Corporate Colonialism

I'll tell you what troubles me. There is a similarity between the western world today with the collapse of Protestantism, and the Indian world in the 1700's with the collapse of Moghul rule. The unifying force has gone. The centre cannot hold, leaving a void into which all manner of illicit elements are drawn. India came under the sneaky control of the British East India Company; and the West today is coming under a similar kind of illicit corporate control. There is a troubling similarity between corporate rule today and Company rule in India.

The big issue~certainly as far as this blog is concerned~is the use of women to antagonise the men: a favourite trick of colonial regimes. The British Empire virtually bred sexually-non-performing women to interface with the natives. Fighting men cannot fight women and~let's call them~beta males can utilise this instinct to overthrow the alpha males. The normal male instinct is to protect and provide for women; whereas runts hide behind women. Warrior males fight for women: They fight each other, and compete, and struggle, and work for women. So when Feminists demand parity with warrior males, our fighting men are clueless. Their existence is negated. The Pheminists phuck the alpha males off the phace of the earth, and the runt males can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Pheminism!

That is the context in which I see a homemaker allowance. It is a means of stopping the corporations from exploiting our women as black labour.


* * * * *


A government programme need not be perfect to be worth doing. The solution to the great depression of the 1930's was unemployment insurance. 'Pogey' didn't solve anything: It didn't mean an end to unemployment, but a limit to the waste and disorganisation and accompanying sense of impotence. It empowered people whether or not they ever collected. Like the old age pension, UI expresses the kind of people we wish to be in the kind of world we wish to live in. It acted as a nucleus around which thought and action could aggregate. So you may object a homemaker allowance will not solve anything, but it should give us a handle on our problems of irrelevance, selfishness and infantilism induced by nice homes among other things.

The alternative approach would be to legislate first-rate breadwinner and homemaker marriages, and second-rate companionative marriages. Which I find horrible. I would much rather a voluntary, administrative partial solution.

I feel like someone in the 1740's advocating an income tax. Public finance was a shambles: In England, we were taxing windows. And the answer was some kind of direct tax on incomes. For a hundred years, the idea was kicking around; but the nobility wouldn't hear of it. And it wasn't until the war of the French Revolution that the measure was finally introduced. The second thing the French did, after chopping off the nobles' heads, was to introduce an income tax, enabling the Revolution to mobilise the full potential of the French nation. And England and the rest of the world had to follow suit to keep up with the French: the income tax emerging as one of the great ordering principles of society.

Curious thought: Under the ancien regime, anyone could advocate an income tax undermining noble privilege. Under today's corporate regime, with a government guaranteed right to freedom of expression, nobody may mention the breadwinner and homemaker marriage ??because it threatens the privileged new class of two-income govt worker households?? Which is more important? Freedom of expression~Or freedom of the media to censor expression?