thing, and is once again approaching $100,000 for an annual salary.
His next major purchase?
A new fishing pole.
Guy #2
Another good buddy of mine. Smart, young entrepreneur. Made a KILLING during the housing bubble as he was a master carpenter and also invested in real estate. Was flying to Vegas on a semi-weekly basis with his wife. Drove a Mercedes and also thought the good times would last. Housing bubble hit. Some of his investment partners proved not to be as solvent or honest as they claimed. His flagship operation went bust. Now, he's rebuilt himself a nice piece of property he bought at the bottom of the bust, built up a stash of cash to pay off creditors if necessary.
His next major purchase?
A cigar with me.
Guy #3
Me.
Never had anywhere near the success of the aforementioned two. Finally found a company to refinance my house. Make enough money on book sales and various internet ventures to put food on the table and travel on the cheap sleeping in crappy motels, if not the rental car. One time, with full time dance classes and full time banking work, almost made $100,000 had I not told my employer to go fornicate himself. Housing bubble hit, reverted to solely dance classes, and once again lived in an illegally furnished basement apartment to make ends meet.
Next major purchase?
Gas for my next road trip.
So what, young lieutenants, do all the aforementioned boys above have in common?
Well, let me tell you.
1. They in their naive youth were more than willing to bust out of the gates, take on life, and become great entrepreneurs or captains of industry.
2. They foolishly assumed what finite and fleeting fortune they did have was going to last forever and either purchased things they shouldn't have or made investments in what is now in retrospect foolish things.
3. After suffering the great recession, having to get by on limited income wherein finances were so crippling and threatening, all of them have (and pay attention to this) ZERO INTEREST IN EVER BUYING ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANT WORTH EVER AGAIN.
And thus the point of my post.
While we three men of occident aren't conclusive empirical proof, we are anecdotes of what I believe to be a torpedoing trend for the Keynesian Obamanauts - people, with the harshness of the Great Recession fresh in their minds, just plain don't want to invest or spend money.
I wanted to see if there was a "Marginal Propensity to Consume" figure on the FRED database to confirm this, but I could not find one. Still, using several proxies you see at least a reluctance or stubbornness as the population becomes penny pinchers a la those who went through the Great Depression.
Gross private investment, though recovering, still isn't back to its historical average:
The Personal Savings Rate (which I believe is actually a good thing) is not playing Keynesian ball
And the velocity of money puts another nail on Obama's record-breaking stimulus spending:
Whatever specific events caused this - crushing finances for 7 years, big titted girls running off with money, foreclosure, ne'er an ounce of job security - the larger point is that what is ultimately driving this fear to spend and invest is psychology. And sadly, for Obama and his Keynesians, they largely ignore psychology, insisting to treat economics as an actual, mathematical science arrogantly thinking they can predict the economy like Newtonian physics.
Since they ignore psychology the economic policies they enact are rendered impotent. For example we do have relatively low taxes historically speaking. But spending is so out of control it undermines the entire future of the economy, driving away any long term investment. Obama can talk all he wants about jobs, but with Obama and the left blatantly spouting off their hatred, envy and desire to steal from the successful, it not only makes it just talk, but further deters any would-be entrepreneurs from trying their best. And ironically, since none of these Keynesian tactics have actually worked, the left has screwed over their most reliable demographic - young people. Additionally burden this demographic with student loans used largely to finance the "Leftist Vampire Professor Industry" and it doesn't matter how much "hope and faith" they have in Obama, they just plain don't have the money to buy houses, cars, and boost the economy.
The end result is what we have now - an economy that could not be more diametrically opposed to textbook economics. Historical (and I do mean historical) stimulus spending, yet a stagnant economy.
For Austrian economists or people who just have their heads out of their asses, this makes sense. For charlatans posing as Keynesians, but who know better (Krugman, etc.), this also makes sense, but they need to come up with increasingly fabricated poppycock to keep the spending gravy train going. For the rest of the economists out there this simply does not compute. But then again, most economists spent way too much time obsessing over math, let alone they actually believed the leftist claptrap they were fed in school. Alas, the price one pays for a lack of intellectually honest and independent thought is confusion and forced cognitive dissonance.
Enjoy the decline!
Monday Night Liebschens
All liberal and leftists roads lead towards Lierre Keith. I ask a simple question of the leftist activists. When it's all said and done...or heck, you're just Lierre's age, do you ever stop and say, "wow, I just pissed away my life?" Or does that thought never occur to you?
That reality is a bitch. Let's replace with withlies er...um....non-reality.
Dow Jones 32,000....and based on his argument I can't disagree with him.
Now if Free Northerner would just write something deep and intricate involving economics, inflation, philosophy, morality, religion and logic. You know, if just once he would do that AND make it interesting. You know instead of all that other boring tripe he writes.
That reality is a bitch. Let's replace with with
Dow Jones 32,000....and based on his argument I can't disagree with him.
Now if Free Northerner would just write something deep and intricate involving economics, inflation, philosophy, morality, religion and logic. You know, if just once he would do that AND make it interesting. You know instead of all that other boring tripe he writes.
Lastest Clarey Podcast
Advanced apologies from the road because I was driving to visit my dad for father's day. So if you're against this podcast you're against father's day and you're evil and hate all fathers.
No, actually, you aren't. You just don't like marginal audio quality.
Still, in this latest podcast:
How the Mighty Morphin POwer Rangers are Creepy
How the National Park Rangers in Glacier National Park are Hippie Nazi's you can ignore
Not regretting having children
And the amazing absence of black people in horse racing
AND MORE!
in this totally non-racist, non-horse-a-phobic, non-Might-Morphins-Power-Ranger-Anti-Pedophiliac episode of The Clarey Podcast!
(Archives can be found here!)
No, actually, you aren't. You just don't like marginal audio quality.
Still, in this latest podcast:
How the Mighty Morphin POwer Rangers are Creepy
How the National Park Rangers in Glacier National Park are Hippie Nazi's you can ignore
Not regretting having children
And the amazing absence of black people in horse racing
AND MORE!
in this totally non-racist, non-horse-a-phobic, non-Might-Morphins-Power-Ranger-Anti-Pedophiliac episode of The Clarey Podcast!
(Archives can be found here!)
A Sad Father's Day
From our Chicago Agent in the Field:
I always knew Jenny McCarthy was worthless. And that Mark Wahlberg's brother was...well...Mark Wahlberg's brother and not Mark Wahlberg. Because Mark Wahlberg would never settle for Jenny McCarthy.
Anyway, deep down inside I wish that what we "perceive" is not what "is" and that we're just being pessimistic. Sadly, when I see this I start to realize that the problem really does run that deep and that it really is an issue.
I always knew Jenny McCarthy was worthless. And that Mark Wahlberg's brother was...well...Mark Wahlberg's brother and not Mark Wahlberg. Because Mark Wahlberg would never settle for Jenny McCarthy.
Anyway, deep down inside I wish that what we "perceive" is not what "is" and that we're just being pessimistic. Sadly, when I see this I start to realize that the problem really does run that deep and that it really is an issue.
It's a Good Day When a Hoarder Dies
I couldn't put my finger on it why I had this visceral and extreme hatred and disgust with hoarders. Not just in watching the shows, but dealing with people in my own life who put more value on material items than they did life and their fellow human beings.
And then it dawned on me why:
They put more value on worthless material items than they did life and their fellow human beings.
My epiphany about humans being the most important thing in this world is well-covered ground. I don't need to delve into that. But the fact that hoarding is a phenomenon AND to a lesser extent VERY COMMON among the rest of society, only serves as a damning testament to the general patheticness of society.
Think about it. Nearly everybody you know hoards to one level or another. Not the extreme where a worthless soul is crushed by the collapsing floor underneath the weight of filth. But just look at the average American household and how much unneeded and worthless stuff is crammed into it.
Admittedly I have a unique perspective ridding myself of nearly 75% of my Earthly possessions. LImiting myself to just the bare necessities and ONE box of mementos. But even the average person has about 60% of stuff they don't need, don't use, but still hold onto. Certainly, a lot of this is unconscious (not until you move do you realize just what a burden all your stuff is). But where my ire is raised is when a person is asked to get rid of their stuff so that they may continue on with life AND HAS A PERSONAL UMBRAGE AND AFFRONT to getting rid of said stuff, that is where I start to view them as inferior.
Trinkets, doileys, furniture, appliances, televisions, clothes, you name it. Humans are programmed to put more value on stuff they'll never use than the people said stuff inconveniences. They'd rather cripple their finances, renting or paying a mortgage for a house that serves more as a storage facility, not to mention torpedo their personal or love relationships, than rid themselves of meaningless things because they are so subhuman, so sub-par, they actually value things more than life and their fellow human beings.
It took me a while to fully explore and understand my genuine hatred for hoarders and people who are pack rats. And now after thinking it through (not to mention seeing instance first hand) I understand why I not only despised such people but why my despisement was completely legitimate:
They are not humans, but subhumans. And subhumans that would rather collect "Beanie Babies" or some other worthless shit than give their spouse or children or just their plain fellow man an extra bedroom in case of need.
It is indeed one of the few and genuine drawbacks of capitalism.
And then it dawned on me why:
They put more value on worthless material items than they did life and their fellow human beings.
My epiphany about humans being the most important thing in this world is well-covered ground. I don't need to delve into that. But the fact that hoarding is a phenomenon AND to a lesser extent VERY COMMON among the rest of society, only serves as a damning testament to the general patheticness of society.
Think about it. Nearly everybody you know hoards to one level or another. Not the extreme where a worthless soul is crushed by the collapsing floor underneath the weight of filth. But just look at the average American household and how much unneeded and worthless stuff is crammed into it.
Admittedly I have a unique perspective ridding myself of nearly 75% of my Earthly possessions. LImiting myself to just the bare necessities and ONE box of mementos. But even the average person has about 60% of stuff they don't need, don't use, but still hold onto. Certainly, a lot of this is unconscious (not until you move do you realize just what a burden all your stuff is). But where my ire is raised is when a person is asked to get rid of their stuff so that they may continue on with life AND HAS A PERSONAL UMBRAGE AND AFFRONT to getting rid of said stuff, that is where I start to view them as inferior.
Trinkets, doileys, furniture, appliances, televisions, clothes, you name it. Humans are programmed to put more value on stuff they'll never use than the people said stuff inconveniences. They'd rather cripple their finances, renting or paying a mortgage for a house that serves more as a storage facility, not to mention torpedo their personal or love relationships, than rid themselves of meaningless things because they are so subhuman, so sub-par, they actually value things more than life and their fellow human beings.
It took me a while to fully explore and understand my genuine hatred for hoarders and people who are pack rats. And now after thinking it through (not to mention seeing instance first hand) I understand why I not only despised such people but why my despisement was completely legitimate:
They are not humans, but subhumans. And subhumans that would rather collect "Beanie Babies" or some other worthless shit than give their spouse or children or just their plain fellow man an extra bedroom in case of need.
It is indeed one of the few and genuine drawbacks of capitalism.
Saturday, June 14, 2014
Outstanding Podcast on Your IQ
Molyneaux has a very good podcast (the first caller) about how having a high IQ serves as a handicap towards integrating with the rest of society. His mockery of people looking for gold on the beach is also hilarious.
Friday, June 13, 2014
Friday Night Constitutional
Yawnnnn...don't care. And yes, it's because I'm an asshole.
Why you never book at the Hilton in a Liberal Town.
I dated a black girl once. But she acted like a respectable woman. And that's why I dated her (though it was shortlived because she didn't reciprocate the poor ole Cappy's feelings...sniff sniff.). However I would never date this.
What happens when you renounce your US citizenship?
We don't need no STIIIIINNNNKING fathers!
Why you never book at the Hilton in a Liberal Town.
I dated a black girl once. But she acted like a respectable woman. And that's why I dated her (though it was shortlived because she didn't reciprocate the poor ole Cappy's feelings...sniff sniff.). However I would never date this.
What happens when you renounce your US citizenship?
We don't need no STIIIIINNNNKING fathers!
When the Fuel Runs Out
I've been kicking around a theory, one of which I've ran past Roosh and some other philosophers and theoreticians.
Do men have a finite amount of fuel/energy?
Fuel and energy for what, you ask.
Fuel and energy for pursuing women.
It seems a stupid question on the face of it, but when you think it through a couple more layers you start to see it's importance and ramifications. Most of "sexual market value theory" is based on the relative worth of an individual where young women in their 20 something prime command the highest premium while men age more slowly, but surely into their 40 something primes. This is the biologically "separation of powers" that nature has programmed into the human species to ensure not only its survival, but that no one sex gains the upper hand over the other. But the entirety of this "model" (completely true as it is) is one-sided in its focus.
It only focuses on demand for the respective sex.
It never considers supply.
And supply is the topic I'd like to address today.
I took an informal survey a while ago asking men what percentage of their free time they dedicated towards the pursuit of women. And like I surmised, the results showed a high percentage during their late teens and early twenties, only to dwindle to near nothingness in by the time they reached their 50's. Matter of fact most men in their 50's had more interest in reading books than going out and finding favor with the opposite sex.
This not only supplements the theory that men have a more long term advantage over women, aging like scotch while women age like milk, but deals a double blow to the "supply demand" dynamics of aging courtship. Not only do men get better with age, they lose an interest in pursuing women as well.
This isn't to say that men as they approach 50 don't notice a fine POA crossing their vantage point, but based on my observations they are less willing to spend the effort and resources in trying to procure a hottie.
And who can blame them?
If we revert back to lizard-brain-neaderthal times, calories spent was the primary calculation that determined if you lived or died. Do I spent 5,000 calories of energy pursuing a herd of deer to MAYBE beget 6,000 calories of meat? Do I spend 10,000 calories tilling fields to grow a crop to MAYBE beget 12,000 calories of food? Though our minds have recently been inoculated against such biological mathetmatical realities for the past 100 years due to advances in food production, that doesn't undo the 2 million years of human genetic evolution that has trained mens' brains intuitively to calculate every proposition as such.
Ergo, it is in man's natural instinct to constantly weigh the pro's and con's of effort expended on trying to mate versus the opportunity cost. And with ample supply of food, not to mention an unlimited choice of substitute goods (video games, scotch, TV, sports, internet porn, etc.), most logically thinking males will choose the substitute goods and "rub one out" to quote Bill Burr, as that is the least expenditure of physical effort and calories and therefore provides them (according to their lizard brain) the highest chances of survival.
This then leads me to my theory that most men have a finite and limited amount of "fuel." In my younger, more idealistic, years, I would have contended a man's life force was unlimited. He was truly limitless. All he needed was mere support from society and a man's potential was unlimited. While I do on a theoretical basis yearn to believe as such, living in the real world and seeing just how "anti-progress" society is, I've come to accept that a man's potential is indeed limited by the idiocy, closemindedness, bigotry, and anti-success-envy that rules the rest of society. It not only is draining, but is also provides great disincentive at every step of a (would be) genius' advancement. Constantly hounded about inequality, superior performance, the concept of "excellence," and bedraggled into the mundacity of "affirmative action," a true genius or society performer has the life and inspiration kicked out of them. Combine this with progressive tax rates and a general hatred for the successful, men's fuel or "desire" to perform at their peak is severely deterred.
This acceleration, according to my theory, "burns up" the "tolerance fuel" young men have for society, included of which is women. A young man circa 1947 would graduate from college, know how to weld, and likely have a serious job offer at the local car shop. He would have little to no problem finding a suitable woman to court and she'd be happy to court him. Today, however, with $50,000 in debt, no job prospects, and a part time job at Starbucks seriously burns through whatever "patience fuel" a young man has today. Throw in the generally bitchy attitude of most American female college graduates and you don't have June Cleaver at home to soothe your ills and support you, but rather a demanding, commanding, fuel-burning battle axe blathering on about her worthless liberal arts degree. Not only does the lack of economic and employment opportunity burn away at your fuel, but the parasitic deadweight of liberal arts majoring bloviating entitled-thinking American females just evaporates whatever remaining fuel reserves you have left.
Accelerate this scenario over the course of a 20 to 30 something man's life. Poverty, constantly harangued with a never ending supply of self-entitled liberal female adult-children, and in the end, you will burn out. You will lose your patience, and you will lose your desire to ever go to a club or a bar again. And thus my theory.
Most men have only a limited amount of energy, patience, tolerance, and naivete. But once that runs out, they will rarely, if ever, go out to the club scene and present the "supply curve" of attention women so desperately want. Over time, as men age and get wise, they will eschew the night club scene, and even the online dating scene, as they realize, time and time again, their efforts are wasted. And since their efforts are wasted and said efforts are a very real and mathematical percentage of their lives, costing them genuine opportunity costs, they will scale down.
The results are obvious:
Less men at clubs
Less men at dance classes
Less men asking women out.
Less men in general
This isn't to say hot spots in NYC or Las Vegas aren't going to be teaming with DudeBroInc. But it is to say that over time young men, after having the candle burned at both ends, will "burn out" running out of fuel and no longer have the energy or fuel to go out at night to find you. They will be at home, watching Midnight Run, watching porn, grilling steaks or reading books.
Just remember that when you're 42 and still think you have the right to fire up your "Bitch Shield" because nobody is watching.
Do men have a finite amount of fuel/energy?
Fuel and energy for what, you ask.
Fuel and energy for pursuing women.
It seems a stupid question on the face of it, but when you think it through a couple more layers you start to see it's importance and ramifications. Most of "sexual market value theory" is based on the relative worth of an individual where young women in their 20 something prime command the highest premium while men age more slowly, but surely into their 40 something primes. This is the biologically "separation of powers" that nature has programmed into the human species to ensure not only its survival, but that no one sex gains the upper hand over the other. But the entirety of this "model" (completely true as it is) is one-sided in its focus.
It only focuses on demand for the respective sex.
It never considers supply.
And supply is the topic I'd like to address today.
I took an informal survey a while ago asking men what percentage of their free time they dedicated towards the pursuit of women. And like I surmised, the results showed a high percentage during their late teens and early twenties, only to dwindle to near nothingness in by the time they reached their 50's. Matter of fact most men in their 50's had more interest in reading books than going out and finding favor with the opposite sex.
This not only supplements the theory that men have a more long term advantage over women, aging like scotch while women age like milk, but deals a double blow to the "supply demand" dynamics of aging courtship. Not only do men get better with age, they lose an interest in pursuing women as well.
This isn't to say that men as they approach 50 don't notice a fine POA crossing their vantage point, but based on my observations they are less willing to spend the effort and resources in trying to procure a hottie.
And who can blame them?
If we revert back to lizard-brain-neaderthal times, calories spent was the primary calculation that determined if you lived or died. Do I spent 5,000 calories of energy pursuing a herd of deer to MAYBE beget 6,000 calories of meat? Do I spend 10,000 calories tilling fields to grow a crop to MAYBE beget 12,000 calories of food? Though our minds have recently been inoculated against such biological mathetmatical realities for the past 100 years due to advances in food production, that doesn't undo the 2 million years of human genetic evolution that has trained mens' brains intuitively to calculate every proposition as such.
Ergo, it is in man's natural instinct to constantly weigh the pro's and con's of effort expended on trying to mate versus the opportunity cost. And with ample supply of food, not to mention an unlimited choice of substitute goods (video games, scotch, TV, sports, internet porn, etc.), most logically thinking males will choose the substitute goods and "rub one out" to quote Bill Burr, as that is the least expenditure of physical effort and calories and therefore provides them (according to their lizard brain) the highest chances of survival.
This then leads me to my theory that most men have a finite and limited amount of "fuel." In my younger, more idealistic, years, I would have contended a man's life force was unlimited. He was truly limitless. All he needed was mere support from society and a man's potential was unlimited. While I do on a theoretical basis yearn to believe as such, living in the real world and seeing just how "anti-progress" society is, I've come to accept that a man's potential is indeed limited by the idiocy, closemindedness, bigotry, and anti-success-envy that rules the rest of society. It not only is draining, but is also provides great disincentive at every step of a (would be) genius' advancement. Constantly hounded about inequality, superior performance, the concept of "excellence," and bedraggled into the mundacity of "affirmative action," a true genius or society performer has the life and inspiration kicked out of them. Combine this with progressive tax rates and a general hatred for the successful, men's fuel or "desire" to perform at their peak is severely deterred.
This acceleration, according to my theory, "burns up" the "tolerance fuel" young men have for society, included of which is women. A young man circa 1947 would graduate from college, know how to weld, and likely have a serious job offer at the local car shop. He would have little to no problem finding a suitable woman to court and she'd be happy to court him. Today, however, with $50,000 in debt, no job prospects, and a part time job at Starbucks seriously burns through whatever "patience fuel" a young man has today. Throw in the generally bitchy attitude of most American female college graduates and you don't have June Cleaver at home to soothe your ills and support you, but rather a demanding, commanding, fuel-burning battle axe blathering on about her worthless liberal arts degree. Not only does the lack of economic and employment opportunity burn away at your fuel, but the parasitic deadweight of liberal arts majoring bloviating entitled-thinking American females just evaporates whatever remaining fuel reserves you have left.
Accelerate this scenario over the course of a 20 to 30 something man's life. Poverty, constantly harangued with a never ending supply of self-entitled liberal female adult-children, and in the end, you will burn out. You will lose your patience, and you will lose your desire to ever go to a club or a bar again. And thus my theory.
Most men have only a limited amount of energy, patience, tolerance, and naivete. But once that runs out, they will rarely, if ever, go out to the club scene and present the "supply curve" of attention women so desperately want. Over time, as men age and get wise, they will eschew the night club scene, and even the online dating scene, as they realize, time and time again, their efforts are wasted. And since their efforts are wasted and said efforts are a very real and mathematical percentage of their lives, costing them genuine opportunity costs, they will scale down.
The results are obvious:
Less men at clubs
Less men at dance classes
Less men asking women out.
Less men in general
This isn't to say hot spots in NYC or Las Vegas aren't going to be teaming with DudeBroInc. But it is to say that over time young men, after having the candle burned at both ends, will "burn out" running out of fuel and no longer have the energy or fuel to go out at night to find you. They will be at home, watching Midnight Run, watching porn, grilling steaks or reading books.
Just remember that when you're 42 and still think you have the right to fire up your "Bitch Shield" because nobody is watching.
Thursday, June 12, 2014
Smart People Outsource
"Outsourcing" is a funny thing.
Business experts applaud it.
Democrats love screwing over their union base by destroying jobs for it.
And every American loves nothing more than forcing Asians to slave away to make their latest Apple product for it.
But you know where the REAL cutting edge of outsourcing is?
Outsourcing your worthless prerequisite classes forced on you by the Big Education Industrial Complex.
Do you REALLY need to take 10 courses in
common sense
diversity
CSR
and other leftist claptrap bullshit?
no you don't.
But your higher education indoctrinators demand you do so they can employ further worthless scum such as themselves and enrich themselves in the process.
Why don't you fight back with a tool they themselves use?
OUTSOURCE your worthless hoop jumping classes to Academic Composition.
Academic Composition will write the pointless, purposeless papers you don't want to, let alone have the time to in order to prove to those souless corporations that you're worth hiring. Besides, corporations believe outsourcing is a GREAT strategy and would be hypocritical if they dared to judge against a person employing their own tactics. So the solution is obvious.
They want to make you jump like a well-trained puppy dog to get an MBA.
You have self-respect.
So why don't you employ the services of Academic Composition to throw it right back in their hypocritical faces and "outsource" your pointless, meaningless, commie-socialist-professor-enriching make work so that you can get your MBA and ultimately get on with your life?
Society, boomers, academia, corporate America and every other institution is aiming to fuck you over,
why not fuck them back?
Hire the services of Academic Composition and play their equally foul game. It's the least you can do to play their own game.
(PS - Academic Composition is looking to hire! Do you have that worthless masters degree that your indoctrinators told you would be the salvation and your gateway to freedom and happiness? But instead is an albatross of student debt? Well, fuck the system back and help write papers for other students! make money AND screw back the system that screwed you over!)
Business experts applaud it.
Democrats love screwing over their union base by destroying jobs for it.
And every American loves nothing more than forcing Asians to slave away to make their latest Apple product for it.
But you know where the REAL cutting edge of outsourcing is?
Outsourcing your worthless prerequisite classes forced on you by the Big Education Industrial Complex.
Do you REALLY need to take 10 courses in
common sense
diversity
CSR
and other leftist claptrap bullshit?
no you don't.
But your higher education indoctrinators demand you do so they can employ further worthless scum such as themselves and enrich themselves in the process.
Why don't you fight back with a tool they themselves use?
OUTSOURCE your worthless hoop jumping classes to Academic Composition.
Academic Composition will write the pointless, purposeless papers you don't want to, let alone have the time to in order to prove to those souless corporations that you're worth hiring. Besides, corporations believe outsourcing is a GREAT strategy and would be hypocritical if they dared to judge against a person employing their own tactics. So the solution is obvious.
They want to make you jump like a well-trained puppy dog to get an MBA.
You have self-respect.
So why don't you employ the services of Academic Composition to throw it right back in their hypocritical faces and "outsource" your pointless, meaningless, commie-socialist-professor-enriching make work so that you can get your MBA and ultimately get on with your life?
Society, boomers, academia, corporate America and every other institution is aiming to fuck you over,
why not fuck them back?
Hire the services of Academic Composition and play their equally foul game. It's the least you can do to play their own game.
(PS - Academic Composition is looking to hire! Do you have that worthless masters degree that your indoctrinators told you would be the salvation and your gateway to freedom and happiness? But instead is an albatross of student debt? Well, fuck the system back and help write papers for other students! make money AND screw back the system that screwed you over!)
Baby Sitting the Banks
Like always, an epiphany struck when I was innocently sitting at my bar in my town. I don't control when these things happen, but it did, and now I'm forced to document said epiphany before I forget.
Rewind about 3 years ago where I was in the dumbest state of the union, Wyoming. There as an "assistant vice president" working at what was then MATHEMATICALLY AND FACTUALLY the second worst bank in the state, I entertained degenerate applicant after degenerate applicant looking tosteal "borrow" money from the fed our beloved shareholders.
One guy wanted a truck equity loan.
Another wanted a home equity loan on his tetanus-infested trailer.
A third tried to pass on a fake check
And let's not forget Casper's finest citizen asking me for a "Gas loan" so he could drive to Denver to visit his "grandson who was in the hospital."
I was in the midst of it and didn't realize it, but the fact the bank I worked for had such a bad reputation that banks were sending literal bums to us should have told me that management was so desperate and so inept that we were entertaining such idiocy as "truck equity loans" and making loans to trailer trash. But add another factor I didn't realize until now because I was in the thick of it.
OCC compliance.
When I moved to the company's "headquarters" my job went from commercial lending to one of federal compliance. The bank was so shittacularly managed before that they were now under audit and had the federal regulators down their throats. And so I got to see, upfront and personal, each and every new regulation, requirement, dictate and demand that came from the authorities.
At first I was angry at these regulations. They were petty, idiotic, and so time consuming they made it so the bank could not be profitable. We had to do monthly updates on our "problem loans." We had to write reports proving to the feds that we were actively working on dealing with our problem loans. I had to fill out 13 pages of paperwork to get the taxpayer (that's you) guarantee on loans we made to Bubba the Incestuous Trailer Trash Hick on his Goat-Screwing farm. And that's just a fraction of needless time-consuming hurdles we had to deal with. But so petty and onerous were the regulations, I was convinced they were doing it out of spite. That way up top of these various departments were leftists, democrat types that wanted to "stick it to the banks," and that's what I was thoroughly convinced of.
But then I got to thinking as I look at the now polished off tumbler glass of Rumpleminze and reminisce aboutScrewyourcousining Wyoming.
The feds weren't being the typical "inefficient" government bureaucracy unconscious of their crippling regulations.
And the feds weren't being vindictive ideologues punishing those "evil bankers."
The feds were actually 100% completely right in doing what they were doing.
They were baby sitting what was once an incompetent and piss-poorly managed bank.
Naturally the old guard was fired and replaced with a turn around team. This team was focused on getting out from underneath the federal regulators with the sole goal of becoming a state chartered bank allowing them to have a shot at being profitable (though lending to trailer trash, Goat Screwing Farms, and the burgeoning Teenage Single Parent market will likely prove that difficult). But none of that changed what the federal regulators had to deal with.
View it from the regulators' eyes.
You had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression caused by the most galactically stupid bankers in the history of the world. These bankers and the management of the banks were SOOOOO incomprehensibly inept that they were literally like dealing with children. The only problem is these "children" were at the vital cross-roads of the US economy and that was the banking system. The lifeblood of this or any other economy was being ran by the most idiotic incompetents in the world. Soon enough, their reckless lending came to roost and when their idiocy was exposed either through audits or the news, the feds had to have been saying circa 2008
"Who the fuck is in charge of this operation? What the fuck is going on? How dumb can you possibly get?"
And naturally, the consequence was one where a house full of feral children ultimately come to heel - through a tyrannical, powerful, heavy handed disciplinarian.
In the end, the petty regulations, the constant updates, and all the seemingly pointless requirements regulators were (and still are) forcing on banks were not out of malice, pettiness or politics. But rather necessity because of the unrivalled incompetence and stupidity of bankers and the banking industry. And the fact for once I actually agree with federal regulations and regulators, crippling and choking off our financial services industry, is a testament to the true ineptitude of those genuine USDA 100% fucktards currently in charge of our banking system today.
Rewind about 3 years ago where I was in the dumbest state of the union, Wyoming. There as an "assistant vice president" working at what was then MATHEMATICALLY AND FACTUALLY the second worst bank in the state, I entertained degenerate applicant after degenerate applicant looking to
One guy wanted a truck equity loan.
Another wanted a home equity loan on his tetanus-infested trailer.
A third tried to pass on a fake check
And let's not forget Casper's finest citizen asking me for a "Gas loan" so he could drive to Denver to visit his "grandson who was in the hospital."
I was in the midst of it and didn't realize it, but the fact the bank I worked for had such a bad reputation that banks were sending literal bums to us should have told me that management was so desperate and so inept that we were entertaining such idiocy as "truck equity loans" and making loans to trailer trash. But add another factor I didn't realize until now because I was in the thick of it.
OCC compliance.
When I moved to the company's "headquarters" my job went from commercial lending to one of federal compliance. The bank was so shittacularly managed before that they were now under audit and had the federal regulators down their throats. And so I got to see, upfront and personal, each and every new regulation, requirement, dictate and demand that came from the authorities.
At first I was angry at these regulations. They were petty, idiotic, and so time consuming they made it so the bank could not be profitable. We had to do monthly updates on our "problem loans." We had to write reports proving to the feds that we were actively working on dealing with our problem loans. I had to fill out 13 pages of paperwork to get the taxpayer (that's you) guarantee on loans we made to Bubba the Incestuous Trailer Trash Hick on his Goat-Screwing farm. And that's just a fraction of needless time-consuming hurdles we had to deal with. But so petty and onerous were the regulations, I was convinced they were doing it out of spite. That way up top of these various departments were leftists, democrat types that wanted to "stick it to the banks," and that's what I was thoroughly convinced of.
But then I got to thinking as I look at the now polished off tumbler glass of Rumpleminze and reminisce about
The feds weren't being the typical "inefficient" government bureaucracy unconscious of their crippling regulations.
And the feds weren't being vindictive ideologues punishing those "evil bankers."
The feds were actually 100% completely right in doing what they were doing.
They were baby sitting what was once an incompetent and piss-poorly managed bank.
Naturally the old guard was fired and replaced with a turn around team. This team was focused on getting out from underneath the federal regulators with the sole goal of becoming a state chartered bank allowing them to have a shot at being profitable (though lending to trailer trash, Goat Screwing Farms, and the burgeoning Teenage Single Parent market will likely prove that difficult). But none of that changed what the federal regulators had to deal with.
View it from the regulators' eyes.
You had the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression caused by the most galactically stupid bankers in the history of the world. These bankers and the management of the banks were SOOOOO incomprehensibly inept that they were literally like dealing with children. The only problem is these "children" were at the vital cross-roads of the US economy and that was the banking system. The lifeblood of this or any other economy was being ran by the most idiotic incompetents in the world. Soon enough, their reckless lending came to roost and when their idiocy was exposed either through audits or the news, the feds had to have been saying circa 2008
"Who the fuck is in charge of this operation? What the fuck is going on? How dumb can you possibly get?"
And naturally, the consequence was one where a house full of feral children ultimately come to heel - through a tyrannical, powerful, heavy handed disciplinarian.
In the end, the petty regulations, the constant updates, and all the seemingly pointless requirements regulators were (and still are) forcing on banks were not out of malice, pettiness or politics. But rather necessity because of the unrivalled incompetence and stupidity of bankers and the banking industry. And the fact for once I actually agree with federal regulations and regulators, crippling and choking off our financial services industry, is a testament to the true ineptitude of those genuine USDA 100% fucktards currently in charge of our banking system today.
Reversing the Economic Argument
In being a preacher's son forced to go to parochial school, what information went into my little toddler brain was very controlled and very deliberate. Therefore, like all young children who don't know any better, my brain was limited in it's capacity to fight against what my lizard brain knew was lies, deceit, and sometimes outright mental abuse because it was confined and structured by "facts" that were not facts at all. Things like "I will go to hell if I sin," "If you don't love Jesus you will go to hell," and "the Bible is truth." There are literally thousands more instances of these false facts that religious people use to restrict people's brains, but the larger point is that in getting a young child to agree to false premises, you effectively handicap that individual from ever legitimately arguing against, let alone, challenging the religion. In other words, in a very cowardly way, you fool the child into thinking that s/he can only debate or argue against the religion by using ordained and approved religious techniques. And therefore instead of questioning something as fundamental as proof of god or how precisely a guy nailed to a plank of wood forgives you for putting a snake in Suzie Jone's desk never comes to the forefront as you are instead too busy trying to parse and interpret bible passages.
But a funny thing happened to me today as I was riding my motorcycle around Lake Pepin. I had one of those epiphanies where the light just shot on, forcing me to pull over and take notes so that I would not forget it. And that epiphany is;
You can apply the exact same observation to economics.
As I've aged and become more experienced, I start to realize just how much of a fraudulent study economics is. Not because economics isn't important. Not because there isn't some serious important issues that economics addresses. It's not even that the secret to riches for all does lay within economics (it does and it is what ultimately drives my eternal passion for economics). But rather how the field's self-proclaimed experts have turned it into nothing more than self-serving political bunk. It is no longer simply about the "efficient allocation of resources" or "maximizing the wealth of people" but rather idiotic concepts like the Phillips Curve, running advanced (and ultimately flawed) economic models, fretting about things like the liquidity trap, drawing idiotic foursquare games for "prisoner theory," and the hundreds of other temporary and fleeting relationships that have been observed in the past 60 years that the economist academians trump out and treat it as if it were a real science when in reality it is a constantly changing art as it is human psychology that underpins it all.
And thus my case for "reversing the economic argument."
I tried to read a paper by Paul Krugman once, and while he no doubt probably adhered to Keynesian theory to the letter, in the end none of it made sense and my mind started to wander. Not only because it was boring, but because experience has told me something that complex would ultimately be debunked by Occam's Razor. I don't care how many charts he threw up, I don't care what latest version of "Ricardian Equivalence" he was using, let alone the empirical data to prove it, in the end if you step back and look at it, it was nothing more than a pastor using the bible to further confirm Christianity. In otherwords, economics has becomes so focused on itself as a study, has put on such horse-blinders, its clergy has lost sight of its original and more important goal and now study it for its own sake.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand (or disprove some things about) economics, I argue going backwards. I argue going outside the study. I argue applying some basic, simple logic and factual testing to see if this increasingly complex "field" even makes sense anymore or is merely a circle jerk for wanna-be mathematicians just like religion is for most clergymen.
For example, a simple question I have, is WWII the only data point the Keynesianism can point to in history where it worked? And if so, why the hell did we base the entire western world's governance and economic policies on something so ill-tested?
Another, precisely whose brilliant idea was it that government should intervene period? Who precisely died and made you economic king giving you authority to "provide incentives" or "boost demand curves?" Since when was it the government's and politician's responsibility to MANAGE people? (I'll tell you who. One sick, power-hungry, totalitarian, that's who).
And though I am certainly very political, shouldn't we be concerned when the likes of Krugman call Republicans racist or we start claiming that 100% purely politically moves such as "diversity" have some kind of inherent value? i.e. - why is politics allowed to enter, let alone corrupt economists and their views?
I could go on, but these simple questions are identical to the basic, logical questions we need to ask (but aren't allowed to) of religion.
First, where's your proof of god? Oh, you don't have any? Then why with the threatening of little children with hell?
Second, explain to me the guy on the plank of wood and the snake in Suzie Jone's desk?
Third, did Adam have a belly button?
And fourth, how is stealing money from productive people and giving it to parasitic people a "winning" long term and sustainable economic strategy?
In the end, if you reverse the economic argument you'll see our modern day economists are no different than those "idiot" clergymen they mock for having equally idiotic, fanciful, and self-serving beliefs.
Enjoy the decline.
But a funny thing happened to me today as I was riding my motorcycle around Lake Pepin. I had one of those epiphanies where the light just shot on, forcing me to pull over and take notes so that I would not forget it. And that epiphany is;
You can apply the exact same observation to economics.
As I've aged and become more experienced, I start to realize just how much of a fraudulent study economics is. Not because economics isn't important. Not because there isn't some serious important issues that economics addresses. It's not even that the secret to riches for all does lay within economics (it does and it is what ultimately drives my eternal passion for economics). But rather how the field's self-proclaimed experts have turned it into nothing more than self-serving political bunk. It is no longer simply about the "efficient allocation of resources" or "maximizing the wealth of people" but rather idiotic concepts like the Phillips Curve, running advanced (and ultimately flawed) economic models, fretting about things like the liquidity trap, drawing idiotic foursquare games for "prisoner theory," and the hundreds of other temporary and fleeting relationships that have been observed in the past 60 years that the economist academians trump out and treat it as if it were a real science when in reality it is a constantly changing art as it is human psychology that underpins it all.
And thus my case for "reversing the economic argument."
I tried to read a paper by Paul Krugman once, and while he no doubt probably adhered to Keynesian theory to the letter, in the end none of it made sense and my mind started to wander. Not only because it was boring, but because experience has told me something that complex would ultimately be debunked by Occam's Razor. I don't care how many charts he threw up, I don't care what latest version of "Ricardian Equivalence" he was using, let alone the empirical data to prove it, in the end if you step back and look at it, it was nothing more than a pastor using the bible to further confirm Christianity. In otherwords, economics has becomes so focused on itself as a study, has put on such horse-blinders, its clergy has lost sight of its original and more important goal and now study it for its own sake.
Therefore, if you truly want to understand (or disprove some things about) economics, I argue going backwards. I argue going outside the study. I argue applying some basic, simple logic and factual testing to see if this increasingly complex "field" even makes sense anymore or is merely a circle jerk for wanna-be mathematicians just like religion is for most clergymen.
For example, a simple question I have, is WWII the only data point the Keynesianism can point to in history where it worked? And if so, why the hell did we base the entire western world's governance and economic policies on something so ill-tested?
Another, precisely whose brilliant idea was it that government should intervene period? Who precisely died and made you economic king giving you authority to "provide incentives" or "boost demand curves?" Since when was it the government's and politician's responsibility to MANAGE people? (I'll tell you who. One sick, power-hungry, totalitarian, that's who).
And though I am certainly very political, shouldn't we be concerned when the likes of Krugman call Republicans racist or we start claiming that 100% purely politically moves such as "diversity" have some kind of inherent value? i.e. - why is politics allowed to enter, let alone corrupt economists and their views?
I could go on, but these simple questions are identical to the basic, logical questions we need to ask (but aren't allowed to) of religion.
First, where's your proof of god? Oh, you don't have any? Then why with the threatening of little children with hell?
Second, explain to me the guy on the plank of wood and the snake in Suzie Jone's desk?
Third, did Adam have a belly button?
And fourth, how is stealing money from productive people and giving it to parasitic people a "winning" long term and sustainable economic strategy?
In the end, if you reverse the economic argument you'll see our modern day economists are no different than those "idiot" clergymen they mock for having equally idiotic, fanciful, and self-serving beliefs.
Enjoy the decline.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
The Economist the Captain Consults
There are a handful of economists I follow, let alone defer to their authority. Obviously, Sowell and Williams are two, but Jerry Robinson, who you may not have heard of, is a third. And this is the reason why. Jerry has an ability to explain advanced economic concepts simply and clearly. And I'd like to see another economist explains de-dollarization in Russia better than him.
Daddy's Little Princess Syndrome
I will be coming out with another video ripping apart all the "fathers" that brought up and sent forth their spoiled princesses into our dating ranks back in the day and highlighting the destruction they caused, but in the meantime, I think it's about high time we define and explain some of the risks of bringing up a "Daddy's Little Princess"
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
When Sons Won't Listen to Their Fathers
A humbling review of Bachelor Pad Economics where the father bought his son the book, but can't get that damn horse to drink the water.
Don't worry, poverty will cure that.
Don't worry, poverty will cure that.
Obama by the Numbers - Debt and Deficit
Continuing on with our empirical series of measuring the performance of the presidents' economic performances, we look today at debt and deficit.
And this is such a slam dunk I don't really think we need to delve too much into the details.
Without a doubt, Obama is the biggest spend-a-holic making Reagan's deficit spending in the 80's (which the left at the time screamed bloody murder) look like austerity v. 2.0.
The natural economic criticism would be that with the world's largest Keynesian stimulus, why the poor economic performance that is on par with GW's? It's like taking five Viagra pills and only lasting 3 minutes. Of course, cynical economists such as myself know when you piss away the stimulus on the dregs of society for Obama Phones, make-work government social programs, unneeded community centers, global warming research, and single-mom mania, it shouldn't be a surprise the money wasn't invested in capital goods, manufacturing, or any real investment, resulting in zero future economic growth.
Naturally, when you piss away deficit money, you do two things. One, increase the amount of debt, and two, you do NOT grow GDP. This then results in an increasing amount of debt relative to the actual economic production being produced:
Of all the statistics we could look at the presidents, it is this one, debt and deficit, that not only defines the Obama presidency, but one of the few ones I would claim is completely owned and the fault of the president. Conservatives at least berated Bush for his (then) egregious spending, but the left is completely silent at the crippling deficit spending of Obama, because like him, they are ideologues and in general hate this country. Any spending that goes to them and their causes AND harms the country's finances at the same time is a two-fer in his and their eyes. Call me cynical, but I'd glad change my tune if I saw proof of the left actually loving this country, rather than hating it and trying to destroy its culture and traditions.
And this is such a slam dunk I don't really think we need to delve too much into the details.
Without a doubt, Obama is the biggest spend-a-holic making Reagan's deficit spending in the 80's (which the left at the time screamed bloody murder) look like austerity v. 2.0.
The natural economic criticism would be that with the world's largest Keynesian stimulus, why the poor economic performance that is on par with GW's? It's like taking five Viagra pills and only lasting 3 minutes. Of course, cynical economists such as myself know when you piss away the stimulus on the dregs of society for Obama Phones, make-work government social programs, unneeded community centers, global warming research, and single-mom mania, it shouldn't be a surprise the money wasn't invested in capital goods, manufacturing, or any real investment, resulting in zero future economic growth.
Naturally, when you piss away deficit money, you do two things. One, increase the amount of debt, and two, you do NOT grow GDP. This then results in an increasing amount of debt relative to the actual economic production being produced:
Of all the statistics we could look at the presidents, it is this one, debt and deficit, that not only defines the Obama presidency, but one of the few ones I would claim is completely owned and the fault of the president. Conservatives at least berated Bush for his (then) egregious spending, but the left is completely silent at the crippling deficit spending of Obama, because like him, they are ideologues and in general hate this country. Any spending that goes to them and their causes AND harms the country's finances at the same time is a two-fer in his and their eyes. Call me cynical, but I'd glad change my tune if I saw proof of the left actually loving this country, rather than hating it and trying to destroy its culture and traditions.
Agreeing With Liberal Girls Will Not Get You Laid
A bit of helpful advice for our hipster and liberal brothers on campus:
Monday, June 09, 2014
Book Review - A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century
Thankfully, a GUIDE.
A man who wrote a GUIDE and didn't call it a BOOK.
He called it a GUIDE, and that's precisely what it is, a GUIDE.
I read Don Riefstahl's new book, "A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century" on my way down to Kansas City. I was able to finish reading the entire tome before reaching Missouri because it is a short, succinct guide. As it's title suggests, it's for Christian men and it addresses love and marriage.
To be truthful (which Christians appreciate) it is NOT reading material for any veteran or experienced reader of The Manosphere for the past 2 years. It summarizes some basic information, tenets, philosophies and laws that have been discovered and repeated adinfinitum on The Manosphere. However, it's intended audience is NOT that of those exeprienced Manospherians. It's market is for two distinct set of Christians:
1. Men of all ages who have yet to wake up and unfurl the brainwashing "churchianity" has forced on them
and
2. Young Christian boys who are about to hit puberty and are in for a world of hurt unless somebody gets them this information right quick.
In short, two groups of people who have NEVER heard of the Manosphere or been introduced to its ideas but desperately need them.
The major problem I personally have with the guide is what makes it most marketable - it's for Christians. Ergo, it cites scripture and bases some of its arguments on the word of God. I personally don't believe some of the conclusions (women submit and serve your husbands, etc.) or other bits of advice that come in the book, but it isn't intended for people like me. It's intended for Christian men. Therefore, if they are true believers in the scripture, they will appreciate this tailor-made guide for their religion.
Naturally, anybody who cites scripture is lambasted in the secular community as a sexist, neanderthal who is foolish enough to believe in god (while oddly silent about radical Muslim's treatment of women). However, the biggest push back many Christian men face comes from within their own church which has been more or less hijacked by political correctness, feminism and cultural marxism. This puts many Christian men and boys in a very confusing spot. Do they follow the teachings of Christ and the word of God, or do they kowtow to the screaming Christian women who want abortion, pick and choose passages from the bible that convenience them, divorce frivolously and seem to use Christianity as a mere pharmaceutical to scratch some kind of psychological or social itch they have?
In short, your average secular man whose brain has not been encumbered by religious indoctrination does not need this book. The first few chapters are so elementary and apologetic they actually made me wince. But if you look at it through the lens of a brainwashed Christian boy who's not only been fed all the leftist feminist BS from secular society, but also the emasculating "churchianity" BS from his church you can understand the introductory and kid's glove nature of the book. Therefore, even though I wouldn't recommend it to any of my secular friends, I do recommend this short, brief and succinct book be put in as many hands of your Christian friends as possible.
A man who wrote a GUIDE and didn't call it a BOOK.
He called it a GUIDE, and that's precisely what it is, a GUIDE.
I read Don Riefstahl's new book, "A Christian Man's Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century" on my way down to Kansas City. I was able to finish reading the entire tome before reaching Missouri because it is a short, succinct guide. As it's title suggests, it's for Christian men and it addresses love and marriage.
To be truthful (which Christians appreciate) it is NOT reading material for any veteran or experienced reader of The Manosphere for the past 2 years. It summarizes some basic information, tenets, philosophies and laws that have been discovered and repeated adinfinitum on The Manosphere. However, it's intended audience is NOT that of those exeprienced Manospherians. It's market is for two distinct set of Christians:
1. Men of all ages who have yet to wake up and unfurl the brainwashing "churchianity" has forced on them
and
2. Young Christian boys who are about to hit puberty and are in for a world of hurt unless somebody gets them this information right quick.
In short, two groups of people who have NEVER heard of the Manosphere or been introduced to its ideas but desperately need them.
The major problem I personally have with the guide is what makes it most marketable - it's for Christians. Ergo, it cites scripture and bases some of its arguments on the word of God. I personally don't believe some of the conclusions (women submit and serve your husbands, etc.) or other bits of advice that come in the book, but it isn't intended for people like me. It's intended for Christian men. Therefore, if they are true believers in the scripture, they will appreciate this tailor-made guide for their religion.
Naturally, anybody who cites scripture is lambasted in the secular community as a sexist, neanderthal who is foolish enough to believe in god (while oddly silent about radical Muslim's treatment of women). However, the biggest push back many Christian men face comes from within their own church which has been more or less hijacked by political correctness, feminism and cultural marxism. This puts many Christian men and boys in a very confusing spot. Do they follow the teachings of Christ and the word of God, or do they kowtow to the screaming Christian women who want abortion, pick and choose passages from the bible that convenience them, divorce frivolously and seem to use Christianity as a mere pharmaceutical to scratch some kind of psychological or social itch they have?
In short, your average secular man whose brain has not been encumbered by religious indoctrination does not need this book. The first few chapters are so elementary and apologetic they actually made me wince. But if you look at it through the lens of a brainwashed Christian boy who's not only been fed all the leftist feminist BS from secular society, but also the emasculating "churchianity" BS from his church you can understand the introductory and kid's glove nature of the book. Therefore, even though I wouldn't recommend it to any of my secular friends, I do recommend this short, brief and succinct book be put in as many hands of your Christian friends as possible.
Sunday, June 08, 2014
Book Review - The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch
In my bug out bag I have one AR15, one pistol, iodine pills, ammo, a compass, maps, hand-powered radios and flashlights, a tent, and many many other things. Add to that now "The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Society from Scratch" by Dr. Lewis Dartnell.
In short this book is a how to manual to "reboot" society should a destructive event occur wiping out most of humanity and our technological advances along with it. It immediately caught my attention as I have often thought about this in terms of
"OK, I made it to my safe zone and survived, now what? I'm just an economist. I don't know anything about farming, agriculture, and only have a very basic understanding of chemistry and science. How would I rapidly as possible make the remainder of my life the least-labor intensive as possible?"
And this book addresses precisely that.
In an amazingly efficient manner, Dr. Dartnell boils down in a "Civilization"-video-game-Gantt-Chart way what key technologies should and CAN be recovered from the basic tools we'd have available in a post-apocalyptic world. With these basic "key" technologies, we can "leapfrog" other technologies recreating in a matter of two generations that took humankind 10,000 years to create the first time. While the topic is somber and morose, the book is actually quite encouraging, even hopeful, as it explains in a way the average person with average intelligence can understand how to scratch out a reasonably comfortable existence from the ashes of collapsed society.
There are of course drawbacks in taking on a task as broad as this. I didn't see a recipe for toothpaste. He doesn't provide specific instructions (measuring out units of ingredients to create say, gun powder) that will force some trial and error in the future. And he covers the construction of various machines in a general manner, providing no blue prints. The reason for this is obvious, the book would be 5,000 pages long. However, while it may take 4 months to perfect the ratio of the three ingredients to make gun powder, that is infinitely shorter than the 6,000 years it took civilized Chinese to discover it the first time.
In short, the book is a must for survivalists in that most survivalists do not merely wish to survive, but believe in life and believe in the future no matter how dire it may be. And to ensure there is a better future should a collapse occur, having a score or two of these books on the planet will indeed help reboot society and rapidly return the world to the standards of western civilization.
In short this book is a how to manual to "reboot" society should a destructive event occur wiping out most of humanity and our technological advances along with it. It immediately caught my attention as I have often thought about this in terms of
"OK, I made it to my safe zone and survived, now what? I'm just an economist. I don't know anything about farming, agriculture, and only have a very basic understanding of chemistry and science. How would I rapidly as possible make the remainder of my life the least-labor intensive as possible?"
And this book addresses precisely that.
In an amazingly efficient manner, Dr. Dartnell boils down in a "Civilization"-video-game-Gantt-Chart way what key technologies should and CAN be recovered from the basic tools we'd have available in a post-apocalyptic world. With these basic "key" technologies, we can "leapfrog" other technologies recreating in a matter of two generations that took humankind 10,000 years to create the first time. While the topic is somber and morose, the book is actually quite encouraging, even hopeful, as it explains in a way the average person with average intelligence can understand how to scratch out a reasonably comfortable existence from the ashes of collapsed society.
There are of course drawbacks in taking on a task as broad as this. I didn't see a recipe for toothpaste. He doesn't provide specific instructions (measuring out units of ingredients to create say, gun powder) that will force some trial and error in the future. And he covers the construction of various machines in a general manner, providing no blue prints. The reason for this is obvious, the book would be 5,000 pages long. However, while it may take 4 months to perfect the ratio of the three ingredients to make gun powder, that is infinitely shorter than the 6,000 years it took civilized Chinese to discover it the first time.
In short, the book is a must for survivalists in that most survivalists do not merely wish to survive, but believe in life and believe in the future no matter how dire it may be. And to ensure there is a better future should a collapse occur, having a score or two of these books on the planet will indeed help reboot society and rapidly return the world to the standards of western civilization.
Saturday, June 07, 2014
Global Warming Has Surpassed Science
And become a religion. The reason I say that is this one chart, this one bit of data, disproves global warming. That's it. It's over. It's done. I don't care what anybody else says because the globe isn't warming. It would be like having video footage of Jesus saying, "Hey, you know this whole son of god thing and salvation and heaven and hell and everything? Yeah, it was just a joke."
BUT
you just know, deep in the recesses of your brain that it won't matter. People would still follow Christianity just as they will global warming.
Why?
Because the adherents of all religions participate not primarily for the cause or nobility of the religion or any actual belief. They participate because it gives their otherwise meaningless lives meaning. It fills a hole desperate for purpose. It makes them feel like they're part of a team and gives them something to rally around rather than work hard to provide people in society something genuine to rally around. It's a club, it's a sports team, it's watching the Kardashians.
And I for one, eagerly await what the consequences are for their children as they chart the course of the future based on lies.
BUT
you just know, deep in the recesses of your brain that it won't matter. People would still follow Christianity just as they will global warming.
Why?
Because the adherents of all religions participate not primarily for the cause or nobility of the religion or any actual belief. They participate because it gives their otherwise meaningless lives meaning. It fills a hole desperate for purpose. It makes them feel like they're part of a team and gives them something to rally around rather than work hard to provide people in society something genuine to rally around. It's a club, it's a sports team, it's watching the Kardashians.
And I for one, eagerly await what the consequences are for their children as they chart the course of the future based on lies.
Friday, June 06, 2014
Cappy on the Hinderaker-Ward Experience
Happy Day Lieutenants,
The ole Cap was interviewed by Brian Ward and John Hinderaker of Fraters Libertas and Powerline fame.
You may find their podcast episode here for your listening pleasure.
Tornado chasing updates will occur over the weekend.
Cpt.
The ole Cap was interviewed by Brian Ward and John Hinderaker of Fraters Libertas and Powerline fame.
You may find their podcast episode here for your listening pleasure.
Tornado chasing updates will occur over the weekend.
Cpt.
The Reality Principle Causes Economic Growth
It's a very simple concept - base your decisions in reality and watch your culture and economy grow.
Base them on lies (mainly of the theological or socialist ideological type) and you get what we have now.
Will be on a road trip to Kansas City in the hopes of intercepting a tornado or two this weekend. Posts will be sparse.
Base them on lies (mainly of the theological or socialist ideological type) and you get what we have now.
Will be on a road trip to Kansas City in the hopes of intercepting a tornado or two this weekend. Posts will be sparse.
Thursday, June 05, 2014
How Women Centers Reveal How Pathetic Feminism Truly Is
I viewed with a tacitly interested eye this "battle" being waged on college campuses between women's studies departments vs...well...men in general. Tacitly because I no longer attend college and I had larger fish to fry. However, with the:
increasing cacophony of this battle,
the increasing severity of feminists' accusations of men,
the outlandishness of what "constitutes rape,"
an obsession with "rape culture,"
plus multiple instances of false charges of rape (and consequently, no punishment for the false-accusers),
it required me to think this through because a fair amount of my readership is younger males and it is my opinion college is becoming a hostile environment for them, too risky to attend.
So after delving into this particular rabbit hole, and flushing it out to the end, I have finally figured out why there is this war being waged against college men. And the conclusion is the most pathetic thing I've ever realized.
It is no secret feminists play the victim game. Too lazy to take on real jobs they all major in some worthless subject and then expect the rest of society to pay for their faux careers in women's studies departments, boring authors, activists, etc. To this extent, you can see their all too familiar and tired broken record of "sexism, patriarchy, blah blah blah." Demands for affirmative action, funding for women's studies departments, etc.
But this obsession with rape is relatively new, as much as it is eerie. And not just eerie, but incredibly damaging and telling. For it's one thing if a naive population votes in socialists and therefore pays higher taxes to fund these economically worthless and unproductive people. The biggest price you pay is higher taxes to support these adult-girls or suffer discrimination via affirmative action. But if you're accused of rape, the costs go well-beyond a mere 10% increase in your tax bill or a rejection letter in the mail. You get to pay legal fees, have your career and future ruined, not to mention the psychological torture as you sit in a jail cell for something (that is progressively proving) you didn't do.
So why would feminists create a rape-scare much like the McCarthyism Red-Scare? Why are feminists and their leftist college administrators redefining rape to include fornicating when a girl has consumed alcohol? What do they possibly gain from such vile, evil, and above all else, destructive propaganda?
The sad answer is:
Women's centers.
"Women's centers?" you say.
"Women centers."
Allow me to explain.
Like ALL women's studies majors and ALL feminists in the worthless liberal arts fields, the biggest problem facing them is that the real world does not want nor demand them. They have no skills anybody wants. They have no talents anybody needs. And they are usually so physically and emotionally unappealing, no man wants them in a romantic or familial sense. In short, the world does not want them. But rather than admit this and abide by the real world, their ego insists otherwise and demands the world bend for them.
Since they are not going to abide by the real world, providing others with a good or service the real world demands, by logical necessity their nature is forced to become one of parasitism. This is not an opinion nor an insult as all one has to do is look at where the majority of their financing and employment comes from:
Government
Education
Non-profits
Forcing students to buy your book
Because of this, the primary job of a feminist (and leftists I might add) is to CONSTANTLY find sources of other people's money. To find hosts. To find actual producers of society to pay for their faux careers/egos.
To help with this, the "Victim Strategy" is deployed as a means to guilt trip people who are guilty of nothing into forfeiting their financial life blood to these parasites. Again, we saw this before where "patriarchy" results in affirmative action. "Sexism" results in higher taxes and government spending on women's programs. Etc. etc., However, the "Rape Scare" can be directly tied to the one thing that feminists on campus IMMEDIATELY clamor for when protesting or "raising awareness" about it and that is the college women's center.
Yep, that's right.
False accusations of rape.
Redefining rape to include a night of dirty, sloppy drunk sex
Bogus 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted
The general "men are the enemy" feeling you get on campus today
and let's not forget
The ruined lives of innocent college boys who are accused of rape
are all to get funding for college women's centers so that 10-15 women's studies students can have a part time job tending to the non-existent Rape-Scare on campus. Yes, I accuse those feminists of being that evil. Yes, I accuse them of being that petty. Because as far as I can tell, they have no problems ruining the lives of (theoretically) millions of young men just so they can get that morsel of funding to have a women's center on campus.
Naturally, many people will look at this with a cynical eye. My opponents will merely say I'm "pro-rape" (which, obviously, I'm not). My readers will say, "Wow Clarey, even this is cynical for you!" But I genuinely believe that this witch hunt that is occurring on college campuses is solely motivated for nothing more than funding for women's centers. The fact so much effort is being put into COLLEGE CAMPUSES means that it must tie to what benefits feminists on college. And when you look at the demand of college feminists it INVARIABLY is for more funding (typically in the form of a women's center).
But if that doesn't convince you, perhaps I can remind you of the parasitic nature of most modern day college feminists. To be a parasite is to be the most pathetic, lowest, saddest creature on Earth. Parasites don't have glorious ambitions, they don't have dreams of starting companies, they don't have goals of becoming great. Their only goal in life is to get something for free and achieve nothing of genuine accomplishment or noteworthiness. It is to merely exist.
And when you put it in that context you can see why feminists will ruin other innocent human beings just to get that measly morsel of blood in the form of an unneeded women's center on campus. And once you realize that, you'll realize how truly sad and pathetic modern day feminism has become.
increasing cacophony of this battle,
the increasing severity of feminists' accusations of men,
the outlandishness of what "constitutes rape,"
an obsession with "rape culture,"
plus multiple instances of false charges of rape (and consequently, no punishment for the false-accusers),
it required me to think this through because a fair amount of my readership is younger males and it is my opinion college is becoming a hostile environment for them, too risky to attend.
So after delving into this particular rabbit hole, and flushing it out to the end, I have finally figured out why there is this war being waged against college men. And the conclusion is the most pathetic thing I've ever realized.
It is no secret feminists play the victim game. Too lazy to take on real jobs they all major in some worthless subject and then expect the rest of society to pay for their faux careers in women's studies departments, boring authors, activists, etc. To this extent, you can see their all too familiar and tired broken record of "sexism, patriarchy, blah blah blah." Demands for affirmative action, funding for women's studies departments, etc.
But this obsession with rape is relatively new, as much as it is eerie. And not just eerie, but incredibly damaging and telling. For it's one thing if a naive population votes in socialists and therefore pays higher taxes to fund these economically worthless and unproductive people. The biggest price you pay is higher taxes to support these adult-girls or suffer discrimination via affirmative action. But if you're accused of rape, the costs go well-beyond a mere 10% increase in your tax bill or a rejection letter in the mail. You get to pay legal fees, have your career and future ruined, not to mention the psychological torture as you sit in a jail cell for something (that is progressively proving) you didn't do.
So why would feminists create a rape-scare much like the McCarthyism Red-Scare? Why are feminists and their leftist college administrators redefining rape to include fornicating when a girl has consumed alcohol? What do they possibly gain from such vile, evil, and above all else, destructive propaganda?
The sad answer is:
Women's centers.
"Women's centers?" you say.
"Women centers."
Allow me to explain.
Like ALL women's studies majors and ALL feminists in the worthless liberal arts fields, the biggest problem facing them is that the real world does not want nor demand them. They have no skills anybody wants. They have no talents anybody needs. And they are usually so physically and emotionally unappealing, no man wants them in a romantic or familial sense. In short, the world does not want them. But rather than admit this and abide by the real world, their ego insists otherwise and demands the world bend for them.
Since they are not going to abide by the real world, providing others with a good or service the real world demands, by logical necessity their nature is forced to become one of parasitism. This is not an opinion nor an insult as all one has to do is look at where the majority of their financing and employment comes from:
Government
Education
Non-profits
Forcing students to buy your book
Because of this, the primary job of a feminist (and leftists I might add) is to CONSTANTLY find sources of other people's money. To find hosts. To find actual producers of society to pay for their faux careers/egos.
To help with this, the "Victim Strategy" is deployed as a means to guilt trip people who are guilty of nothing into forfeiting their financial life blood to these parasites. Again, we saw this before where "patriarchy" results in affirmative action. "Sexism" results in higher taxes and government spending on women's programs. Etc. etc., However, the "Rape Scare" can be directly tied to the one thing that feminists on campus IMMEDIATELY clamor for when protesting or "raising awareness" about it and that is the college women's center.
Yep, that's right.
False accusations of rape.
Redefining rape to include a night of dirty, sloppy drunk sex
Bogus 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted
The general "men are the enemy" feeling you get on campus today
and let's not forget
The ruined lives of innocent college boys who are accused of rape
are all to get funding for college women's centers so that 10-15 women's studies students can have a part time job tending to the non-existent Rape-Scare on campus. Yes, I accuse those feminists of being that evil. Yes, I accuse them of being that petty. Because as far as I can tell, they have no problems ruining the lives of (theoretically) millions of young men just so they can get that morsel of funding to have a women's center on campus.
Naturally, many people will look at this with a cynical eye. My opponents will merely say I'm "pro-rape" (which, obviously, I'm not). My readers will say, "Wow Clarey, even this is cynical for you!" But I genuinely believe that this witch hunt that is occurring on college campuses is solely motivated for nothing more than funding for women's centers. The fact so much effort is being put into COLLEGE CAMPUSES means that it must tie to what benefits feminists on college. And when you look at the demand of college feminists it INVARIABLY is for more funding (typically in the form of a women's center).
But if that doesn't convince you, perhaps I can remind you of the parasitic nature of most modern day college feminists. To be a parasite is to be the most pathetic, lowest, saddest creature on Earth. Parasites don't have glorious ambitions, they don't have dreams of starting companies, they don't have goals of becoming great. Their only goal in life is to get something for free and achieve nothing of genuine accomplishment or noteworthiness. It is to merely exist.
And when you put it in that context you can see why feminists will ruin other innocent human beings just to get that measly morsel of blood in the form of an unneeded women's center on campus. And once you realize that, you'll realize how truly sad and pathetic modern day feminism has become.
Wednesday, June 04, 2014
Best Quote in the History of The Clarey Podcast
"I've hit upon a splendid combo: I listened to your podcast whilst
watching porn with the volume turned down, standing in the kitchen doing
shots."
You too can tune into The Clarey Podcast by visiting the archives here.
You too can tune into The Clarey Podcast by visiting the archives here.
How to Recover from a Worthless Degree
My latest piece up at Return of Kings goes into detail about what to do if you got a worthless degree and how to best salvage your live after it.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
I Don't Recall Ever Wanting to Shut Down a Feminist Conference
Short version.
Bachelor Pad Economics is, among others, sponsoring the International Conference on Men's Issues this upcoming June. I was also intending on riding my motorcycle out there for a little summer road trip.
Apparently they've received enough threats that the Detroit Police are going to be "needed" to protect the event (I call it a shake down) Naturally this has raised the costs of holding the event to the point they are going to have to raise money to host the event.
Regardless of whether this event occurs or not, I only have one question - who has a track record of shutting down speeches and thus shutting down the freedom of speech?
Evil, right wing, libertarian, conservative men's rights groups
or
Liberal, leftist, feminist groups?
There is no more obvious proof as to which group is a hate group, hell bent on forcing their political agenda on others and which one is not.
Bachelor Pad Economics is, among others, sponsoring the International Conference on Men's Issues this upcoming June. I was also intending on riding my motorcycle out there for a little summer road trip.
Apparently they've received enough threats that the Detroit Police are going to be "needed" to protect the event (I call it a shake down) Naturally this has raised the costs of holding the event to the point they are going to have to raise money to host the event.
Regardless of whether this event occurs or not, I only have one question - who has a track record of shutting down speeches and thus shutting down the freedom of speech?
Evil, right wing, libertarian, conservative men's rights groups
or
Liberal, leftist, feminist groups?
There is no more obvious proof as to which group is a hate group, hell bent on forcing their political agenda on others and which one is not.
The Clarey Podcast - The Horrible Costs of No Men Episode
MBA professors faking their intelligence in Hungary,
defending the online IQ test,
realizing you are above average,
and a horrible price is paid for a lack of masculine men in society
and MORE
in this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
You can listen to more of the Clarey Podcast by visiting the archives!
defending the online IQ test,
realizing you are above average,
and a horrible price is paid for a lack of masculine men in society
and MORE
in this latest episode of The Clarey Podcast!
You can listen to more of the Clarey Podcast by visiting the archives!
I Told You - Leftists Can't Tell the Difference Between a Million and a Billion
Now just imagine if you introduced "trillion" to their little logic-impaired brains.
Monday, June 02, 2014
Worthless Degree Awareness Month is BACK!
June is Worthless Degree Awareness Month where we do our best to *ahem* "raise awareness" amongst the youth that the vampiric higher education industry is fully intending of sucky dry their financial live blood.
Naturally I have my book available for 1/32,784ths the price of an average degree, but just having a talk with your kid, highlighting starting salaries, or doing some basic math with your child about ROI will help prevent your child from making a decision that will ABSOLUTELY DESTROY their financial futures.
This is too important of an issue AND TOO EASILY PREVENTABLE that something (unlike most leftists political causes) can actually be done about it.
Just like polio, let's eradicate worthless degrees.
Naturally I have my book available for 1/32,784ths the price of an average degree, but just having a talk with your kid, highlighting starting salaries, or doing some basic math with your child about ROI will help prevent your child from making a decision that will ABSOLUTELY DESTROY their financial futures.
This is too important of an issue AND TOO EASILY PREVENTABLE that something (unlike most leftists political causes) can actually be done about it.
Just like polio, let's eradicate worthless degrees.
How Forced Entrepreneurship Helps Destroy the American Family
Entrepreneurship is largely regarded in society as a good thing. It is the "missing ingredient" Keynesians refuse to acknowledge as they strive to find the perfect balance between unionized labor, capital and technology to increase economic growth. It is responsible for nearly all the increases of standards of living since the post-Caveman days. And it is the most surefire way to enjoy a happy and successful career. There is not much bad that can be said about entrepreneurship. However, when it is forced, leaving an individual no other option to earn his bread, it can still yield benefits, but it comes at a cost, an opportunity cost to be precise. And this cost comes at the expense of the American family.
To understand this we first need to understand where forced entrepreneurs come from. And today's economy is as good as any because it is the perfect storm with the perfect confluence of events which breeds (in my humble opinion) more forced entrepreneurs than it ever has before.
The first "ingredient" contributing to the rise of the forced entrepreneur is that there is no longer the "life long career." Historically this laid the foundation to buying a home and raising a family as reliable employment would result in the money needed to afford both. But with a "30 year, uninterrupted career" as mythical as unicorns, Santa Claus, social security, and pensions, any somewhat savvy individual will know not to breed or buy a house. However, scaling down in major life purchases does not solve an individual's need for income and so whereas American employers become increasingly unreliable, taking matters into your own hands does not.
The second ingredient is with an ABYSMAL labor market and declining economic growth, increasing numbers of young people have to compete for relatively fewer jobs. This has resulted in not only historic highs of unemployment and underemployment for younger people, but given employers carte blanche to power trip and become increasingly petty in their requirements for employees. HR ditzes asking job candidates the dumbest of questions, the never ending progressive credentialism, refusing to train people and demanding 5 years experience in software that has only existed for 3 (true story). However, the real cost manifests itself in the form of petty office politics and the increasing psycho-sadism among employers. Like the cadre of "popular girls" in high school, employers now instill a work environment that is nothing short of psychological abuse, making their employees' lives psychological hell. An employee can no longer show up on time, do a good job, and maybe make a recommendation. No, s/he must figure out and play the office politics game or get rubbed out for good. Such an environment is so unacceptably childish and hostile, entrepreneurship, once again, looks to be a better option.
The third ingredient is affirmative action. Not so much in hiring practices (though that is true), but because affirmative action actively discriminates against the group of people who historically have been most prone towards entrepreneurship - men. However, in addition to being overlooked for promotion, there is a genuine institutionalized discrimination against men. From school to university to media to the government to the entertainment industry, nearly every one of our institutions is geared towards women. But our institutions are also the primary providers of "regular employment" and "regular careers." Thusly, their preference towards women results in a "crowding out effect" somewhat forcing men out of these institutions and pushing them towards entrepreneurship.
The fourth ingredient is outsourcing our industrial economy to foreign countries. Nothing forces a man into another field, potentially entrepreneurship, when you just outright wholesale the industries that historically employed men in exchange for malls, shopping centers, cappuccino cafes, green consulting agencies, government bureaucracies, and horse hobby farms.
Now these variables alone provide a great incentive to give up on the rat race and pursue a career as an entrepreneur. I don't know anybody who truly likes their job, and nearly everybody would love to run their own business, not so much for the money, but "to be their own boss." But that until itself would not spell demise to the American family. Matter of fact, if more people were successful entrepreneurs that might even bolster the American family. The true threat to the American family comes in the final ingredient to the "forced entrepreneur" - The mandatory and required "10 years wandering in the post-college-graduation desert" (or "TYWITPCGD" henceforth abbreviated).
You see, up until you graduate from college, society, government, parents, the schools, etc., is bending over backwards to kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear.
"You can do anything you want! Achieve your dreams! Follow your heart and the money will follow! Oh the places you will go!"
But while your family and friends tell you this out of a love-blinded naivety, the government, the teachers unions, and your professors tell you this for 100% pure profit motive. The government tells you these pretty lies so when you get older you vote for more government. Teachers and professors tell you this, because they profit directly off of your attending school. But once you graduate from college, you no longer serve any financial or political purpose to these lamprey-like entities, and you are dumped out into the labor market, dumped out into the real world, NOT with an education that has prepared you for said real-world, but one of mush, poppy-cock, entitlement, feel-good USDA grade A bullshit.
And this is where the forced entrepreneur is formed.
For about 10 years the idealistic college student will live an abysmal life trying to reconcile what he was told the real world was going to be like versus what the real world actually is. His career will never manifest the way his teachers told him it would, matter of fact (because of the dire economic conditions) his career will never get off the ground. He will work part time jobs here, overnight shifts there, but MUCH WORSE he will take it personally, thinking somehow he has failed and not that he was the victim of what is arguably the world's greatest scam. If it wasn't bad enough, add to his immense confusion, psychological pain, and shame that:
constant
never-ending
never-relenting
never-ceasing
always-threatening
poverty that follows him around.
Worrying about making rent for the month, having to eat ramen well-past college when college was supposed to afford him sushi, not being able to go out, and the terror that strikes when his car needs an expensive repair, it will ensure that this period of his life is the worst he will ever experience.
But while this epoch in his life is guaranteed to be the worst, he will learn one very valuable and important lesson from it - minimalism. And that is the added chemical that forges the alloy known as the forced entrepreneur.
After stumbling through the "TYWITPCGD" and getting the harsh life lessons that came with it, he will enter the labor market (if he hasn't already) and be exposed to the aforementioned and unacceptable hell American employers have become. Landing a "real" job "finally," thinking his financial problems are over, he'll learn that his boss is a psycho-path, his co-workers catty women who like to cause drama, and that any attempts at efficiency or progress are viewed as threats that threaten the status quo which constantly land him in trouble. His job duties do not match the job description. And the incompetence that surrounds him ensures he will be that Eagle who can never soar with the turkeys.
He'll think it's bad luck, not logically believing all employers are like this, and apply for another job elsewhere. However, in due time, and after working enough jobs, he'll slowly realize that it isn't just him or "bad luck," but that ALL employers are like this. And when having this epiphany, he'll realize the ONLY solution is entrepreneurship.
There's just one problem.
Was he stupid enough to breed, marry, sign a mortgage, and get a car loan?
Was he stupid enough to have kids with a spending-addicted woman?
Or did his true education from the TYWITPCGD stick?
Because a man with a mortgage, kids, a car loan, and a wife can rarely become an entrepreneur. The man with such familial and financial liabilities is damned to a fate worse than the forced entrepreneur. He gets to suck it up, suffer the psychological torture and the unreliability of American employers.
A man unencumbered with family, debt, and a house, however, can become an entrepreneur. And given the intolerable work environment of America today will be forced to via self-respect.
However, before you get too excited about this person becoming the next Bill Gates, employing thousands and supporting millions of socialist parasites, understand what kind of entrepreneur he's going to be. Since he went through the hell of TYWITPCGD he will have been trained to be a minimalist. He will be immune and inoculated against the consumerist marketing industry to buy cars, take on leases, McMansions, trophy wives and credit card debt. And given the hell he had to suffer when he made a decent go at the "traditional means of employment" he knows that no amount of money is worth his sanity and freedom. Therefore, this individual has no desire or incentive to create the next Apple or Standard Oil, but rather only cares to make enough money to get by, effectively turning him into a "Micro-Entrepreneur."
This spells doom for some would-be American families. Not that the American family will be wiped out, or that there aren't millions of indebted wage mules on the hook for 30 years of mortgage/wife/kids payments to ensure its future *ahem* "success," but that there is a significant demographic forming (and I would contend growing) that go through the arduous process explained before and are forced into this micro-entrepreneur role. But key to understanding why this would have a negative effect of American family formation is to realize it is antithetical to family formation. Struggling, striving, and starving for a decade after college makes one awfully risk-averse. Couple that with a declining economy and unacceptably psychotic employers, once one has a path and an opportunity to just a modicum (but self-sustaining and reliable) source of employment, they will abandon family creation for the stability, tranquility and freedom that comes from forced-micro entrepreneurship.
To understand this we first need to understand where forced entrepreneurs come from. And today's economy is as good as any because it is the perfect storm with the perfect confluence of events which breeds (in my humble opinion) more forced entrepreneurs than it ever has before.
The first "ingredient" contributing to the rise of the forced entrepreneur is that there is no longer the "life long career." Historically this laid the foundation to buying a home and raising a family as reliable employment would result in the money needed to afford both. But with a "30 year, uninterrupted career" as mythical as unicorns, Santa Claus, social security, and pensions, any somewhat savvy individual will know not to breed or buy a house. However, scaling down in major life purchases does not solve an individual's need for income and so whereas American employers become increasingly unreliable, taking matters into your own hands does not.
The second ingredient is with an ABYSMAL labor market and declining economic growth, increasing numbers of young people have to compete for relatively fewer jobs. This has resulted in not only historic highs of unemployment and underemployment for younger people, but given employers carte blanche to power trip and become increasingly petty in their requirements for employees. HR ditzes asking job candidates the dumbest of questions, the never ending progressive credentialism, refusing to train people and demanding 5 years experience in software that has only existed for 3 (true story). However, the real cost manifests itself in the form of petty office politics and the increasing psycho-sadism among employers. Like the cadre of "popular girls" in high school, employers now instill a work environment that is nothing short of psychological abuse, making their employees' lives psychological hell. An employee can no longer show up on time, do a good job, and maybe make a recommendation. No, s/he must figure out and play the office politics game or get rubbed out for good. Such an environment is so unacceptably childish and hostile, entrepreneurship, once again, looks to be a better option.
The third ingredient is affirmative action. Not so much in hiring practices (though that is true), but because affirmative action actively discriminates against the group of people who historically have been most prone towards entrepreneurship - men. However, in addition to being overlooked for promotion, there is a genuine institutionalized discrimination against men. From school to university to media to the government to the entertainment industry, nearly every one of our institutions is geared towards women. But our institutions are also the primary providers of "regular employment" and "regular careers." Thusly, their preference towards women results in a "crowding out effect" somewhat forcing men out of these institutions and pushing them towards entrepreneurship.
The fourth ingredient is outsourcing our industrial economy to foreign countries. Nothing forces a man into another field, potentially entrepreneurship, when you just outright wholesale the industries that historically employed men in exchange for malls, shopping centers, cappuccino cafes, green consulting agencies, government bureaucracies, and horse hobby farms.
Now these variables alone provide a great incentive to give up on the rat race and pursue a career as an entrepreneur. I don't know anybody who truly likes their job, and nearly everybody would love to run their own business, not so much for the money, but "to be their own boss." But that until itself would not spell demise to the American family. Matter of fact, if more people were successful entrepreneurs that might even bolster the American family. The true threat to the American family comes in the final ingredient to the "forced entrepreneur" - The mandatory and required "10 years wandering in the post-college-graduation desert" (or "TYWITPCGD" henceforth abbreviated).
You see, up until you graduate from college, society, government, parents, the schools, etc., is bending over backwards to kiss your ass and tell you what you want to hear.
"You can do anything you want! Achieve your dreams! Follow your heart and the money will follow! Oh the places you will go!"
But while your family and friends tell you this out of a love-blinded naivety, the government, the teachers unions, and your professors tell you this for 100% pure profit motive. The government tells you these pretty lies so when you get older you vote for more government. Teachers and professors tell you this, because they profit directly off of your attending school. But once you graduate from college, you no longer serve any financial or political purpose to these lamprey-like entities, and you are dumped out into the labor market, dumped out into the real world, NOT with an education that has prepared you for said real-world, but one of mush, poppy-cock, entitlement, feel-good USDA grade A bullshit.
And this is where the forced entrepreneur is formed.
For about 10 years the idealistic college student will live an abysmal life trying to reconcile what he was told the real world was going to be like versus what the real world actually is. His career will never manifest the way his teachers told him it would, matter of fact (because of the dire economic conditions) his career will never get off the ground. He will work part time jobs here, overnight shifts there, but MUCH WORSE he will take it personally, thinking somehow he has failed and not that he was the victim of what is arguably the world's greatest scam. If it wasn't bad enough, add to his immense confusion, psychological pain, and shame that:
constant
never-ending
never-relenting
never-ceasing
always-threatening
poverty that follows him around.
Worrying about making rent for the month, having to eat ramen well-past college when college was supposed to afford him sushi, not being able to go out, and the terror that strikes when his car needs an expensive repair, it will ensure that this period of his life is the worst he will ever experience.
But while this epoch in his life is guaranteed to be the worst, he will learn one very valuable and important lesson from it - minimalism. And that is the added chemical that forges the alloy known as the forced entrepreneur.
After stumbling through the "TYWITPCGD" and getting the harsh life lessons that came with it, he will enter the labor market (if he hasn't already) and be exposed to the aforementioned and unacceptable hell American employers have become. Landing a "real" job "finally," thinking his financial problems are over, he'll learn that his boss is a psycho-path, his co-workers catty women who like to cause drama, and that any attempts at efficiency or progress are viewed as threats that threaten the status quo which constantly land him in trouble. His job duties do not match the job description. And the incompetence that surrounds him ensures he will be that Eagle who can never soar with the turkeys.
He'll think it's bad luck, not logically believing all employers are like this, and apply for another job elsewhere. However, in due time, and after working enough jobs, he'll slowly realize that it isn't just him or "bad luck," but that ALL employers are like this. And when having this epiphany, he'll realize the ONLY solution is entrepreneurship.
There's just one problem.
Was he stupid enough to breed, marry, sign a mortgage, and get a car loan?
Was he stupid enough to have kids with a spending-addicted woman?
Or did his true education from the TYWITPCGD stick?
Because a man with a mortgage, kids, a car loan, and a wife can rarely become an entrepreneur. The man with such familial and financial liabilities is damned to a fate worse than the forced entrepreneur. He gets to suck it up, suffer the psychological torture and the unreliability of American employers.
A man unencumbered with family, debt, and a house, however, can become an entrepreneur. And given the intolerable work environment of America today will be forced to via self-respect.
However, before you get too excited about this person becoming the next Bill Gates, employing thousands and supporting millions of socialist parasites, understand what kind of entrepreneur he's going to be. Since he went through the hell of TYWITPCGD he will have been trained to be a minimalist. He will be immune and inoculated against the consumerist marketing industry to buy cars, take on leases, McMansions, trophy wives and credit card debt. And given the hell he had to suffer when he made a decent go at the "traditional means of employment" he knows that no amount of money is worth his sanity and freedom. Therefore, this individual has no desire or incentive to create the next Apple or Standard Oil, but rather only cares to make enough money to get by, effectively turning him into a "Micro-Entrepreneur."
This spells doom for some would-be American families. Not that the American family will be wiped out, or that there aren't millions of indebted wage mules on the hook for 30 years of mortgage/wife/kids payments to ensure its future *ahem* "success," but that there is a significant demographic forming (and I would contend growing) that go through the arduous process explained before and are forced into this micro-entrepreneur role. But key to understanding why this would have a negative effect of American family formation is to realize it is antithetical to family formation. Struggling, striving, and starving for a decade after college makes one awfully risk-averse. Couple that with a declining economy and unacceptably psychotic employers, once one has a path and an opportunity to just a modicum (but self-sustaining and reliable) source of employment, they will abandon family creation for the stability, tranquility and freedom that comes from forced-micro entrepreneurship.
Che Marville - The Worst Possible Candidate Ever Created
Wow, from our Spaniard Agent in the Field. He just found what is all honesty is the WORST qualified candidate for the Canadian parliament.
She:
Works for a non-profit
Rides horses
Worked in HR
Has a worthless degree
Comes from a family of government workers
Never worked a real job
Makes Obama's speeches sound succinct, pointed, and purposeful.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the WORST possible candidate you could ever create, even with perfect lab conditions, Ms. Che Marville.
She:
Works for a non-profit
Rides horses
Worked in HR
Has a worthless degree
Comes from a family of government workers
Never worked a real job
Makes Obama's speeches sound succinct, pointed, and purposeful.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the WORST possible candidate you could ever create, even with perfect lab conditions, Ms. Che Marville.
Sunday, June 01, 2014
Convincing the Parasites They Are Indeed Parasitic
A video request that ultimately boils down to:
How do we convince the people who are sucking off of society to stop if they are impervious to reason, logic, and have no intellectual honesty?
The answer?
Shame, mockery, and ridicule:
How do we convince the people who are sucking off of society to stop if they are impervious to reason, logic, and have no intellectual honesty?
The answer?
Shame, mockery, and ridicule:
The Knowledge - How to Rebuild the World from Scratch
I had seen and immediately purchased "The Knowledge - How to Rebuild Our World from Scratch" by Dr. Lewis Dartnell. I was so impressed with it and deemed it such a valuable book that I requested an interview with him, which he kindly granted.
I shall write my own review of the book later, but wanted to first post the interview:
1. Before we discuss the book you have a very interesting background. You are only 32, you have a PhD, you are a published author, and you have a bit of a television and radio career as well. Can you tell my audience about yourself and how you came about this unique position in your life so early?
Yeah, I like to keep myself occupied! But all of those activities are related and build on each other. I’m a research scientist at the University of Leicester, working in the field of astrobiology and the search for microbial life on Mars, but also really enjoying science writing and public outreach.
2. Tell us about the book.
My new book, ‘The Knowledge: How to Rebuild our World from Scratch’ is a thought experiment on all the behind-the-scenes fundamentals that underpin our civilisation, and the prerequisites for it progressing over centuries of history. I take a post-apocalyptic world as the starting point, and ask what is the critical scientific and technological knowledge you’d want in order to rebuild our world from scratch, and how you might even accelerate that reboot second time around.
3. The book is unique, but also very interesting and timely. What prompted you to write it?
I certainly don’t think the world as we know it is about to collapse, although humanity does clearly face some grave challenges in the immediate future. But I have been fascinated for a long while by thinking about how you could rebuild civilisation if you ever needed to. This thought experiment could also be rephrased to the essentials you’d need to start from scratch if you accidentally fell through a time-warp to 10,000 BC, or perhaps crash-landed on an uninhabited Earth-like planet.
4. Who should read the book?
Anyone who is curious about how the world around us actually works, and how it came to be created! I think there’s a growing feeling of disconnect between all of us in the modern, developed world and the basic processes and principles that support us; things we just take for granted nowadays. As I say, The Knowledge isn’t really about the apocalypse at all - that scenario is just a way of holding up a mirror to our own society - and I hope that after reading the book people come away with an appreciation of how things work and a greater sense of satisfaction with all that humanity has achieved over the ages.
5. Going over the book it is apparent you are not merely an academic or theoretician. I presume you've had some hands on experience either in mechanics, a lab, or your dad teaching you how to change oil, etc?
You’re right there, my father was an aeronautical engineer and fixed jumbo jets for a living. But I’ve never been particularly good with my hands myself. During the research for The Knowledge, though, I made sure I got some direct, hands-on experience of a lot of the material so that I could write about it properly. For example, I made a steel tool for myself - a knife - working with hammer and anvil in a blacksmith’s forge and the author portrait was created by mixing together rudimentary silver chemistry and using a primitive single-lens camera.
6. There is also a lot of history cited in the book, citing when different technologies were invented by different civilizations. Did you have to research this or did you have this historical knowledge from the normal course of your studies?
Sure, alongside ensuring I got first-hand experience of many of the practical skills described I also made sure that I kept rooting possibilities I talked about right back to actual historical examples of similar circumstances. So we look at human ingenuity during the Second World War in keeping civilian automobiles running without gasoline or diesel, how POWs constructed rudimentary radios out of nothing more than scavenged junk, how Japan industrialised in a matter of decades, and the repercussions in Europe of the Black Death. All of this came from my own library research and interviewing experts - my primary research in astrobiology is a little far removed from this area.
7. The scope of the book is potentially huge, and I imagine you had to be quite selective as to what to put in the book, leaving a lot of things on the floor (for example I was curious how to make toothpaste, but it wasn't in the book). Were there other items you would have liked to have cover, but couldn't because it would have made the book prohibitively lengthy?
Yes, absolutely, the trick for The Knowledge (and a constant source of anguish for me as a writer!) was in deciding what stuff to leave out rather than what could be included. The Knowledge is a popular science book, and so naturally it focusses on science and technology, and I do genuinely believe that the material included would be the most vital information for rebuilding a civilisation from the ground-up. Clearly for a stable, flourishing society you also need law and order, governance, trade, economics, mathematics, and so on, but you can’t also cover all of this in appropriate detail in a single book of 300 pages. The Knowledge also makes little mention of preserving art, literature and music in case of global catastrophe. The argument I made was that while the laws of physics and requirements for human survival are universal - it doesn’t matter where or when you are - the same is not true for art. Clearly art is important, and I find certain oil paintings and piano concertos as achingly beautiful as the next person, but civilisation won’t be held back 500 years without them, whereas knowledge of electricity or germs would make an enormous difference during recovery. Post-apocalyptic survivors will create their own artistic and literary expressions that will have significance to them.
8. One things I found lacking in the book was the lack of precise measurements. 3 parts this, 2 parts that, boil at 100 Celsius, etc. Failing myself abysmally at cooking the most rudimentary of meals, it would take some considerable trial and error even with the book to recreate some of these technologies. Was there a reason such precision was left out?
This was primarily a stylistic decision, to be honest - reading a technical manual overloaded with lists of precise directions and accurate quantities would be agonisingly boring to actually read as a popular science book. And, of course, for most readers today thumbing through the book on their couch they’d never need to know such level of detail anyway. Having said that, knowing the ingredients for making gunpowder is 99% of the solution and it wouldn’t take much trial and error to hit upon the optimised ratio. You can only fit so much into a single book, and the guiding principle was always to provide the condensed kernels of the most crucial knowledge that would then expand under investigation. I’d never pretend that actually rebooting civilisation won’t be a long, hard slog, but I do think that the guidelines provided in The Knowledge would make an enormous difference during the recovery.
9. Tell us about the other books you've published.
My first book is very much based on my primery academic research in astrobiolgy. It’s called ‘Life in the Universe: A Beginner’s Guide’ and presents an introduction to the current state-of-play in our search for life beyond the Earth, covering the basics in microbiology, biochemistry, geology, planetary sciences, and astronomy, and explaining the latest cutting-edge discoveries. My second book is an illustrated children’s book with Dorling Kindersley, called ‘My Tourist Guide to the Solar System’. Imagine in the future you could book a holiday with your parents, but rather than going to Florida or France you could go anywhere in space. Where are the tourist hot-spots on the other planets and moons, what are the unmissable sights and unique adventure activities, and which souvenirs must you remember to bring home?
10. Though not related to the The Knowledge, because of your relative youth and abnormal accomplishments, do you have any advice or recommendations to the younger generations either in high school, college, or about to start their careers?
‘Abnormal’ - errr, thanks…! I spend a lot of time talking to school children and those just starting in their careers (part of my fellowship is in science outreach and public communication) and the advice I always give is to simply follow your heart. Pick your favourite subject to study at university and then try to step into a career in something you really care about. Of course it’ll be hard work, and you won’t always be happy or where you want to be, but if you enjoy what you do you’ll find it comes so much easier!
You can find more of Dr. Dartnell's work here and his website here.
I shall write my own review of the book later, but wanted to first post the interview:
1. Before we discuss the book you have a very interesting background. You are only 32, you have a PhD, you are a published author, and you have a bit of a television and radio career as well. Can you tell my audience about yourself and how you came about this unique position in your life so early?
Yeah, I like to keep myself occupied! But all of those activities are related and build on each other. I’m a research scientist at the University of Leicester, working in the field of astrobiology and the search for microbial life on Mars, but also really enjoying science writing and public outreach.
2. Tell us about the book.
My new book, ‘The Knowledge: How to Rebuild our World from Scratch’ is a thought experiment on all the behind-the-scenes fundamentals that underpin our civilisation, and the prerequisites for it progressing over centuries of history. I take a post-apocalyptic world as the starting point, and ask what is the critical scientific and technological knowledge you’d want in order to rebuild our world from scratch, and how you might even accelerate that reboot second time around.
3. The book is unique, but also very interesting and timely. What prompted you to write it?
I certainly don’t think the world as we know it is about to collapse, although humanity does clearly face some grave challenges in the immediate future. But I have been fascinated for a long while by thinking about how you could rebuild civilisation if you ever needed to. This thought experiment could also be rephrased to the essentials you’d need to start from scratch if you accidentally fell through a time-warp to 10,000 BC, or perhaps crash-landed on an uninhabited Earth-like planet.
4. Who should read the book?
Anyone who is curious about how the world around us actually works, and how it came to be created! I think there’s a growing feeling of disconnect between all of us in the modern, developed world and the basic processes and principles that support us; things we just take for granted nowadays. As I say, The Knowledge isn’t really about the apocalypse at all - that scenario is just a way of holding up a mirror to our own society - and I hope that after reading the book people come away with an appreciation of how things work and a greater sense of satisfaction with all that humanity has achieved over the ages.
5. Going over the book it is apparent you are not merely an academic or theoretician. I presume you've had some hands on experience either in mechanics, a lab, or your dad teaching you how to change oil, etc?
You’re right there, my father was an aeronautical engineer and fixed jumbo jets for a living. But I’ve never been particularly good with my hands myself. During the research for The Knowledge, though, I made sure I got some direct, hands-on experience of a lot of the material so that I could write about it properly. For example, I made a steel tool for myself - a knife - working with hammer and anvil in a blacksmith’s forge and the author portrait was created by mixing together rudimentary silver chemistry and using a primitive single-lens camera.
6. There is also a lot of history cited in the book, citing when different technologies were invented by different civilizations. Did you have to research this or did you have this historical knowledge from the normal course of your studies?
Sure, alongside ensuring I got first-hand experience of many of the practical skills described I also made sure that I kept rooting possibilities I talked about right back to actual historical examples of similar circumstances. So we look at human ingenuity during the Second World War in keeping civilian automobiles running without gasoline or diesel, how POWs constructed rudimentary radios out of nothing more than scavenged junk, how Japan industrialised in a matter of decades, and the repercussions in Europe of the Black Death. All of this came from my own library research and interviewing experts - my primary research in astrobiology is a little far removed from this area.
7. The scope of the book is potentially huge, and I imagine you had to be quite selective as to what to put in the book, leaving a lot of things on the floor (for example I was curious how to make toothpaste, but it wasn't in the book). Were there other items you would have liked to have cover, but couldn't because it would have made the book prohibitively lengthy?
Yes, absolutely, the trick for The Knowledge (and a constant source of anguish for me as a writer!) was in deciding what stuff to leave out rather than what could be included. The Knowledge is a popular science book, and so naturally it focusses on science and technology, and I do genuinely believe that the material included would be the most vital information for rebuilding a civilisation from the ground-up. Clearly for a stable, flourishing society you also need law and order, governance, trade, economics, mathematics, and so on, but you can’t also cover all of this in appropriate detail in a single book of 300 pages. The Knowledge also makes little mention of preserving art, literature and music in case of global catastrophe. The argument I made was that while the laws of physics and requirements for human survival are universal - it doesn’t matter where or when you are - the same is not true for art. Clearly art is important, and I find certain oil paintings and piano concertos as achingly beautiful as the next person, but civilisation won’t be held back 500 years without them, whereas knowledge of electricity or germs would make an enormous difference during recovery. Post-apocalyptic survivors will create their own artistic and literary expressions that will have significance to them.
8. One things I found lacking in the book was the lack of precise measurements. 3 parts this, 2 parts that, boil at 100 Celsius, etc. Failing myself abysmally at cooking the most rudimentary of meals, it would take some considerable trial and error even with the book to recreate some of these technologies. Was there a reason such precision was left out?
This was primarily a stylistic decision, to be honest - reading a technical manual overloaded with lists of precise directions and accurate quantities would be agonisingly boring to actually read as a popular science book. And, of course, for most readers today thumbing through the book on their couch they’d never need to know such level of detail anyway. Having said that, knowing the ingredients for making gunpowder is 99% of the solution and it wouldn’t take much trial and error to hit upon the optimised ratio. You can only fit so much into a single book, and the guiding principle was always to provide the condensed kernels of the most crucial knowledge that would then expand under investigation. I’d never pretend that actually rebooting civilisation won’t be a long, hard slog, but I do think that the guidelines provided in The Knowledge would make an enormous difference during the recovery.
9. Tell us about the other books you've published.
My first book is very much based on my primery academic research in astrobiolgy. It’s called ‘Life in the Universe: A Beginner’s Guide’ and presents an introduction to the current state-of-play in our search for life beyond the Earth, covering the basics in microbiology, biochemistry, geology, planetary sciences, and astronomy, and explaining the latest cutting-edge discoveries. My second book is an illustrated children’s book with Dorling Kindersley, called ‘My Tourist Guide to the Solar System’. Imagine in the future you could book a holiday with your parents, but rather than going to Florida or France you could go anywhere in space. Where are the tourist hot-spots on the other planets and moons, what are the unmissable sights and unique adventure activities, and which souvenirs must you remember to bring home?
10. Though not related to the The Knowledge, because of your relative youth and abnormal accomplishments, do you have any advice or recommendations to the younger generations either in high school, college, or about to start their careers?
‘Abnormal’ - errr, thanks…! I spend a lot of time talking to school children and those just starting in their careers (part of my fellowship is in science outreach and public communication) and the advice I always give is to simply follow your heart. Pick your favourite subject to study at university and then try to step into a career in something you really care about. Of course it’ll be hard work, and you won’t always be happy or where you want to be, but if you enjoy what you do you’ll find it comes so much easier!
You can find more of Dr. Dartnell's work here and his website here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)