Captain's Quarterly Fall of 2015 Vol. 1

Citation preview

Captain’s Quarterly Fall 2015 Vol. 1

Copyright © 2016 by Aaron Clarey All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law.

INTRODUCTION “Captain’s Quarterly” is the quarterly “best of” Aaron Clarey’s blog, Captain Capitalism. The purpose is to not only back up the blogging literary works of Aaron Clarey in case Google decides to one day delete his blog, but to also provide a quarterly digest for intelligent people seeking intellectual stimulation. It is also greatly improved over the original blog posts as each issue features a pretty model, if for any other reason, than to piss off leftists and feminists. Posts have not been edited from their original form, which includes typos, grammatical errors, and other literary sins, which was done on purpose raise the ire of grammar Nazis.

THIS ISSUE’S MODEL – CINDY MORAN

Please visit and consider hiring her for all your modeling needs at www.cindymoran.net

BRITISH ACCENT PRIVILEGE To be blunt and direct I put my heart and soul into my new-found "online media empire" career. I cook, I slave, I write, I podcast, and when coupled with my life-long passion for economics and capitalism these efforts have produced society some impressive gifts. My ability to predict the housing bubble long before it happened. My ability to warn the youth about worthless degrees long before anybody else. My ability to foresee the "retirement bubble" Not to mention my ability to consult and advise the lost youth of today. Thankfully, these efforts have not gone unrewarded and I am one of the VERY lucky few to have a significant enough of a following that I no longer have to sit in a cubicle, commute, or answer to a boss even again. I have just under 20,000 followers on YouTube, approximately 3,000 weekly listeners to my podcast, the same amount of daily visitors to my blog, and this generates enough income so that I may put food on the table and shelter over my head. But then my keen economic eye caught something. While me and my colleagues slaved and toiled as we tamed this new digital landscape, right behind us came some women. And these women had two traits: 1. They were cute and 2. They were conservative. And so while the likes of me, Roosh, Mike Cernovich, Aurini, and others pioneered this new world, advancing and developing new

lines of thought, these women came in and said, "Tee hee!!! I like Sean Hannity!" "Tee hee!!! I like America! Go capitalism!" "Tee hee!!! I support the troops!" And so for merely parroting very watered-down versions of the great economic, philosophical, and political arguments, concepts, and theories we men created, these girls were rewarded with: OVER FIVE TIMES THE SUBSCRIBERSHIP AND FOLLOWING. Naturally, some of us got angry and a bit perturbed as it was simply not fair. We did all the heavy lifting, we did all heavy thinking, not to mention those thousands of hours of research. But this great injustice aside, I fully acknowledge and am aware that it is the nature of the world. Men (specifically conservative Western men) have a huge, desperate, and thirsty demand for hot, conservative women. Unfortunately, there is a very limited supply of such girls. This results in a classical economic situation of a shortage, predictably causing higher prices for lower quality goods. However, unfair that 5:1 advantage may be, did you know there was another unearned trait that MILLIONS of men are born with each year that dwarfs this 5:1 ratio? A simple characteristic that dwarfs the benefits given to a cute set of conservative tits? Enter the hated British accent. Ever since the dawn of America we have had to fight this global scourge. First in the Revolutionary War, then again in 1812. And today this war continues as men with their perfectly-pitched and perfectly-polished British accents come in and swoon our women,

take all the leading roles in Hollywood, and are automatically conferred an additional 15 IQ points during conversation. But while I thought the plague of "British Accent Privilege" would be largely relegated to tickling the fancies of our women and playing the villains in Star Wars movies, unfortunately it has spread into my back yard. It has hit me at home. It has directly affected my career. I didn't notice it at first until the internet drama surrounding one "Laughing Witch" exploded onto the scene where presumably this aged, leftist woman who has doxxed several people, ended up getting doxxed herself. I had only been paying a tacit amount of attention to the chaos, but to understand it more fully a friend of mine linked to a video of one of the more prominent YouTuber's she was trying to take down-Thunderf00t. As I listened it was immediately apparent he had "British Accent Privilege," and was of course refined and polished in his delivery. But it wasn't until I looked at his subscribership did I fully comprehend just what an unfair advantage his British accent gave him over us colonials. Thunderf00t had 400,000 subscribers. A full 20x's more than me! Soon my mind raced as my synopses knew I had seen other YouTubers who had British Accent Privilege and orders of magnitude more subscribers than me. Sargon of Akkad with his 191,000 followers. And Stefan Molyneux with his 280,000 followers. You did some simple math and the benefits of British Accent Privilege was painfully obvious.

These three men averaged 290,000 subscribers. While I, a lowly colonial, only had 20,000. This resulted in a ratio of nearly 15:1, THREE TIMES THE ADVANTAGE HAVING A CUTE SET OF TITS AND THE ABILITY TO SPOUT CONSERVATIVE TALKING POINTS! And whereas my economic mind is more than willing to accept the economic-sexual-psychological nature of men and their propensity to give a 5:1 advantage to women, what my American blood cannot abide is giving a man with a British accent such advantage and privilege. Why is it a guy with the name "Thadeus Danglepuss" or "Benedict Cumberbatch" can even be considered refined or theatrically talented? Why is it a guy with the name "Englbert Humperdink" or "Stefan Molyneux" can even be considered a musician or a (pfa!) "philosopher?" It is high time the world wake up and realize the OPPRESSION we suffer under those with British Accent Privilege. And it would be equally just for those with British Accent Privilege to admit it, apologize for it, and pay us reparations for their winning the "accent lottery of life."

WHY REPUBLICANS SHOULD CONSULT TOM LEYKIS Ever since I've become aware of politics and certainly since I've followed it, the US has generally made a slow, but consistent movement to the left. This is not measured by who was elected democrat or republican, but much more empirical and concrete measures, specifically, government as a percentage of the economy. This measure, though going up and down, has generally trended upwards during my adult years to the point that we now (depending on which state you're in) pay around 40% of your money to the state, 43% if you consider inflation a tax (which it is). When you compare this to the pre WWI average of 3%, you can see that America is not only nothing like what it used to be or the principles it was founded upon, but freedom, free markets, capitalism, and everything Western Civilization fought for these past 4,000 is also losing. The only thing in a position to stop this is, laughably, the republican party. And while I see many of the heads and establishment, RINO republicans doing nothing, if not advancing the progress of socialism, there are still some true believers in the party who insist on the principles the republican party theoretically stands for. The irony, however, is that the establishment republicans, even though they have moved to the left, still keep getting their asses handed to them. This is not Monday morning quarterbacking, but a fact. They are the biggest pussies and pushovers, thinking appeasement and being nice is what's going to win over the American voting public. And even though they failed to stop Obamacare,

failed to make him a one term president, failed to protect the integrity of the sovereignty of this nation AND Trump's viable candidacy is proof "regularly every day" republicans (and people) are sick of their eunuch politics they still are in such an elitist, blue blood, clueless echo chamber, they still don't know why they keep losing. Which is why they should consult Tom Leykis. Tom, largely stays out of politics. He's too busy leading the young boys in this country out of the lies, propaganda, and deceit they were fed as children, helping them salvage what they can in their lives. But some of the lessons he learned the hard way (trial and error) are vital, not just to young men of today, but today's ball-less republican party. Specifically, "There's the door." Unlike what young men were told their entire childhood and adolescent lives, women do NOT like being pampered, having their asses kissed, and having every whim satisfied. Even more so, women respond more positively to a man who tells her "no" than one you says, "yes dear" each and every opportunity. Ergo, after dating and marrying enough women, Tom finally learned to say, "There's the door." "Tom buy me more stuff." "There's the door." "Tom, I want a cat." "There's the door." "Tom, you don't treat me well." "There's the door."

He learned, although over many years and much pain, that to have a successful, productive, and above all else, respectable relationship with a woman you simply had to stick with your principles, hold your guns, and tell them "no." And it's the precise same lesson the republicans have to learn about the American voting public. The American voting public has been courted, successfully, by the democrats simply through bribery. "Vote for me and I'll give you free shit." And they fall for it because, in general, people are morons, can't do math, and don't want to do the math. Their survivalist instincts always love free shit and they'll vote for it NEARLY every time. However, the American public also at least respects the left because they get it done. They stand for something. They hold to their principles. This is why they could get an out and out socialist elected twice as president and can get a publicly admitted socialist in Bernie Sanders elected too. But the republican's response to this has been a bigger pussy move than one I pulled off buying a girl flowers in the 7th grade: "We'll give you slightly less free stuff." Unfortunately since this has no principle, stands for nothing, based in no plan, and is based in MIMICRY it comes off as the pussy move it is by simply confessing "We have NOTHING of value to offer you so we're going to try to be like the democrats." This strategy is flawed in its design and has empirically and historically proven to be so. Instead the republicans should insist on principle, insist on holding their guns, and simply say to the American people: "There's the door."

"You don't like balanced budgets?" There's the door. "You want open borders?" There's the door. "You want free health care, and college tuition for shitty degrees?" There's the door. Simply insist on the rule that you will not violate your principles AND be willing to lose a couple elections if the American public is too stupid to insist you do. Let the foolish American voting public vote in the socialists, vote in the democrats, jack up taxes, make everything "free," and let the American people get the government (and economy by the way) it so rightly deserves. Then, and only then, like a spoiled girlfriend who stammers out the door, only to pay the price of her naivety in the real world, will you win these voters in the long run. The left will NOT be able to deliver what they promised, but more importantly you present a CLEAR and DISTINCT alternative in politics, rather a confused, amorphous, muddled one that looks nothing more than "wanna be democrat." Finally, and I say this not because it's politically incorrect, but because all politically incorrect statements are true, republicans lose elections because of women. And it is the PRECISE same exact psychology where you tell a girl "there's the door" that she may claim to "hate you" initially, but in the end will at least respect you and inevitably sleep with you vote for you. Imagine if you had told all these third wave feminists to fuck off instead of cowering like the cowards you are fearing they might call you "sexist?" Imagine if you dared to cut their funding from the public universities and their women's studies programs?

Imagine if you "republican" "conservative" "traditional fathers" actually grabbed your balls out from your "elementary school teacher" wife's purse and said, "Son, here's how women, economics, and politics really work." Imagine if instead of kissing illegal aliens' asses in fear you might lose "the Latino vote," you manned up and did what men have done for millennia and DEFENDED THE NATION. Oh, you'd get heaps of scorn thrown on you, but many other women would admit to having the "voting VT's" for you as you were simply adhering to principle and being the epitome of man. Of course, you aren't going to consult Tom Leykis. And of course you aren't going to consult me. And of course, you'll keep losing to the democrats. You'll keep listening to Dick Morris and all the other "political analysts" with their masters degrees from the MSM. But at least for some of you this horribly politically incorrect truthful reality will explain why the republicans keep losing, the left gets everything it wants, and why the only real strategy true freedom-loving, "normal" republicans have is to enjoy the decline.

WHY “BUYING LOCAL” IS A STUPID ECONOMIC STRATEGY On par with the stupidity that was the "Let's Boycott Big Oil" (for one day and then everybody buy twice the amount of gas the next) is the Gen X-inspired, Millennial-endorsed "Buy Local" economic strategy. With data that is as spurious as a research paper written by a women's studies professor who hates her father, meaningless and unfounded data is thrown around claiming "if just everybody spent $100 locally it would benefit our economy by $3 million!" Perhaps "$4 million!" Heck, why not "$1 billion?" But for saner heads and those who are GENUINELY interested in enacting economic policies that raise everybody's standard of living, and not just 20 something college kids masturbating their political egos, it is time for the Ole Captain to brush off the dust, put on his ole economist hat, and explain to you how "buying local" is not only stupid, but actually HARMS people economically. At the heart of these naive people's economic strategy is the utopian idea that if you buy locally then the "money is kept in the local economy" and thus benefits those locally. So instead of going to Wal-Mart and buying everything, you go to the Ma and Pa's store in town, thereby helping them AND their local employees. And while on the face of it this may sound logical and simple, it is. So simple it fails miserably to account for the real world. First, in order for this to work, EVERYBODY, and I mean EVERYBODY would have to be forced BY LAW to re-spend the money locally until death do us part. Not only would you have to buy from the local ma and pa dime store, THEY would have to buy all of their wares locally as well. Additionally (and I'm sure the economic

masterminds behind the "buy local" strategy accounted for this too), they would have to reinvest ONLY LOCALLY to keep the money local. Ergo, not only would all goods and services be bought locally, but all sources of financing and investment would be local AND could only go to local companies. Already you can intuitively see some problems with this as it sounds totalitarian and restrictive. Second, which is closely related to the first, is the lack of competition and choice. What if I don't like the Ma and Pa store? What if I don't like the local ice cream parlour? What if the clothier does not have the fashion you want? What if I don't want to invest in the local bean plant? Well, tough cookies for you. You HAVE TO buy local. The irony is that the people who typically clamor for "buying local" are usually the same ones who protest against monopolies. However, to a certian level, that is precisely what they're advocating. A monopolistic market. The only difference is merely who is the monopolist? An "evil" big corporation from out of state that has lower prices and a better product? Or A "good" local company, owned by Herb and Bethel in Bisbee, Arizona who charges $14 for a "local organic burger" that tastes like crap? It belies their true political leanings - they're Nazis, but "for the small people," which I guess in their warped and inferior minds makes it all good.

Third, quality. In limiting competition and choice, you by default lower quality. Both in terms of allowing people to enjoy specialized products, as well as the benefits that come with having variety. Soon, you WILL get sick of Bisbee's 5 local-only coffee stores. You'll also get sick of the decor and the washed up hippie staff. And you will yearn to have a Starbucks or a Caribou or a Dunn Brothers coffee. But no, not if they can pass an ordinance in town banning any of those "evil, nasty, chain store" coffee shops. So you're stuck looking at an algae infested fish tank that they use to brew their kombucha, not to mention listening to the latest in "indie" music out of Tuscon, when all you wanted was a quality cup of Joe. Fourth and finally, prices. Specifically, standards of living. As much as you hate those "national chain stores" or those "eeeevil" multi-billion dollar corporations, the sad truth is that big is beautiful. And by beautiful, I mean cheap. See, back in the day they had this thing called the "industrial revolution" which among many other wonderous things, automated a lot of processes previously done by humans. This allowed us to mass produce the same goods at a fraction of the time, cost, resources, and on-the-job-deaths than before. However, also key to this was SCALE. Instead of having everybody make their own cars in their own garages, it paid to make a lot MORE cars for a fraction of the per unit cost in these things called "factories." Additionally, instead of selling a little bit of everything at the small Ma and Pa dime store, where customers would have to pay a hefty premium for square footage, it made immense economic sense to create super stores like WalMart, Target, and malls where the retailing costs were a fraction of what was once before. And so now, not only were goods being mass-produced by these large "evil" national chains or multi-billion

dollar corporations, but because they were being made on scale, their costs dropped dramatically. And when costs drop dramatically, that increases people's standards of living dramatically which is the WHOLE POINT OF ECONOMICS. In short, these large, multi-billion dollar, "chain" stores and corporations like Wal-Mart have done more to PERMANENTLY help out the poor by boosting their purchasing power than any government program or pot-induced "buy local" dipshittery ever did. The truth is "buying local" is a euphemism for "undeserved charity." If you buy local you are usually paying a premium for a less efficiently made product or service out of political or charitable leanings. Additionally, in insisting on "buying local" you also deny yourself the BEST possible goods and services that world has to offer. Swiss chocolates? No, not local. Cuban cigars? No, not local. Saudi oil? No, none for us, thank you. Not local! We're from Bisbee! Just what kind of a life would you lead? And finally what if everybody only "bought local?" Like tourism, you are merely taking away business from one group of people to benefit another group of people who just happen to live in your town. There is no net economic gain in such a strategy for the nation as a whole. But it's even WORSE than tourism. Tourism is a net-zero effect and does not adversely affect any particularly industry. If you insisted on "buying local" only you would wipe out all of the nation's industries and along with it their ability to mass produce and sell on scale. Prices would sky rocket, quality would tank, and you'd be stuck with what meager goods and services your "local" economy could produce.

So please, to all the restaurants, bars, waitresses, college students, city council members professors, and other varied sorts of wanna-be economists who advocate the "buy local" economic strategy, shut up. Just please shut up. You don't know what you're talking about, you're going to hurt your community more than help. Just please shut up and leave economics, production, and standards of living to free people making free choices. I know telling people to "shut up" is not a legitimate argument, perhaps an admission of defeat. But not in your case. You're so ignorant and stupid about economics "shut up" is not only the response you deserve, it's the only one you'd understand.

THE IMPORTANCE OF LOWERING YOUR EXPECTATIONS The Expectations Bubble At 10 years old I believed that I was going to become a Vertitech Fighter. If you don't know what that is, that's fine for it is only something 10 year old boys growing up in the 80's would know. But in fact, the "Veritech Fighter" is an imaginary fighter plane from the Japanese anime series "Robotech." It could convert from a standard fighter for long distance space battles to a humanoid like robot for close quarters combat, typically against the evil "Invid Invasion" that wished to enslave the human world. Naturally I did not grow up to become a Veritech pilot, not only because no such thing existed, nor that there wasn't an evil alien force called the "Invid," but because of reality. My family was poor so even if there were such a thing as a Veritech fighter we were unlikely to afford it, and I had to focus on more practical means of escaping poverty. However, while poverty kept my life goals grounded in reality, the same cannot be said for many of my peers and members of future generations. For while it was impossible for anybody of any generation to become a Veritech pilot, it was not necessarily impossible for them to become a famous singer famous celebrity high paid athelete President of the United States or just plain social diva

Statistically, unlikely? Yes. Impossible? No. And so what ensued was a phenomenon that was not only insane, but increasingly so as time went on. Parents told their children "they could become anything" because that was nice thing to do. Teachers echoed their parents, telling them the same, because it would be mean to crush little Jimmy's dream of becoming the next Michael Jordan. Did you want to become a world famous singer/celebrity? It was all possible according to the movies, MTV videos, and Madonna. And come graduation time, before children were shipped off to college, parents would buy their adult children the hilariously optimistic "Oh The Places You Will Go" by Dr. Seuss. This child-age propaganda did not stop there, nor in its intensity. As time went on it wasn't merely "telling your children to aim high" and "chase their dreams" but to ensure at all expense your children's ego and self-esteem was never shattered. And so the successive generation (Millennials) were treated to an even more potent dose of pie in the sky poppy cock that inflated their expectations. Participation trophies. No scores being kept. The elimination of red markers for grading papers. The elimination of grades. Tutors. Special ed teachers. "Everybody should go to college"

and other outright lies that cowardly parents and teachers told their children/students their entire childhood lives. One would think it would stop there once these children grew up and went on to college, having their childish dreams and expectations smashed by reality. But the machine driving the "Expectations Bubble" was just firing up. First media and Hollywood couldn't have young people think they couldn't chase and inevitably realize their dreams. Especially women. Ergo, they created even more movies where the good guy always wins, the girl gets the rich husband in the end, and everybody makes $100,000 a year while serving coffee at the "Central Perk." Second, academia needed these now-adult children (especially women) to believe that the key to achieving their dreams was a college education. And not just a college education, but preferably an advanced degree through college education. 23 year old girls just couldn't become $250,000/year fashion writers for Vogue in Manhattan without a Masters in Creative Writing. And 22 year old boys just couldn't become the next Kirk Cobain without getting a degree in Music Theory. They needed the guidance (and promise of success) from adult theoreticians posing as professors. But don't worry, once you got your college degree you were GUARANTEED not only to get a job, but FINALLY after nearly 2 decades of schooling, live your dream. Third, we can't forget this entire time what the fashion/movie/sex industry was telling these kids. Women were entitled to strong, but sensitive, but not too sensitive men, who could read minds, were all millionaires (preferably billionaires) looked like Brad Pitt, voted Democrat, wanted sex, but only when the women wanted to have sex, and wanted to wait until she was ready to have children, and would MAGICALLY show up and be ready to marry when she was ready to take a brake from her "fabulous" writing career at 32 years and 7 months. Boys were fed the lies that women liked kind,

sensitive caring men, who voted Democrat, opened doors for girls, and wrote poetry, and as long as you did that you would be guaranteed to have that hot, sex-addicted nymphomaniac that you've come to expect watching increasing amounts of internet porn. Besides, who can blame them? According to their teachers and parents they were the greatest people to ever grace this earth. Besides, they had college degrees and were "going green," and that ENSURED they'd have great love lives. And finally politicians. What politician is going to win over this voting bloc by pointing out things like: "Debt to GDP Ratios?" "Unfunded liabilities?" "Government spending as a % of GDP?" or "Labor force participation rates?" None. And that's why there was a lot of talk about hope and "the children are our future" without a lot of hard math and statistics based in reality. When you threw it all together, it was the biggest lie ever told. Previous generations had so misled their children about what they could expect and were entitled to by the future that nearly EVERYBODY in the entire country had expectations that GREATLY exceeded what reality was ever capable of giving them. But worse, it was about every aspect of their lives: Career Education Love life Family live

Health Finances Nearly every one in the United States of America is so delusional that this "Expectations Bubble" dwarfs that of the Housing or Dotcom bubbles. And like all bubbles, when they burst there will be pain. Why Did This Happen? Before we move onto solutions to the Expectations Bubble, we need to know how and why it formed in the first place. And the answer is three fold and very simple. #1 There's Profit to Be Had in Dem Der Lies! Oprah's entire career was basically "lie to women by telling them what they want to hear, even though it will ruin their lives in the long run, and charge them the entire time." But before you jump on Oprah, realize she was merely just one figurehead-example of the "Charge for Pretty Lies" industry. The entire fashion industry is one big lie to women that wearing those clothes (for that year) will make them not necessarily sought after by men, but envied by other women. Make up is the same thing, but it is to make you look "younger and better." But even these industries have a morsel of honesty in them in that fashion and make-up can make you look better. Such a thing cannot be said, however, of the vanity industries of "women's empowerment" books, feminist studies in college, and (my coined phrase) "roundhousekicking chick cop show" media. You see women can't be stay at home moms and supporting wives. There's no money in that. Corporate America needs women to have their own salaries and outsource their children so:

1. They can make billions in child outsourcing prisons daycare center profits 2. They can make billions on fashion sales for vain products like purses and "hand bags" 3. They can make billions on second and third cars 4. They can make billions on the CAR LOANS to pay for those second and third cars 5. They can make TRILLIONS on selling you more house than you need and 6. They can make TRILLIONS on selling women worthless liberal arts degrees. So you see we need to mold women's expectations into "having it all" even though not one woman in the history of the world has ever pulled that off successfully. But before we mock women, men are just as easily duped and to blame. It may not be a Prada purse he buys, but he'll blow 10 times that amount on a fancy car. It may not be a "Masters in Gender Studies," but he will blow $50,000 on a "Creative Writing Degree." It may not be a "$4,000 Italian couch," but it is a $4,000 bet on a DraftKing's "sportsball" event. And just as women blindly sopped up the lies told to them by all these corporations that their lives would be great if they had these THINGS, men equally naively thought they'd be fat, married, employed and happy if they did the same. In the end, all most Americans really end up doing is LITERALLY mortgaging their lives away in the form of student loans, car loans, and McMansion mortgages to pay corporations and universities till their dead. #2. There's Votes to Be Had in Dem Der Lies!

Just like corporations, universities, and non-profits will lie to get you to part with your money, politicians will lie so they can get your vote. The consequences, however, are not immediate as you are unlikely to directly pay for what you vote for. Remember, it's only those eeeevil rich people and white guys that pay. Of course ripping on corporations, males, whites, or people who just plain have more than you is also ripping on employers, innovators, spenders, and investors. Kind of the whole engine of economic growth for the country. So when they're taxed...and leave...or just don't invest...or just work less...or innovate less...or retire...there's not as much economic growth to go around. Oh...and yeah. Less jobs too. So that "great career" you were promised by those politicians if you did what your parents told you to do and "just go to college" and everything will work out fine? Yeah, how's that working for you now? Oh, and by the way, how are those student loans you used to pay those leftist professors $300/credit who told you to vote Democrat all the time? They afford those professors a nice house near campus? No no, I know. "You're really smart and educated" and I'm "just a big jerk who doesn't understand economics." 3. You Parents (and Friends) are Cowards You parents and friends have likely failed you because they dare didn't hurt your feelings by telling you the truth. This is cowardice on their part because whatever temporary measure of ire you may have sent there way for telling you a harsh truth was enough to deter them to idly stand by and watch you go down a path that would ruin your life.

Your son or daughter is going to go to a private liberal art college and major in Social Justice Studies, ending up with $125,000 in debt? No, no, don't stop them. You're not a real dad. You're a spineless one, soon joining the eunuch trope. Tell them "follow your heart and the money will follow" as you condemn them to a life of poverty. Your friend just got engaged to an insufferable, spoiled trust fund baby who is majoring in Women's Studies? No, no. Don't stop him. You're not a real friend. You're a spineless one who has no problem condemning your friend to a life of misery, divorce, and child support payments. Whether it is real cowardice, laziness in parenting, or an inappropriate amount of "well they're their own adults and I can't stop them" non-interventionism, the result is the same. "Everybody's a winner!" "Everybody is happy!" "You're all going to have wonderful and great futures!" "Everything is awesome!" Again, when you combine these three things, they are the ingredients for a perfect storm. Nobody has any financial incentive to tell you the truth. Nobody has a political reason to burst your delusional expectations of reality. And even those closest to you have been so spoiled and made soft by decades of decadence lack the spine to tell you otherwise. With nothing to stop them, multibillion dollar corporations, multi-billion dollar universities, and multiTRILLION dollar governments will take advantage of your naivety, inflating your ego and expectations from life, just as long as you enslave yourself to them forever. What are the Costs?

The costs are what you'd likely expect from the world's largest bubble - the world's largest price. I cannot think of at any point in time, bar maybe the mass starvations caused by communism and the two world wars that would come close to what the United States, and to a larger extent, western civilization will pay for their delusions. However, regardless of the price it will be paid in two ways. Mental and financial. Mentally we are already paying this price. For those of you who got through high school, graduated from college, did what you were told, and went into debt doing so, you are already suffering for the lies, deceit and delusion that was cast upon you. Like many 20 somethings you are wondering what you did wrong? Why isn't life going the way you were told it would go? Where is your job? Where is your mentally stimulating career? Where are the droves of women/men that you were to date? And this confusion isn't something simple like "why isn't my car starting?" This is a life crushing experience as for the past ENTIRETY of your life you have been lied to, and thus PROGRAMMED to think a certain way. It's not like you can just "YouTube" "how to clean a fuel injector" and be done with this this afternoon. It is the most rudest of awakenings in that your entire world view is being shattered and along with it your entire mental programming and life philosophy. You need to rethink everything, AS WELL AS ADMIT YOUR ENTIRE LIFE HAS BEEN WASTED UP TO THIS POINT! All that schooling. All that education. All that political indoctrination. All that BS about women liking "caring men" were not only lies, but wastes of life, time and money. It is the closest thing to insanity healthy minds will ever endure, and some even crack, going insane themselves, giving some explanation to the recent spat of millennial mass murderers we've seen.

If you manage to get through it you will naturally be angry. You will not be happy. You will want revenge. But there is nobody to get revenge on, because you very well can't take on a corporation, nor the US government, nor the university that just ass-raped you for $50,000 in tuition. It is here you will either double down on your delusional life (like a women's study major getting her "doctorate" and blaming anything on "white men"), or you will admit you DID make these decisions, even if you were misled, and you believed them. And it is here yet another life-determining decision will be made. Do you pick yourself up and do what you can with only 67% of your life left, and nearly none of your youth remaining? Or do you give up and sink into depression? Many-a-construction workers committed suicide when they went bankrupt when a housing bubble THEY DIDN'T CONTROL burst. But some stuck it out and got back their wealth they lost in 7 years. It will be the true test of a man and woman's mettle to see which of these options they choose. Regardless, this is the mental price people will pay for the Expectations Bubble. Wasted lives, wasted youth, some will commit suicide, others will pursue the delusion blaming bogey men, and others will limp on in life. But regardless of where they end up, the pure psychological torment of realizing you've been lied to your entire life, and that this has cost you your youth, AND how to control that rage to salvage what remains is the mental price two generations, maybe three will pay for the lies, deceit and cowardice of previous generations. The financial price is incalculable. We could discuss economic estimates of "unfunded liabilities" which are around $100 trillion in promises we can't keep. We could discuss the national debt, 65% of which was used to buy votes which if interest rates nudge even slightly up, the US is insolvent. We could be theoretical and ask "what could have been" had we adhered to those nasty, dirty,

disgusting WASPy principles of the WWII generation. But in the end it is moot. With now about 80% of the population wasting 1/3rd of their lives getting educated, and nearly 75% of them getting educated in worthless subjects, NOT TO MENTION crippling their financial futures in debt, the entire economic system just plain doesn't have the human productive capacity, ability, nor desire to 1. Honor all our debts 2. Pay for everything else The herculean economic challenges that face this nation are insurmountable to the deluded, incompetent, incapable, and demoralized population we have today. One can fully expect default (if we lose world reserve currency status), and a long slow decline as the Romans experienced in the 4th and 5th centuries AD. What Can Be Done? Just like the Dotcom Bubble, just like the Housing Bubble, and just like the Retirement Bubble, people are so brainwashed and wedded to the bubble, it's nearly impossible to wake them up and effectively deflate it. You now have nearly 90% of the population that is NONWWII, meaning they lack the hardships, sacrifices, and other real world experiences in life to harden them to the point they prefer harsh truths over reality. You have Baby Boomers, Gen X'ers, Millennials and whatever god-forsaken generation is coming after that, and NONE OF THEM seem to have an inkling of desire to turn off The Kardashians and start reading The Wall Street Journal. Additionally, all major institutions in the country are too vested in the system as it currently is. The democrats will never forfeit the promises of "unicorns, free health care, free education, you can do anything and if you didn't it's whitey's fault" type strategy. Corporations are too invested in men and women thinking

delusionally about themselves, and thus being entitled to all their material goods. Universities and colleges need to also keep up the lie you need college to achieve your dream for what else would the parasitic scum of society posing as professors do for a living? And the media has too much at stake for they are the ones who sell you the lies as to why your life isn't going the way you want it, or at least produce the mind-numbing drugs of sitcoms and Grammy awards so you never question it to begin with. But all these major obstacles aside, there is at least a THEORETICAL way to undo all the damage that has been/will be done and maybe, put the country back on the path towards greatness and reality. And it starts with that. Reality. Specifically, The Reality Principle. The Reality Principle is not a theory or concept or an idea. It's reality. And it basically states that your decisions become more and more effective the more and more you base those decisions in reality. If you work out, eat right, put yourself together, get implants, and grow your hair out long you will abide by the REALITY that men like girls with long hair, big boobs, tight asses, and a pretty face and are practically guaranteed to succeed with men. If you instead lie to yourself and claim beauty is a social construct as you wharf down your 4th cheese burger, cut your hair short, wear military boots, and pierce your nose on your way to the latest "fat acceptance" meeting, then you will FAIL with men. But the CRUX of The Reality Principle is not the simple common sense that it implies. It is pursuing The Reality Principle in spite of our wishes, desires, biases, predispositions, wants and preferences. For example it's very easy for me to acknowledge women want an in shape guy, with big muscles, who makes a lot of money, is charming,

talented and charismatic. It's another thing for me to run 6 miles, lift weights the next day, pursue a degree in engineering, work 60 hours a week to make the money, while picking up dance classes and practicing Cary Grant lines to meet those standards (which I have by the way ;). Ergo it's not the concept of basing decisions in reality as much as it accepting the criticism and responsibilities it forces on us. Do you want to have a job after college? Tough luck, you have to study hard disciplines in STEM, engineering, and math. Do you want to have that hot nymphomanic babe you see on the internet? Tough luck, hit the gym, lift weights, get rid of the carbs, and enjoy the suck. Do you want to be a social justice warrior that helps the poor and are too lazy to get a real education? Tough luck, you will be poor, nobody will really respect you, and nobody will take you seriously. While this "responsibility-taking" aspect of The Reality Principle implies a third impossible hurdle to bursting and recovering from The Expectations Bubble, it does something that all the lies, government checks, and warm fuzzies can't do, and that is provide real and genuine hope, a real, tangible and possible solution to most people's problems. For while the sweet lies do satiate most of the sheeple out there, most sheeple do know, deep down inside this is not how they want their lives to be going. They are not satisfied with their lives. They are not happy and they are not hopeful about the future. Additionally, they inevitably tire of a life where the lies and promises they were told are never realized. How long are blacks going to believe the Democrat lies? Another 60 years?

How long are women going to believe the 60's feminist lies? Another 60 years? Inevitably, after a couple generations of no success, no progress, and above all else, no happiness, they WILL start to question the lies they've been told (which in part explains my disproportionately high black male readership, as well as loyal contingent of women who want to be traditional housewives). In other words, lies and deceit do not work in the long run no matter how good they feel. And if we are in a very Trump like way, direct, unapologetic and blunt about it, being HONEST and pointing to REALITY at least gives everybody a realistic and understandable road map to success. It is only those who are truly delusional or so vested in their ideology that they will want to continue to live the lies for that is all they have ever known in their lives. Ergo, to reach this society-wide level of "epiphany" requires one simple thing. A sustained adherence to and broadcasting of The Reality Principle by various independent media outlets, philosophers, bloggers, podcasters, teachers, and above all else, PARENTS. Again, what we offer is not as sweet sounding as "the glass ceiling" or "you can have it all" or "nobody's too good for my little princess," but it is based in reality. In theory, slowly but surely, people will realize pursuing becoming the next Miley Ray Cyrus only to be unemployed and singing karaoke, is not as good as aiming to be an electrician and actually becoming an electrician. Or aiming to be an elite investment banker at Goldman Sachs only to make it into a 4th tier commercial bank, is not as good as aiming to be a cop and actually becoming a cop. It is simply telling our fellow loved one or even our fellow man that they need to lower their expectations inline with reality, not because we wish to rain on their parade, but because we wish to save their lives and spare their youth from the destructive forces of delusion.

And if that is too hard a sell to the American public. So be it. They will get what they deserve.

MARVEL’S DESTRUCTION OF WHITE MALE COMIC BOOK SUPER HEROES AND WHY IT’S IRRELEVANT Despite the dashing looks, irresistible charm, and much-better-thanaverage-for-a-40-year-old-physique I have today, in my youth I was a nerd. And not just "the kid who was shy" type nerd, I was a full on, 100%, grade A nerd. I DM'd several D&D campaigns, played Shadow Run, didn't break 100 pounds until I was a sophomore in high school, and still to this day have my dice bag. I was, and still am to this day, a nerd. So occasionally I like to geek out and listen to one of my favorite podcasts, The Bechtloff, wherein Chris (the host) hosts anywhere from 2-5 other nerds and discuss all thinks geekery. Video games Movies RPG's Table top games, and Comics. However, a common theme that is discussed on his show is the trend in the comic book industry to basically eliminate all white male super heroes and replace them with any one of a number of permutations of non straight white males. The Green Lantern is now black. Thor is a girl. Peter Parker (spider man) is now gay. But that's if you didn't know he was Hispanic before. And then there's Ms. Marvel who is now a Muslim

Naturally, there is a backlash, but for more reasons than you'd think. One, you are destroying the original characters as they were originally created. Two, the obvious ploy amongst Marvel (and DC comics) to placate to leftist politics of diversity at the expense of the franchises (much like James Bond being black) ruins the comics. Three, it insults true original creators of non-white male heroes such as Static Shock, Blade, Jason Fly (a video game called XIII), and Storm. Finally, Marvel insults their fans as they're implying their readers are so shallow and stupid they'll respond positively to gender, race, or religious changes and not a good story line OR new original comics that contain new non-white male superheroes. But while the assault on American comic book classics is under full swing by a new generation of talentless SJW wanna-but-never-willbe's Stan Lee's at Marvel's comic book division, and normal, everyday Americans are appalled at this assault what we all need to do is step back, clear the gunk from our eyes, and look at the comic book industry through a different lens. Specifically that of economics. For if we do, you'll see why this destruction of "evil white male" comic book super heroes is not worth wasting one more calorie of energy getting riled up about. First you need to know that Marvel is not Marvel anymore. It is part of the Disney corporation which bought them out in 2007. Previous to that it was a flailing company, one of which had filed for bankruptcy indicating Marvel, as a stand alone entity, was worthless and nobody wanted what they were selling. Second, you need to ask yourself a question. "How big is Marvel

compared to the rest of Disney?" And not just Marvel, but specifically the COMIC BOOK SEGMENT of Marvel? Well, that's not as easy of a task as it seems. If you look at Disney's 2014 annual report, you'll note that Marvel is accounted for under two of Disney's divisions. One, the "Studio Entertainment" division and, two, the "Consumer Products" division. However, MOVIES are different than COMICS and thus the COMICS ONLY portion of sales would be accounted for in the Consumer Products division:

And when you look at Disney's total sales of $49 billion, the consumer products division accounts for a only 8.2% of that (though 10% of gross profits):

But here's the problem. Consumer products include not just comic books but all of the merchandized crap that Disney sells in association with its movies. Dolls, games, video games, music, lunchboxes, backpacks, you name it. And when I walk through Target I can see every manner of merchandise with a super hero or Disney character slapped on it, but NO comic books. So out of that meager 8.2%, it is likely much, much less. How much less is hard to tell. Because if you search Disney's 2014 annual report you'll come up with 37 instances of "Marvel" but only 6 mentions of "comic books." And there was no data that explicitly stated how much Disney had in comic book sales. It's almost as if Disney is ashamed they even produce comic books. So off to teh interwebz I went and I found this helpful link that contains some comic book industry statistics from 2012. Specifically, it contains total industry sales ($418 million) AND Marvel's percent of the market (39.06%). This would imply that Marvel's TOTAL comic book sales in 2012 was no more than a whopping $163 million. You know what? Let's be affirmative actiony just like Marvel's SJW comic book artists and give them a helping hand by rounding up to $200 million.

So, in 2014 Marvel sold $200 million in comic books which accounts for (drum roll please) .4% of Disney's total revenue. NOT 4%, .4% Like FOUR TENTHS OF ONE PERCENT. And this is the reason why Marvel (and DC) going on an affirmative action campaign, replacing all the evil CIS gendered, white male super heroes with anything but doesn't matter. It's because nobody cares. While ruining classical comic books' canon may upset comic book readers, in the grand scheme of things Disney just doesn't care. Disney bought Marvel for its ability to make movies, not comic books. And either out of the leftist political CSR bias Disney has, a hope Marvel's comic book team would develop new comics that could be turned into infinitely more profitable movies in the future, or (and I would not doubt this) Marvel put a poison pill into their acquisition from Disney that they HAD to still produce comic books despite being bought out, Marvel's comic book division still remains. Unfortunately it's staffed by talentless Millennial puke whose one trick pony is NOT to create new and exciting comics, but merely ruin previous artists' work by forcing "diversity" on it. But so what? They're irrelevant. They're .004 of Disney's total sales and it's obvious Disney doesn't care what they do. The truth is that the comic book industry is no different than the music industry or the book publishing industry. The talented artists coming up with NEW and ORIGINAL art are on the internet and selling them directly to comic book fans. The connected, the political, the ideologues, the ass-kissers, the talentless, and the hacks are employed (unnecessarily and charitably I might) by the old

and now obsolete guard. This presents a choice to true comic book fans who will determine the future of comic books. Do you continue to buy what is nothing more than leftist propaganda posing as a comic book just because it has the brand name of "Superman" or "Thor" on it? Or do you find new and upcoming artists who are creating the TRUE works of comic book art that will become the masterpieces of the future?

THE OVER-SUPPLY OF SINGLE MOMS I had ran into a buddy of mine earlier this afternoon who I haven't seen in about 2 years. He's a professional, works hard, stays in shape, and is the "in-demand" type of guy that every corporation wants to hire. We caught up quickly because he had to get back to work, but among the standard, job, health, "still riding motorcycles" sort of questions, inevitably the issue of him dating came up. He said, "Yeah, I'm kind of seeing some one right now. Not terribly excited. Has a 4 year old child." Without yelling too loud so as not to disturb the public, I said, "Really? Jesus Christ, another fucking single mom?" He replied, "Yeah, well, at our age (41) most women have children. It's either that or date a 24 year old child and I'd rather just blow my brains out." He was right, and it's a paradox most of my male friends face. Once you're over 35 or so you can no longer tolerate the mental pain and anguish that is known as "20 something girls." But if you do date older, it's practically a guarantee the women has spit out some other guy's child. And so millions of men every year choose between a rock and a hard place, wondering what it was like in the 50's when you could have BOTH a sane, young, 20 something girl who was NOT towing some other guy's mistake around with her. But then something dawned on me as I headed back home. First, this wasn't my only male friend I knew who was 35+ and childless. I knew many more. Matter of fact all my male friends are childless and over +35. And they all had the same complaint - it was practically impossible to find a woman 30+ who wasn't a single

mom. Second, why was it nearly all of my male friends didn't have children? Wouldn't I know one or two single dads??? I needed multiple hands to count the number of single moms I have as friends, but when it came to single dads it dawned on me I know NONE. This stark contrast made my economic spidey senses start to tingle. And so, once I got set up at my cushy security guard gig, I delved into the world o' teh interwebz, and my my, the information I found. On the face of it, logic would dictate that there should be an equal number of mothers as their are fathers. It takes two to tango, and by biological necessity one child has ONE father and ONE mother. But the huge anecdotal evidence I had in front of me, where I knew NO single dads, but a ton of single moms, suggested it was possible for there to be more moms than dads. And if you permit yourself the right combination of cynicism, misanthropy, and pessimism, you're mind can easily find the reason why there might be more moms than there are dads, resulting in a mismatched market where there is a flood of single moms, and not enough childless women. A sole woman having multiple children with multiple fathers. Or another way of putting it, fewer men impregnating more women, disproportionately lessening the number of childless women compared to childless men, resulting in a shortage of childless women (or the reverse, a surplus of single moms). At first I tried to find some data on the number of childless men and women in America. This proved problematic and there was no obvious data available. However, I did find some data in Australia and extra feministy Norway. For men Down Under, between the ages of 45-59 13% of them are childless compared to only 10% of women of the same age. This 3% difference is not necessarily enough to trigger the drastic price changes that usually come with genuine shortages or surpluses in economics, but leave that one to

Norway. In 1985 only 14% of Norwegian men were without children by the age of 45. By 2013 this had increased to 23%. Naturally, this could have been for any number of reasons. Economics, progressive credentialism, politics, etc. But if you looked at what happened to Norwegian women of the same age, you see it's largely a female decision. In 1985 only 10% of Norwegian women were childless, compared to 13% in 2013. Norwegian women were having roughly the same number of children, but with much fewer men. However, none of my friends (domestically anyway) live in Australia or Norway. And I kept trying to see if I could find the data to prove whether my hunch was right or wrong. And sure enough I found it in (oddly) the Census Bureau's "Mother's Day" news release and "Father's Day" news release. Alas, I should NOT have been looking for statistics on "childless" men or women. I should have been looking at the opposite side of the same coin - the number of mothers and fathers in the country. And it's about as lopsided as Norway. As of 2010 and 2012 there were 85.4 million mothers impregnated by 67.8 million fathers. Yes, I know men die earlier, but we are talking a nearly 26% GAP between the number of fathers and mothers. If we take the nominal figures (and ignore deaths of fathers) these 67.8 million fathers effectively took 17.6 million single, childless women off the market by impregnating them. And when you consider there is roughly only 120 million post-pubescent American men in the country, 67.8 of which are already fathers, leaving only 52.2 million childless men, that 17.6 shortage is HUGE! There is an effective 33% SHORTAGE OF CHILDESS SINGLE WOMEN FOR THEIR EQUIVALENT CHILDLESS SINGLE MEN!

The result is nothing short of insulting. It's not just my buddies' "bad luck" they can't find childless women, but it has been women, consciously and purposely sleeping with men AND bringing their babies to term, who then either file for divorce, or never got married in the first place, returning to the dating market thinking having another man's child is not an insult or repulsive to men who were infinitely more responsible. Worse is the utter absence of shame or responsibility, or even being cognizant of what they've done. I'm all for giving women the green light to slut it up, ride the cock carousel, and do whatever they want to do sexually. But without the traditional norms and social values, specifically shame and the insistence on a nuclear family, women actually think they've done nothing wrong bringing a child into a broken home, and are even insulted when you have a microscopic modicum of self-respect and say, "yeah, I'm not dating a single mom." Alas, the tragedy is no matter how right we may be, and no matter how much sanity this brings all those responsible childless men explaining "YES, there is indeed THAT MANY SINGLE MOMS," it doesn't change the fact there's that much of a shortage of childless single women. And with such a shortage, the price you are going to pay is immense. So immense, you (as you no doubt have noticed), mathematically you are likely to be forced to date and marry a single mom. Just do yourself a favor and insist on her knowing who is settling, who is in charge, and who has the final say in all matters adult.

HOW JESSICA ASSAF SERVES AS A WARNING FOR ALL ASPIRING SJW’S In my latest podcast I did a segment on Hallie Turner, an unsupervised 13 year old who at the age of 12 filed a lawsuit against the State of North Carolina over global warming. The over arching point was not that a 12 year old shouldn't be filing lawsuits, or how it was proof the schools brainwash children in socialism, or another lesson in crusaderism It was how a 13 year old egomaniac does not form in a vacuum and how society (namely, her teachers, media, and parents) failed her, effectively ruining her childhood and bringing up a future megalomaniac who is practically guaranteed to be miserable her entire life. However, while tirading in a stream of consciousness sort of manner, I remembered that a very similar situation occurred several year ago when I put together my speech on Crusaderism. Specifically, one Jessica Assaf. At the time she was a mere 15 year old girl, but like Hallie lacked the parental oversight to check her ego. Naturally, she found a "crusade" just like Hallie, and decided she was going to lobby the California legislature about "safe cosmetics." Articles were written about her. How she was so brave and "smart" for fighting what "she thought was right." Look at what a "courageous" girl she was fighting "big cosmetics." etc. But this was now approaching 10 years ago, and so I was curious: What ever happened to Jessica Assaf?

So while podcasting I looked into her and her fate was exactly what I feared. Despite hailing from Marin County (the richest county in all of San Francisco) and despite pursuing her MBA from Harvard, in all honesty, Jessica is a failure. Yes her bio is chock full of "achievements" and "accomplishments," and yes her resume has her heading up all these "beauty activist" organizations, but behind all these (largely) self-created "organizations" and "movements" she has done nothing of genuine significance these past ten years. She has a worthless undergrad degree in "Public Health, Documentary Film and Activism Studies," has no real world working experience, and unless she has a full scholarship or rich parents, she is GREATLY indebting herself (or her parents) for a very pricey MBA from Harvard which, sadly, won't pay dividends because her protesting and litigious background makes her a risk to hire for employers. But the real reason Jessica is a failure (not necessarily by any fault of her own) is because of what she has lost in heading down the "Social Justice Warrior" path at such a young age. A lost life. A wasted childhood. And an impaired future. First, imagine what you were doing when you were 12, 13, 14 or 15. I sure as hell wasn't going on political crusades. I was living and enjoying my childhood. Wasting lazy summer days away going fishing, playing video games. Sleeping in class, chasing after girls that wouldn't let me catch them. Everything that every young boy and girl does that makes their precious and all-too-short childhood the magical time in their lives that it is. And to have that ruined and tarnished with the unwelcomed and vile adult disease known as "politics" is a tragedy. I'll say it again. I will never have children, but if I did, they would NOT ever hear a word of politics or economics out of me until they

were 16. That's the LEAST parents owe their children. Second, in pursuing crusaderism or Social Justice Warrioring as a career, Jessica, Hallie, and any other aspiring SJW fundamentally undermine and destroy their lifetime earnings potential. Naturally, and predictably, they will retort "IT'S NOT ABOUT THE MONEY!" until it is about the money because they incurred $150,000 in student loan debt for worthless, unemployable degrees. Hopefully, they have rich parents to bail them out, but if my generation is any kind of proxy, you can expect to be in your 40's, even 50's, still saddled with student loans, a worthless degree, and a torturous debate about whether you let your ego take the hit, admit you goofed up, and make decisions to salvage what's left of your life, or double down and insist it's the "evil republicans" and "white males" that are oppressing you and your "Masters in Social Activism" degree. Finally, in going down the Social Justice Warrior path, Jessica and Hallie severely limit their ability to have a family. Not just because they are financial liabilities (as young women are now saddled with student loans and worthless degrees), but because they're not marriage material. Their careers and egos obviously come first, which is antithetical to love, marriage, and children. And they also won't be ready for marriage until they fulfill their career goals and aspirations. This not only means they need masters degrees and years working at some low-paying non-profit or government job, but that they'll be 33, 34, 35, 40, by the time they're ready to settle down. And the sad truth is any man with any quality and any options is just not going to marry a woman that old. Alas, going down the SJW path severely increases the risk you'll trade in the most important thing in life (other humans, typically your family) for a career that in all honesty is pointless, useless, meaningless and unfulfilling. But the real tragedy of going down the SJW path is that it doesn't deliver what it promises or aspiring-SJW's hope for:

Attention, fame, and glory with little-to-no real work. Let's be very clear and honest about what motivates young 13, 14, and 15 year olds to go on political crusades and 17,18, and 19 year olds to major in the liberal arts. Fame, attention, and a shot at riches without having to do math and real work, Their goal, even though they will vehemently deny it, is to get through life working a cake job, BUT secretly pining for fame and attention BECAUSE why the hell else would you file lawsuits and protest at the age of 12 unless you are an attention whore (male or female)? And it is here 10 years down the SJW path that Jessica Assaf serves as a horrendous warning to all others thinking of doing the same. Despite hailing from the elite Marin County and getting into Harvard and having all the media attention in the world, Jessica's fame just isn't materializing. First, her YouTube channel has 11 whole subscribers. 1/2000th the amount your lowly non-SJW Captain has. Naturally, she may not be actively pursuing a YouTube channel, but for a "Beauty Activist" ESPECIALLY IT BEING HER CAREER, you'd think she could beat this lower-middle income boy from Milwaukee County. Second, her flagship website, "Beauty Lies Truth," boasts having "rock star" Alexis Krauss on board, who (though I'm sure a fine

musician) is not a "star." More literally, however, since we are aiming for ego, attention, and fame, the Alexa rating of Beauty Lies Truth is 850,000th, while you're humble Captain's blog ranks much higher at 95,000th (and that's without a Harvard MBA). Third, she was mentioned in a book! She didn't write the book. She wasn't necessarily even the subject of the book. She merely got mentioned in the book. And sadly that book has a paltry 4 reviews putting it on par with my SPOOF book "Boris the Shitting Buffalo. (which makes a great Christmas book BTW)" Fourth, if you read through her bio you'll note her most notable achievements are HELPING getting some legislation passed and being A participant in a study about cosmetics. Not to be an asshole, but... Whipdy freaking ding. So what? THAT'S your life's accomplishments in your SPECIALTY??? 10 years, with an early start to boot and that's your life's work? That's what you're going to point to? That is what you take pride in? It is neither influential nor memorable nor notable to society. And finally, yet sadly, me merely writing this piece is going to get her more fame, traffic, and attention than she's had since the original article was written about her nearly 10 years ago. It wasn't her protesting, lobbying legislatures, or setting up a ton of fabricated "organizations" or "non-profits." It was some guy still in his boxer shorts, banging away at his laptop who has yet to shower today that saw the risk (and the lesson) Ms. Assaf epitomizes in the SJW crowd. The sad truth I'm trying to point out is the ironic tragedy that the attention, fame, ego, etc., you seek when going down the SJW path never materializes. The reason is because ever since Gen X

millions upon millions of like-minded youngsters came up with the same "diabolical plan" to attention whore on the backs of political crusades they did not fully understand, nor cared to understand, because it was an easier route than becoming an engineer, an accountant, a doctor, a tradesmen or any other productive member of society. And with this many people all trying to be Social Justice Warriors, only a few will stand out, while the vast majority will relegated to unmentionable roles like Ms. Assaf. So while this path may be tempting at the naive and clueless age of 16, 17, or 18, it is one that is JUST NOT WORTH IT, will simply ruin your life, and waste what precious time you have on this planet. It is not too late for Ms. Assaf to be honest with herself, take inventory of her life, ask herself what she really wants out of it, and GET IT. She can become a wife, a mother, a doctor, an engineer, anything, and I mean ANYTHING would be more productive, meaningful and rewarding than what she is doing now. And it is certainly not too late for 13 year old Ms. Turner to stop right now, abandon her little SJW-ing, crusader ego trip and got back to being a child. But once you hit 30, and heaven help you if you hit 40, and you never abandon the SJW path, you at MINIMUM have severely crippled and wasted a significant portion of your life. No cause is worth that. Please find value and meaning in your own life, not the political aims and goals of others.

VIEWING THE LIBERAL ARTS FROM ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE – THEY’RE RELATIVELY RETARDED A client sent me an e-mail wondering if he should instead major in engineering rather than his current major, construction management. Knowing engineering was the obviously superior major, I was already predispositioned to recommend it until he told me his IQ. 128. Now, it almost was mandatory he became an engineer. I remembered vaguely a rule of thumb you needed an IQ of about 115 to be an engineer, but I checked first before consulting and found I was wrong. It was more like 120, with some of the higher level engineers having an average IQ of around 128 (Economics, ahem, ahem, also came in at 128). Regardless, he had more than the raw potential to become any kind of engineer he wanted. But as I looked down the list I noticed the dramatic drop in IQ as you went from STEM to the liberal arts. Matter of fact if you took the average of the top STEM fields and compared it to the bottom of the humanities your average roughly dropped form 128 to 106, a full 22 point or 1.5 standard deviation drop. This was interesting to me because I remember when I used to teach statistics I (in a brilliant stroke of retaliatory genius) had my students take IQ tests online and then calculate their percentile rank. The results were predictable, but I recall one of my smarter students all depressed because he scored a 79. I looked at him and said, "79? That's borderline retarded!" He sheepishly said, "Yeah, I guess I'm retarded." I then yelled at him, "John!!! You're not

retarded!!!! You just didn't try your best! Matter of fact you purposely had to try to be this bad! Now take it again and try this time!" Regardless, that number stuck with me, and as it just so happens it's true. 80 is considered borderline retarded. However, it wasn't until 13 years later today did this little expedition into the world of IQ provide me some insight on the problems we have in academia, specifically as it pertains to the liberal arts. Compared to their STEM peers, liberal arts majors ARE retarded. The gap between a normal person with an IQ of 100 and a mental retard is 20. So the gap between a STEM major and your average humanities major would be like an average person with an IQ of 100 and the average liberal arts major with an IQ of 78. "Officially retarded." Of course we don't recognize this or view it that way since we are on the "good" side of 100. People between 90 and 110 are "normal" and it is those who are above 110 that are the statistical freaks in a good way. But if we were to not look at absolute scores, but relative scores to your average STEM major (or, cough, cough, economist), dealing with your average "college educated liberal arts major" is indeed as painful as dealing with a mentally impaired adult. Watching the average person get excited about sportsball to the point they get upset or happy depending on how one group of guys throws a ball against another group of guys? Painful. Listening to women gossip at the water cooler about what dress which slut wore to the Oscars? Torture.

Channel surfing through TV, searching for a morsel akin to "The IT Crowd" or "Sherlock," only to have "Keeping Up with the Kardashians" and "The View" show up? Bamboo shoots under the toenails. It's no different than if your average humanities major had to deal with Rupret the Monkey Boy for their entire waking days. But cultural comparisons aside this may also go a long way in explaining why so many of us on the right have had absolutely ZERO success in getting people on the left, specifically those in the liberal arts, to acknowledge and accept some basic mathematical facts and realities. To a guy with an IQ of 130 the concept of everincreasing government debt leads to an obvious conclusion of unsustainability and collapse. But to your average early childhood education major, she doesn't even know (or care) about the difference between a million and a trillion. To the woman with an IQ of 140, she understands the concept that there is no such thing as money, only the goods and services it can buy. But to your average "Child Psychology" major he can't understand why pieces of paper don't have value. And to the guy with an IQ of 120, he knows villainizing and punishing "corporations" will simply have the effect of deterring them from investing in the place they are punished. But to your average journalism major, their brain isn't smart enough to overcome simply envy and spouts out "it's the corporations, man!!!!" This is not to dismiss my theories that the true motivator of leftists is the mere formula of "laziness+ego." But it is to point out they may simply lack the intelligence to understand and comprehend "slightly advanced" economics, cause and effect, math, and advanced logic,

rendering what we think are simple, black and white facts moot and ineffective. Ergo, it doesn't make any sense to get angry with them if they can't understand "% GDP" or "exponential growth," because expecting that out of a liberal arts major is really like expecting a mentally retarded person to be able to do long division. And while it does not solve the country's myriad of problems, it does lower your blood pressure and provide a little bit of sanity.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE FEDERAL DEFICIT IF INTEREST RATES INCREASED? A big, and legitimate, concern is that the monstrous US debt is at such a low interest rate, what would happen to the interest payments of the federal government were to bump up just a little bit? What if they were at historical norms? What if they were to reflect the creditworthiness of the actual government? Never fear! Cappy's here! So the ole Captain went online because he couldn't sleep and dusted off his ole Excel skills Downloaded some data series and went to work. And it's basically what you'd expect. I ran two different scenarios. One where the average interest rate on federal debt was 4%. I chose this because that's what it's been historically and would provide us a good "control" variable. I also chose 8% because if I was a lender that is the MINIMUM I would demand for a bankrupt, insolvent POS like the US federal government. And here are the results. Under 4%

As you would expect artificially low rates that the federal reserve charges the federal government has understated what would have normally been our national deficit. During the crisis and the "recovery" we could have expected to shell out an additional $200 billion a year on average during Obama's entire presidency. This would have naturally added to the debt, further increasing deficits, but I was too lazy to calculate that. Of course, this isn't the New York Times, this is Captain Capitalism. An actual reputable source for journalism. So like all good journalists we know that we should convert this to deficits as a % of GDP.

This gives us a bit better perspective showing we'd still be running deficits around 4% GDP had the creditors of the US federal government had the slightest bit of self-respect and demanded more than .000035% interest on their bonds. Let us be clear. It is only the shenanigans of the central bank and the fact that foreigners are even "more sucky" than the US that the federal government can get away with paying such a paltry level of interest. Finally, what if the federal government was in the real world and did not hold the world's reserve currency? Well, I would at minimum charge an interest rate of 8%. Truth is, I would never lend to an entity in as bad of financial shape as the US government. But let's just humor ourselves and assume 8%. Well, shucks howdy!

What I like about this chart is it really shows you how the interest rate wouldn't have mattered until 2000, especially, since the financial crisis. If there was any sanity in the bond market, the federal government would be running deficits of nearly $2 trillion each year since 2009. That would be an absolutely unsupportable 11% GDP deficit for 7 years running. Obviously, this added debt would be added to the total debt and creditors would have stop lending to us long ago. But let this be a lesson to the LUCK, not SKILL that has spared the US a fate like Greece, Spain, or Japan. It is ONLY because we have the world's reserve currency that we avoided this mess and it has nothing to do with Obama, the federal reserve, Paul Krugman or any other idiot claiming responsibility for this "recovery."

THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH DECLINING POPULATIONS One of the biggest lies or canards of the left is that we need to import immigrants because if we don't our population will be in decline. And since the word "decline" has a negative connotation with it, the sheeple sop it up thinking it is a fate that must be avoided at all costs. The problem is, as with many of the left's assumptions, is that there is nothing inherently wrong with a declining population. Sure, in the tribal days you would like your tribe to be bigger and therefore stronger than the other tribes, but since society no longer operates on the premise that "big" is always "better" the growth rate (positive or negative) of a population is moot. Now of course I will be forced to waste the intelligent and intellectually honest people's time and provide the caveat to address the incredibly predictable claim that RAPID declines in population due to war, famine, plague, or communism are indeed bad. However, what I am talking about here (as this is where the focus of the political debate is) is the primarily western world's inability to get their birth rate at or above the replacement rate, which therefore guarantees an ever-growing population. First a slowly declining population is nothing to worry about. It doesn't mean you'll go extinct as people will always be willing to fornicate. And it doesn't mean the economy will collapse as there are less people the economy needs to support. Ergo, the focus should not be nominal economic growth, but rather the key and infinitely more important variable, GDP per capita. What are the standards of living the individual person is enjoying. Ergo, lets say Japan's economy shrinks an enormous 25% in the next 50 years.

That's great if its population shrinks 50% because those people who remain just saw an enormous increase in their standards of living. Second, logic would dictate that if a declining population is "bad" then a booming population is "good." Oh really? Like how the 2.8 billion people in China and India are all living at first world standards of living? Like how Hispanics and Blacks have the highest birthing rates and (shock of shocks) also suffer the lowest standards of living in the US? And let's not forget that sociologist's, SJW's, and social worker's utopian eugenics/socialist experiment dream come true - Africa. Yep, because we all know with Africa's booming population they're enjoying nothing but increased standards of living on par with Switzerland. Sorry, it's just not true, increasing populations WITHOUT commensurate or better economic growth just means increased poverty, suffering, and strife. The truth is the left has ulterior motives for increasing the population perpetually. And it has nothing to with the unfounded concerns that "population decline is bad mmmkay?" First, (though not leftist) companies and corporations want a perpetually increasing population so people buy more stuff. Nothing wrong with that on account purchasing and enjoying material things in life is part of goal of economics. But let's be clear, corporations and companies don't care if it's sustainable in the long run or if it's in the best financial interests of the population. This is why we have slowing economic growth, but booming debts. People are willing to borrow to pay for what they can't afford today. This not only boosts consumer spending (which profits companies), but it slows long term

economic growth because said monies are NOT going into investments. Again, though not specifically leftists, this goal has nothing to do with preventing the "horrors" of a declining population, but is merely corporations trying to beat the previous quarters EPS. Second, very much like how the private sector needs perpetual (though unsustainable) growth to increase their profits, the entire socialist economic/government system the left has installed in the US (and west) depends on future hosts for today's parasites. What I love the most is how the left tells people right to their face "Well we need future children to afford the social programs like social security and medicare!" Really? Shouldn't something in your brain be going off saying "Well where the hell did the old people's SS contributions go? Why is it behooved upon the youth to pay for the elderly?" Of course, Westerners have become idiotic sheeple and just blindly agree saying, "Well yeah! We need more population growth in the future to afford all this sh!t we want to buy ourselves today!" But for those of us with half a brain we realize this is an admission and proof that the socialist's government/economic system is unsustainable and needs to parasite off of the future to make it SEEM like it's working today. Ergo, to keep up the facade they import as many new immigrants as possible with the the hope they'll be the willing slaves that will pay the taxes to support them in their old age (when in reality they don't produce anything as much as they parasite on welfare and other social programs making it laughable they will become the economic juggernaut that will make good on all those government IOU's and social welfare promises). Third, perpetually increasing asset prices.

Since our entire retirement system is based on capital gains in the stock market, we need to, in theory, increase not only the demand for companies' goods and services (therefore driving up prices), but we need more purchasers of said assets to drive these prices up. This not only plays out in the stock market, but especially so in real estate in that more people directly drive up the rents and value of land. But imagine if the population was declining. What would happen to asset prices? Well stocks would tank, as would commodity prices, not to mention real estate. And since nearly every pension, trust fund, and American's 401k is dependent upon those prices why we just can't afford to have those drop now can we? So let's import a bunch of people who hate our guts and want to kills us, or at least live off of us, so our precious little government pensions and IRA accounts stay fully funded. And finally, the blatant and painfully obvious attempt to stack the voting bloc deck with parasitic immigrants who will vote left because "welfare." Do not be fooled thinking the left is being charitable of kind. They couldn't care less about the immigrants just as they couldn't care less about the black community. They view and use these people as pawns in their political game to remain in political power, thereby avoiding any real work, suffering, or strife in life. So the next time you have some idiot sociologist, politician, or leftist talk about the "horrors" of a declining population, please show them this little post, tell them they are a liar, and then tell them to have a cup of STFU.

WHY THE TERM “RACIST” NO LONGER MEANS ANYTHING Many years ago because of my political affiliation it was a fear of mine that although untrue, the mere accusation of "racism" would have far and wide reaching consequences for my career and future. Combine that with the internet and the fact any future employers could look me up, it made me doubly careful to demonstrate I was not a racist and did indeed hold all people to the same standard. Of course, deep down inside we all knew being called a "racist" or a "sexist" was nothing more than a cowardly tactic by leftists with precisely that intent. To taint and paint anybody who advocated free markets, capitalism, freedom and treating people as genuine equals as a racist because it would divert people's attention from the left's ultimate lack of solutions. Ergo, instead of debating you on the merits of hard work, merit, equal opportunity, but not equal outcome, it is simply easier for the cowards to yell "racist" and hope the fear of doxxing or your employers finding out would shut you up. No longer...well at least not for much more. For just as sure as the laws of physics, the laws of economics will (if they haven't already) render the accusation of "racism" moot, pointless, obsolete, even the complete opposite - make it a badge of honor. It's quite simple. To make the accusation of racism "damning" and effective it has to be true. And since the vast majority of conservatives, libertarians and other right-leaning people are not in fact racist, you would think you would reserve this four-letter word for only the rare times it applies. But instead of using it as a descriptive word, the left has relied on it all too often as a political strategy to compensate for their lack of substance, progress, and solutions. So

now, if you are against affirmative action (which is by definition racist) you're racist. Want to get rid of quotas? Racist. Hold blacks to the same standards as white? Racist. Want to keep your own money? Racist. Don't believe minorities are held down and are instead pampered? Racist. Want lower taxes? Racist. You don't even have to believe in or take a stance on something racial. You merely have to be white and then you are immediately, but unconsciously guilty of the academian-inspired poppy cock of "privilege" or "institutional racism." But soon, with all these baseless accusations of racism two things happen. One, the market is flooded with so many accusations of racism, by the laws of economics each individual accusation means

increasingly less. In the 1980's if you were called a racist it meant something. But today, especially with the brainwashed, collegeindoctrinated millennials blaming everything from flatulence to paper cuts on "racism" it means nothing. It has become so common to be accused of an "ism" it is now part of the American psyche and it has lost all of its sting. Two, it exposes the accusers of their true nature. People flinging around accusations of "isms" and "ists" are not "noble, moral people trying to wipe out the scourge of bigotry, allowing for the American ideal of merit, individualism, and judging people by their accomplishments." They are, quite frankly, despicably evil and disgusting people. The dipshittery that went on at the University of Missouri (not to mention all of American universities) is nothing more than power hungry millennial psychopaths who cowardly hide their despotic desires (not to mention their true racism) behind the color of their skin. Black Lives Matters is nothing more but the same, with the added agenda of thinking themselves superior as they demand to be above the law. Advocates for affirmative action, reparations and the welfare state? Nothing more than thinly veiled thieves, once again cowardly hiding behind their gender, color of skin, or ethnicity to demand other people sacrifice their lives and money for them. And politicians/media types who dare you not to critique the "refugees" or Islam for San Bernadino, lest you be called a racist, and instead demand you make yourself less safe by forfeiting your guns? True bigots against Western Civilization who hate you and want you dead (and yes, that means our Mr. Unicorn President). In short, the demands of these race-whores and pimps have become

so arrogant and blatant even the most brainwashed leftist or cowardly-compliant-please-don't-accuse-me-of-racism cuckservative can see through them. We're supposed to enslave ourselves financially to minorities? We're supposed to pay for everything for them? We're supposed to be born with the "original and unforgivable sin" of privilege and institutional racism? We're supposed to be accepting of affirmative action because it's "good racism" because it's against us? We're supposed to resign dean positions in schools because "whitey." We're supposed to tolerate mandatory classes of indoctrination in our schools? And We're supposed to give up our lives and country as we let people into our country that hate us and want to kill us, lest we be called racist? I know there's a lot of pussies in this country, and you leftists are used to running roughshod over them. But frankly, fuck off. I, along with increasingly more people aren't going to tolerate this attempt to enslave us, and in some cases, outright kill us. And no matter what new and innovative ways academia concocts as to how I'm "privileged," and no matter how compliant the media is in brainwashing the sheeple to believe it, and no matter what the politicians say or demand of me, in the end it's all lies. It's not true. And the real evil is all you cowards who can't come up to me like a decent, respectable robber and say to my face, "Give me your money or else." Still, while to me and millions of others the accusation of racism no longer means anything, the fear of this accusation will still carry weight at least for a little while longer even though everybody knows it's bunk because of two things:

1. Corporate employers are still too cowardly and fearful of being accused of racism. Their lips are too firmly attached to the ass of political correctness. CSR, diversity training, sensitivity training, HR departments, etc., far too much effort, energy and resources have been invested by corporate America in the hopes of staving off accusations of discrimination. Additionally, "diversity" has become the "strategy de'jour" of corporations and MBA programs across the country as their business leaders lack any genuine innovation, intelligence, capabilities, or leadership. Ergo, if you are employed by one of these mindless ass-sucking institutions you need to play ball, admit you're a dirty, filthy racist and lecher, or lose your job, if not your career. 2. Debt. Debt enslaves people to be good wage slaves and stooges. Want that new car? You need that car loan! Want that college experience? You need those student loans? Want a house? Well you need a mortgage for that! And so (and I want all corporate employers and HR ladies in America to know this), even though nearly every single corporate employee out there wants nothing more than to walk into his boss' office with the HR lady in there and slash both your throats, the only thing holding them back is that they are indeed slaves to the job as they need to get out of debt. Which by default means they can't speak their mind on the internet and tell the race whores to fuck off, and worse, must endure the childishly mockery of "diversity" and "sexual harassment training" you force upon them. But there is hope. For you see, while self-employed people like me are immune to accusations of racism (heck, we profit off of it), there's a trend indicating soon your average wage slave will also be as well. And

there's nothing you corporate employers, you power-hungry HR/CSR bints, or tyrannical government bureaucrats can do about it.

Because once people no longer have that chain of debt around their ankles, and don't need that job any more, they're going to feel a lot more free to truly speak their mind. And that's the magic moment when the people admit the emperor has no clothes and your little "race-whore-racket" is over. And then your worst nightmare comes true - you're actually treated as an equal and forced to work a real job like the rest of us. Enjoy the decline.

WESTERN CIVILIZATION IS IN THE HANDS OF WOMEN…HEAVEN HELP US Confusion If you are a sane, normal person, void of OTC drugs and other mind altering substances, an increasingly frequent phenomenon you may have noticed is one where (typically) leftist women are the victims of their own rabid endorsement of multiculturalism. The rapes in Sweden can be disproportionately blamed on women voting left. The rape rings in the UK, same thing. Refugee rape in Germany, again, women's bleeding hearts resulting in leftist policies that brought them there. And particularly confusing is when activist women (no doubt of the leftist stripe) are raped or sexually assaulted but refuse to report it because they love their political ideology/religion more than they hate being raped. It is confusing because to those of us with just average intelligence (not to mention, self-respect) we can't understand why women vote to ruin their lives, home countries, and economies, not to mention are so wedded to their leftist politics they would rather be raped and enslaved than betray their commitment to multiculturalism. Now there are many possible explanations for this self-hating, selfdestructive behavior. Perhaps these women deep down inside hate Western Civilization so much they'd rather be raped, and maybe even view that as fighting "evil white male, Eurocentric patriarchy." Perhaps these people are cowards, see the writing on the wall, know Western Civilization won't make it, and kowtow like cuckolds to what they perceive to be their future overlords. Maybe it's crusaderism

combined with the allure of bad boys, prompting young girls to join ISIS even if it means their inevitable death. Or perhaps, deep down inside it's nothing more than good ole fashioned "rape fantasies" influencing the way they vote. The truth is, it doesn't matter. Because no matter which way you slice it, it simply boils down to... Betrayal. Betrayal Regardless of the reason women vote to destroy themselves and Western Civilization, it doesn't change the fact that they just simply do. The rest of us must accept and adapt to this fact. And call it "democracy," call it "women's suffrage," call it "empowerment," it's nothing more than a euphemism for "betrayal." And the reason it is betrayal is because women are (disproportionately) voting for two key things that go against Western Civilization: 1. Socialism 2. Multiculturalism When it comes to socialism I've covered this before, but women, in general vote for more state control. They vote for socialism. And while many of them do so out of the naivety of "it's to help the poor/children/old/etc.," it is is a slap in the face to the immeasurable and ultimate price millions of people paid to bring Western Civilization about. Quite simply, the history of the world has been a horrible and costly struggle to free people from the tyranny of government. Going back to the warlord tribal chieftains, to the theocracies falsely claiming to represent "god," to the fiefdoms where the "king" was supported by a slave class of serfs, to wars waged against slavery and nazism, hundreds of millions of lives were wasted, destroyed, committed, and dedicated to bringing about a limited republic permitting the people to govern themselves. And

women (along with some cowardly little men), in a short 60 years of spoiled-brat-laden feminism have been able to undo what took about 4,000 years to create. It is arguably the single largest setback to human advancement since the bubonic plague. When it comes to multiculturalism, here women's naivety betrays us all again. With child-like thinking "I feel the democrats/left/labor is for the little guy" they consciously vote in socialism, while unconsciously inviting the Dracula of "Multiculturalism" into our homes. And this is not necessarily bad if you consider cultures conducive and generally on board with the base principles of Western Civilization. Asians, East Indians Europeans, etc. These are peoples and cultures generally for freedom, innovation. Even self-respecting, independent minded individuals from other non-western-compliant cultures reject their original cultures, demand better, and become doctors, dentists, physicists, entrepreneurs, etc. (for example no doubt many of you know of an Iranian who escaped Ayatollah Khomeini to lead a successful life here). But to wholesale out the best thing on this planet in the pursuit of marxism and multiculturalism by importing those who not only refuse to participate in Western Civilization but go on welfare commit terrorist attacks and advocate Sharia law over the constitution is tantamount to treason. But these two specific acts that would make Judas jealous are further steeped in a general stew of betrayal that plagues Western Civilizatoin. And that is one where women have replaced fathers and husbands with government programs and checks. And in doing so (admittedly, likely unconsciously) killed the engine of economic growth and innovation that made Western Civilization great. They took away men's reason for living. They took away their purpose and agency in life. They gave them nothing more to live for than merely to be the hosts to parasites they themselves have become,

not to mention the new ones they constantly invite in. And thus they have immobilized men. When you take the fact women are voting to undo all that men have worked for and are voting to bring in other cultures that want to kill, parasite off of, or just plain destroy Western Civilizatoin and won't report getting raped by the enemy because "diversity" but WILL make false rape accusations against Western men because "patriarchy" precisely how many knives do you plan to impale into the backs of Western men before they give up? Of course this is already happening. Men are postponing marriage. Men are also majoring in increasingly worthless fields. Consequently they are also unable to earn the money necessary to start a family. Which is alright, seeing most women don't want to start a family until they're 43, if that. The result, however, is (hilariously) what young women complain the most about today. That there aren't any "real men" around any more as they're all too busy looking at porn and playing video games while living at home with their parents (perhaps that's the underlying Freudian reason women don't protest too much about all these "Syrian" "refugees" being young, fighting age men, as well as seem reluctant to report it when they're getting raped by them.) Regardless, how can you blame them? The men of society (as well as some women) are so

deterred by having no country, culture, family or agency worth living for, it has resulted in an increasing catatonic state that explains why economic growth has been tanking since we started replacing them with the government. Just One Problem While no doubt many real men, not to mention many real women are infuriated by this betrayal, what's worse is the utter helplessness they feel. Most likely you too have felt this helplessness as your brain evaluates all your options, thinking, hoping there's something, anything you can do to help save this country and turn it around. Perhaps you could write a blog? Maybe you'd start a political campaign? Maybe you yell into the internet via a YouTube channel? Write your congressman? What about forming a militia? But if there's a bit of practicum to this post it's that you should not concern yourself with these things. There is nothing you can do. Understand that since we have devolved into a democracy it is the majority rules. And while there has always been a percentage of men who were idiots, voting to undo what their forefathers desperately fought for, women (be it nature, biology, feminism, hate, ignorance or what have you) consistently vote for socialism and tyranny. This makes the American (and Western Civilization) voting blocs fatedly leftist, guaranteeing a slow, but inevitably slouch towards socialism and the fringe benefits of multiculturalism, thought police, CSR, and political correctness that comes with it. You may be tempted to think about resorting to violence, perhaps even starting a second American revolution, but what would the point be? Western voters ARE getting EXACTLY what they voted for, and you would actually be the tyrant trying to force a minority view on the

majority. Alas, your hands are tied in nearly every capacity as the people simply want none of it. The key is to let go and simply enjoy the life you have. You cannot control that the participants of Western Civilization want to commit suicide. You cannot convince the brainwashed Millennials about the risks of government debt. You cannot convince women that happiness is not in their careers or a government check, but in family and loved ones. You cannot convince porn addicted, video gameplaying, red jean wearing hipster "men" about the merits of being manly. And you certainly can't convince leftist women whose hatred for Western Civilization is so great, they'd prefer to be raped by the scum they let in. It is the end of Western Civilization and these people will CERTAINLY get theirs in the end. But for those of you who are sane, have a bit of morality left about you, and want to make the most of your time on this planet before you pass away, may I strongly recommend you enjoy the decline instead of fretting over it?

FEELZ UBER ALLES A very real paradox I face is one where I can either sell the truth or sell lies. Selling the truth has merits unto itself. It's true, it will help advance society, and it is such a rare commodity that if you're willing to suffer the slings and arrows of the PC-Nazi's, media, death threats, doxxing, and general hate of the leftist population, you can charge a hefty premium for it because so few purveyors offer it. However, whereas truth is in very short supply, the demand for lies outstrips any shortage of it. And thus, while I could be one of the few suppliers of truth, there is an INFINITELY larger market for lies. Only so many people demand a book on "male lifetime financial management." Or a book about the hazards of worthless degrees. But MILLIONS of women will fork over money for lies telling them how "big is beautiful." And MILLIONS of men will fork over BILLIONS to have a web cam girl put on a show "just for them." Additionally, in telling people lies you don't get death threats, "strikes" against your YouTube channel, or accusations of racism. Matter of fact you are generally loved by the sheeple masses of the world and likely elected to become president. So tell me again why they hell would you do something as stupid as market the truth? Alas, I am increasingly tempted to become like Oprah. Why work hard, doing economic research, mathematics, statistical analysis, and deep, thorough testing of logic to highlight and warn people about the real world threats that exist and could destroy their lives to simply "make ends meet?" When I could: Tell women they're great no matter what

Become a Harlequin romance author Lie to youth telling them to follow their heart and the money will follow Or advocate some leftist-ordained political cause and make BILLIONS in the process? Of course there is a moral answer and then the Machiavellian answer. But regardless of which one I choose (perhaps both down the road), while debating this paradox I happened upon what is arguably one of the most important epiphanies in my life. One that if understood by more would help not only advance the political debate we are having in this nation, but perhaps even solve it, raising millions out of poverty. And that is "feelings" is the most powerful force in the world. AKA "Muh feelz uber alles." I happened upon this discovery while driving down Broad Street in the worst town I've ever driven through, Philadelphia. And I'm not joking. Philadelphia is hands down the worst town I ever drove through. The reasons are multiple. First, the town was built in the 1600-1700's meaning its streets were designed for horses, not trucks from Wisconsin. This would be moot if they had leveled the old houses and replaced them with new ones, but alas, the "historic district" on the south east side of Philly is VERY nice, but nearly impossible to drive through. Chicago, though more populous, is a JOY to drive through by comparison as the great Chicago fire leveled the old town, so it could be rebuilt during the dawn of the automobile. Second, you just have too many damn people in too small of a space (but nobody there ever leaves Philly because they don't have cars and don't know about the "outside world")

But what really connected the dots and make me come to my epiphany was Broad Street. Due to traffic I had head north and then come back down south to DT Philly via Broad Street. Unbeknownst to me however, this was the "ghetto." And while at first it just seemed like any ole regular run down part of a major metro down, as I approached Temple University it got worse and worse and even worse. So bad was Broad Street that it made the South Side of Chicago and parts of Detroit look clean, and definitely preferable. However, it wasn't the people or donks blaring rap music that made it so bad. It was the state of disrepair the neighbodhood was in. There were burned out buildings that had not been demolished or taken down. There was garbage blowing in the street because people were littering constantly. Worse, there were garbage bags just laying out in the open, both on the side walks and the streets. And finally there was the occasional guy just sleeping in an abandoned lot or out in the open at 11AM. In other words it wasn't the crime, or the graffiti, or the drugs that made it so bad. It was the painfully blatant fact that the people of north Philly plain don't give enough of a f@ck to even clean up their own neighborhood. They were walking, living, and sleeping in filth. Shoot, even some businesses were still open in buildings that were partially burnt down. It was no different than a 2nd or 3rd world hovel where you could just tell the people were so lazy, so dispirited they could not even do the most basic of things and simply clean up after themselves.

Now, no doubt anybody with an ounce of intellectual honesty and two brain cells can point to the primary cause of this. Only the socialist policies of a city and neighborhood ran by democrats for the past 60 years can wreak this much havoc and devastation IN SPITE of receiving what is no-doubt billions in aid and taxpayer monies. But what got me and made me realize this very important aforementioned epiphany is just what utterly deplorable and low standards of living these people tolerated. And not just tolerated, but have been tolerating for decades. Why would anybody, in the United States, when you can move anywhere you want, do whatever you want, endure this for a second, let alone decades? It became apparent to me there was a VERY powerful force KEEPING them there. And that force was "their feelz." The truth is residents of north Philly CHOOSE this outcome. At any point in time they can move OR they can improve themselves. How can they improve themselves? Well, they can stop having kids out of wedlock. They can stop having kids they can't afford. They can stop committing crime. They can get good grades in K-12 and then go to college for STEM or the trades (Temple U is right there). They can set down the booze and drugs and instead open up businesses. Oh, and they can pick their shit up off the streets. In short, it is not "whitey" holding them down or "patriarchy" or "evil republicans" making them leave garbage bags in the street. It's their own damn fault. But herein lays the problem.

I just literally solved north Philadelphia's poverty problem. At any point in time the community can pursue a path of excellence, achievement, hard work, and entrepreneurship. They could, if they wanted to, make Beverly Hills look like a ghetto. And heck, if they did that, I would have just obsoleted the entire "social work" and "sociology" industries and fields. But the problem is I committed the cardinal sin. I told them the truth. And the truth "hurtz their feelz." And remember... "Muh feelz uber alles." So strong is the power of feelings that millions would rather live in a shithole like north Philly than endure the minute or two of pain a truthful constructive criticism would provide. Worse, even though in the long (heck, medium) run said painful truths would GREATLY improve their lives (if acted upon), they still will rebuke it because "muh feelz." Alas, feelings (and consequently ego and pride) are such powerful forces, people would rather live in poverty, wasting their one and finite precious lives than hear the truth that would help them and set them free. It makes you wonder if gravity is indeed the most powerful force in the universe. But as bad as this is it gets worse. For the second part of my epiphany was one of true Machiavellian darkness. As it stands right now, we assume the likes of the left, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the democrats, labor parties, Oprah, feminists, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, professors, academians, and the entire stew of socialists advocate what they do either for charitable purposes, altruistic purposes, racial purposes, political purposes, or even purposes of hate and revenge. But what if they came to this exact same epiphany I did ages ago? What if the ruling elite knew "muh feelz" was the most powerful force in the world? And worse, what if they amorally capitalized on it, KNOWINGLY lying to people simply so they could advance

themselves? You, me, and everybody else we know were steeped in a life philosophy of hard work, freedom, independence, and morality this idea may seem novel (as well as abhorrent). But what if great grand father Clinton or the heads of the Ivy League knew people's feelings were the most powerful force on the planet, and simply pass on this hush-hushed wisdom that "to advance in society, lie to people, sell them down the river and blame other people. Feelings and ego are so powerful, as long as you provide a scapegoat, the masses will support you?" It would certainly explain a lot of what we see. Of course my own personal opinion is that it varies from politician to celebrity to trust fund baby. I truly believe Obama's motives are not based in profiting off of people's "feelz" but revenge and a genuine hatred of America and racism. I truly believe Bernie Sanders is a true believer and is completely unconscious of how his policies directly result in north Philly being a shit hole. But when it comes to the likes of Hillary, Oprah, Sharpton, feminists, the women's fashion industry, and the legions of spineless deans and professors in Academia there is no doubt in my mind these disgusting and vile people have no problems ruining the lives of millions all so they can profit off of it. All I ask is for the citizens of north Philly and those who are perpetually "offended" by criticism is to stop look at your neighborhood ask if you deserve better

and entertain the theory that it is not the democrats' policies that are helping you but are precisely what is keeping you down.

AUTHOR’S PERSONAL MESSAGE ABOUT CINDY MORAN The single largest hurdle I face in doing business is the lack of professionalism and hustle in others. These traits are universally missing in most of today’s population, but especially so when it comes to young and beautiful women. This makes finding a model ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT as beautiful women are accustomed to flaking out, being late, skipping appointments, procrastinating, and in general being irresponsible without any real societal ramifications. This is what makes Ms. Moran a GODSEND. Ms. Moran is BY FAR the most professional and expeditious model I have every worked with. Yes she is very pretty, but rarer than that she is a hustler, a professional, a mover, and a shaker. She is deadly serious about her career and because of these traits I cannot recommend her enough to anybody looking to hire a pretty BUT PROFESSIONAL model. Please consider hiring Ms. Moran by visiting her at: www.cindymoran.net Aaron Clarey

VISIT CAPPY’S OTHER SITES! Books: http://www.amazon.com/Aaron-Clarey/e/B00J1ZC350/ Podcast: https://soundcloud.com/aaron-clarey/ Blog: http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/aaron_clarey Consultancy: http://www.assholeconsulting.com

Buy these books and use my consulting service. They will make you very smart.