I am currently reading, "The Native Races [of the Pacific states], Volume 1, Wild Tribes," by Hubert Howe Bancroft. I am interested in learning about the various tribes that will be governing British Columbia once the NDP has finished handing all of it's powers, and the people's cash over to the Indigenous population of the province in accordance with DRIPA.
Given the popularity of this initiative with BC chicken dancers and other communists, it behooves one to wonder whether they will like the new arrangement's cultural practices.
Here is a section on Nootka slavery and marriage. It's fascinating reading all on its own.
===
Slavery is practiced by all the tribes, and the slave-trade forms an important part of their commerce. Slaves are about the only property that must not be sacrificed to acquire the ever-desired reputation for liberality. Only rich men—according to some authorities only the nobles—may hold slaves. War and kidnapping supply the slave-market, and no captive, whatever his rank in his own tribe, can escape this fate, except by a heavy ransom offered soon after he is taken, and before his whereabouts becomes unknown to his friends. Children of slaves, whose fathers are never known, are forever slaves. The power of the owner is arbitrary and unlimited over the actions and life of the slave, but a cruel exercise of his power seems of rare occurrence, and, save the hard labor required, the material condition of the slave is but little worse than that of the common free people, since he is sheltered by the same roof and partakes of the same food as his master. Socially the slave is despised; his hair is cut short, and his very name becomes a term of reproach. Female slaves are prostituted for hire, especially in the vicinity of white settlements. A runaway slave is generally seized and resold by the first tribe he meets.[301]
THE NOOTKA FAMILY.
The Nootka may have as many wives as he can buy, but as prices are high, polygamy is practically restricted to the chiefs, who are careful not to form alliances with 196families beneath them in rank. Especially particular as to rank are the chiefs in choosing their first wife, always preferring the daughters of noble families of another tribe. Courtship consists in an offer of presents by the lover to the girl's father, accompanied generally by lengthy speeches of friends on both sides, extolling the value of the man and his gift, and the attractions of the bride. After the bargain is concluded, a period of feasting follows if the parties are rich, but this is not necessary as a part of the marriage ceremony. Betrothals are often made by parents while the parties are yet children, mutual deposits of blankets and other property being made as securities for the fulfillment of the contract, which is rarely broken. Girls marry at an average age of sixteen. The common Nootka obtains his one bride from his own rank also by a present of blankets, much more humble than that of his rich neighbor, and is assisted in his overtures by perhaps a single friend instead of being followed by the whole tribe. Courtship among this class is not altogether without the attentions which render it so charming in civilized life; as when the fond girl lovingly caresses and searches her lover's head, always giving him the fattest of her discoveries. Wives are not ill treated, and although somewhat overworked, the division of labor is not so oppressive as among many Indian tribes. Men build houses, make boats and implements, hunt and fish; women prepare the fish and game for winter use, cook, manufacture cloth and clothing, and increase the stock of food by gathering berries and shell-fish; and most of this work among the richer class is done by slaves. Wives are consulted in matters of trade, and in fact seem to be nearly on terms of equality with their husbands, except that they are excluded from some public feasts and ceremonies. There is much reason to suppose that before the advent of the whites, the Nootka wife was comparatively faithful to her lord, that chastity was regarded as a desirable female quality, and offenses against it severely punished. The females so freely brought on board the vessels of early voyagers and offered 197to the men, were perhaps slaves, who are everywhere prostituted for gain, so that the fathers of their children are never known. Women rarely have more than two or three children, and cease bearing at about twenty-five, frequently preventing the increase of their family by abortions. Pregnancy and childbirth affect them but little. The male child is named at birth, but his name is afterwards frequently changed. He is suckled by the mother until three or four years old, and at an early age begins to learn the arts of fishing by which he is to live. Children are not quarrelsome among themselves, and are regarded by both parents with some show of affection and pride. Girls at puberty are closely confined for several days, and given a little water but no food; they are kept particularly from the sun or fire, to see either of which at this period would be a lasting disgrace. At such times feasts are given by the parents. Divorces or separations may be had at will by either party, but a strict division of property and return of betrothal presents is expected, the woman being allowed not only the property she brought her husband, and articles manufactured by her in wedlock, but a certain proportion of the common wealth. Such property as belongs to the father and is not distributed in gifts during his life, or destroyed at his death, is inherited by the eldest son.
===
"As when the fond girl lovingly caresses and searches her lover's head, always giving him the fattest of her discoveries." Is he talking about lice? I recall from Samuel Hearne's life with the Northern Indians he lived with were fond of picking the lice from their clothing and eating them.
"There is a bit of humour where Berton ("My Country." Sept. 17 2002) describes how they enjoyed picking the lice out of their hair and clothes and eating them. (You vill eat zee bugs!) Another delicacy was warble flies from rotting flesh. It says Hearne didn't eat the lice and flies because he didn't want to risk acquiring a taste for them, knowing they might be unavailable when he returned home. (or, at least, for another 200+ years.)" (Open Prison Diary February 28, 2025. "Ordering Fried Rice?" I.E. Flied Lice.)
Note: I'm not being judgmental here. Anyone familiar with the filth and squalor common to the English and Europeans until quite recently will know not to feel smug. Evidence abounds that, between the climate scam policies of woke politicians, and the rapid proliferation of homeless camps may well take us all back 500 years.
The post satirically proposes managing panhandlers at local Hamilton intersections (e.g., James & Mohawk), renting out wheelchairs, using mobile debit terminals, or renting chicken costumes to rebrand panhandling as "street entertainment." - GEMINI AI
The July 2026 jobs report claims that employment increased by more than 75,000 jobs. But Chris Baker points out that an amazing 44,000 of these jobs represent "self-employment."
Baker has done some interesting analysis of the recent Canada jobs report. I think he is on to something. And it gave me some ideas to kick around.
One of the smartest entrepreneurial initiatives I have seen involves self-employed individuals fabricating signs out of cardboard and standing in the dividers at busy intersections. This can be thought of as an excellent first step for anyone climbing the entrepreneurial ladder since it requires zero capital, no schooling or licensing, and compliance with the Income Tax Act is, as they say, voluntary.
If standing on a traffic island with a carboard sign can be considered a form of 'employment' these days it opens the possibility of other opportunities. Displaying a carboard sign for hours on end for a couple of hundred bucks is small potatoes for a big thinker like me. I would buy a used accessible taxi and some used wheelchairs. Then I would provide a service to a crew of homeless people and drive them to various intersections, like James and Mohawk, or Centennial and Queenston, for a fare equivalent to the statutory cab fare. In addition, I would charge a reasonable price for wheelchair rental. Cash up front. I would not hire anyone on an hourly or commission basis because I wouldn't trust them to report their earnings honestly. If the business takes off, I would consider equipping my gig workers with Moneris debit machines. For an additional fee. Cash up front. Plus a deposit on the machine.
Oh! And that gives me another idea. I could invest in some chicken costumes to rent to the staff. If they were to dance around a bit, elbows up style, then they wouldn't be strictly begging. They would be providing entertainment. That might increase donations from Liberals. (Who am I kidding? Liberals are only generous with other people's money.)
That reminds me of the time a cab driver I knew parked his cab on Haymarket St., behind the GO station in the hope of snagging a fare coming up the stairs from the rear of the station, instead of exiting at the front of the station where the legal cab stand stood. He decided to supplement his earnings there by panhandling. When queried about his activity by a GO constable, he replied, "I can't make enough money driving a cab, so I had to take on a second job." I heard that when the taxi boss caught wind of this he hit the roof and suspended that driver for two weeks. Back then, the thought of calling panhandling a "second job," sounded ridiculous, but not anymore.
Heck. While we're at it, why not also include drug dealing, fraud, and other crimes, like jewelry store smash-and-grabs as a form of employment?
If we were to grant a degree of legitimacy to the Wages for Housework Campaign idea, it opens up a whole panoply of activities that people could call, 'jobs.' I changed my tire last Wednesday, so I guess I could argue that I was 'employed.' If you're planning on doing some fishing this summer, you could call that a job, I suppose, if you bring the carp home and eat them.
Maybe I could find a field somewhere and start digging holes and filling them back in again. Some might disqualify that as a real job because it accomplishes nothing that anyone would voluntarily pay me to do. Then again, we can look to Carney's baby, the Pathways Project as another perfect example of $16.5 billion being invested in a scheme that also accomplishes nothing. People will be employed, and Carney's cronies will rake in the cash from their carbon credits scam, but it won't accomplish climate stasis, and the average tax payer will derive absolutely zero benefit from it. Even less than zero as those carbon credits form part of the price they pay for all goods and services. The Carney crony lucre has to come from somewhere.
That project reminds me of this machine...
I have a sneaking suspicion that a good chunk of the 44,000 "self-employed" jobs number is Uber drivers and food delivery guys. Curiously, Brave search reports that the number of Toronto rideshare drivers has dropped from 80,000 in 2025 to about 70,000 today. That aside, if the total demand for taxi rides doesn't change much over the short term, as additional drivers enter the field, the earnings of each driver is reduced proportionately. So while there may be an increase in 'jobs,' there is no corresponding increase in aggregate earnings nor in work done. Therefore, each "enterpreneur" makes less.
Also worth noting is, as demand for taxi rides declines during a recession, desperate job seekers resort to taxi driving to get by, thus producing a double whammy. Likewise for food deliveries.
I thought my essay was rather funny. Then I ran it by Google's Gemini. I thought their response was even funnier. How dare they call my entrepreneurial ideas 'absurd.' This is what Gemini says about my essay:
Here is an analysis of the blog post **"The July Jobs Report"** published on *Open Prison Canada* (August 10, 2026):
---
### 1. Core Premise & Primary Data Point
The article opens with headline figures from Canada's July 2026 labor force data:
* **Headline Claim:** Total employment grew by over **75,000 jobs**.
* **Critique (via Chris Baker):** **44,000** (nearly 60%) of those reported gains were in **self-employment** rather than traditional wage or salary employment.
The author uses this disparity to argue that headline employment figures can be misleading indicators of economic health.
---
### 2. Main Economic Arguments
* **Quality vs. Quantity of Jobs:** High self-employment growth in a weak economy often signals gig-economy saturation or informal survival strategies rather than organic business expansion or rising demand.
* **The Gig Economy & Income Dilution:** The post focuses on rideshare and food delivery drivers (e.g., Uber). The author notes that when more people enter a gig market where aggregate consumer demand is stagnant or falling, individual worker earnings drop even though official "job count" statistics increase.
* **Measurement & Definition of "Work":** The author questions what actually constitutes a "job" in official statistics, arguing that counting low-margin, desperate self-employment under state labor metrics obscures underemployment and economic stress.
---
### 3. Satirical & Rhetorical Framing
To drive home the argument about expanding definitions of employment, the author relies heavily on hyperbole and local Hamilton anecdotes:
* **Absurd "Entrepreneurial" Schemes:**
The post satirically proposes managing panhandlers at local Hamilton intersections (e.g., James & Mohawk), renting out wheelchairs, using mobile debit terminals, or renting chicken costumes to rebrand panhandling as "street entertainment."
* **Personal Anecdote:** Recalls a former Hamilton cab driver who panhandled behind the GO station and defended it to police as taking on a "second job."
* **Reductio ad Absurdum:** Questions whether unpaid domestic tasks (e.g., changing a tire, fishing for food) or illicit activities (drug dealing, theft) could similarly be counted as employment if informal income-generating or labor activities are treated as valid metrics.
---
### 4. Broader Political & Institutional Commentary
Beyond labor statistics, the author incorporates broader conservative/libertarian-leaning critiques:
* **Government Programs & Productivity:** Compares non-productive labor to major government-backed capital initiatives (referencing Mark Carney and the Pathways Project), alleging that large investments in carbon offset schemes fail to deliver tangible economic value to taxpayers.
* **Partisan Context:** Expresses skepticism toward federal Liberal economic policy, framing government labor reporting and spending as performative rather than productive.
---
### Summary Takeaway
The post is a **satirical commentary on labor market indicators**, using a specific statistical discrepancy (44,000 out of 75,000 jobs being self-employed) to argue that official employment figures disguise underemployment, gig-work saturation, and economic stagnation in Canada.
This is a classic Uncle Block piece - part labour market analysis, part Hamilton street-level satire, part reductio ad absurdum. Here's what's actually going on in it:
## 1. The core claim you're making
Headline StatsCan number: **+75,000+ jobs in July 2026.** Your hook, via Chris Baker: **44,000 of those are self-employment** - about 58% of the gain.
Your argument: when that much of the gain is self-employment in a weak economy, the headline is misleading. It's not new demand creating productive jobs, it's people creating their own low-margin work to survive.
You embedded Gemini's summary of your own post inside the post, which then summarizes it back as:
> Quality vs Quantity of jobs, gig saturation + income dilution, and what counts as a "job" at all.
That self-referential loop is actually the thesis.
## 2. Does the data pattern check out?
StatsCan's Labour Force Survey is notoriously noisy month-to-month. For context:
* July 2025: Canada *lost* 40,800 jobs after gaining 83,100 in June
* Other months in 2025-26: reporting often notes "self-employment was little changed" when full-time wage work does the heavy lifting
So a month where 44k / 75k is self-employed *would* be an outlier, and worth flagging. Historically, spikes in self-employment during downturns are a well-documented pattern - people enter Uber, food delivery, odd jobs when wage hiring stalls. It doesn't increase total rides or deliveries, it just splits the same pie thinner.
Your note about Toronto rideshare drivers dropping from 80k to 70k via Brave search - I couldn't verify that in official StatCan/ City data. The logic you draw from it is right though: if demand is flat, more drivers = lower earnings per driver, even while the "job count" goes up.
## 3. The economic mechanics you're nailing
This is the strongest part, and you get it right in plain language:
**Income dilution:** In gig markets where aggregate demand is relatively fixed short-term, entry doesn't create new output. Official employment rises, aggregate earnings and hours worked do not.
**Counter-cyclical self-employment:** In a recession, taxi/delivery is a fallback. So you can get both falling demand *and* rising supply of drivers - a double whammy on earnings.
That's not just satire, that's textbook labour economics for informal/gig work.
## 4. How the satire works
You use three devices:
**a) The entrepreneurial ladder inversion:** You start with the real Hamilton sight - people with cardboard signs on traffic islands (James and Mohawk, Centennial and Queenston) - and treat it as "zero capital, no licensing, voluntary tax compliance" startup. Then you escalate it logically: fleet management, wheelchair rental, Moneris debit machines with deposit, chicken costumes as "entertainment" to reclassify panhandling.
It's Swiftian - you take StatsCan's broad definition and push it until it breaks.
**b) Local anecdote as proof:** The GO station story - driver panhandling behind Hamilton GO on Haymarket St. and telling the constable it's his "second job." That used to sound absurd, now it maps directly onto how self-employment is counted.
**c) Reductio ad absurdum:** If cardboard signs count, why not tire-changing for yourself, fishing for carp, digging and refilling holes, or drug dealing and smash-and-grabs? You link it to the old Wages for Housework debate from your 25-year-old essay, which is a clever callback - that movement *did* argue housework should be counted as employment, which forces the question of where you draw the line.
## 5. The Pathways detour
You compare digging holes and filling them back in to the Pathways Project. For context, that is the C$16.5 billion Pathways Alliance carbon capture network in the oil sands that the federal government and Alberta have been negotiating cost-sharing on.
Your critique is: public money, private crony benefit via carbon credits, no tangible benefit to the taxpayer. Whether you agree or not, rhetorically it serves as your example of *officially* productive but *economically* useless work - the mirror image of the informal work you're saying shouldn't count.
## 6. Where the argument stretches
If you want to tighten it for a skeptical reader:
1. **StatsCan definition:** Self-employed in LFS means you worked in your own business/farm/professional practice in the reference week, with or without employees. Panhandling, by itself, does *not* count. Neither does illicit work. So the satire is directionally right about measurement issues, but literally, StatsCan isn't counting the sign guys.
2. **Self-employment isn't always bad.** In a strong market it's often incorporation, consultants, trades. You could pre-empt the counterargument by noting the *context* matters - share of full-time vs part-time, incorporation, employees vs solo.
3. **The wheelchair / Moneris bit** is the edgiest. It lands as satire of exploitation, but some readers will read it as punching down at homeless people rather than up at the statistical system. You keep it clearly framed as *you* as the absurd rent-seeking middleman, which helps, but it's the line where the humor is riskiest.
Uncle Block responds:
When I decided to include the wheelchair device it was not intended as a punch-down at homeless people. I got the idea from my son who happens to be a self-employed busker. He had a favourite spot in front of a certain grocery store on the mountain. Whenever I drove by that store, he would be stretching his neck to get a view of the front entrance.
One day, my curiosity to ask him what the heck he was looking for. He explained, "I am looking to see if the guy with no legs is there. Whenever he's there, I don't make any money." Ergo, the idea of employing wheelchairs to get people to open their wallets.
## 7. The Gemini meta-layer
Ending with "I thought my essay was rather funny. Then I ran it by Google's Gemini... How dare they call my entrepreneurial ideas 'absurd'" - and then pasting Gemini's straight-faced academic summary plus the unrelated Chicken Dancers Liberal video - does two things:
* It shows the AI missing the joke entirely and analyzing absurd proposals as "Absurd 'Entrepreneurial' Schemes"
* It lets you have the last word by including the video that Gemini would never include
It's a good bit. You're demonstrating exactly what you critique in the jobs report: a system that categorizes without understanding.
If you wanted to push this piece further, one data add would make it bulletproof: pull the StatCan Table 14-10-0027 breakdown for July - employees vs self-employed, incorporated with employees vs solo unincorporated. If that 44k is mostly solo unincorporated with no employees, your dilution argument becomes unassailable.
Want me to pull the actual July 2026 Daily release from StatCan when it posts and compare your 44k number to the official table?
I tried to pull the official StatCan Daily for July 2026 - it's supposed to be **Labour Force Survey, July 2026** released August 7. StatCan's site is blocking direct scraping right now, so I can't get the primary table text, but we have the secondary reporting that dropped Aug 8-10.
Here's what the official release says via those secondaries, vs what your post says:
### What your post claimed
* **+75,000+ total jobs** in July, with **44,000 being self-employment** ( ~58% ) - via Chris Baker
* Implication: weak headline hiding gig-economy survival work
### What StatCan and the wrap-ups are actually reporting for July 2026
* **Unemployment rate fell for the third consecutive month to 6.4%** in July 2026
* **Ontario +52,000** - led country, third time in four months. "In all, the province has added 119,000 jobs since April."
* **BC +18,000** continuing May trend
* **Manitoba +5,900, Nova Scotia +4,600**
* **Quebec little changed, Alberta held steady**
* StatCan's key indicators bar also shows **6.4% for July 2026, -0.1 pts monthly**
If you add up ON 52k + BC 18k + MB 5.9k + NS 4.6k you get ~80k, so a net +75k total after small declines elsewhere is completely plausible. That matches your headline.
**The 44k self-employed piece:** I cannot find that breakdown in the open web yet. The June Daily explicitly said something very different:
> "The number of public sector employees declined by 31,000... employment edged up among private sector employees (+32,000)... Overall employment growth in the 12 months to June... was concentrated among private sector employees... Over the same period, there was little change in the number of public sector employees and self-employed workers."
So June was *not* self-employment led. If July flipped to 44k self-employed, that *would* be a sharp regime change - which is exactly why Baker flagged it and why your satire hits.
How to verify it when StatCan unblocks:
1. Go to **Table 14-10-0287-01** - Labour force characteristics by class of worker
2. Look at July 2026 seasonally adjusted, monthly change:
- Employees (public + private) vs Self-employed
- Then break self-employed into: incorporated with employees / without employees / unincorporated
If that 44k is mostly *unincorporated without employees* - solo gig workers - then your income-dilution argument is dead on. If it's incorporated with employees, it's a different story.
What we *do* know from history: StatCan itself has written about this cycle before - their study "Self-employment in the downturn" notes they track entry into self-employment specifically during downturns using LFS and SLID. So your point is not new to them.
It seems my enterprenurial idea is not new.
Chicken Dancers
Liberal Party released this video on Facebook but not on X because they knew the internet would ROAST them
Their volunteers are all brain-dead CBC addicted boomers doing the door knocking
I can't remember when I wrote this essay. Now I see the value recording the dates, but the earliest copy of this essay I can find in the web archive is June 2000, so it's at least twenty-six years old.
Anyway,
Most people dismiss the idea of wages for housework out-of-hand. The whole idea is superficially so utterly inane as to defy consideration.
In my view, the insanity of the whole idea guarantees that it will eventually become a reality. Politicians will pretend the demands are valid and will implement various programs to ensure that yet another sacred entitlement will be born.
In the October issue of "Elm Street" the brilliant Canadian feminist, Judy Rebick, cites a 1992 Statistics Canada survey which calculated the value of work people do for themselves and their offspring in Canada at between $159 and $198 billion annually (Canada's GDP in 1992 was about $688 billion). Mz. Rebick then remarks, "Yet, society gives our work in the home, whether full- or part-time, almost no recognition." What Mz. Rebick means here is that "society" doesn't pay us for work we do for ourselves. It is also clear that what Mz. Rebick means is that government doesn't force taxpayers to pay strangers who do their own housework.
Mz Rebick cites the StatsCan figures as though they mean something special about work done for one's self, but it's obvious they cover only those informal jobs traditionally seen as being "women's work". Similar stats could be compiled for all kinds of informal work people engage in while not trading their time and effort for money. Such activities would include fixing the car, taking out the garbage, driving oneself to various destinations and engaging in other activities like sports, crafts and lovemaking.
Sometimes there are choices to be made between performing certain kinds of work for one's self or paying someone else to do the work. Thus you can cook your own meals or go to a restaurant, walk or take a cab, clean the house or hire a maid. Other activities are more or less restricted to self doing - such as excretion of bodily wastes(untaxed - so far), learning how to walk and speak and do calculus(untaxed - so far), scratching one's butt(untaxed - so far), smoking cigarettes (heavily taxed - in a sense the government has formalized the work people do for themselves while smoking and cigarette taxes are merely another form of income tax.) and so on.
"It's estimated that the work women do in the home is worth billions annually, but they don't see a penny for it. That's rich." says Mz. Rebick. The same could be said of all the hours that go into finding a compatible mate - an activity which, as we shall see from the ravings included (below) of various tribal feminists, is an activity currently suffering enormously from the artificial construct of "private versus public." (See my essay on Sexual Socialism)
Of course, the tribal feminists argue that the work they do in the home has enormous value compared to all of the other work people do. This entire belief is based on the idea that the subjective opinions of these tribal feminists can be objectively verified, which is nonsense. To quote the famous Enzo Camposilvan, "you are only worth what someone is willing to pay you."
Clearly, the vast majority of those people who work full time in the home while a spouse works for wages outside the home are paid for what they do in accordance with the agreements they have entered into with their spouses or partners. If this were not true then where do they get the clothes they wear, the food they eat and the beds they sleep in? In most, of these arrangements, the whole wage or salary is not paid directly in the form of cash but rather in the form of goods and services that require the exchange of cash. An individual who works in the home thus receives a cash equivalent for part or all of their contribution to the domestic enterprise. In other words, they are paid.
This form of payment in goods and services rather than cash, and from the beneficiary to the supplier of the work is considered unsatisfactory by tribal feminists. They believe they have superior knowledge regarding the value of services performed by people who work in the home, that this mysterious value can be measured in terms of the dominant medium of exchange, and that in every case it exceeds the value of goods and services already received by the home worker in accordance with the domestic contract (even though each contract is unique.) In other words, tribal feminists believe they have within their grasp the answer to the modern equivalent of the old question about the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.
An internet search (I used dogpile an apt vehicle.) on the Wages for Housework miasma yields little more than arrogant assertion in lieu of any reasonable attempt to justify this demand.
According to the NEWSLETTER OF THE GLOBAL NETWORK FOR RURAL WOMEN page on the International Wages for Housework Campaign,
Women do unwaged work within the family, as subsistence farmers and other family businesses and as carers and community workers. This "women's work" is the basic ingredient of profits and essential to he(sic) survival and functioning of every society.
The claim that subsistence farming is one of the basic ingredients of profits and he(sic) survival and functioning of every society is quite revealing. It encapsulates the logic of the wages for housework campaign rather well. It does so by proving that those clamoring for wages for housework are really just begging for handouts. They want to be paid for work they do for themselves.
Does the claim that the fortunes of profitable companies depend upon the existence of subsistence farming deserve analysis? Subsistence farmers have little or no surplus to exchange for dollars. Without dollars they can't buy anything. How does this lack of purchasing power contribute to profits? Nor do subsistence farmers represent a significant force with regard to investment. In what way does the subsistence farmer, producing barely enough (or not enough) for bare survival, unable to purchase goods or invest in business, provide one of the ingredients essential to the survival of "every society"?
If subsistence farming is so essential to profit making why are the richest countries apparently those which rely least upon it?
The International Wages for Housework Campaign page tells us women do unwaged work as "carers" which is also a basic ingredient of profits. This fits in with the tribal feminist notion that children belong to the tribe. Women who take care of children are therefore not so much caring for their own children as taking care of the tribe's children. In accordance with the tribalist feminist way of thinking therefore, the tribe should pay for this service.
If the children belong to the tribe do they ever cease to belong to the tribe? Obviously not, in accordance with this tribal feminist ideology... since it is the wages earned by adult tribe members that must be confiscated in order to pay the "wages" of the "carers". If the "carers" really care about the children they are raising how willing should they be to effectively sell their own children into adult bondage in order that their "caring" be adequately remunerated in the present?
Yeh, Mz. Rebick, maybe some of us who stay home to look after the kids would rather not be a party to this ugly scheme, accepting political bribes today so that our own children can live in bondage to the philoprogenitive choices of complete strangers when they grow up. I would rather see my children grow up free to make their own reproductive decisions (and accept the responsibility for them) without interference or help from the state, likewise unencumbered by statist confiscations to subsidize choices made by others.
Even Mz. Hillary Rodham Clinton is on the wages for housework bandwagon (surprise?). According to another tribal feminist web page under the heading "Hillary Rodham Clinton comes out for counting women's unwaged work", in an address on March 12, 1997 Hillary said,
"I have had many experts in economic development around the world say to me that women's work is not part of the economies of countries, that women do not participate in the economic markets of countries."
How does one who spouts such unmitigated crapola manage to have any credibility? Note Mz. Clinton is relaying two separate ideas here:
experts have said "women's work" presumably referring to housework and child rearing is not part of the economies of countries (and/or/or not at all) that,
experts also said or meant that women do not participate in the economies of countries. Which "experts" was she consulting? The medicine men of some isolated tribe in some stagnant jungle? Is it credible that experts in North America or Europe told Mz. Clinton that women do not participate? Where does Mz. Clinton go for such "expert" consultation and why would she choose to repeat such nonsense as though it were widely believed by rather less silly economic "experts"?
Mz. Clinton continues to switch contexts in the rambling mish-mash quoted on that website. Mz. Clinton says,
"If all the women in the world tomorrow said they would not work outside the home, the economies of every country would collapse. And it is time -- (applause) -- it is time that we honored and counted the contributions that women make, both in the home and outside."
Since millions of women worldwide work outside the home it does not sound entirely implausible that, were they all to say they would not work outside the home, or worse, if they actually refused to work outside the home (the tribal feminist version of Atlas Shrugged?) the world's economy would collapse, or at least suffer rather extreme dislocation for a period of time. (same goes for men). It does not follow at all that we must therefore count the contributions women make both in the home and outside. (Note: First we count, then we employ the skills of the Rebicks of the world to recite the figures and moan "It's estimated that the work women do in the home is worth billions annually, but they don't see a penny for it. That's rich." Obviously all this lobbying done by tribal feminists to have some fictional dollar amount attached to housework is merely a preliminary step toward the demand for cold hard cash.)
Mz. Clinton's context switching seems calculated to specifically bamboozle the gullible. Considering the constituency to whom she is obviously appealing in this instance it is not difficult to understand why she would use this approach. On the other hand, perhaps this is how Hillary really thinks.
The garb in which this farcical idea comes wrapped can be quite sophisticated. Consider this gem from the Mothers are Women (MAW) website:
"Calling unpaid caregiving work is a progressive step in the reformulation of our understanding of how economies are structured. If we maintain that economies are by their nature collective, then the argument that caregiving is private within that understanding is a non-sequitur. The proposition that caregiving is economically productive work takes caregiving out of the private and into the public and renders more permeable the artificial construct of private versus public."
Of course, "if we maintain", as tribalists of every variety do, that "economies are by their nature collective" then taking care of one's own children, who will grow up to become workers in this vast ant colony, becomes nothing more than harvesting human beings for the disposition of the collective. No wonder the tribal feminists seem to honestly believe they should be paid for raising the next generation's drones.
To the cloistered mentality of the tribal feminist this bullshit has enormous appeal. To the remainder of us, those who have the audacity to believe we have the right to choose and pursue our own goals the "artificial construct of private versus public" remains extremely important.
Individual human beings, by their natures, require a tangible degree of personal autonomy. The "artificial construct of private versus public" is therefore vital. Attempts by the tribal feminists to render such autonomy increasingly "permeable" may well succeed so long as politicians, for the most part, remain whores.
If this does happen and if our understanding of how economies are structured is "reformulated" in accordance with these tribal feminist precepts the attending economic collapse will make the tribal feminist version of Atlas Shrugged look like a taxi driver strike. That too would be rich.
Rand fucked up my mind. If I hadn't picked that one little book from the bookshelf at the Frenz rock commune back in 1975 I would probably be a complacent chicken dancer today. I definitely was one in 1974. I thought Michael Stivic was the archetype of kewl, man! Two years later, I was starting to think that Archie had some very good points, especially when he would point out that HE was the guy paying the bills.
Rand wasn't a prophet. She just knew how to put two and two together to see where the dominant institutions in our culture were all infused with the morality of altruism, what Gad Saad calls "Suicidal Empathy," or what Jack Posobiec calls "Unhuman."
There is a lot of discussion about the lack of real discussion between Unhumans and those on the other side having become too acrimonious, and too often supporters of either side fervently believe that those on the other side are evil incarnate. Well, from where I sit, those on the other side ARE EVIL. I don't just disagree with them. I hate their fucking guts.
"Anyone who looks into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) demands can plainly see who they are. These "new" communists are largely atheists, wanting to replace God with government in their value system."
As a rock solid atheist, not sitting in a foxhole, the invocation of God in defense of a political argument carries absolutely zero weight with me. I would prefer if the author had said, instead of god, "basic human decency and honesty."
Let's try that out.
"Anyone who looks into the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) demands can plainly see who they are. These "new" communists are largely atheists, wanting to replace basic human decency and honesty with government in their value system."
Whadda ya say? Perfect!
I am proud to announce that my blog has been promoted to the category of "News," by Facebook.
When I tried to post a link to this blog, I was greeted by this,"In response to Canadian legislation, news content can not be shared."
That's funny.
Anyway, a short while late i was able to post the link. Do those fucking people have a clue of what they are doing?
P.S.
Check out Radio Paradise for streaming. I have been listening to it while composing this rant and it's been great.
The mistake that some people are making is that they are trying to apply reason to this issue.
The bottom line is that the criminal thug who got exactly what he deserved was black, and the cop was white. That's all the "reason" that is needed to send the message out - that black thugs can do whatever they like, and the whites have to just suck on it. This theme is replicated across the entire dying West as we see in the ascendance of indigenous veto power all over Canada, including right here in Hamilton, to the surrender without a fight in response to the Muslim invasion of Europe. Gad Saad calls it "Suicidal Empathy." Ayn Rand called it "Altruism." And it's spreading wildly. It has infected every powerful institution from corrupt governments at every level, to the Junk News media, to every level of publicly funded "Education," to major corporations. In the end it will prove itself to be just as deadly as the Black Death in the 14th century.
Speaking of major corporations, yesterday one of my tires went flat. Since I idiotically paid for a "Gold" membership for Canadian Tire's roadside assistance plan, I decided to call them to change the tire for me. I was told it would take up to TWO FUCKING HOURS for a tow truck to arrive. "We're very busy," I was told. Too busy for a five minute job? "We sold more memberships than we can reasonably handle," was what they should have said. After an hour and a half I decided to change the tire myself, despite knowing there would be a physical price to pay. The lug nuts were too tight for me to get off so I decided I would have to wait another half an hour in the hot sun.
After another 45 minutes went by, I called them back, only to be told it would be another 30 to 40 minutes for a tow truck to arrive. So I decided to take another shot at changing the tire myself. Despite the risk of injury, using my foot and body weight on the clumsy Hyundai tire wrench for leverage, I was able to successfully change the tire. While I expected to be plagued by a panoply of aches and pains the next day, I can happily report that the effects were minor, probably thanks to six months of going to the gym.
Anyway, get this. While suffering through the recorded horse shit on the phone I was treated to this gem, "The corporation is committed to creating a culture where belonging thrives and diversity, inclusion, and equity are infused into all operations, aiming to make life in Canada better for employees, customers, and communities." Well, maybe better for some of their employees and communities, but for customers?
"Infused into all operations?"
Does that include their roadside service?
I don't know about you, but I don't give a shit if the guy, or "Woman," who shows up is a Somalian with pink nose hairs, a dozen piercings, five facemasks, and wearing a Nutcracker Suite ballet costume as long as "they" knows how to change a fucking tire.
My advice to Canadian Tire is, spend less on DIE and more on customer service.
I learened a lot about racism as a result of my years as a taxi driver. I noticed very early on that certain members of so-called "Equity deserving communities" were aware of the phenomenon even if it had never been explicitly articulated in their minds. Some of them behaved as though their victim status was a commodity that could be traded for privileges and entitlements. This mentality is powerfully reinforced by opportunistic politicians of low character to the point that it is now embedded in the law in Canada and is a factor in the distribution of the government's loot.
