As an unpublished writer, I drove taxi in Vancouver for twenty years. During the Christmas rush one year, I picked up an elderly lady from a downtown store where she had just worked a twelve hour shift. She was exhausted! She recalled how in the Sixties, she had worked part-time one Christmas 'to buy her daughter a cashmere sweater'. Thirty years later, she was working full-time year-round to pay the bills. What had happened? She still lived in the same house. Where had it all gone?
The real value of wages has been cut in half since the Sixties. Where a man's wage supported a family, now two incomes are needed. We went from a system of single-income marriages to working couples with no corresponding rise in the standard of living. When the wife's income was added to the man's for mortgage purposes, the price of housing went through the roof; and the second income became a necessity. Just a mug's game!
Somehow we have to recover that all-important principle of the single-income marriage. We have to choose between breadwinner and homemaker (B&H) marriages and working couples. This last forty years, we have promoted working couples while leaving single-income marriages to fend for themselves. It should be the other way around.
The Australian govt now gives $200 a week to working couples to defray their daycare costs but not to single-income couples. That's nonsense! Single-income couples deserve support. Working couples are a turkey~~ They ain't gonna fly!~~ no matter how much support they are given. If we gave a fraction of the support to B&H couples, we might get off the ground.
Working couples are always the hallmark of a disadvantaged life-style: exploited women, abused children, neglected seniors and marginalised men. Whereas B&H marriages mean a self-respecting middle-class life style.
The problem is, Working couples are good for the economy. Women are cheap labour in the corporate view, undermining the unions. And denied proper homes, two-income marriages spend more on consumer goods. Working couples represent the corporate interest; B&H marriages the public interest. Which is more important? The economy? Or peoples' lives? Working couples assume an arm's length relationship between men and women; B&H marriages assume a close partnership. Different kinds of people living different kinds of lives in different kinds of society. B&H marriages mean worthwhile lives. Working couples are Desperation City: virtual peonage.
One of my last rides when I was driving taxi was an old lady whose ancient mum had suffered a stroke and had to be institutionalised, because the daughter could not care for her financially, which both mother and daughter found devastating. We as a society can find the money for institutional care, $1000+ per day, when we cannot find the money to help a daughter care for her mother. Those are our collective values, or corporate values, or Feminist values, or media values, whichever you prefer.
My preferred solution is a homemaker allowance: not just for the money but for the recognition. It is a little ThankYou to housewives mainly for their contribution. (It used to be called a housewives' allowance, but 'housewife' is now a dirty word.) I envisage an allowance of a few hundred dollars a month for a basic homemaker, with increments for any children and dependents she (or he) may maintain.
So for starters notice, a homemaker allowance is not just another entitlement: It will mainly be existing child benefits repackaged and renamed. But childless B&H couples will receive the allowance, while working couples will receive no public support, even if they have children.
We can't just order love and happiness. That's the problem! The things we value most cannot be legislated. We can't legislate functioning families. People cannot be legally obligated to get along as breadwinners and homemakers. We can't ban working couples even: It would discourage marriage. We want to encourage marriage and family life, but we don't want to encourage working couples. That's how a homemaker allowance fits in.
Given the choice, many women~~possibly a majority~~would prefer to be homemakers with perhaps a part-time job for themselves. So the first function of the allowance is to make homemaking a viable option for the maximum number of women. Only financial necessity drives women to seek full-time work in many cases. And a homemaker allowance sets our priorities straight. It restores the element of choice to many women: whether to seek part-time or full-time work, or be full-time homemakers.
Anything women want, men feel obliged to give to them. If women want equality in the workplace, men bend over backwards to accomodate them. The problem arises when women want contradictory objects, or when they want to give away the farm. Then men must straighten up, and point out that women also want nice homes and strong family relationships: which are incompatible with equality in the workplace. And the mass entry of women into the workforce means the end of the living wage and reduced wages for everyone.
The position of women in the workforce cannot be legislated because it has no object. For men to compete with each other is a general good: The winners get the females and pass on their superior genes. Men work to provide for their women and be attractive as partners; women work so as not to need partners. Employment masculinises: It completes men and straightens out their lives, but represents a dead end for women. It turns a boy into a man but a girl into a 'female eunuch', as Feminists say. A girl in her twenties with a govt job is looking at seventy years of financial security~~ not to be risked having children. That's more a lifetime's frustration than fulfilment.
The fulfilment of the individual is the ultimate goal. Fulfilled alpha males expect to protect and provide for their women; beta males want to be seen with girls. Fulfilled females expect to support their men; beta females want to play with boys. The alphas are empowered as breadwinners and homemakers~~ the betas don't want the alphas empowered. A homemaker allowance is a recipe for decent society~~ the betas don't believe in decent society. They believe in Number One. And a breadwinner and homemaker are not two Number Ones: They seek fulfilment not in themselves but in a relationship with the other. And that is outside the comprehension of regressive types.
The age of full employment is over: Job shortages are the norm. We cannot hope for one good job per person, but we could achieve one good job per family. A homemaker allowance means a policy of good homes; well-raised children; living wages for breadwinners; homemakers steered into part-time work; singles doing 'voluntary' work as a condition of employment; and working couples marginalised, and eliminated from the public sector. Personal completion. Social and economic reform. The restoration of the middle class. And an end to Feminism.
WHENCE THE WHEREWITHAL?
A homemaker allowance is a major entitlement. Where is the money coming from?
* For starters, it is not yet another entitlement: a homemaker allowance will replace existing child and family allowances. At-home wives will receive the allowance whether or not they have children, but not working couples with children.
* Most daycare will be provided by homemakers rather than by expensive professional centres. As noted above, the Australian govt now gives $200 a week to working couples but not to single-income couples. That's favouring the corporate interest over the public interest!
* Most homecare for the elderly and infirm would be provided by homemakers. Instead of institutional care costing $1000+ per day, the going rate, homemakers would be supported in their care for invalids.
* Spousal benefits for working spouses can be rethought: Only homemakers are entitled to survivors' pensions. If women want equality in the workplace, they must lose their husbands' pensions. (Similarly surviving husbands of course, but they're hardly an issue. Women live longer than men, and marry older men with greater incomes, so the net result is a massive transference of funds in favour of working wives.) A homemaker allowance should mean the end to that kind of double-dipping.
So the net cost of the allowance could be positive, depending on how it is implemented. And it could be administered through existing unemployment agencies, with no need for a new bureaucracy. The potential for savings is considerable.
Govt programmes like education, health care and old age pensions define the terms of our existence. So a homemaker allowance says what kind of people we want to be, in what kind of world. It is a blueprint for an empowered middle-class society. We can live in a sustainable society based on B&H marriages and one good job per family~~ Or we can try living on credit in a dysfunctional society based on working couples, low wages and ever-rising house prices. We all know which path we took; and where it has landed us. The question is, How do we get out of the mess!
Updated: January 2012
This essay is now ready for publication
Anyone interested should contact me
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Homemaker Allowance....Postscript
WHAT'S WRONG WITH FEMINISM?
Feminism is a try-on. Feminists know they are asking for something that does not belong to them; but if we're fool enough to give it to them, they're fool enough to take it. The fault is ours if we let them get away with it. Shysters don't have to be men.
To recap. Before Feminism, wages and benefits were based on men as breadwinners, and women as homemakers, in single-income households. Men had a right to high wage jobs not as men but as breadwinners with wives and families to support. By definition, a 'living wage' is sufficient to support a couple and their immediate family. A high wage economy assumes breadwinner and homemaker marriages. No way may a husband and wife each be entitled to a couple's wage.
The Feminists and the corporate media are giving us the runaround. Female labour is as generally socially-undesirable as child labour. Just because a child can do a job~~ and wants to do a job~~ is no reason why the child should do the job; if it disrupts their development and social environment, and takes the job from someone in greater need.
How did they get away with it? Because Feminism fitted the corporate agenda.
WHO QUALIFIES?
A homemaker allowance is applicable to China and Chad and Czechoslovakia, so I don't wish to get into details because they will vary. And it isn't my forte. There is a grey area as to who will qualify. Single mothers? Retirees? I don't know! The important point is a plain housewife with a breadwinner husband will get the allowance, even if childless, whereas working couples will NOT qualify, even those with children. Barbara Bush will get the allowance but not Hilary Clinton. The rest is secondary.
I don't have an administrative brain; but as a writer, my approach would be to start with the core idea of a breadwinner and homemaker defining each other~~ a homemaker supports a breadwinner who supports the homemaker~~ and carry on from there. Should a widowed homemaker continue to receive the allowance? I can't imagine her being denied.
MY biggest problem with a homemaker allowance is... How to work in family businesses... husband and wife running a cafe... the private farm worked by a farmer and his wife. These are the founding concept of a breadwinner and homemaker! They have to be worked in somehow. I don't see how. But so what? I don't have an administrative brain.
TWO KEY CRITERIA that I can see are a) a homemaker must make a home for someone else, not necessarily a breadwinner, but not just for themselves; and b) a homemaker must not compete in the workforce for full-time work, but only for part-time work
So single mothers I expect would usually qualify for a homemaker allowance, even though they aren't connected with breadwinners. A single black mother~~ the classic conservative bogeyman~~ would rather receive the allowance and help in finding a part-time job than receive welfare and be pressured into finding full-time work. It's no skin off the public's nose: It's the same money! But to the mother, it means self-respect. The children still need homes.
Once the allowance starts, there is no way of knowing where it will end up. Unemployment insurance now covers pregnancy leave, which is miles from the original intention!
Speaking of pogey... A homemaker allowance could be administered through existing unemployment insurance agencies, as part of their mandate to get people into suitable employment... which includes getting mums out of full-time and into part-time work. No new bureaucracy may be needed.
PUBLIC SECTOR REFORM
The govt service should be an examplar of the best employment practices. Since Feminism, it has become the sleaziest employer in town.
It was never allowed before Feminism for a husband and wife each to have govt jobs. Dropping that rule allowed the public sector to double up~~ They found jobs for each other's wives!~~ and govt workers went from an honest middle class to a privileged elite. Public sector wages and benefits were set in the Sixties at old-style levels sufficient to maintain a family, and have been upgraded for inflation ever since; and unlike the private sector, new public sector jobs kick in at old-style wage levels. So working couples each with govt jobs are astronomically over-paid.
Several managers have told me~~ and it stands to reason~~ an old-style breadwinner husband with a wife and kids to support cannot be employed in the public sector today. He makes everyone else feel uncomfortable. The singles and working couples have taken something that belongs to him.
I work out in a big public fitness centre with a staff of several hundred, about half-half single men and unmarried childless women. The unmarried childless manageress has eliminated all visibly sexually complete people. Across the service sector, this kind of unfulfilled female resentment is becoming an issue.
And women law graduates before Feminism were hot. Today they are useless: unemployable in the private sector. They don't like to do the 'voluntary' work necessary to get into middle management. So they clutter up the Crown Counsel's office. And the administration of justice has become a govt make-work project for otherwise unemployable female law graduates.
(Unlike England, Canada does not use unpaid magistrates: There is no bedrock of good sense and civic responsibility in the Canadian system. There were riots in London and Vancouver last year. The rioters in London were dealt with and put behind bars within weeks. Here in Vancouver, it is still being debated whether to televise the trials. Unpaid magistrates have moral authority.)
And in the liquor stores, another big operation here in BC, single men and childless women preponderate: nary a breadwinner in sight. And the girls don't like to handle security, so it gets contracted out, and there is professional security everywhere. I don't call that doing the job! The liquor stores could easily have men as breadwinners doing the shipping/ stocking/ security on a full-time basis, with women as homemakers working the tills on a part-time basis. Which incidentally makes for a more satisfying work environment.
So Public Sector Reform means a) men as breadwinners prioritised for the full-time jobs and b) women as homemakers prioritised for part-time work. They would be implicit in a homemaker allowance, with the occasional exception.
But also c) veterans prioritised and d) private sector experience to count as a qualification.
The public sector has to be honest, and to be seen as honest
NOT a life-style option
SEXUAL SATISFACTION
The only people who are happy in a non-sexual environment are 'faggots and fag hags', as they call each other: pre-sexual juveniles who are stuck (usually temporarily) in the kindergarten stage of development. They love the boy/ girl relationship. They love supervision as an end. Everyone else wants to grow up, and prefers separate reciprocating gender roles.
Sex is natural.
THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA
The media have promoted Feminism since the Fifties. For whatever reason. Perhaps they are anal-period retards who believe in symbols. Or they are lackeys doing the bidding of their corporate masters. Or they are collaborationists psyched-out by the ludicrous number of Jews in the media. Or they are cowards courageously defending powerful interests: govt workers and property values. Or they are harlots who have acquired power without responsibility. Or they are an illicit ruling class deriving their power from their exclusive manipulation of the symbols, like the church in the dark ages. Or they are servant class oiks expecting to be made to be responsible. If they screw up, it's not their fault: They're not responsible! And you can probably think of other reasons~~ Which all amount to the same thing. The higher thinking of the media is compromised, leaving their juvenile stuff undisturbed. They DETEST adult men and women.
Simple explanations are usually best.
The Feminists fucked the alpha males off the face of the earth, and the runts in the media can't stop sniggering: Yippee for Feminism!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The definition of marriage as a husband and wife~~ on which society was always based~~ is valid only as an approximation to the breadwinner and homemaker idea. Men had a right to high-wage jobs as breadwinners; and wives enjoyed spousal benefits as homemakers. It was outrageous for women as singles and 2nd-wage earners~~ neither breadwinners nor homemakers~~ to be allowed both rights. That is where we went wrong. And where we get back on track.
If you want a screaming row, we could make a legal distinction between structured B&H marriages and '2nd rate' companionative marriages. Or we could opt for an easy partial administrative solution. A homemaker allowance means a bureaucracy, records, regulations and procedures. To qualify for spousal benefits for example, you would have to prove you were in a supportive relationship with a breadwinner spouse. And the usual proof would be that you were receiving the homemaker allowance. There may be other proofs. But that should solve the problem for most purposes.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Women's Equality and Racial Equality
The strongest opposition to a homemaker allowance comes from the Feminist crowd, who regard mothers and housewives with contempt, which I return with knobs on. As presented in the media~~Which is all we know about Feminists!~~they are pre-sexual females who detest sexually-formed women and men. So where sane people want the male-female thing to work, Feminists don't want it to work. Or rather, the corporate media don't want the male-female thing to work, because it would empower ordinary decent people. Gender-denial being a joke at best or, taken seriously, insanity.
Let's say, Feminism is 90% scam, and 10% honest feeble-mindedness. A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality. So let's clean up this spot of legitimate confusion.
If 10% of the population is Black, 10% of the media should be Black. If 1% of the population is Jewish, 1% of the media should be Jewish. Let's keep it simple! But 50% of the population is female: Should 50% of the media be female? Emphatically NOT!
The difference is that racial and religious groups are whole populations, while men and women are parts of a population. Fully developed, racial groups would be similar: similar successes and failures, athletes and artists, professionals and amateurs. Each group would have some distinguishing features~~black basketball players and Jewish violinists~~but similar wealth, status and power. If blacks are 10% of the population, they have 10% of the wealth. If Jews are 1%, they have 1%. If whites are 70% of the population, they have 70% of the wealth. That is the dream of RACIAL EQUALITY.
one black man = one white man
one black woman = one white woman
one black child = one white child
But it is lunacy to suggest a black man should have parity with a white child, or a black child with black men, or black women with white men.
When people realise their potential, they are similar, regardless of race or religion. But with gender, when women achieve realisation, possibly 80% are homemakers with part-time jobs, and 80% of men are breadwinners with frontline jobs. Full realisation includes relationships and family. Men want to protect and provide for their women: Men achieve full realisation as breadwinners. Women want to give their men and children good homes: Women achieve full realisation as homemakers. The Feminist idea of gender parity, the same number of men and women in every occupation, could only be achieved by eliminating homes and children, by frustrating the life-object of the vast majority of men and women.
If you think half our firefighters should be women, you are peculiar. And if not half, Why any? Why should any women be firefighters? Even if a woman is as good as a man for example, it still has to be considered whether a mixed team is as good as a men's team; supported perhaps by women's auxiliaries.
You only have a right to what is necessary for your healthy growth and realisation. Men need jobs so they can maintain their wives and families in proper style; but it isn't important to a woman's self-image that she maintain her husband.
I cannot forget the British Empire used sexually-unfinished women to antagonise the natives and deny their manhood. And the corporations similarly exploit the Feminists to reduce our young men to irrelevance: allowed the symbols of manhood~the hair, tattoos and beautified bodies~but denied the reality.
WOMEN IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES
The solution comes first preferably. Women and men should have the same number of events in the Olympic Games~~say 100 events each~~but not the same events. That's my preferred solution. So what's the problem?
Why do we have women in the Olympic Games? If white guys can't compete with black guys over 100 metres~~Tough! We don't have separate events for white guys. We don't have separate events for children or seniors. Paraplegics get their own Olympics. Why do we run separate events for women in the Olympic Games?
The answer is: Because the Olympic Games would be boring without them. Women athletes are pretty! After watching Carl Lewis for 10 seconds, it is a relief to see Aussie girls playing beach volleyball in those skimpy outfits. It is sexism! Pure, life-affirming sexism! And I would argue very properly, the Olympic Games are a celebration: The strength of the male~~And the grace of the female.
Now we can see the issue in perspective.
A: The Olympics could be gender-blind, as with race. Which would involve the wholesale elimination of women from the games. Scarcely 1 in 1000 qualifiers would be a woman.
B: Separate Olympics for women, as with the paraplegic games.
C: Copycat events for women and men. The present policy.
D: Substantially different events for men and women in a ratio of 60:40 say. The old policy. Synchronised swimming and half-marathons for women. A minor role for women.
E: Substantially different events for men and women, but the same number of events each: say 100. The politically correct solution, somewhat dishonest. My preferred solution.
F(combining D and E): A fixed number of events for men and women, but with fewer events for women: say 100 for men and 75 for women. A minor role for women again with substantially different events. The honest but politically incorrect solution.
Women cannot compete with men as equals, so women's athletics need a different rationale. Only from the spectator's viewpoint might women's athletics be as important as men's. Nobody actually enjoys watching a grunting Bulgarian weightlifter, but women gymnasts are pretty as hell. People don't feel threatened by women athletes the way they do by men. From the participant's viewpoint, athletics are more important for men than for women, as representing the male physical ideal. Male athletes are gloriously supersexed men; whereas female athletes tend to be desexed, certainly in the grunt events, perhaps less so in the graceful events. The female physical ideal is not an athlete but someone more like a pregnant Marilyn Monroe.
If men and women had a limited number of events, say 100 events each, they would then have to decide which are the more important. Which events cast men and women in the most flattering light? The marathon and weightlifting for men, but gymnastics and synchronised swimming for women. We would not likely have weightlifting for women, or synchronised swimming for men. There are too many Olympic events, and many are ridiculous. It is absurd to speculate whether boxing is as important for women as for men; so we avoid the question. Boxing would likely reach the top 100 list for men but not for women. And ultimately with any luck, the Olympics would be a celebration of the strength of the male, and the grace of the female. Which may indeed be equal.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that athletics are as important for women as for men. But if I can manage it, you can.
Let's say, Feminism is 90% scam, and 10% honest feeble-mindedness. A retard could honestly confuse women's equality with racial equality. So let's clean up this spot of legitimate confusion.
If 10% of the population is Black, 10% of the media should be Black. If 1% of the population is Jewish, 1% of the media should be Jewish. Let's keep it simple! But 50% of the population is female: Should 50% of the media be female? Emphatically NOT!
The difference is that racial and religious groups are whole populations, while men and women are parts of a population. Fully developed, racial groups would be similar: similar successes and failures, athletes and artists, professionals and amateurs. Each group would have some distinguishing features~~black basketball players and Jewish violinists~~but similar wealth, status and power. If blacks are 10% of the population, they have 10% of the wealth. If Jews are 1%, they have 1%. If whites are 70% of the population, they have 70% of the wealth. That is the dream of RACIAL EQUALITY.
one black man = one white man
one black woman = one white woman
one black child = one white child
But it is lunacy to suggest a black man should have parity with a white child, or a black child with black men, or black women with white men.
When people realise their potential, they are similar, regardless of race or religion. But with gender, when women achieve realisation, possibly 80% are homemakers with part-time jobs, and 80% of men are breadwinners with frontline jobs. Full realisation includes relationships and family. Men want to protect and provide for their women: Men achieve full realisation as breadwinners. Women want to give their men and children good homes: Women achieve full realisation as homemakers. The Feminist idea of gender parity, the same number of men and women in every occupation, could only be achieved by eliminating homes and children, by frustrating the life-object of the vast majority of men and women.
If you think half our firefighters should be women, you are peculiar. And if not half, Why any? Why should any women be firefighters? Even if a woman is as good as a man for example, it still has to be considered whether a mixed team is as good as a men's team; supported perhaps by women's auxiliaries.
You only have a right to what is necessary for your healthy growth and realisation. Men need jobs so they can maintain their wives and families in proper style; but it isn't important to a woman's self-image that she maintain her husband.
I cannot forget the British Empire used sexually-unfinished women to antagonise the natives and deny their manhood. And the corporations similarly exploit the Feminists to reduce our young men to irrelevance: allowed the symbols of manhood~the hair, tattoos and beautified bodies~but denied the reality.
WOMEN IN THE OLYMPIC GAMES
The solution comes first preferably. Women and men should have the same number of events in the Olympic Games~~say 100 events each~~but not the same events. That's my preferred solution. So what's the problem?
Why do we have women in the Olympic Games? If white guys can't compete with black guys over 100 metres~~Tough! We don't have separate events for white guys. We don't have separate events for children or seniors. Paraplegics get their own Olympics. Why do we run separate events for women in the Olympic Games?
The answer is: Because the Olympic Games would be boring without them. Women athletes are pretty! After watching Carl Lewis for 10 seconds, it is a relief to see Aussie girls playing beach volleyball in those skimpy outfits. It is sexism! Pure, life-affirming sexism! And I would argue very properly, the Olympic Games are a celebration: The strength of the male~~And the grace of the female.
Now we can see the issue in perspective.
A: The Olympics could be gender-blind, as with race. Which would involve the wholesale elimination of women from the games. Scarcely 1 in 1000 qualifiers would be a woman.
B: Separate Olympics for women, as with the paraplegic games.
C: Copycat events for women and men. The present policy.
D: Substantially different events for men and women in a ratio of 60:40 say. The old policy. Synchronised swimming and half-marathons for women. A minor role for women.
E: Substantially different events for men and women, but the same number of events each: say 100. The politically correct solution, somewhat dishonest. My preferred solution.
F(combining D and E): A fixed number of events for men and women, but with fewer events for women: say 100 for men and 75 for women. A minor role for women again with substantially different events. The honest but politically incorrect solution.
Women cannot compete with men as equals, so women's athletics need a different rationale. Only from the spectator's viewpoint might women's athletics be as important as men's. Nobody actually enjoys watching a grunting Bulgarian weightlifter, but women gymnasts are pretty as hell. People don't feel threatened by women athletes the way they do by men. From the participant's viewpoint, athletics are more important for men than for women, as representing the male physical ideal. Male athletes are gloriously supersexed men; whereas female athletes tend to be desexed, certainly in the grunt events, perhaps less so in the graceful events. The female physical ideal is not an athlete but someone more like a pregnant Marilyn Monroe.
If men and women had a limited number of events, say 100 events each, they would then have to decide which are the more important. Which events cast men and women in the most flattering light? The marathon and weightlifting for men, but gymnastics and synchronised swimming for women. We would not likely have weightlifting for women, or synchronised swimming for men. There are too many Olympic events, and many are ridiculous. It is absurd to speculate whether boxing is as important for women as for men; so we avoid the question. Boxing would likely reach the top 100 list for men but not for women. And ultimately with any luck, the Olympics would be a celebration of the strength of the male, and the grace of the female. Which may indeed be equal.
It is a bit of a stretch to say that athletics are as important for women as for men. But if I can manage it, you can.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Apologies to Germany
This is hardly the time or place, and I am hardly the right person, and it is long overdue, but for what it is worth I should like to express my doubts about the morality of Britain's role in the outbreak of the First World War. Bethmann-Holweg, the German chancellor in 1914, acknowledged that Germany had wronged Belgium in attacking her. No matter how necessary it was for Germany to strike at France through Belgium~and necessity knows no law~Belgium did nothing to warrant the attack. And Germany owed Belgium.
And something similar would be true of Britain's declaration of war on Germany. Britain was under no obligation to go to war in defence of Belgium: the ostensible reason for hostilities. Had France struck at Germany through Belgium, it is inconceivable that Britain would automatically have declared war on France. It was simply necessary in the scheme of things. Britain was the world #1 topdog in 1914, at the top of the greasy pole; which position we would do anything to defend. And a German triumph threatened that supremacy. War was inevitable. But Germany didn't attack England.
Lloyd-George remarked at the Paris peace conference in 1919, faced with Germany's objections to the allied peace terms: 'I could not accept the German point of view without giving away our whole case for entering into the war.' Well, Britain had no case for entering into the war. It was just necessary, like the German attack on Belgium. (I know all about these things having just read 'Paris 1919' by Margaret Macmillan. A good read.)
The case for German responsibility for WWl rests largely on the fact that, when the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated and Serbia was implicated and Austria had to respond, Germany offered her unqualified support: which was criminally insanely irresponsible. The famous blank cheque. It encouraged Austria to make demands which Serbia could not accept, leading Austria to attack Serbia, and so forth.
Well, by the same token, Britain was telling France for years before 1914 we would not allow her to be defeated in a war with Germany. Specifically France could move her fleet into the Mediterranean leaving her Atlantic coast to be defended by the Royal Navy. Britain would never allow German forces into the English Channel: It would obliterate our entire position of world naval domination.
What's the difference? Britain gave France the same blank cheque: an offer of unqualified support. So France could assure Russia not just of French support in the event of war but that of the British Empire; encouraging Russia to attack Germany in defence of Serbia. And so forth.
(There was an embarrassing moment in August 1914, after hostilities broke out between France and Germany, when France found her Channel coast and shipping undefended. Why didn't Britain declare war as promised? We writhed, until the the Germans obligingly invaded Belgium giving us the perfect pretext for war. It has occurred to me actually that Britain knew of the Schlieffen plan, for Germany to attack through Belgium. We only had to wait. That's the simple explanation.)
The final phase of the British Empire after 1870 was absurd, when we got Cyprus and the Suez canal, and control of the Red Sea and Arabia, and the lion's share of Africa. America was blocked by British bases in Canada and the West Indies. Russia was trapped in the Baltic and the Black Sea. France we could fuck any time by allying with Germany. And Britain cleaned up. Our only rival was Germany. But the British Empire had to go: It was utterly unsustainable. The only solution was to ally with Germany, but then Britain would be the junior partner, like Austria in her alliance with Germany. Which was unthinkable.
Meanwhile the Americans were sitting pretty. The world wars saw the British Empire stripped of its assets and world financial power transfered from London to New York. The current financial collapse may mark the end of 250 years of Anglo-Jewish world economic domination; since the Seven Years War. (The British Empire was always at heart an Anglo-Jewish corporate imperium.) We are living history.
To get back to the main thrust of this blog: I have been saying since the 1970's that working couples increased the price of housing. Feminism was good for property values. The wealth of the West, and much of the rest of the world, drained into house prices. Canada has been living on credit since Trudeau, and the US since Reagan, and all that money drained into residential real estate. And the balloon is now deflating audibly.
We must anticipate a colossal decline in jobs as a result of this financial implosion. It may be a good time now to rationalise the labourforce, with men as breadwinners with frontline jobs, and women as homemakers with part-time jobs. The time may be ripe for a homemaker allowance and a sexually-organised workforce instead of the gender-denying Feminist rigmarole. Read on!
P.S. I now know who the Ruthenians were. They were the Catholic Ukrainians. I bet you didn't know that! That's been bothering me for forty years.
And something similar would be true of Britain's declaration of war on Germany. Britain was under no obligation to go to war in defence of Belgium: the ostensible reason for hostilities. Had France struck at Germany through Belgium, it is inconceivable that Britain would automatically have declared war on France. It was simply necessary in the scheme of things. Britain was the world #1 topdog in 1914, at the top of the greasy pole; which position we would do anything to defend. And a German triumph threatened that supremacy. War was inevitable. But Germany didn't attack England.
Lloyd-George remarked at the Paris peace conference in 1919, faced with Germany's objections to the allied peace terms: 'I could not accept the German point of view without giving away our whole case for entering into the war.' Well, Britain had no case for entering into the war. It was just necessary, like the German attack on Belgium. (I know all about these things having just read 'Paris 1919' by Margaret Macmillan. A good read.)
The case for German responsibility for WWl rests largely on the fact that, when the heir to the Austrian throne was assassinated and Serbia was implicated and Austria had to respond, Germany offered her unqualified support: which was criminally insanely irresponsible. The famous blank cheque. It encouraged Austria to make demands which Serbia could not accept, leading Austria to attack Serbia, and so forth.
Well, by the same token, Britain was telling France for years before 1914 we would not allow her to be defeated in a war with Germany. Specifically France could move her fleet into the Mediterranean leaving her Atlantic coast to be defended by the Royal Navy. Britain would never allow German forces into the English Channel: It would obliterate our entire position of world naval domination.
What's the difference? Britain gave France the same blank cheque: an offer of unqualified support. So France could assure Russia not just of French support in the event of war but that of the British Empire; encouraging Russia to attack Germany in defence of Serbia. And so forth.
(There was an embarrassing moment in August 1914, after hostilities broke out between France and Germany, when France found her Channel coast and shipping undefended. Why didn't Britain declare war as promised? We writhed, until the the Germans obligingly invaded Belgium giving us the perfect pretext for war. It has occurred to me actually that Britain knew of the Schlieffen plan, for Germany to attack through Belgium. We only had to wait. That's the simple explanation.)
The final phase of the British Empire after 1870 was absurd, when we got Cyprus and the Suez canal, and control of the Red Sea and Arabia, and the lion's share of Africa. America was blocked by British bases in Canada and the West Indies. Russia was trapped in the Baltic and the Black Sea. France we could fuck any time by allying with Germany. And Britain cleaned up. Our only rival was Germany. But the British Empire had to go: It was utterly unsustainable. The only solution was to ally with Germany, but then Britain would be the junior partner, like Austria in her alliance with Germany. Which was unthinkable.
Meanwhile the Americans were sitting pretty. The world wars saw the British Empire stripped of its assets and world financial power transfered from London to New York. The current financial collapse may mark the end of 250 years of Anglo-Jewish world economic domination; since the Seven Years War. (The British Empire was always at heart an Anglo-Jewish corporate imperium.) We are living history.
To get back to the main thrust of this blog: I have been saying since the 1970's that working couples increased the price of housing. Feminism was good for property values. The wealth of the West, and much of the rest of the world, drained into house prices. Canada has been living on credit since Trudeau, and the US since Reagan, and all that money drained into residential real estate. And the balloon is now deflating audibly.
We must anticipate a colossal decline in jobs as a result of this financial implosion. It may be a good time now to rationalise the labourforce, with men as breadwinners with frontline jobs, and women as homemakers with part-time jobs. The time may be ripe for a homemaker allowance and a sexually-organised workforce instead of the gender-denying Feminist rigmarole. Read on!
P.S. I now know who the Ruthenians were. They were the Catholic Ukrainians. I bet you didn't know that! That's been bothering me for forty years.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
The Abortion Impasse (revised Sept 2010)
If an issue cannot be resolved, it must be cleaned up. As with the Chernobyl nuclear accident: It will be a radioactive mess for eternity, so it just gets contained in a lead and concrete shield. Similarly with abortion: The issue cannot be resolved, so it can only be contained. Abortion is generally tolerable when the mother's life is threatened; but who is to say when the mother's life is threatened? Who are the most qualified people? And the answer is obvious: Women who have experienced childbirth and raised children, but who have also had an abortion. So we organise them to contain the issue. Cont...)
The most hideous nightmare human beings can experience is for parents to watch their daughter growing up and spreading her wings. Then one evening the daughter doesn't come home. The parents phone around and get told conflicting stories. Next morning she still doesn't appear. Their enquiries lead nowhere. The following evening she still doesn't come home.
Having a daughter go missing must be worse than being told she is dead. And the only person who can be of assistance isn't some goof like me saying, Cheer up old thing! but another parent who has been in the same position. So we organise these people with special experiences into support groups, and use them to contain the situation. When your child goes missing, you have a contact to phone. At least they know what you're feeling. It may not be much but it's better than nothing.
Similarly with abortion. There are now millions of mothers who have had children and raised families who have also had abortions. And they constitute a specially qualified group whose experience we would be foolish to waste. So we organise them into support goups or Motherhood Advisory Committees (MAC's) and use them to process the abortion business. When a woman is thinking of an abortion, she contacts a MAC, and thereafter everything is behind closed doors. The rest of us~~men, Feminists and Real Women~clear off and mind our own beeswax.
Then abortion would be processed under the right to kill in self-defence. Abortion would be against the law, except when the mother's life is threatened. And who is to say when the mother's life is threatened? The MAC's! Other women who have experienced the abortion issue from both sides.
(In Canada today I believe the police have the task of ruling whether a homicide is in self-defence. Once the police/crown counsel's office charge you with murder, it is difficult to plead self-defence: You must accept you did the killing. But I digress. I don't think it farfetched to allow that kind of discretion to an administrative body.)
Everything about abortion looks and sounds hideous. At least this way we can get the issue out of the public face. Abortion would be against the law except in self-defence: not just when the mother's life is threatened but her basic functioning. If a woman has ten children and would snap it she had another; or if it would drive her insane to bring to term a child conceived in a case of rape or incest: It's a trade-off: There is no benefit to society. But we don't legislate these exceptions: We leave them to the good sense of toofer women. If they can't handle the issue, Who can?
Abortion is close to absolute evil; but there are circumstances when it is right. And when evil is right, we are intellectually and morally paralysed. There is no absolute theoretical or legal solution to the abortion conundrum. We have to be satisfied with an administrative partial solution: Which can be morally satisfying in its own way.
The most hideous nightmare human beings can experience is for parents to watch their daughter growing up and spreading her wings. Then one evening the daughter doesn't come home. The parents phone around and get told conflicting stories. Next morning she still doesn't appear. Their enquiries lead nowhere. The following evening she still doesn't come home.
Having a daughter go missing must be worse than being told she is dead. And the only person who can be of assistance isn't some goof like me saying, Cheer up old thing! but another parent who has been in the same position. So we organise these people with special experiences into support groups, and use them to contain the situation. When your child goes missing, you have a contact to phone. At least they know what you're feeling. It may not be much but it's better than nothing.
Similarly with abortion. There are now millions of mothers who have had children and raised families who have also had abortions. And they constitute a specially qualified group whose experience we would be foolish to waste. So we organise them into support goups or Motherhood Advisory Committees (MAC's) and use them to process the abortion business. When a woman is thinking of an abortion, she contacts a MAC, and thereafter everything is behind closed doors. The rest of us~~men, Feminists and Real Women~clear off and mind our own beeswax.
Then abortion would be processed under the right to kill in self-defence. Abortion would be against the law, except when the mother's life is threatened. And who is to say when the mother's life is threatened? The MAC's! Other women who have experienced the abortion issue from both sides.
(In Canada today I believe the police have the task of ruling whether a homicide is in self-defence. Once the police/crown counsel's office charge you with murder, it is difficult to plead self-defence: You must accept you did the killing. But I digress. I don't think it farfetched to allow that kind of discretion to an administrative body.)
Everything about abortion looks and sounds hideous. At least this way we can get the issue out of the public face. Abortion would be against the law except in self-defence: not just when the mother's life is threatened but her basic functioning. If a woman has ten children and would snap it she had another; or if it would drive her insane to bring to term a child conceived in a case of rape or incest: It's a trade-off: There is no benefit to society. But we don't legislate these exceptions: We leave them to the good sense of toofer women. If they can't handle the issue, Who can?
Abortion is close to absolute evil; but there are circumstances when it is right. And when evil is right, we are intellectually and morally paralysed. There is no absolute theoretical or legal solution to the abortion conundrum. We have to be satisfied with an administrative partial solution: Which can be morally satisfying in its own way.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Sucker! You Bought It! Sucker!
What have we done with 'women's equality'? We have gone from a system where one man's income was sufficient to raise a family, to a system where a husband's and wife's joint incomes are needed to raise the family. The standard of living has been cut in half since the Sixties. More than half actually, because we no longer have the nice homes and services and safe parks and playgrounds that depended on at-home mums.
Far worse in my opinion, young people are no longer being fast-tracked to maturity, but kept in dependancy: distracted with glitzy fabrications: all the while the corporate media giving us this rigmarole about 'wimminz eekwollitee wimminz eekwollitee'. Always the symbol: Never a word about the reality of working couples.
We have been sweet-talked out of our birthright. We had a champion 2400 square foot studio apartment. And some real estate sharpie talked us into trading it for a one bedroom apartment. So much nicer! Anyone would rather have a one-bedroom apartment. Studios are so confining. One bedroom apartments are much nicer: They offer superior life-styles. And we sold up, and bought the one bedroom. And it's a dump. It's 400 square feet. The living room is smaller than our old bathroom. The so-called 'bedroom' is a windowless cupboard smaller than the old can. (Remember when the can was separate from the bathroom?) And we bought it. Sucker! You bought it!
The entire 'women's equality' argument was couched in those terms. Do we believe in women's equality or do we think women are inferior? There was no mention of family: just the symbol. We were sold women's equality, but we bought working couples.
Go back to the Sixties. The unions were coming on strong, drawing much of their power from the idea that men as breadwinners were entitled to good jobs. The corporations determined to exploit women to break the men. Working couples were good for the economy. Two-income households increased the price of housing. Govt workers could double up. Pensioners could double-dip. Feminising the workforce required more management. Working couples are a social disaster. Feminism suited all the great anti-social interests: management, property values, govt workers, pensioners, minorities. Media social control consists in focussing on symbols to the exclusion of reality. And anyone who objects gets steamrollered.
A PRIMER IN POST-SEXUAL PSYCHO-BABBLE
Male is sexual life. Male is good. Male is sanity.
Neuter is castration. Neuter is evil. Neuter is insanity.
Female is a balancing act between male and neuter (in the words of Simone de Beauvoir). Everything female tends to neuter; the female being held in balance by the male.
The whole force of life is towards completion: Growing up. As opposed by an opposite force to grow back down. Which Freud called the castration complex. You start as an infant aware only of your own needs: Everything outside of you is a blur. As you mature, you become aware of the reality of the outside world and want to join in. As opposed by a tendency to hold back and think the pre-formed self is perfect.
Growing up is like putting a satellite into orbit against the gravitational pull of selfishness. The male tends to overshoot and go wild. The female tends to plop back to Number One. Men and women are kept in orbit by their influence on each other; which stops men from going wild and women from regressing into neuters.
Men are kept sane by asserting their requirements over the female. Women are kept sane by going along with men. Men stay sane by dominating women. Women stay sane by submitting to men. (Very crudely speaking.) Intelligence is always male over female. Form over function. Men experience intelligence when leading the female. Women experience intelligence when accepting male leadership. Men assert intelligence; women submit to intelligence. Assertive men are intelligent. Assertive women are stupid. Complaissant women are intelligent. Complaissant men are stupid.
As I keep remarking: All-out effort~athletics, education, frontline employment~is good for men but bad for women. It has a masculinising effect, turning a boy into a man, but a girl into a female eunuch.
Sauce for the goose can be poison for the gander.
Far worse in my opinion, young people are no longer being fast-tracked to maturity, but kept in dependancy: distracted with glitzy fabrications: all the while the corporate media giving us this rigmarole about 'wimminz eekwollitee wimminz eekwollitee'. Always the symbol: Never a word about the reality of working couples.
We have been sweet-talked out of our birthright. We had a champion 2400 square foot studio apartment. And some real estate sharpie talked us into trading it for a one bedroom apartment. So much nicer! Anyone would rather have a one-bedroom apartment. Studios are so confining. One bedroom apartments are much nicer: They offer superior life-styles. And we sold up, and bought the one bedroom. And it's a dump. It's 400 square feet. The living room is smaller than our old bathroom. The so-called 'bedroom' is a windowless cupboard smaller than the old can. (Remember when the can was separate from the bathroom?) And we bought it. Sucker! You bought it!
The entire 'women's equality' argument was couched in those terms. Do we believe in women's equality or do we think women are inferior? There was no mention of family: just the symbol. We were sold women's equality, but we bought working couples.
Go back to the Sixties. The unions were coming on strong, drawing much of their power from the idea that men as breadwinners were entitled to good jobs. The corporations determined to exploit women to break the men. Working couples were good for the economy. Two-income households increased the price of housing. Govt workers could double up. Pensioners could double-dip. Feminising the workforce required more management. Working couples are a social disaster. Feminism suited all the great anti-social interests: management, property values, govt workers, pensioners, minorities. Media social control consists in focussing on symbols to the exclusion of reality. And anyone who objects gets steamrollered.
A PRIMER IN POST-SEXUAL PSYCHO-BABBLE
Male is sexual life. Male is good. Male is sanity.
Neuter is castration. Neuter is evil. Neuter is insanity.
Female is a balancing act between male and neuter (in the words of Simone de Beauvoir). Everything female tends to neuter; the female being held in balance by the male.
The whole force of life is towards completion: Growing up. As opposed by an opposite force to grow back down. Which Freud called the castration complex. You start as an infant aware only of your own needs: Everything outside of you is a blur. As you mature, you become aware of the reality of the outside world and want to join in. As opposed by a tendency to hold back and think the pre-formed self is perfect.
Growing up is like putting a satellite into orbit against the gravitational pull of selfishness. The male tends to overshoot and go wild. The female tends to plop back to Number One. Men and women are kept in orbit by their influence on each other; which stops men from going wild and women from regressing into neuters.
Men are kept sane by asserting their requirements over the female. Women are kept sane by going along with men. Men stay sane by dominating women. Women stay sane by submitting to men. (Very crudely speaking.) Intelligence is always male over female. Form over function. Men experience intelligence when leading the female. Women experience intelligence when accepting male leadership. Men assert intelligence; women submit to intelligence. Assertive men are intelligent. Assertive women are stupid. Complaissant women are intelligent. Complaissant men are stupid.
As I keep remarking: All-out effort~athletics, education, frontline employment~is good for men but bad for women. It has a masculinising effect, turning a boy into a man, but a girl into a female eunuch.
Sauce for the goose can be poison for the gander.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Individual and Society
Which comes first? Without being too Fascistic, the fact is Society comes first. Decent individuals are a spinoff of decent Society. A large part of the Individual's maturing process consists in adapting to Society. You can't shape Individuals under hothouse conditions, stick them together, and get a decent Society. It takes a village to raise a child. The village comes first. The child has to be raised in a decent village. If you believe in the Individual as the ultimate end, you must believe in Society as the necessary means.
And the most important fact about Society is the breadwinnner and homemaker marriage. Individualistic middle-class society is based on a farmer and his wife (breadwinner and homemaker) pulling together as partners and not against each other as rivals.
If breadwinner and homemaker families mean middle-class society, two-income families imply lower-class society. Until the Sixties, Whites in America were advantaged: We had good homes and families. Blacks were disadvantaged: Their womenfolk had to work. Well guess what! To paraphrase the Prime Minister of my youth, Harold MacMillan, who shocked England with the remark, 'We are all working class now!' We are all niggers now!
Black to White standards in the Sixties were say 3:8. They are now 4:5. Blacks have grown from 3 to 4, but Whites have dropped from 8 to 5. We are achieving 'racial equality' not by raising Blacks up to White standards, but by dumbing Whites down to Black standards. And the key issue is family. Instead of helping Blacks achieve good families, we are denying good families to the Whites.
And the answer is a homemaker allowance: recognition of the breadwinner and homemaker marriage. Then we can promote Black breadwinners ahead of White singles. And eliminate the entire class of two-income government worker households, husband and wife each with government jobs, who have emerged as an artificial elite, protected from the general collapse.
The trouble is, Unreal Women prefer the choice of thousands of pairs of expensive shoes, none of which fit or will ever be worn, to one comfortable pair of all-purpose shoes that will last a lifetime. They feel empowered by 'women's equality' as an unworkable fantasy, and restricted by the working reality of the homemaker and breadwinner marriage. What are we to do?
Thank God for the Real Women!
And the most important fact about Society is the breadwinnner and homemaker marriage. Individualistic middle-class society is based on a farmer and his wife (breadwinner and homemaker) pulling together as partners and not against each other as rivals.
If breadwinner and homemaker families mean middle-class society, two-income families imply lower-class society. Until the Sixties, Whites in America were advantaged: We had good homes and families. Blacks were disadvantaged: Their womenfolk had to work. Well guess what! To paraphrase the Prime Minister of my youth, Harold MacMillan, who shocked England with the remark, 'We are all working class now!' We are all niggers now!
Black to White standards in the Sixties were say 3:8. They are now 4:5. Blacks have grown from 3 to 4, but Whites have dropped from 8 to 5. We are achieving 'racial equality' not by raising Blacks up to White standards, but by dumbing Whites down to Black standards. And the key issue is family. Instead of helping Blacks achieve good families, we are denying good families to the Whites.
And the answer is a homemaker allowance: recognition of the breadwinner and homemaker marriage. Then we can promote Black breadwinners ahead of White singles. And eliminate the entire class of two-income government worker households, husband and wife each with government jobs, who have emerged as an artificial elite, protected from the general collapse.
The trouble is, Unreal Women prefer the choice of thousands of pairs of expensive shoes, none of which fit or will ever be worn, to one comfortable pair of all-purpose shoes that will last a lifetime. They feel empowered by 'women's equality' as an unworkable fantasy, and restricted by the working reality of the homemaker and breadwinner marriage. What are we to do?
Thank God for the Real Women!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)