Generational Decay

Correct.

From Our Italian Agent in the Field

Whew boy! This one is lengthy, but good if you are looking to understand concepts like money.

I've been meaning to put together a lecture on money and production which would go a long way in simplifying people's understanding of economics, but just haven't had time.

Regardless, pour yourself a double shot o' Rumpie before taking on the link above.

They Employ the Nicest People at Green Peace

Pedophilia and environmentalism just go so well together.

Female Sexual Centrism

"Centrism" is one of the words academians use when their field or discipline is worthless. For example you don't hear engineering doctorates use "centrism" ever in their lectures or textbooks. They're too busy living in the real world building things people want. Along with "centrism" are words like "paradigm" or "rubric" and other such words that 100% guaran-freaking-tees you the field is worthless.

The term "centrism," though, I first ran into in college in the early 90's where everything was "euro-" or "anglo-" centric. Hard not to be when pretty much all inventions, innovations, technological advances and powerful economies herald from western civilizaiton. But as much as I loathe the term "centrism," I'll grant myself this one opportunity to use the word in that I plan on turning it around and using it against those who originally brought it into its existence.

I was out driving around smoking a cigar and enjoying the sun, when my mind wandered and I noticed for the most part that we live in a female sexual "centric" society. In other words the female version of sexuality is deemed "correct" or "proper" whereas male sexuality is considered "bad" or "wrong."

For example, when a guy says he just wants to have frivolous, meaningless sex, he's considered to be a cad, or shallow or sick or just plain "wrong." Whereas when a woman insists on having a relationship or some level of emotional involvement as a pre-requisite to sex, that's considered "good" or "proper."

I'll give you another one.

It's virtuous and noble to like somebody for their inner-beauty. Wow, what a kind and great person you are to find somebody's intellect attractive. But dare you say,

"I like long legs, long hair, pouty lips, and big gazongas"

SHAME! You are SHALLOW, HOLLOW and "only going after one thing."

I have a simple question:

Who in the Patron Saint's Name of Frick determined the male approach to sexuality was "bad" and the women's approach "good?"

If you look at society, it's more or less ordains female sexuality as the "appropriate" sexuality and more or less criminalizes or shames male sexuality.

This is funny because last I checked male and female sexuality was essentially binary in nature. For example in electricity you have either positive or negative. Computers are either on or off. And even though the words "positive" or "on" are considered better than "negative" or "off" in reality they are not words that describe morality. Merely states.

That wire is positively charged. That wire is negatively charged.

That computer is on. That computer is off.

00000000 00000001 (some IT humor there for the boys)

And male and female sexuality is the same thing. One is not better than the other. Nor is another worse than the other. They are merely two sides of the same coin. States or binary traits the sexes have.

Because they are neutral when it comes to morality, I'm just wondering why male sexuality is shunned or shamed, while female sexuality is championed? The reason I ask is I'm getting mightily tired of having my sexual programming be overlooked or even villainized, while I have to have the female version shoved down my throat.

BBW? Uh no.

"Large and in charge?" Uh no.

"Big is beautiful?" Uh no.

Lingerie for overweight people? Uh, DOUBLE NO!

Now you can go ahead and lecture me about how evil I am and how mean I am and blah blah blah. Not only will it make my point that men can't speak freely about their sexual preferences without incurring social wrath AND also point out society is female sexual "centric," your arguments are moot because it's like arguing that

HEY! THAT COMPUTER IS (GASP!) ON!!!!! Shame on you computer for being on!

HEY! That wired has a (GASP) NEGATIVE CHARGE!!! Shame on you wire for having a negative charge!

Hey! 00000000 00000001! 00100100 00111100 10110110 01111010!!!!

It would be like me lecturing women about (GASP!) PREFERRING TO HAVE CHILDREN!!!!

Additionally, arguing against something that is genetically programmed or hardwired in men, once against violates The Reality Principle. You can argue till your face is blue that you find it dirty and disgusting men prefer skinny, younger women over fat older ones. You might as well be arguing against gravity or arguing against the tornado about to barrel down on your house, because you're arguing against reality. However, there are consequences to arguing against reality, notably for the women who so desperately wish to ignore male sexuality.

The perfect example is the Herculean efforts and strides made to make fat women (and men I might add) feel proud about themselves. AND at the same time shame men for being "shallow" for daring to not find them attractive. The result is that the overweight woman lives in a very accommodating, but delusional world. She never loses the weight, but at the same time never finds a guy (and consequently has bad health too). She never really achieves any happiness (though I'm sure I can hear the screeching now about how "we don't need a man to be happy" and blah blah blah), because society lacked the spine to be upfront with her and accept male sexuality for what it is. So the poor woman dies, not living her full potential she could, wondering why men never came around simply because society never acknowledged what the other side of the coin might have to say.

So who is the real victim of female sexual centrism? Sadly, both men and women, because no matter how much each side may claim otherwise, we are in this boat together and would prefer each others' company. Men are silenced and oppressed on a psychological and social level from voicing their preferences and just being plain ole males. While women are misled about the true nature of male sexuality, let alone its very existence. Because of this, they violate The Reality Principle, operate on the false premise female sexuality is the only thing that matters, rendering their attempts and efforts to have success with the opposite sex fruitless or at least impaired (unhappy marriages, "my day" is somehow viewed as the BEST day in her life, husbands who get fat because she does, sexless marriages/relationship, etc. etc.). The end result, everybody is not as happy as they could be, divorce rates go through the roof, and society still recommends "female sexuality good, male sexuality bad."

Not until we treat it as 00000000 and 00000001 and realize there is no "right" or "wrong," men you can expect to see more of this, and ladies you can expect to see more of this.

This highly politically incorrect (and therefore, truthful) PSA brought to you by Cappy Cap.

I Am One to Brag

As all of you know I am not exactly the humble, shy, bashful type. Nor, in my honest opinion, do I view myself as arrogant or egotistical. I truly believe that in today's PC world, people's sensibilities have been lowered so low, that anybody who has the gall to stand up for oneself, merely point out the truth or have the audacity to toot their own horn, is usually labeled as a blowhard. However, I have achieved something quite commendable and I wish to share it with you, and frankly, don't give a damn how it is perceived amongst the pansified PC classes. Besides which, there's an important lesson here for the boys.

I have been working out quite regularly, as well as participating in an excruciating jujitsu program for the past 6 months. I was never "not" in shape, but I was never chiseled or ripped at the same time either. Also, I started following the diet laid out in Freedom 25's book. The results are thus:


Again, I am by no means a ripped Ryan Reynolds, but there IS something to be said for the subsegment of the Manosphere that addresses dieting and eating right, as well as working out on a regular basis. A correct diet, as well as regular (and unfortunately) rigorous exercise, I am starting to believe is more of a must among men in this world. If we are going to list demands and hold women to certain standards, then we too much also stay in shape and be physically attractive to them. Not only for the health benefits it brings to ourselves, and not only to avoid being hypocrites, but also because staying physically fit is infinitely more economical and efficient than try to go to a bar and "game" some girl with chat, gab and charm.

Additionally, for those of us lucky enough to have found the rare woman that is the traditional, loving, sexy, caring 1940's type gal that had the intelligence to give establishment feminism the finger (and be more than willing to become the naughty June Cleaver in the kitchen heh heh), they of all women most certainly deserve a sexy, physically attractive man. Not some DB that just acts alpha and plays game and scratches his ass.

So, hence forth fellow junior, deputy, aspiring, official or otherwise economists of the male persuasion:

If you got an extra 20 pounds, lose it.

If you got the choice between staying home for 2 hours watching TV or going for a 10 mile walk, go for a walk.

If you eat crap, stop.

Not just because improving your physique will prove more productive in the end in your romantic pursuits, but if you're lucky like some of us to have a girl that tolerates our manosphere theology, AND SHE BELIEVES IN IT, can you think of a more deserving woman that is entitled to a better and sexier you?

It's Called Capital Flight

I love it.

US courts wants to sue a Swiss bank because they won't willingly betray their clients and give the US government their money.

BUT (here's the kicker)

Oh, that's right! It's a SWISS bank, not a US bank! And so the bank simply didn't show up to court.

The pure hubris of the federal government thinking they can violate a country's sovereignty when it comes to getting other people's money.

Tommy Jordan for President

Everybody has seen the video. I just wanted to make my small dent in this huge intergalactic webbosphere that Tommy Jordan should be president and his daughter is actually going to turn out a hell of a lot better than most of the trash that is being churned out in suburban America right now.

God bless you Tommy Jordan.

Why Bachelors Don't Cook

I even removed my stove from my old place in Minneapolis so I could put in a martini lounge.

It was a wise decision.

I Want a Pet Polar Bear

Correct.

I also plan on avoiding this.

Read down to the last two, but there is a language warning.

Recession Medicine

Correct.

Dunkin' Bagels

GDP in Terms of Gold

I had previously calculated what the price of gas was had you used gold as your currency instead of US dollars. The price of oil today would be somewhere around $1.29.

I then figured, "hey, why not convert US GDP in terms of gold?"

I will admit upfront this is not a completely fair comparison in that it is more reflective of the price of gold than it is the productive ability of the US, but it is interesting to note that if we used gold as the currency, GDP today would be a mere $400 billion, about what it was when the last time the economy sucked this bad - Jimmy Carter.

I'm just waiting for the next Ronald Reagan.

James Brown Celebrity Hot Tub

Apparently you youth are unaware of one of the finer bits of theatrical genius from the late 80's. I actually had to explain Eddie Murphy's "James Brown Celebrity Hot Tub."



Ug, you youth. All you learn is socialism and how great you are for merely existing in school.

Nobody Likes Milhouse

A Bachelors Degree in Baby Sitting

I predict in the future, people on the right will more frequently use "Baby Sitters" as the derogatory (and accurate) slang for "teachers," and the teachers unions will actually take great umbrage to it.

They will huff and puff, but it won't change the truth, which is most of them ARE effectively overpaid baby sitters.

I dream of the day we have high school seniors paid to teach k-6 grades at a mere fraction of the cost it takes us now with similar, if not, better results...and much lower property taxes.

Men Can Change Women, Not Vice Versa

From our Canadian Agent in the Field:

Hey Cap, Huge fan from Ontario. I remember you describing your ideal woman as something like "a brilliant computer-engineer-type who likes to dress up, wear lingerie, go dancing, and act like a dude". Essentially, an approximation of a real-life Dagny Taggart. AGREED. Couple things - first, as a libertarian myself, I'm tempted to conclude that a romantic relationship with a liberal/democrat/socialist would inevitably fail. SO, have you ever seen it work? Furthermore, there aren't exactly many free-market/liberty-leaning females out there. Or at least, they're hard to find. Other than basically wedding-crashing on political/economic conferences, what do you recommend to track down these elusive ladies? Thanks a bunch,

-Canadian Agent "Charlie"

Our Canadian Agent asks an OUTSTANDING question that plagues many young collegiate males' minds:

How, or even, SHOULD we date liberal chicks, when that's all we have available to us?

And this presents us a very important "teachable moment."

Understand young male economists, that whereas it is commonly accepted that women want to change men (and we cannot be changed), that doesn't necessarily apply to women in reverse. Matter of fact women CAN EASILY be changed when it comes to things like politics, religion, etc. etc., simply because they've given no real serious thought, ponderance, let alone have rarely spent any time researching and actually looking up facts to determine whether their ideology or political beliefs are the correct ones. They (just like their young male collegiate counterparts), are predisposed to believe in liberalism or socialism not because of any intellectually honest soul searching, but were merely brainwashed by their k-12 indoctrinators.

In short, they are not wedded to their ideology and are merely parroting the same old liberal lines because it's either "popular" or they mindlessly "just care for the little people."

There is however one thing that can make a girl/woman quickly abandon her political ideology or religion and that is a man she is viscerally attracted to. I've seen it a million times before. The girl was a "rabid feminist" or a "huge liberal" in college, until her engineering husband she married explained things to her or started laying down the law. Without fail they will say, "you know, I used to believe in all that liberal stuff, until my husband started explaining things to me" as they go and now rear the three children they just had. Even religion. I know many women that merely abdicated their original religion to be in line with the man they were marrying. Oh, they were passionate christians/jews/muslims/etc., just as they were passionate liberals/feminists/pacifists/vegans, but once that dominant, sexy alpha male showed up, oh, they got rid of any previous ideologies real quick.

This means, fellow Collegiate Cappy Cappites of the Male Persuasion, that you should not refuse to date a girl just because she's a liberal. Matter of fact, you should view it as a child believing in Santa Claus - you pat her on the head and view it for how cute it is. Besides, the sheer statistical numbers make NOT dating liberals an impossibility because you essentially have nothing BUT liberal girls in college (and an aside if you will - you'll find most CONSERVATIVE college girls are just as clueless about politics and economics and simply "chose" to be conservative on equally flimsy grounds).

What you should be doing however, is not looking at what the girl is today - a naive 20 something whose parents are paying for her "elementary education" degree who has never visited the FRED database in her life. You should be looking at her long term potential.

You'll note that in speaking with most college students today (male and female) they are probably more conservative or libertarian than they are socialists. Their beliefs are conservative, their brains, however were too lazy to go and find out which political party those beliefs concur with. Of course, the always available teachers unions were more than willing to make that decision for them. So if the girl is cute, she's smart, she espouses logical, moral beliefs and (above all else) SHE IS NICE AND NOT A COMPLETE PSYCHO, don't dismiss her because she's a liberal. View her more in terms of high quality raw material that can be shaped into the "IT geek goddess that likes to wear lingerie and play video games."

There is of course the question then, "how do you get her to convert?" Or "how do you get her to realize her ideology is wrong?"

And it pains me you young Agents don't know the arsenal of weapons I've equipped you with in the field.

The single

biggest,

bestest,

most-awesomeist

weapon you have is...

Betting.

Assume, a couple premises and you will see how betting is hands down the best way to convince a woman (or anybody for that matter) you are right, they are wrong, but not alienate or anger them.

Premise 1 - The girl is viscerally and genuinely attracted to you.
Premise 2 - You have NOT mentioned your ideology at all and is thus far unknown to her
Premise 3 - She is intellectually honest and will listen to reason and, more importantly, fact.

Those three things are the only things you need to convert a liberal girl over to the factual-side of the force AND impress her romantically.

When the topic of politics comes up (which it will, but you WON'T bring it up), you will act nonchalant. Indifferent. Silent, but with a hint of superiority. She will ask you a question about politics, or she will say something you know to be FACTUALLY wrong. When she does this, you can spring your trap.

You say, "You know what, I bet you're wrong about how much we spend on the military."

She will retort, "Oh really?"

You say, "Yes, matter of fact, I'll enter a wager with you. If military spending as a percent of GDP is less than 10%, you have to come to my house, wear a french maid outfit and cook me dinner. If it's more than 10% GDP, I'll come over to your house and be your personal manslave for a day."

And in one cunning move you've not only turned her on even more, but you have politely (and quit sexually, I might add) introduced the concept she might be wrong.

The upshot of liberal college girls is they are wrong on some many levels, the betting could go on forever. The budget, economic growth, history, etc. etc., you name it. So you could theoretically have her in your house being the "naughty nurse" or whatever everyday for the next 20 years.

There is however, a problem with betting. Once you force the typical liberal to attach something of value (money, french maid outfit, manslave, etc.) to their beliefs, they all of the sudden realize there IS a consequence for being ignorant. They WILL try to weasel their way out of it, change semantics, look for technicalities, which means you must peg down the PRECISE, SPECIFIC data you are going to use to prove either of you wrong.

So it can't be "I bet you that Bush didn't suck as much."

It has to be "I bet you that there was more jobs created under George Bush by this point in time in his presidency than there has been under Obama. And we'll use the BLS as a source."

There is also a totally alpha move if the girl doesn't want to go through with the bet. When she refuses to take the bet, you can simply say,

"Cool, then you can show up at my house in lingerie anyway and help me fix my motorcycle. I'll see you at 8:00."

It will certainly impress her more than the hipster-Seth Rogen, DB, goatee-wearing liberal arts pansy asking her to "get coffee" or see the latest craptastic "independent student film."

Why Youth Are So Stupid

He hits it on the head. THe public schools and said unions are nothing more than vile indoctrinators.

The Case for Eliminating HR

Rhymes with "itches." And starts with a "b.'

I'll say it again - HR is the single largest NON-public sector threat to the economy. It is completely unnecessary and is only like inviting a vampire into your house.

My Long Lost Twin Brother

I found him in New York. Apparently, Diehipster has my hatred for faux wanna be's who live off of their parents or my mandatory largess via the government.

Actually, had to keep reading and came across this one. Damn he's good.

I Will Hire Graduates from MITx

"MITx" is the project MIT is pursuing wherein they offer online classes for free AND provide a credential that you did indeed master the subject.

These credentials, of course, will not be recognized by the rest of the educational system because it would destroy the monopoly they have over millions of innocent people. Thousands of worthless, washed up hippie professors would have to get real jobs instead of screwing over youth for $400 a credit.

There is good news however. What ultimately gives universities their power is not the fact they recognize each others' credits, but that employers recognize the credits or acknowledge the value of a degree from a university. I know people in this country are very slow, and HR consciously works against productivity and progress, but slowly companies are starting to realize just how worthless most college degrees and their graduates are. And I'm willing to bet that in due time employers will start to accept credentials from free online colleges like Khan's Academy or MITx as equal, if not better than a traditional brick and mortar university because the student was obviously self-motivated.

I therefore officially declare that I will hire graduates from MITx should I ever be in the position of power to hire people. Actually, I would prefer them. Now if the rest of the Fortune 500 companies would join me, we could fundamentally change the country for the better.