Welcome to my blog!

Mehdi

I have two main problems with the Pickton verdict. With two of the victims, other men's DNA was found in the remains of their teeth NOT Willie Pickton's. The obvious interpretation is those girls were snuffed in a forced oral sex act, and the killer was not Willie Pickton. It is plain unfair to convict Pickton on those two counts.

With the woman whom the witness Ellingsen testified she saw being butchered by Willie Pickton, none of her remains have been found. How can anyone be charged with murder when there is no corpse to prove the missing person is dead? With no corpse, it needs dozens of impeccable witnesses totally united on every point of time, place and manner of death to convict for murder, not the tainted and unreliable testimony of one witness.
It's the classic philosophic conundrum: 'Alcibiades the Cretan says all Cretans are liars!' Where does that leave you? It's a curiosity! And the Ellingsen testimony was similar. What credence can you attach to a witness who says she saw an acquaintance being butchered, and just took drug money from the butcher: She did not go to the police. Her word is worthless. If she saw a girl being butchered, she should be jailed 10 years for failing to report it. If she was lying, she gets 3 years for perjury. Maybe that'll shake the truth out of her.

Al Capone was jailed for life on a charge of income tax evasion. He could not be convicted of murder. We just have to be satisfied with that. We can't play fast and loose with the law for the sake of closure. If Pickton were found guilty on 2 or 3 counts of manslaughter, he would still go to jail.

Killers, and very nasty people, are still out there.

* * * *

Happy New Year Everyone!

Bangs for the Buck!

You may have noticed I have a rather exalted notion of the place of a homemaker allowance in the scheme of things. We no longer believe in religion as a society, so to a considerable degree, we religiously believe in our entitlements. Health care and education, disability and old age pensions, unemployment insurance, holidays and job safety: These define us as people. And a homemaker allowance screams what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world.

We work~not to serve the corporations~but to have nice homes. Family and home are the final end of our efforts, for most people. Well, Let's go for it! A home has to be made by somebody~Let's call them homemakers~and give them an allowance. Let's get our priorities straight. For the last forty years, every effort has been made to get women into the workforce, leaving one-income couples to fend for themselves, treated with benign neglect and subject to petty harrassment. Well, let's facilitate breadwinner and homemaker couples, and treat working couples to benign harrassment.

Promoting the one involves marginalising the other. We can't have it both ways. So an entire thought world starts to take shape around a homemaker allowance.

* Assume $300 a month for a basic homemaker with increments for any children or invalids they care for.
* Cancel survivor's pensions for working spouses to pay for it.
* Child allowances to be folded into the homemaker allowance: It is madness giving child allowances to working couples. We don't want working couples, so why subsidise them?
* Spousal inheritance rights to be limited in future to breadwinners and homemakers: the meaningful essence of a marriage.
* Breadwinners to have priority in the workforce: working couples coming last: and singles in between.
* Homemakers focussed on part-time jobs with no benefits: They're covered by their breadwinners'.
* No more talk about subsidised daycare: usually provided by homemakers.
* No more full-wage govt jobs to single girls. It's a policy of national suicide: desexing our young women.
* Stop encouraging women to expect equal representation anywhere. Women's equality is not to be confused with racial equality.

So we are looking at a radically reformed society, all on a voluntary basis. Nobody is obliged to take the allowance! But with millions of homemakers (mainly women of course) looking for part-time jobs with no need for benefits, the opportunities are golden. Quite how matters will shake down is anyone's guess: especially for single career women. They will be really scarce.

The economy cannot generate full-wage jobs for everyone. Young people go to school and live at home into their thirties. Employment conditions in the private service economy resemble peonage: Young people hold 2-3-4 jobs, on call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just to pay the rent! So the greater need is to allocate the few good jobs available on a rational basis i.e. one per family, let's say to the breadwinner.

Let's stop digging ourselves into a hole, and put more effort into getting out of it!

P.S. Happy Christmas, you all! I nearly forgot! And Hannukah and Ramadan, where appropriate. And let's not forget jolly old Saturn! He started it all. Remember?

The Feminist Revolution

Any attempt at separating the sheep from the goats is resisted by the goats. I want a homemaker allowance to validate middle class society. The media disallow any mention of the concept. I want an honest, smooth-running society: The goats want a free ride. And the sheep want to bleat.

The Feminist revolution defines the terms of our existence: Winners and Losers

a) Feminism was good for property values: Working couples pushed up the price of housing
b) Feminism undermined union power: Fighting men cannot fight women
c) Feminism was good for government workers: They could double up
d) Feminism was good for pensioners: They could get double pensions
e) Feminism was good for management: a heirarchy of mixed humans needs more management than a team of men
f) Feminism empowered groupies and no-lives, and immobilised couples with children

The big winners were management and rich property owners. Pensioners and govt workers were bought off. Ordinary middle class homeowners marked time. Anyone not in the property market, and future generations, lost heavily. But the really big losers were couples wanting good homes for their children.


WOMEN'S EQUALITY AND RACIAL EQUALITY


Let's say Feminism is 90% scam and 10% feeble-mindedness. (Hey, It's Christmas, OK!) A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality.

The key difference is that races are whole populations while men and women women are parts of a population.

black people = white people
black men = white men
black women = white women
black children = white children

It is loonie tunes to suggest black women should have parity with white children; or black men with black children; or white women with white men.

Who are valuable govt jobs to go to? This is the bottom line. Racially disadvantaged men or privileged women? Racist white men would rather govt jobs go to privileged white women than to disadvantaged black men. When Feminists demand more firefighters should be women, I say again, they are performing the base role of scab for the most nauseating element imaginable. (Keep calm uncle! It's Christmas!)

A black man with a wife and kids to support has to be able to bump a single white girl out of a govt job. That's self-evident. Carry on from there.

The solution has something to do with the ideal of completion: people realised to the fullest possible extent: individually and collectively. Equally fully-realised, racial groups would have similar occupational/wealth structures. Fully-realised, men and women would have different structures: Most women would be homemakers with part-time jobs, and most men would be breadwinners with full-time jobs. That is the main sense in which women are the equals of men. It just needs a little fine-tuning.

Female labour is still as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Because a child or a woman can do a job is no reason for them to do it. They may be hurt by it. Let's focus on getting ourselves out of the hole, instead of digging ourselves deeper into it. We want a homemaker allowance. To be continued.

The Pickton Trial

In the case of Willie Pickton, accused of killing 6 of the 50 women who have disappeared from Vancouver's east side, the remains of 30 turning up on his farm, the trial having concluded, while the jury is retired, let me state for the record. My verdict:

4 acquittals
2 manslaughter

I do not believe the Ellingsen witness who said she saw Pickton butchering a girl whose remains have not been found. There's no proof she's dead even. That's an acquittal.

The DNA of other men was found in the teeth of two of the victims. They are more likely to be the killers than Pickton. Two more acquittals.

Two girls' blood DNA was found in Willie Pickton's trailer. Likely manslaughter given the circumstantial evidence.

With the remaining girl, the circumstantial evidence against Pickton is too weak to support a conviction. As with the first three above, it's the same circumstantial evidence! Without any hard evidence, that's another acquittal.

Killers and very nasty people are still out there! Police and crown counsel want to slam the door on Pickton and forget all about them. They mustn't be allowed to get away with it, any more than Willie Pickton. He was certainly a knowledgable bit player on the sidelines of some disgusting business.

Anyway, that's my prognosis.

The important issue as far as this blog is concerned is the female lawyers in the crown counsels' office. They are disposed to believe any accusation against a man: the wilder the better. Ellingsen had them eating out of her hand: She saw through them a mile off. Any girlie put through law school at daddy's expense, unemployable in the private sector, can get a job in the crown counsels' office. They are a stock joke; like the female eunuchs in the Castrating Broad Corporation. They have just wasted $100m of public money, and ruined any chance of catching the culprits.

The sooner we get the workforce back on a regular footing the better.

Ecraser L'Infame

Overall, the special feature of our dilemma is the collapse of Protestantism, which has left our warriors without a unifying principle. For 300 years until the 1960's, the Protestant work ethic was the pounding heart of European confidence. And it has gone! Leaving our alpha males discombobulated. The centre has collapsed. And into the vacuum are being drawn all manner of illicit elements: notably the corporate media.

My dream is that a homemaker allowance will substantially fill that void left by the collapse of Protestantism: the breadwinner and homemaker marriage being the central fact of worthwhile existence.

Purposeful thought is the responsibility of a society's warriors. To an extent, a society IS what its warrior males will kill and die for. And a society lacking a confident warrior class gets taken over and trashed for the fun of it. WE~the modern, middle-class, christoid West~are being trashed because we allow ourselves to be trashed. WE create the trashing process, not the elements that trash us: Feminists, media, corporations and minority types. They have no real existence: They are only what they can get away with being.

It does not matter who is taking us for a ride: how or why the media are taking us for a ride. The answer is always, We let them! We are the problem, not the runts who trash us. The tendency to put the boot in is universal. That's the runt in all of us.

(Incidentally, there is a bible commandment here. 'Thou shalt not seethe the kid in its mother's milk': a metaphor, You must not add insult to injury. You must not succumb to that temptation to take advantage of people who are in a position to be taken advantage of.)

You may object I am only addressing the symptoms of a rotten society: that getting rid of working couples, and bringing back breadwinner and homemaker couples, will not cure our malaise. But you may have the symptoms of flu~the stuffed up nose and itchy cough~without the flu. You still have to relieve the symptoms.

Similarly a pampered government class is always a symptom of a rotten society. Ottomans, Hapsburgs, Romanovs: They all coddled their government workers. Like the emperor system in old China floating on a cloud of eunuchs. Trudeau humiliated every honest man and woman in Canada with his indulgence towards the Post Office workers. Wasn't that his intention?

Similarly in South Africa under apartheit: The Boers all got jobs as bus drivers and municipal employees. If apartheit had been honest, those servant-class jobs would have gone to the blacks. Apartheid was always a scam. That was how the honest Boers lost control of their country.

I can't go into the details of a homemaker allowance: the tax angles and child benefits. That's not my forte. Just get the wagon train rolling, and fix the wheels as they fall off. Like unemployment insurance, the allowance will never be finalised. My contribution is to locate the idea at the heart of honest, 'middle-class' civilisation.


P.S. 'Anonymous': I also misspelled Pickton; but thanks for the thought.

intermezzo

When I say Feminists are being exploited as black labour to break the men~Which is the nicest thing you will read about Feminism in this blog~please remember: For the last thirty years, I have been polite and got nowhere. I can't mince words anymore. It's only their gender that stops them from being told what they are. Feminists are scabs! Happy now?

On planet Reality, if you go from a system where it takes a man's wages to support a family, to a system where it takes a husband and wife both working full-time to maintain the same family, the standard of living has been cut in half. On planet MediaSymbol, it is called Women's Equality! On planet Reality, it is called peonage.

The introduction of women into the workforce did not raise the standard of living but cut the value of wages. When women's incomes were added to men's for mortgage purposes, the price of housing went through the roof. And it now takes two incomes to realise the same standard of living one could achieve before. Where once a house represented 8 years of one man's savings, now it represents 30 years of two people's savings. The same house costs 7 times as much! when private home ownership is a staple of middle-class life, like bread almost.

Until the Feminist makeover, wages and prices were based on men as breadwinners and women as homemakers in single-income households. Men had a right to high wages, not as men, but as breadwinners with wives and families to support. And it is a try-on for Feminists to demand parity for women as singles and second-wage earners.

Feminism is such a blatant con, it is terrifying to think how they got away with it. Western society has to have failed at every point, and every organised element in it. But that's for another blog. For the nonce, the way out of the mess is a homemaker allowance. We don't want the media leading us by the symbols. We want reality!

Anti-Feminist Psycho-Babble

1. Employment masculinises. A boy with a well-paid job gets a car, a girl, a house and a family. When you masculinise a boy, you get a man. When you masculinise a girl, you get a female eunuch. Frontline employment simplifies matters for boys but complicates them for girls. Young single men were always allowed a grace period as potential breadwinners: fast-tracked to maturity: allowed the high-paying jobs that properly belong to breadwinner males. Whereas young single women allowed high-paying jobs are fast-tracked to old maids: effectively sterilised.

A homemaker allowance won't finally resolve this or any other problem, but it should contain it. Recognition of the breadwinner and homemaker entity implies priority for breadwinners in the workplace, with homemakers taking part-time jobs. Quite how singles will be affected is obscure.

Single men in management and the professions were always expected to do voluntary work as a condition of employ-ment. That could be a rule. Young women dislike that extra workload. These things were always done unofficially.

2. Castration complex. Life consists in an urge to grow into full, upright, responsible adults; as opposed by an anti-life urge to shrivel back into stunted no-lives: what Freud called the castration complex. A most confusing name! It is essentially infantile in nature: confined to Number One. An infant has no awareness of anything not tending to it. As it grows up, it becomes aware of other existence. But what happens if it doesn't grow up? It denies the existence of things in their own right. Everything is what the infant thinks it is. It denies the essential difference between men and women, and between sex and masturbation. And the male orgasm of course.

3. Anal types believe in symbols. A twink will take his girl friend to a gay bar: He still believes in heterosexuality. He will have sex with his boyfriend while his girlfriend watches: He still believes in the symbol. He sees a young mother going to work with her kids in daycare, and thinks it's women's equality. He thinks a pokey one bedroom apartment is superior to a spacious studio, and pays as much for it! The market price for a 450 square foot one bedroom apartment is the same as for a 1000 square foot studio. Guess which the market provides! The corporations love them. Twinks rule!.

4. Twinks like women. In passing I have to say: It is not a sign of healthy sexual development for a man to like women, if anything, the opposite. A really straight man feels degraded if his wife has to work. He wants to protect and provide for his woman. Whereas a pimp puts his woman out to work. Government workers arranged jobs for their wives when women achieved 'equality', marginalising the alpha males.

Once you go down that line~that men like women~you end up ruled by the silliest twink on the block: who most defers to women, who takes the most garbage from women. He is the most heterosexual! We need an alternative concept of the relationship between men and women, based not on feelings but a division of labour. Which is not to say you can't have feelings as well.

The only people who are happy in a non-sexual male/female environment are twinks and their pre-sexual girl-friends. Everyone else wants men and women in reciprocal roles. We are re-structuring the workplace for the benefit of an immature phase, making maturity a liability.

5. Female eunuchs. 1-2% of live-births are sexually unfinished either as males or as females. They have a kind of ingrowing penis (Spare us the details!) and are usually classed as females. So some 3% of apparant women are more like 'female eunuchs' as they have been called. They cannot make it either as men or as women in a world of men and women. So whereas sane people want the male/female thing to work~Which is how I see the breadwinner and homemaker marriage: the essence of the male/female relationship~female eunuchs don't want men and women to succeed.

Any hint of gender denial is close to insanity. If a man dresses as a girl at Halloween, that's fun. But if he takes it seriously, he is whacko. Once you deny the complementary natures of male and female, each incomplete in itself, joined in a mutually beneficial supportive/dependant relationship, there is no end to the lunacy.

6. Our Anal Media. Simplest explanations are best. A mental age of sixteen is needed to appreciate the breadwinner and homemaker marriage; and the media have a mental age of six. Somehow the media are stuck in the 'anal' stage: Everything is Number One. And a breadwinner and homemaker are not two Number Ones. They do not seek completion individually but in a union. And that is outside the media 'box': The anal mind cannot fathom that concept.

To the infant brain, a breadwinner is one thing, and a homemaker another: like a librarian and a lion tamer. And the people most afflicted are those with the highest IQ's. Educated women's brains come to a halt when they think of an argument. Finished! The argument is the conclusion.

If there is a particle of validity to the concept of a breadwinner and homemaker marriage, then the entire Feminist proposition, as it has been touted by the media this last forty years, is a scam.