A commenter, “banjoboog,” on Michael Moore’s website said the following amazing thing — I’ve shortened this a little and bolded the fun bit:

banjoboog – – – Posted May 29th, 2010 11:51 AM

America has become a good lab experiment for other countries to look at and see what NOT to do. Science and technology are going to rule this century, and it will be supplied to the world by the Chinese, Indians and western Europe. Here’s an example of what the Chinese are up to: [link to yet another interstellarly awesome Chinese megatechnology project showing they are the new Lords of Creation whatever]

… and that’s just in the field of transportation. Communications is a whole other area where America is either getting or is going to get it’s ass kicked.

It seems to me the choice is to get rid of every bible-thumping bonehead politician you’ve got and elect people with brains … fast, or get ready for a life of slavery, where America becomes the cheap labour pool the Chinese, Indians and Europeans need to build their products.

What a brilliantly inspired speculative leap into the future! (How I wish I’d thought of it first!) Some day these fast-ascending countries are going to OUTSOURCE: that is, seek cheap labour amongst chronically-unemployed Americans; surely the day will come when they can offer such Americans a marginally better deal than American welfare — especially after America can no longer afford welfare. (See the excellent video Meltup: Preparing Americans for Hyperinflation for one highly plausible worst-case scenario.)

In the meantime, to prepare for the interesting times ahead, I have a suggestion. The future American employees of foreign outsourcers should start changing their habits and lifestyles so as to compete effectively with all those Third-World workers who have taken their jobs over the past couple of decades. We all know that those foreigners are paid much less and have much less benefits and so on than American workers — that’s why the jobs went overseas in the first place. Well, Americans can do anything once they put their back into it — they’ve proved it so often in their history that it’s pretty much taken for granted even by their worst enemies — so now it’s time for out-of-work Americans to beat Third-World workers at their own game, and so get their jobs back.

This means very simply that Americans will have to provide more incentive for Chinese, Indian, etc. companies to hire THEM than, say, rural Chinese, Indians, Africans, and so on. Americans need only prove that they can live on less than any other prospectively employable people on the planet, and jobs will flow to them from throughout the ascending world.

It’s probably a safe guess that the first generation of such post-welfare workers, in order to out-compete the rest of the world, will be paid in nothing but food. But most working people in the Third World live on much less food per day than any identifiable group of Americans — except ANOREXICS, and once again, this is where the resourcefulness and tenacity of Americans will show itself:

American anorexics, the most dedicated and highly motivated in the world, with their matchless command of the most advanced nutritional information, not to mention decades of collective experience, all available via the Web — are the most efficiently and CHEAPLY nourished people on the planet, and yet most are perfectly capable of working, and of living long enough to be attractive to employers. To your genuine American anorexic, an Indian coolie’s single daily meal of rice and onions is extravagant and easily reducible. Anorexics will be among the great teachers of survival in a post-welfare, jobless America.

I will leave it to others to graphically describe all the other frankly very unpleasant details of what Americans would be required to do in order to make themselves attractive to Chinese employers, but I just want to point out one very obvious potential benefit: The problem of obesity (at least, among the chronically unemployed) would vanish as quickly as it possible for human beings to shed weight.


In the interest of helping women connect with really exciting men, I would like to suggest periodic “prison release mixer” parties.

The investing promoters would arrange to inform guests of the local Big Houses about upcoming mixers, as a public service; local women would be similarly informed. Women could thus meet large numbers of thrillingly fresh ex-convicts, still secreting their manly prison ambience, all at once, in a convenient and discreet location.

The investors would be repaid exclusively by fees collected from the women, of course. I envision a kind of free initial entry for women during which they are assured of anonymity and discretion, but only get to glance at and perhaps have brief conversations with a few of the men; if interested, they would pay their hefty entrance fee, sign an indemnity, and be allowed to enter. Each party would admit as many women as could be legally squeezed into the building; if they greatly outnumber the available men, that’s fine as well. They would have to compete for the men’s attention, and that would only add to the exciting party atmosphere.

This idea may seem merely satirical or facetious, but I seriously believe there is real money to be made here. Thanks to evolutionary psychology, sociobiology, and the most articulate defenders of Game (including the peerless Roissy) there are now growing numbers of people who understand what kinds of sexual incentives women actually respond to, as opposed to what they claim to respond to. Smart, enterprising, and ideologically unencumbered men and women (in fact, I believe that any grouping of the most successful promoters of such mixers would always include a number of women) are already putting this knowledge to good use, as they have always done of course. This plan is merely my modest contribution to the increasingly profitable business of giving women what they really want.

This sort of fee-charging mixer perhaps has other possibilities; all you need is the right sort of men. Gangs of various kinds, drug-treatment halfway houses, and boxing and martial-arts outfits seem obvious places to look; indeed, any place or institution where the semi-criminal underclass (as the late, great Auberon Waugh liked to call it) is well represented, would all be promising.


Finally, a few speculations and ideas, and now I feel on less solid ground because of my own inadequate grasp of the psychology of women; comments from wiser heads are welcome.

— These men, if promoted savvily, will naturally attract many more women than they can handle; how could profit and client satisfaction be maximized? Perhaps the willingness of women to share alpha males would save the day, financially speaking.

— In the ex-con mixers, the women’s personal appearance may be much more of a factor than in letter-writing-to-prisoners scenarios. To avoid immediate disappointment — and hence resulting negative word-of-mouth — women should perhaps not be encouraged to attend unless they feel confident enough about their attractiveness not to be intimidated by the presence of significant numbers of OTHER attractive women.

— In addition to a coat-check, a wedding-ring check could be provided (for those women still in the grip of self-delusion until the final moment. In fact I suspect the very presence of a wedding-ring check would add to the thrill).

The Seattle cartoonist who launched the idea of “Everybody Draw Mohammed Day” has disassociated herself from the project, understandably; there are reports of some sort of “overwhelming response” to her initial cartoon. No doubt she was buried under thousands of death threats.

So I may have nowhere to send this cartoon I just made. Feel free to pass it around!



The feminized state already criminalizes men who insist that their wives fulfil their marital duties (marital ‘rape’); it forces divorced men, or even men from broken common-law partnerships, to give up various amounts of their wealth to women merely for having lived with them in a sexual relationship. What’s next? I think a case could be made for imposing a surtax of some kind on all men who have ever been sexually active, and the revenues thus generated would be naturally used for the exclusive benefit of women. The message sent by this would accord well with today’s governmental and political worldview: Men who have sex with women thereby owe something to society, and the most just and evolved way to make this good is to compensate society at large through tax contributions.

To determine these tax rates, which would of course differ for men in various situations (married, divorced and already paying alimony, lifelong virgin, etc.), a large and powerful new arm of the Internal Revenue Service would need to be created. (That in itself is of course a huge incentive for Our Overlords to bring my idea into being.)

The more I read about these Catholic priests who have their dirty way with boys, the clearer it seems that they were incredibly skillful at selecting their targets. They really knew how to pick ’em… none of these boys ever squealed, for DECADES, until social circumstances had changed so dramatically that they finally owned up. I think I may have found the key to the mystery.

To begin with, here are some extracts from a news story which provides a completely typical context for my theory:


β€˜It ruined my life,’ victim of pedophile priest says

By Jennifer Green , The Ottawa Citizen — April 10, 2010

In the spring of 1982, everyone in the tiny Polish settlement of Wilno, west of Ottawa, felt nothing but sympathy when the mother of their favourite priest passed away. The deeply Catholic community looked up to Bernard Prince, who had grown up in the town and was ordained there in 1963. So when the cleric asked one of the Wilno youths to serve as altar boy at the funeral, and then keep him company at his apartment two hours east in Ottawa, the 14-year-old was honoured. “He could have asked anyone and he asked me to help him through this mourning period.”

Twenty-four hours later, the boy’s life was in ruins. The priest had sexually assaulted him, leaving him with a shame that would metastasize into alcoholism and an inability to form relationships with anyone, male or female.

“It ruined my life,” said Tom, whose full name is under a publication ban. “It changed my life to this day.”

It would be more than 25 years before Prince would be defrocked and convicted on 13 counts of sexual and indecent assault. In 2008, he began a four-year jail term in British Columbia. Civil proceedings are under way as 16 men sue the diocese of Pembroke for millions of dollars, among them the now-grown man who, as a boy, believed he was offering comfort. Six have already settled.

Prince also targeted Tom’s younger brother, but “I didn’t know until police started asking questions. I told him that I was going to come forward, and he said, ‘Well, if you’re going to be strong enough to do it, then I’ll do it as well.'”


Tom, for his part, still has bouts of depression, but he has beaten his dependence on alcohol and has been able to get his life back on track, thanks to the Men’s Project, trauma counselling offered at Ottawa’s YMCA. At 39, he had his first relationship with a woman, and now they are married. After 25 years, he finally opened up about the assault, telling his father first and then his future wife.

Despite it all, Tom says he would consider going back to the
Catholic Church, if it would just come clean.


After we’ve allowed ourselves a rude bit of a laugh at poor Tom’s choice of words (if Father Prince had come clean, instead of coming dirty, everything would have been all right?) and beaten-but-faithful-wife attitude, let’s gaze in wonder at the consistent brilliance of all these priests, worldwide, in selecting boys who could be counted on to keep their mouths shut — bearing in mind that Tom, here, is a rather bad example; if he’s a wide-eyed, naive, vulnerable, defenseless waif now at FORTY-TWO, just picture him at FOURTEEN. Ol’ Father Prince must have absolutely rubbed his hands with glee upon getting to know him. (Of course I’m aware of the intimidation factor and all the rest of it, and I’m not for a second disputing anything the experts say about children and teenagers simply being too terrified or otherwise psychologically unable to tell their parents or the police about what’s happened to them, so just hear what I have to say before you bring out the lighter fluid, rope, and old car tires.)

The fact is, we all know there are children and teenagers who could most certainly NOT be counted on to keep silent. Some of these natural-born little whistleblowers make themselves obvious in everything they do and say; some people are simply born very very ornery, or become that way at a very tender age because of unusual circumstances; and so everyone has heard of the occasional little boys (and sometimes girls) whose characters are practically indomitable, and who would simply laugh at any kind of threat a priest could make. (“I’ll tell your parents!” [laugh]. “Everyone will think you’re gay!” [sneering laugh.] “I’ll have you excommunicated!” [amused chuckle.]) Perhaps you have even known such a person in your lifetime; I know I am painting a rather extreme and facetious portrait, but I am utterly convinced that such infrequent persons exist, and that every sizeable congregation has one or two. Moreover, and now you’re really going to have to stretch your objectivity muscles, such young people as this are often particularly beguiling and charismatic.

Other potential squealers might be more difficult to guess at. Who could possibly tell with nearly 100% accuracy over the centuries — as it’s becoming painfully clear — which children could be easily intimidated into lifelong silence and which were even a slight risk? Really. Such fine, subtle, penetrating (heh) judge of character, by so many different men in so many different countries, could only have been acquired by training.

Perhaps, then, during some gray dawn in the future, the secret archives of the Vatican will be raided by Interpol, and their entire contents confiscated and delivered up to justice and thence to public scrutiny. Amongst all the fascinating documents therein (1st century marriage certificate signed by Jesus and his fiance John [“the disciple whom Jesus loved,” John:21:20], list of ladies’ undergarments most worn by pontiffs [sorted by size and ethnic orgin], Prophet Mohammed dartboard-targets, still-life paintings of flowers fertilized by ground-up Jews, etc.) there will likely be a multi-volume series of textbooks entitled




Methodiae Bonus Amati Selectionii.


P.S. Another thing that crosses my unfortunate mind when I read these priestly tales: They never give any details of the sex! I’m sure I’m not the only member of the non-gay majority who wants to know what exactly went on? I think we can safely guess that one or more penises were involved, although they may have been kept out of sight; but this is 2010 and I think we can all handle the graphic, turgid, throbbing truth: Whose penis went where? It would help us ignorant peasants all sort out the real abuse cases from the instances of mere inept flirting, and everything in between.

Story in the news from Up North:


Retirement savings may go to support the poor

Minister of Finance says many not putting away enough money

By Deborah Tetley, Canwest News Service April 14, 2010

Canadians who prepared for their retirement are going to be responsible for taking care of a “sizable” part of the population that didn’t prepare sufficiently, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty warned Monday.


“(We need) to avoid a situation where we’re going to have a sizable part of the Canadian population reaching retirement age without adequate provisions for their retirement income,” Flaherty told reporters on the first day of the retirement-income conference. “That will mean that the rest of the population will be called upon to help those that have not saved for their retirement.”


“We have a significant percentage of working Canadians, many in their 30s and 40s, who are not saving adequately for retirement.”


Two things spring immediately to mind: Aesop’s fable of The Ant and the Grasshopper, and Marx’s formula “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” The Finance Minister of this major Western nation is actually proposing that the ants be forced to feed the grasshoppers. A little more reflection brings up not a fable, but a fact: incentives matter. Suppose word gets around the populace that you’ll be supported if you haven’t saved sufficiently for your retirement; how will people respond to this NEW INCENTIVE? I know how I myself would: I’d simply quit worrying about my retirement! RRSPs, 401ks, mutual funds, bonds, all that stuff is confusing and boring anyway and it would be a huge relief to chuck the lot, knowing that the magic of wealth redistribution — a favorite Obama phrase in his formative years by the way – was going to sprinkle financial fairy dust over me during my declining years.

You can be sure this news item made some American socialist eyes bug out with keen interest. If Democrats can pass leftist health-care legislation over the objections of all the free-market and economic-libertarian instincts that still exist (but are slowly weakening with time) in the United States, then this scheme to turn retirees, or people deemed “sufficiently prepared” for retirement, into social debtors whose resources may then be garnisheed, should be feasible as well.

It will certainly be another epic political battle, when future Democrats try to introduce this nifty Canadian scheme. But recent political trends in the US, plus the knowledge that the Republican party is slowly but steadily shrinking due to the demographic decline of its primary voter base (white males), suggest that the AAIPP (American Association of Insufficiently Prepared Persons) will be the final victor.

I have no gift for political sloganeering, like the person who came up with the great words which the French government used to plug the introduction of the 35-day work week many years ago: “Du temps pour vivre [time for living]!” But whatever catchy phrases will be used to advertise this prepared-support-the-unprepared retirement scheme – oh all right I’ll take a stab:

“Government gold for your golden years!”
“Senior citizen, senior entitlements!”
“Once upon a time in the Bad Old Days, there was a mean old man named Retirement Planning.”
“Obama’s Magic Retirement Carpet: Room For All!”

Bah. As I was saying, behind any and all clever slogans will be the true essence: “If you don’t feel like saving for your retirement, don’t bother; the government will take money from rich bastards and give it to you.” You don’t even have to worry your pretty little head about who the ‘rich bastards’ are; they are simply anyone who has more than just enough to retire on, and the relevant government officials, who never ever make mistakes, will determine who those people are. (Government workers will naturally be exempt from paying into retirement-for-others schemes, not so baldly of course, but that will be the net effect after a hugely complex and opaque series of regulated procedures, the creation and administration of which will create endless numbers of new government jobs, surprise surprise. Not to mention the vast additional department that will have to be created and staffed to apply the scheme to America’s second-class citizens, that is, all those persons of questionable social status who are not members of the civil service. The government-job-creating incentives make the mind reel.).

Some species of life on earth manage to co-exist with man, and some fail. Successes include the housefly, many kinds of viruses, the cockroach, the domestic cow, and the dog and cat. Failures include the dodo and the carrier pigeon; near-failures include the great whales, tigers, and the great apes, just to name a few.

Let’s take a look at one of these faunal flops through an unsentimental eye. When famous chimp observer Jane Goodall began her career (why are all these famous ape observers women? Goodall with chimps, Fossey with gorillas, Galdikas with orangutans; together they are known as “Leakey’s Angels,” and we can add the lesser known Barbara King, renowned baboon and gorilla expert. I’m no mathematician, but based on the evidence I’ve just adduced, a figure of 100% seems to impose itself. Is it nothing more than the attraction to large, muscular, dangerous, hairy things that look more or less like boxers and wrestlers?), there were close to a million chimpanzees alive in Africa; now there are about 300,000. Why the decline? The answer is simplicity itself, but as George Orwell said, “To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle.”

In fact, chimpanzees share Africa with an ever-expanding population of human beings, and as Africans progress in terms of civilization and material culture, the amount of land exploited by each, per capita, also increases. More and more of them may live in cities, but the land and its resources are ever more fully utilized, and in new and different ways as greater technological progress allows. New uses are constantly being found to turn everything that walks, crawls, flies, swims, grows, buds, or divides into profitable products for the easily bored, and therefore innovative world markets for exotic food and luxury items; and even the surplus empty land itself is now being put to use — wealthy Asian countries such as China, Japan, and Korea have long been purchasing huge sectors in Africa on which to grow rice and other crops. These farms have signs reading in several languages, “CHIMPS — PUSH OFF.”

So how can the chimpanzee compete? It’s not very bright; it can’t seem to organize protest demonstrations, it does not know how to make weapons, and being evidently incapable of keeping absolutely quiet when humans are around, it can’t even successfully hide itself from harm. The poorest, most backward, spear-throwing loincloth-wearer in the world is easily able to outsmart and defeat the chimpanzee, and does so for fun and profit whenever the whim takes him. No, I’m afraid that as long as human beings insist on living in Africa and running things the way they please, there isn’t much future for such sad-sack players as the chimpanzee, not to mention all the other animals who make such a poor showing against mankind.

The great apes have many other shortcomings which will probably ensure their continued reduction in numbers. It’s extremely difficult and often mortally dangerous to keep them as pets, so we can’t dream of setting up a worldwide market in pet chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. They can’t support themselves on, say, large farm-reservations, like the American Indians managed to (however badly). They can’t swim, so it’s no good simply dropping them all into the sea. They would be hopeless as laborers of any kind. Their skins and fur seem to be undesirable and useless. Finally, the world seems to have had just about enough of their Jerry Lewis level of humor, so any thought of employing more than a very few of them at a time in the world of entertainment is completely vain. Even those who claim to like chimpanzees wish only to see them VERY infrequently, on television and behind very solid steel bars in the zoo, but they certainly wouldn’t want families of chimps to move in next door, or even at the end of the block.

I suggest that a valuable use of current resources would be to gather and preserve the DNA of as many individual endangered great apes as possible, in the hopes of resurrecting them some day and moving them to a future depopulated area of the world. Japan and South Korea look promising; if their fertility rates do not undergo a truly enormous AND permanent change, both these countries will indeed be almost totally empty in the surprisingly near future, and perhaps the world could be convinced to allow a few great apes and other by-then extinct species to be grown and released there.

But in our own time, all ideas still have not yet been exhausted. Now it is obvious that if a species is very desirable to humans in some way, resources and motivation will automatically appear to protect, cultivate, and enhance that species. The ordinary domesticated cow gives us the best of milk and meat, and so is helped to breed and live in its hundreds of millions; can you imagine what its numbers would be nowadays if the milk it gave was always sour and the meat incurably tough? (And if it hadn’t been lucky enough to become the eternal romantic obsession of a certain liberated and progressive Hindu god.) Clearly, some USE must be found for chimpanzees; as in the case of the cow and the sheep, it must be worth more to people alive — and in healthy numbers — than extinct, which is clearly not the case at present.

So I would like to propose that celebrity chefs such as Jamie Oliver cook up and give us their opinion on chimpanzee meat; if it were found to be spectacularly delicious, the continued existence of the chimpanzee would be secured in a flash. If some chef like Oliver gave it the thumbs-up, I myself would try it provided a) there were no illustrations on the package and b) it was made up to look like fish fingers. Perhaps I’ll live to attend my first wine-and-chimp party.

As a large, active, agile and fast-moving forest-dweller, intelligent enough to be taught to flee in terror at the sight of man, the chimpanzee could certainly make for an exciting big-game hunt. Entrepeneurs getting into this field would be required only to finance scientifically-enhanced breeding and reproduction, upon which they would be allowed to keep, as their incentive, as much surplus revenue as they could generate from the sale of (no doubt highly expensive) hunting licenses. Because the game-species takes a considerable period of time to come to maturity, the hunt would take place at a moderate but steady and controlled rate, and profit would be maximized and stabilized by taking a truly long business view; in other words, the private-enterprise chimpanzee hunting industry would be SUSTAINABLE. “Good Green Hunting.”

Unfortunately, after much racking of my brains, these are the only two really feasible ideas (both with plenty of real-world precedent, I might point out) that I can come up with; huntin’ and eatin’ the hairy little bastards. But that’s just me, unimaginative, realistic and practical. I wonder what a female mind could invent towards the practical, profitable survival of the great apes? It’s important to consider this, because females control a large and rapidly growing amount of domestic spending. How on earth could the chimpanzee, or any of its body parts, be transformed into something as psychically necessary to women as cosmetics? Solve that problem and you save the chimpanzee for all time.

I suppose these kinds of proposals won’t go over very well with the Jane Goodall crowd, but it should be perfectly obvious by now that such people would kill every last chimpanzee on Earth with their own teeth rather than see them used in any way they considered the least bit tasteless or embarassing (for which their code word is ‘exploitative’). They’re much more in love with their idea of themselves as saint-like animal saviors than they are with any really workable idea of actually increasing the chimpanzee’s odds of survival in a human-dominated world where it is basically a loser.