The debate surrounding unpaid domestic labour, particularly in the context of women's contributions to household work and child-rearing, has taken on a new dimension in recent years. Feminist theorists, most notably in the 1970s, argued that unpaid domestic labour, largely performed by women, was an unseen, unvalued contribution to society. The argument behind this perspective is that by monetising domestic labour, we can uplift women’s social status, assign proper value to their work, and reduce gender inequality. A prominent Indian politician, Shashi Tharoor, also resonates with this view by emphasising that unpaid domestic labour should be recognised as a critical economic contribution, yet remains unacknowledged in conventional economic metrics like the GDP. What makes this stance surprising is that it comes from a figure of his stature—a former Under-Secretary-General at the UN and a respected author on Indian history, culture, and politics—who enjoys bipartisan popularity for his eloquence, even while belonging to a party not currently in power. However, his focus on this issue, framed through an economic lens while omitting the economic implications of putting such an idea into practice, raises questions about his recognition as a “Global Leader of Tomorrow” by the World Economic Forum. It also suggests that his agenda may be more politically motivated than economically grounded. Economic Definition of Work and Labour The economic definition of work and labour traditionally revolves around activities that generate income in exchange for goods and services. This definition often excludes unpaid domestic labour, even though it involves tasks crucial for the functioning of households and society. Raising children, maintaining the home, and caregiving are classified as "non-economic" activities because they are not exchanged for money. Advocates for rebranding domestic work as economic activity call this very definition into question. The True Nature of Unpaid Domestic Labour At the heart of this debate is an underlying assumption that unpaid labour exists purely as a result of patriarchal systems. However, this ignores the fact that children are dependent on their parents until they reach adulthood, and laws such as child labour restrictions prevent minors from earning wages until they can legally work. Domestic labour, especially that involving childcare, is unpaid because parents are expected to provide for their children as part of this dependency dynamic. Unpaid labour persists partly due to societal acceptance of child labour laws. For instance, a mother may invest 18 years of unpaid work raising her child, often sacrificing her own career ambitions. To pursue those aspirations, she can either (a) wait until her child is grown, (b) balance her career with parenting, or (c) defy child labour laws by expecting her child to be self-sufficient before reaching adulthood, thereby reducing the number of years she engages in unpaid domestic labour. The Issue of Quantifying Domestic Labour While the intention behind turning domestic work into paid labour is to value women’s contributions, it may actually devalue their work by reducing it to monetary terms. Many aspects of parenting and caregiving are deeply qualitative. The nights mothers stay up with sick children, or the emotional support provided during stressful times, cannot easily be assigned a price tag. By monetising these actions, we risk reducing the profound mother-child bond to mere transactions, which many would consider both ungrateful and a misunderstanding of the nature of these relationships. Further, forcefully imposing the idea of monetizing domestic labour could serve certain ideological agendas rather than the interests of women. It may make women more dependent on the state or their husbands for payment, rather than empowering them as equal participants in household decision-making. If mothers' contributions to the household were evaluated solely on their monetary value, the intrinsic worth of motherhood—rooted in love, care, and dedication—would diminish. This would reinforce the very capitalist mentality that these ideas aim to challenge, prioritising profit and remuneration over human connection and social bonds. Consequences of Turning Unpaid Domestic Labour into Paid Labour The idea of transforming unpaid domestic labour into paid labour comes with unwanted consequences. First and foremost, it begs the question: Who will pay for it? If domestic labour becomes paid, this implies there must be an employer, but who should this be? The father/ husband? This would likely result in the financial burden falling on men, exacerbating their economic stress. As wages are stretched to cover household work, men may experience progressive poverty. The family as an economic unit would face collapse, fundamentally altering its dynamics. Alternatively, if the state were to pay for domestic labour, a different set of challenges would emerge. It would make men, particularly fathers, dispensable. This is a trend already observed in some Western countries, where state welfare programs sometimes act as substitutes for familial responsibility. As the state steps in as a provider, the social contract between husband and wife becomes irrelevant. In his essay, The Frivolity of Evil, Theodore Dalrymple talks about how the handouts of a welfare state encourage social pathology (alcoholism, criminality, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, single parenthood, increased divorce rates) by absolving men of all responsibility towards their family. He states: “As for the men, the state absolves them of all responsibility for their children. The state is now father to the child. The biological father is therefore free to use whatever income he has as pocket money, for entertainment and little treats. He is thereby reduced to the status of a child, though a spoiled child with the physical capabilities of a man: petulant, demanding, querulous, self-centred, and violent if he doesn’t get his own way.” A Better Alternative: Skill Monetisation Rather than monetising domestic labour itself, an alternative approach can be to help women monetise the skills they acquire through household work. In India, many women already use their skills to contribute to the economy by running tiffin services, providing cleaning, cooking and childcare services, or participating in cottage industries like Lijjat Papad. Lijjat Papad is a successful women-led cooperative in India, providing employment to thousands of women from underprivileged and rural areas. Founded in 1959, the enterprise empowers women by engaging them in the production and sale of papads, enabling them to earn a livelihood while contributing to the community's economic growth. Similarly, roti-making enterprises employ women in backward regions, offering them opportunities to make traditional flatbreads for sale. These businesses employ poor women to produce homemade food items, which are then sold to their target audience—typically bachelors and students living away from home. These roles allow women to retain their identity and respect while also earning an income, without undermining the family unit. Conclusion At the end of the day, turning anything into an economic activity means it will follow the laws of economics—demand and supply, competition, and profit, especially in a capitalist society. Motherhood isn't a subscription service that can be cancelled if the "customer" (father/husband) is dissatisfied with the "service provider" (mother/wife), nor is it something where he can take his business to a different provider. This notion edges toward a dystopian scenario, where motherhood operates like a plug-and-play model, with competition between providers driving them to seek better opportunities for profit. Such a system would come at the expense of the physical and emotional well-being of not just the child, but the family and society as a whole. We play with this idea casually, at our own peril. This article was co-authored by me and Ankit, a close friend and colleague, for publication on my blog Dregs of Yore.
I
recently went to watch the movie "Am I Racist?" The movie
made me cringe throughout as it exposed the logic of the DEI and
Racism industry. I came away with a new appreciation for what is
actually happening,
This is an industry that has done some amazing things most notably
on the marketing front. But let's look closer from the perspective
of this being a business that is trying to grow.
1. Do they have a product? Those making money in this industry are selling a wide array of
classes, training, books, certifications and similar products. The
materials for the training are presented by experts in the field and
seem to be directed toward those in Human Resources. Keynote
speakers and the like are also available on the topic and command a
wide range of prices. 2. Does the customer recognize value in this product? Evidence would suggest that yes, customers do find value simply
because the industry exists and people pay for this product today.
However, actual ROI is extremely difficult to measure due to the
intangible nature of its benefits. There are some measures that are
used such as:
Employee Feedback Surveys
Diversity Metrics
Customer satisfaction and loyalty
Enhanced innovation and creativity
Level of employee engagement and retention
However, these measures are vague at best. Even under stringent
analysis, the number of variables makes most of these measurements
unreliable when in comes to root cause. This tells me that the
perceived ROI is more important that genuine ROI. I suspect a
psychological or marketing benefit that drives purchases rather than
real tangible results. The biggest contributor to this value is likely the inability to
participate in bidding on projects that are sponsored by government
and other large organizations that require evidence of some sort of
DEI implementation. Most of those contracts also make these
requirements cascade to subcontractors. This would be the only
direct means to measure value from what I understand. 3. Will the customer pay the price for this product? It seems so. Globally, DEI spending is expected to reach $15
Billion by 2026 where the US is 45% of that market. 4. How will they get the word out about this product? Each of the companies that sell particular DEI products does some
level of marketing. However, the impact of popular media and
politicians cannot be understated for it’s effectiveness in setting
expectations for compliance. This effort to make DEI common and
expected is a tremendous boost to the industry. The thing that I notice the most about this industry is that it
targets the shame sensitivity of the most conscientious people.
These are the people who work hard and tirelessly to achieve some
goal. Much of their drive comes from wanting to matter and to be
useful. They are those who are sensitive to social cues to help them
produce good products, provide value and be useful. These people
find meaning in serving humanity in the method that they do. This
social sensitivity is being exploited by those that condemn
productive people, shaming them into “doing more” even if that
means self harm. The other insidious aspect to this is that it is
framed in such a way that no matter what or how much you do, you will
not be successful in eradicating your hidden and invisible biases.
This reminds me of the framing of climate change. If the climate is
changing, it’s your fault. Same here, if people don’t have the
same outcomes, it indicates hidden bias that requires more
self-flagellation. Without real ROI, this industry will perish unless they can
solidify their place through fiat. I believe that this is why those
that peddle DEI are insistent on codifying their goals into law.
That is their vulnerability and our opportunity to halt the madness
that wastes our resources with no positive result. Just thinking.
In February of 1997, Samuel Todd Francis [1947-2005], a conservative intellect and journalist wrote a piece entitled “Something Like Waco.” Wikipedia’s “biography” of the man is a combination of reluctant praise liberally sprinkled (overwhelmed?) by gleeful charges of racism and white supremacy. For instance, the site points out that Francis “. . .was a columnist and editor for the conservative Washington Times until he was dismissed after making allegedly racist remarks at the 1995 conference of the American Renaissance.” It is most probable that the gentleman refused to bow to the reigning attitude about the superiority of America’s minority citizens and the truth in such an instance was, as usual, considered unacceptable! The site then went on to say that “ . . . Francis would later become a "dominant force" on the Council of Conservative Citizens . . . (and) was chief editor of the council's newsletter, Citizens Informer, until his death in 2005.” Then the whacky Wikies pulled out all the stops with the these “identifying markers:” “Political scientist and writer George Michaels, an expert on extremism [!], identified Francis as one of ‘the far right’s higher-caliber intellectuals.’The Southern Poverty Law Center [!!], which tracks extremist groups, described Francis as an important white nationalist writer known for his ‘ubiquitous presence of his columns in racist forums and his influence over the general direction of right-wing extremism’ in the United States. Analyst Leonard Zeskind called Francis the ‘philosopher king’ of the radical right, writing that ‘By any measure, Francis's white nationalism was as subtle as an eight-pound hammer pounding on a twelve inch I beam.’ . . .To Jared Taylor, ‘Francis was the premier philosopher of white racial consciousness of our time.’” It is necessary to identify the man whose viewpoint I will cover in this article, an article that Mr. Francis entitled “Something Like Waco” because what he wrote and warned about is being made more obvious day by day some twenty-five years after the gentleman made his most cogent comments! Perhaps if we had listened back in the nineties. . . But then, there are no “do-overs” or “mulligans” in life. I begin with the entire first paragraph of the article because it sets the tone for all that comes after and as so much time has passed between the event that is the foundation of that article – the attack on the Branch Davidians in Waco, Texas – this “revelation” becomes necessary: “About a year after the raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I was invited to take part in a discussion of the Waco incident on a program on the National Educational Television network. The program was a call-in show, and after my hosts and I had recounted the facts of the Waco raid and its aftermath, I was struck by the remarks that several callers from various parts of the country had to offer. Some of them claimed to know or to have heard about similar incidents in which local, state, or federal law enforcement agencies had staged armed raids on private homes or businesses, without adequate proof of wrongdoing by those against whom the raids had been mounted, and with results that often left innocent citizens injured or their property and rights violated. Although neither I nor my hosts on the TV show had heard of these incidents and to this day I have no way of verifying what the callers were reporting, it began to occur to me then that Waco was perhaps far from being an isolated case. Not too long after the show, however, news of just such mini-Wacos began to creep into the light of day.” The author then fills an article that runs for eight pages with information that should have scared the Bejesus out of all of us, but apparently failed to do so as we can see by the situation extant today. Let’s look at the first point Mr. Francis made: “. . . on January 10, 1994, officials of ten different organizations concerned with civil liberties or Second Amendment rights (including the liberal-to-left American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative Citizens Committee to Keep and Bear Arms) had sent an eight-page letter to President Clinton. The letter detailed several cases of what it called "widespread abuses of civil liberties and human rights" and a pattern of "serious abuse" of the law or proper police procedures by federal law enforcement agencies—the ATF itself, but also the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the FBI. The cases included the Waco assault as well as the attack on Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, in August 1992, but the letter also discussed several other incidents that were generally unknown to the public and to this day have not received the public attention they deserve. He then went on to point out: “The letter noted that ‘federal police officers now comprise close to 10 percent of the nation's law enforcement force’ and that ‘some fifty-three separate federal agencies have the authority to carry firearms and make arrests.*’ Arguing that the cases reviewed involved abuses such as the ‘improper use of “deadly” force; physical and verbal abuse; use of para-military and strike force units or tactics without justification; use of ‘no-knock' entrances without justification; inadequate investigation of allegations of misconduct; use of unreliable informants without sufficient verification of their allegations; entrapment’ and several other improper or illegal procedures, the letter called on the President to ‘appoint a national commission to review the policies and practices of all federal law enforcement agencies and to make recommendations regarding steps that must be taken to ensure that such agencies comply with the law.’" [*Remember the story of the man who was assailed by armed federals from the Department of Education because his ex-wife had failed to make payment on her student loans? Who knew that the DoE was armed!] Francis writes that he had been told by one of the signers of this letter to Clinton that “. . .no response had ever been received, and obviously no such national commission” had been appointed. Columns by Francis and columnist Nat Hentoff had been published at the time citing some of the abuses of civil liberties and even actual crimes committed by the government in the name of “enforcing the law” but nothing had come of that, a matter perhaps influenced by the total absence of media coverage. Francis further commented that “. . .if some correction and restraint are not administered, the day will come – perhaps soon – when cases like these are not extreme or unusual but routine.” The article then goes on to document individual cases of assault on the innocent by the full might of the armed federal bureaucracy: 1. The assault on the home of San Diego businessman Donald Carlson in August of 1992. The home was raided using a warrant based upon the allegation that Carlson’s home was a vacant drug storehouse. Carlson had arrived at his home around 10:30 that evening while the house was under surveillance and could easily have been arrested at that time if he was considered a criminal. Instead, it was past midnight after he had retired that the federal agents smashed through the door. Carlson believing this to be a home invasion reached for a firearm to defend himself and was shot three times – once in the back after he had been disarmed! He survived, but will require a lifetime of medical expenses as a result of the injuries he sustained. As it turned out, no drugs were found. The agents had relied on a paid informant named “Ron” who later told the Los Angeles Times that he had never identified a specific house as a storing location for the drugs! 2. Though the ATF was not involved in the Carlson case, they were involved in a similar raid conducted on September 5, 1991, against a woman named Sina Brush in New Mexico. ATF agents and 60 other agents from the DEA, the National Guard and the U.S. Forest Service assaulted Brush’s home in the belief that illegal drugs were involved. No drugs were found, but Brush and her daughter were handcuffed in their underwear and forced to kneel in the middle of the room during the search. As in the Carlson case, the agents had used an unreliable informant and had entered without knocking or showing a warrant. 3. Less than two months after the Carlson raid, agents from the DEA and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department burst into the home of Donald Scott and his wife looking this time – supposedly! – for marijuana plants! Scott’s wife screamed when she saw the unidentified men breaking in and Scott, 61 years old, grabbed a licensed handgun to defend them. A deputy sheriff shot and killed him. No marijuana plants or other illegal substances were found. In the Scott case, a later report written by a Ventura County District Attorney stated that the “initiative” for the raid probably came from the sheriff’s office rather than the feds and that “a primary purpose for the raid was a land grab by the Sheriff’s Department.” Of course, the law is very liberal in distributing the property of “drug lords” alive or dead to the government but all agree that it is easier to do when they are dead. Francis then presents two further egregious cases of illegal government force that included a raid on the home of Louis Katona, III, a part-time police officer and gun collector who owned an extensive – and expensive – collection begun by his father. On May 8th, 1992, the ATF launched a raid to seize the collection valued at many thousands of dollars, the premise being that Katona had forged the name of the local police chief on forms required under the National Firearms Act for registering certain types of firearms. In fact, Katona had done no such thing, leaving forms for the chief to sign that he would later retrieve. After the assault, Katona was indicted for these alleged forgeries, but the case was dismissed in at least a semblance of justice. Meanwhile, Katona knew of the ATF plan and cooperated with it but during the four hour raid, agents became abusive and began to take photos of various Vietnam war memorabilia displayed in the house including the man’s uniform, medals and awards. Also, Katona’s wife, several months pregnant, returned home and upon attempting to enter the vault area in which her husband kept his collection, an agent pushed her violently against the wall in denying her access. That night she miscarried the child she was carrying, something she declared to be the result of her treatment by the agent. Another legal gun collector, Harry Lamplugh found himself surrounded by armed men in uniform on May 25th, 1994. These were ATF agents looking for illegal firearms. According to Lamplugh, his wife and their lawyer, former ATF Assistant Director Robert Sanders, the agents ransacked his home and office, seizing not only business but personal records including birth certificates, marriage and baptismal records and mortgage and medical records. Lamplugh was suffering from cancer and told the agents that the medical records were essential to his treatment as were the bottles of medication the agents deliberately spilled over the carpets. The agents also killed one of the couple’s cats. Throughout the raid, the family testified that the agents used abusive language called Lamplugh a “motherfu–er” and threatening his wife with incarceration in a “cell full of lezzies” unless she “informed” on her husband. The agents told Lamplugh, “We don’t mind you selling guns to niggers because they just kill each other.” The couple and their son were later charged by a federal grand jury with several counts of federal firearms law violations as well as perjury. According to Francis, “Those charges are still pending.” Later in the case, the government continued to hold on to thousands of dollars belonging to the Lamplughs despite rulings of the court that these should be returned. Francis spent considerable time in his columns clearly delineating the reasons for these assaults to prove them inadequate for the violence of the federal response. For these, he received responses from the agencies involved and he noted in a letter from the ATF, “with one exception . . . [the letter] failed to contradict much of anything of significance I had said in the column or had been alleged in the letter to . . . Clinton.” Francis also noted that the ATF “may be correct in its account of the details of the searches” but went on to note that he watched a video produced by the National Rifle Association about the Lamplugh and Katona cases in which the families “offered their sides of the story” while, according to the narrator, “. . .the ATF declined to be interviewed.” Francis noted that the testimony of the families was “more persuasive” than that of Mr. Hynes of the ATF! The victims also recounted “repeated instances of anonymous harassment by the ATF, including the slashing of tires on their cars, the placing of dead animals on their doorsteps, harassing phone calls, and harmful and untrue rumors spread about the men among their friends and business associates.” Such actions are more worthy of organized crime than a legitimate government but then, from what we can see today, our government has ceased to be “legitimate” and has BECOME “an organized crime.” The article goes on to describe other instances of horrific government “overreach” including a raid on the home of Paul and Patty Mueller in which the agents threatened to kill the family dog that had become frantic during the assault, the physical “restraint” of the couple and, as the agents went through the home yelling “ATF!” – something that the Muellers didn’t even understand! – they emptied shelves and boxes filled with Christmas ornaments and magazines. After an hour, they told the couple they were searching for illegal weapons and showed them their search warrant. Unable to find what they sought, they departed as swiftly as they had come. A stunned Mueller told the newspaper, “For the first thirty seconds I thought they were burglars and I was going to die. If they could do this to us, they could do this to anybody.” Patty Mueller added, “Was this something like Waco?” However, this story did “make the papers” and it was discovered that a police informer had told the ATF “that the Mueller home contained a large cache of machine guns and illegal weapons were being distributed there.” Of course, the “informer” had made up the story with the result that the ATF had come close to killing an innocent family. The local head of that agency said he would “apologize” to the couple but there was no word about damages or concern for adhering to the law that, according to Mr. Hynes of the ATF, “. . . motivates our agents to protect the law-abiding citizens of this Nation against those who choose to live by another standard.” Francis did admit that there are many ATF cases in which dangerous criminals are involved but that the most distinctive thing about the above cases “. . .is that they were carried out against the very ‘law-abiding’ citizens the ATF claims to have a mission to protect, and they are citizens who have no experience of law enforcement at any level precisely because they are law-abiding . . . in not a single one of the cases recounted here was there any reason to believe that this was the kind of suspect the ATF or other federal agents had to face. Not a single one of them had any record of violence and lawbreaking, and the crimes they were alleged to have committed were not even violent offenses. Police officers investigating a murder suspect do not make use of these tactics unless they have a strong reason to believe the suspect is ready and willing to shoot them on sight” Francis calls this strategy, “’anarcho-tyranny,’ a distinctively new form of government in which the government is either unable or unwilling to apprehend and punish criminals, so it therefore criminalizes the innocent and cracks down on them. I never heard of an ATF raid on an urban gang, although the stockpiling of weapons by such gangs is commonly known. Gangs might shoot back, you see, so it’s much safer to go after the Katonas, the Lamplughs and the Muellers. And if you’re wrong, and the bums you consulted as ‘informants’ turn out to have lied to get money or cop a plea, you can always apologize. And if you don’t apologize, you can always have Mr. Hynes or some other vassal of the federal leviathan write a letter and intone about your mission to protect the law-abiding.” Francis admits that: “. . . the evolution of a police state may not be the intention of either the agencies involved or of the political leaders who ignore and at least tacitly condone what is certainly a repeated and may be a regular pattern of federal law enforcement behavior (see January 6th 2021) . . . . . .but that evolution is nonetheless real, and the brutality of the ATF and its sister agencies is only one part of it. Other elements in the construction of the coming police state include the demonization of privately owned firearms and their owners, the enactment of gun control legislation in the Brady Act, the outlawing of sales of semiautomatic weapons in 1994, and an increasing push for the outright prohibition of handguns; the attempts to enact "counterterrorism" legislation plainly directed against citizens' militias and domestic right-wing radicalism; the use by the FBI and ATF of intrusive surveillance and investigative techniques against militias and similar groups in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995; the use of entrapment by these agencies to engineer violations of federal law on the part of the groups they are spying on (see Ruby Ridge!); the media-concocted hysteria about "church-burnings" last summer, which resulted in a new federal law making the arson of any church for any reason a federal offense; efforts to expand federal police powers, place more police officers on the street through federal legislation, and augment the powers and resources of the FBI (including wiretapping authority); more demands for the revival and further escalation of the "drug war" of the 1980's by Republicans like Bob Dole and William Bennett; and the whole trend toward the nationalization of law enforcement in the name of a "war on crime." Furthermore, according to Francis, “The fear and hatred of crime and criminals by the right and the fear and hatred of the right by the left serve to enlist both sides of the conventional political spectrum in promoting the new police state. The avoidance of publicity about the abuses of the federal police agencies tends, over time, to normalize such behavior in the minds of citizens, to legitimize it, and to render it a routine part of government functions.” Now, admittedly, we have seen the current “government” in Washington rise up against “the police” as can be seen in the madness put into effect after the death of a black thug from an overdose of fentanyl! But in these cases, the same war against ordinary citizens continued. The armed federal agencies disappeared leaving ordinary citizens in the hands of thugs and terrorists while their local police were either removed by the local government or overcome by hordes of well-armed agents of the left. In other words, the “anarchy” we supposedly suffered from 2020 through 2021 was as orchestrated as the raids on American citizens described by Mr. Francis! This was a case in which the ATF, the FBI and all the rest continued their criminal activities but behind the scenes thus preventing their anti-social activities from being “outed” by those few remaining outlets of real news. As well, the excuse of a “war on drugs” immediately goes by the boards as we witness our Southern border being removed to the point at which even our fairly useless efforts to keep these poisons out of the country are totally nullified with the blessings of Washington! Mr. Francis concludes his article thusly: The emerging police state, then, for all its swagger about the "war on drugs" and keeping us safe from "those who choose to live by another standard," (see previous paragraph) has nothing to do with maintaining order and punishing real criminals but everything to do with the systematic repression of those Middle Americans who express disenchantment with the new order and who organize or represent points of resistance to it. It may be too early as yet for the secret police forces and paramilitary units of the regime to eradicate organized Middle American resistance carte blanche, but what those forces already are doing and have done to uncounted innocent victims suggests that they are only just warming up to their “final solution.”
Never have I seen our current Leftist culture so very confused. They have found themselves in a true conundrum because they are divided not against conservatives (although some conservatives are also involved in the issue!) but against their own! Furthermore, it is truly a great problem for those on the Left who never seem to have any problems except choosing what conservative issue or individual to persecute and destroy. The issue involved? Why the current “war” between Israel and Hamas, of course. This has become an issue because there are two factions on the Left that have been able to co-exist without the fact that they are mutually exclusive becoming an issue. However, once a “war” between those two groups broke out, the Leftist agenda was not strong enough to prevent that war from spilling over into the rank and file of our Leftist brethren. Let us take a quick (and obviously offending) look at both. First are the Jews and I mean first because the Jews are the power behind the Leftist agenda going back to the European revolutions in the 1840s – and probably much further, many of whose unsuccessful proponents fled to America in time to wholeheartedly support Lincoln’s “big government” war of the 1860s. And, of course, the entire Leftist agenda was spectacularly evident with the rise of communism and the hideous tyrannies of such “cultural paradises” as the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia, Cuba etc. etc. etc., ad nauseum. It was the Soviet Communists who, if not created, then at least worsened, the race issue in the United States along with every other policy and program that has produced today’s criminal “Deep State!” The power of the “Jewish lobby” has grown so immense as to make criticism of the acts of Jewish leaders into an actual “crime” identified by the label “antisemitism,” an act that now brings with it jail time in many Western countries such as Germany and Canada! Because of the present situation it is obvious how dangerous it is to criticize Israel, the center of secular Jewish power both in this country and in the world! However, on the other side, we have those on the Left who champion Islam. Why, you might ask do they do so? Because Islam hates Christianity and Western Civilization and those who are blamed for both; that is, white people of European backgrounds. Now that alone would make Islam a “blessing” to our Leftist “brethren” but, alas for the Left, Islam also hates the Jews, and not only the Jews! Islam hates and condemns the entire membership of the LGBTQ+ “community” as well as uppity women who don’t know their place and anyone else who does not bow to Allah – who is actually a Babylonian moon deity – look it up! However, for a long time, the Left in this country has supported Islam, choosing to ignore their “little excesses” because they are so anti-everything that ordinary Americans love. But now, they have crossed the line! Though the rift between Jews and Muslims is hardly a secret, so far, the Left has been able to do a great deal of juggling to keep that fact from interfering with the use of both groups to further their agenda but this has been ended by the current “war” in Israel. One clear evidence of this new situation can be found in the Garden of Eden of the Left, academia! There are not only a lot of Jews in academia, but in that hot house of hysteria and hyperbole, the agenda of the Left has been put into place through the use of generations of “students” who now pursue “social justice” rather than knowledge – for if there’s one thing social justice is not, it is knowledge! Today we have the rather amusing development for conservatives, at least, of academia being openly antisemitic! That’s akin to pro-aborts supporting the protection of the unborn, for God’s sake! Of course, this same situation applies across the cultural board, but it is in academia that we see the most blatant example of the progressive implosion! The Left has always been able to thwart and forestall the conservative response to any issue through the courts and the media, using the former to refuse judicial restraint of liberal overreach and the latter to bludgeon into insensibility any sensible conservative response to Leftist idiocy. But what can the Left do now? Where do they go to stop snowflake students from acting “antisemitic” in their support of Hamas and how do they help Jewish academia to silence the Leftist voice of their own students? Where do you go when you both agree and disagree with both sides? Leftist academia has been telling their “students” for years that they are right and everybody else (but those self-same academics) are wrong! Ah, but when, according to those same academics, antisemitism is not only wrong, but a crime, how do they deal with a student body that openly and completely condemns the very bastion of Jewishness, Israel? For years these students have been supplied with “safe spaces” in which to wall out anything with which they disagree or find offensive. But those running these same “safe spaces” are Jews and what will they do now when their students wish to bring antisemitism into the very “safe spaces” those Jewish academics provide? So, of course, today you see institutions such as Harvard being blamed for the unforgivable crime of antisemitism. Why? Because all those smart profs cannot figure out how to keep their brain dead “students” from overturning the Jewish applecart while both keeping and denying their own agenda! It is a very interesting and amusing conundrum indeed – especially for us conservatives!
The on-line publication The Western Journal just released an interesting story about one State’s response to the apparent difficulties that are occurring during the very occasional use of the death penalty for those convicted of crimes appropriate for that punishment. The falling rate of capital punishment is not the result of such crimes becoming less numerous; indeed, the criminal activity in this country is not only massively greater but more violent and brutal as well! Thus, there have actually been some (very few) instances in which notorious criminals have been sentenced to pay with their worthless lives for the atrocities they have, without question, committed. Unfortunately, in several instances, the means of death – lethal injection – proved insufficient and actually tortuous at the time. Of course, the very use of a “lethal injection” as a means of execution was conceived and put into place to prevent the condemned from suffering! Previous means – hanging, electrocution and the gas chamber – being considered “cruel and unusual” to some folks – were replaced with what was, in point of fact, “lethal anesthesia,” that is, the use of the same procedure by which surgical patients are rendered unconscious. The only difference in the two circumstances being that the patient is intended to wake up when the procedure is over while, on the other hand, the condemned felon’s fate is otherwise! Now, as far as we know, the original three methods named above still work, though there can be problems even with them, but certainly there were less problems than in the so-called “merciful death” offered those for whom, perhaps, mercy itself is undeserved. And so, according to The Western Journal: “Lawmakers in Idaho have put the time-tested execution method of the firing squad back on the table for their state’s death row inmates, and one legal scholar agrees it is the right move. Modern society might view the method as archaic, but there is no denying its efficacy.” The site then goes on to describe what really should not need to be described if one is at all able to think, but perhaps it is wise that they do so. After all, malignant ignorance is so “out there” today: “Multiple shooters line up and point their rifles at a monster who long ago proved he or she had no business living among civilized people. Triggers are pulled and the whole thing is over pretty quickly. It might be bloody, but it works – unlike lethal injections, which have proven unreliable in recent years.” Now, frankly, even a firing squad is a waste of ammunition. I remember watching the film Citizen X, the story of Soviet serial killer, Andrei Chikatilo who was executed for his horrendous crimes in 1994. A soldier came into his cell, told him to turn around and kneel down. Once he had done so, the soldier took out a revolver and shot him in the back of the head. Neat, quick – one bullet! Firing squads, of course, have a different etiology and supposedly at least one of the guns is loaded with blanks as a means to relieve the conscience of the members of the squad as none knows if, for sure, his shot killed the condemned. But this also makes no sense! Even if one’s shot did not kill, the very act of participating in the execution is morally equivalent to killing the condemned! But then, those making up these types of government actions have even less brains than they have morals – and that’s saying something! Now, one might wonder, what has this decision by a single state to do with anything of interest to the “non-criminal” types such as the ordinary Americans who read (and write) opinion pieces? Well, I for one found it interesting and not a little bit suspicious. To begin with, the numbers of death penalties handed down in today’s “liberal” courts are few and far between. And when this does happen, normal, law-abiding Americans can take at least some comfort in knowing that some criminals are brought to book for their crimes! But as so few of “the condemned” ever reach death row – never mind the execution chamber – one must wonder why the need for a more streamlined method of execution! And this is the question that engaged me as I considered writing this article. First, of course, the excuse of the “unreliability” of execution by lethal injection and the obvious suffering it has caused where it has failed, sounds reasonable. But then, again, not much is “reasonable” these days. So, if it isn’t a matter of concern for the sensibilities of both the condemned and the public at large, what is the real motive behind this “governmental benevolence?” Now anyone who follows what is happening today and especially the move by our government and it’s “justice system” against all of us on the “other side” of the WOKE agenda can easily believe that as our “laws” become less and less “constitutional” and more and more tyrannous, the numbers of those who will eventually fall under the iron fist of the Deep State is going to grow possibly into the thousands – even tens and hundreds of thousands. That’s a lot of potential transgressors! We’ve already been told about the FEMA “camps,” and so many Americans believe that in a very short time indeed, those who refuse to comply will be “taken away” never to return. It is happening already in Australia and reports suggest that our neighbor to the north, Canada may well be next! And then the deluge, as they say! We know that we already have “political prisoners” – not terrorists jailed in Guantanamo but ordinary Americans in American jails and prisons. We’ve seen heavily armed “swat teams” from every alphabet agency – including the Department of Education! – making war on ordinary, law abiding Americans who are judged “domestic terrorists.” How much of a “leap” is it from what is pretty much “acceptable” today with regards to the government’s actions against those “ordinary Americans” to those same Americans being tried, convicted and then sentenced to death?! In truth, it is a mere, hop, skip and jump from 21st Century America to the reign of the Soviet Checkists and the murderers of Pol Pot, Mao and Castro! And what more swift and easy means of “removing” the “undesirable” and the “useless eaters” (other than vaccinations, that is!) than a small firing squad? Even, perhaps, as had Citizen Chikatilo, a firing squad of one? After all, we have to save our ammunition for Ukraine! Frankly, folks, it makes me very nervous indeed when our government wants to make executions “better” and “quicker” supposedly for the benefit of the condemned. When a process is being made easier, it strikes me that the change involved is motivated less by humanitarianism than convenience; that is, the desire to make that process easier to use. Nothing our rulers do today is designed or intended to make anything “more humane” or “better” for anyone but those rulers. I hope I am wrong, but history, to date, is on my side.
Back around the year 2012, I bought a vocal processor for some of my song writing, recording, and performing endeavors. It was a TC Helicon Voicelive 2. At that time, it was a REALLY good vocal effects processor. The Chief Operating Officer (COO) David Hilderman was one of the engineers that worked on TC Helicon's vocal processors. But wait! Did I say he was an engineer? Uh oh, look out:https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-ppc-engineer-title-1.7061266 Canada is gon' getcha! Apparently back in December of 2023, Canada's tyranny and desire to control free speech manifested itself in David's life. I never expected that a man who played such a vital role in my music life—giving me a tool to engineer my own sounds while live on stage—would surface into the news in such a horrible way. Apparently Canada wants to revoke his right to be called an engineer. Apparently they want to tell everybody else, "Hey, this guy is not an engineer, because an engineer is what we say it is." It's sad and sickening. They don't want to allow a guy—who successfully designed, built, planned, analyzed, tested, and maintained electronic structures and gadgets, including a complex system like a vocal processor—to call himself an engineer. Why? Was it because he didn't do that thing engineers do—designing, building, planning, analyzing, testing, and maintaining complex systems or structures? Unfortunately, Canada has reached a new level of retardation—again! We will see what becomes of their industry and economy as long as they continue to micromanage and diminish their competent workforce.
Once upon a time, legitimate claims of “States’ rights” were used to attempt to stop the ongoing rush to overriding authority being vested in an ever growing and powerful central or “federal” government. A war was fought in the mid-1800s based upon that very concept, and it was the bloodiest war in this nation’s history to date! Unfortunately, the central government was successful in destroying attempts by a section of the country to escape its role as an economic colony to the rest of the nation. But the war itself – a matter of treason according to Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution forbidding any entity from making war upon those same States – was excused by claims of the need to “preserve the Union” and “free the slaves.” Since this article does not address these weighty issues, it only goes to prove that people will believe anything if it is said often enough or is the desired narrative, and, also, that as was voiced by Napoleon, history is written by the winner! Nevertheless, from time to time efforts have been made by the States to assert their rights when they have been threatened by the government in DC. But what has been lost in the whole argument is not State vs. Federal but, more to the point, Right vs. Wrong. In the past, most of the claims by the States regarding “Federal tyranny” have been correct; that is, the central government had imposed its will upon the people of the States without having the legal right to do so! Oh, the actions have been shielded behind claims of what was “right and good” – much as had been done in the Civil War! – but in the end, it usually meant that the State involved was not following DC’s agenda and was therefore subject to direct intervention by what was supposed to be a government serving “the will of the People” and not the will of the elite and their minions ruling from the Capital. But it seems that our present government’s “agenda” is not limited to the will of the folks in DC for many “blue” states have embraced the present Brave New World of Wokism together with the New World Order and have struck out on their own to strike down the central guarantor of the liberties of all Americans, the United States Constitution. Now, that “Founding Document” has already been seriously, if not fatally wounded by amendments that were either stupid on their face such as the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) or contrary to the beliefs and desires of those who created the Constitution and founded the nation such as the 16th Amendment (the establishment of the income tax) and the 17th in which the election of a State’s Senators were removed from the State government and turned over to the People – thus destroying the constitutional effort at equaling the representation of smaller and larger States. But the present actions by the Governors of some of these “blue” states goes far beyond questionable and/or debatable practices but, rather, they are directed at what is perhaps most essential for us in America today, our precious Bill of Rights. The first of these rights deals with the freedoms of speech, association and religion but what was considered second in importance only to these most essential rights was the “right to bear arms.” No lesser person than George Washington, considered the “Father” of this nation, was quite clear on his view of the matter when he said: “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself,” and “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military supplies.” Now one must remember that Washington, a Virginia planter and colonel in the Virginia militia was “gifted” with command of the “army” that had come together around Boston after King George III’s Parliament closed that city, occupying it with British troops and destroying the freedoms and lives of its citizens. After the battle of Bunker (Breeds) Hill, John Adams, a Massachusetts representative to the Continental Congress, moved to create a “Continental army” of the militias surrounding Boston and to make fellow congressman George Washington its Commander in Chief. Of course, upon reaching Cambridge, Washington did not find an “army” per se, but a fair number of the said New England militia units from which he had to create the “army” he would eventually lead. But it also must be remembered that had these men not been armed and well versed in the use of those arms, Washington’s “reward” for his efforts would have been to have his head displayed on a pike on London Bridge and his various “quarters” cut from what was left of his body and sent around England at the King’s pleasure to discourage other traitors! There did indeed turn out to be time for the Virginia patriot to craft an army, but he could not have done so without those within it being able to shoot red deer or redcoats! As a result, Washington understood the need for the average citizen to be able to defend himself and his country, indeed, sometimes even against his country. This is why, of course, tyrants have always tried to disarm the people and when they have been successful –Soviet Russia, Communist China, Cuba, Cambodia etc. – the fate of those so disarmed has been as uniform as it has been ugly. But the desire to disarm Americans has only increased as our government has become more tyrannous and our Constitution less effective. Blue State California Gov. Gavin Newsom is attempting from a state platform to alter the United States Constitution when that state’s legislature approved a resolution in support of Newsom’s call for a 28th Constitutional amendment enshrining a list of Democrat gun-control policy priorities into the federal law. Newsom is requesting a Constitutional convention to enshrine the amendment. This “convention” would occur, one assumes, after the Amendment’s passage but one must then ask, how would it even be brought forth for consideration in the first place! And if it is brought forth for the amendment to be considered, two-thirds of state legislatures would have to vote in favor of a convention. Now, no one, not even the Temperance ladies during Prohibition, attempted to implement an amendment that would strike down or affect any part of the Bill of Rights! This is, in fact, a first! The rights manifested in the Bill of Rights were themselves the first ten amendments to the Constitution and amending an amendment – especially in that most sacred of documents! – seems impossible to even consider! But that never stopped our leftist politicians! In order to understand the 2nd Amendment one need only read it. Unlike some other amendments it is simple to see what the Founders intended: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Because it is based upon, among other things, English common law, the Amendment does not permit universal rights to bear arms. The mentally ill, children, criminals – these are not included within the above guarantee. Only ordinary, law abiding, sane citizens have that right but for someone to be denied that right, proof must be presented at law that the individual so deprived does not meet the criteria the Founders put forth for American citizens to protect themselves. Rather, any effort by the government to forbid the keeping and bearing of arms must be addressed individually and very specifically. Notice, the Amendment makes no reference to hunting or sports but deals with the term “militia” Of course, the understanding of that which constitutes a militia has changed since the 1800s. Currently, 10 U.S. Code § 246 defines Militia thusly: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in §313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Nonetheless, despite the apparent narrowing of the term today, the understanding of an armed citizenry has NOT changed since the days of the Founders and as a result, all Americans who are sane and law abiding cannot be denied a gun or the accoutrements surrounding that weapon on the off chance that something “bad” might happen! Meanwhile, Newsom’s proposed “Right to Safety Amendment” would limit legal gun ownership to adults 21 and older, enact universal federal background checks on gun sales, create a mandatory “reasonable waiting period” for gun purchases, and ban the purchase of many forms of semiautomatic rifles. Of course, while many of these “safety measures” sound reasonable, the fact is that they only deny weapons to law abiding Americans. Criminals are not interested in doing it right, so to speak, and are never denied their “right” to a weapon by anything accept arrest, incarceration and/or death. Meanwhile, such laws and regulations allow the government – a much more dangerous entity than any mere criminal! – to know who is armed and how to go about removing that citizen’s method of protection when Uncle Sam comes a-calling! Newsom started touting the idea behind this “amendment” earlier this summer possibly to take Californians’ minds off the cesspool his policies are making of cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles. The governor claims the new amendment would “co-exist” with the Second Amendment despite its changes to the American legal understanding of gun ownership. According to Newsom, “The Right to Safety Amendment would preserve the integrity of the Second Amendment, while enshrining in our Constitution commonsense safety provisions that are supported overwhelmingly by the American people.” Newsome goes on to blame guns and “unelected judges” protecting the 2nd Amendment for increasing “gun violence.” He phrases his viewpoint thusly: “In the face of decades of Congressional inaction and unelected judges that are putting Americans in danger, it is time for citizens to stand up for common sense to protect us against the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence.” It is interesting to note that most of such violence occurs in blue cities within blue states where the leftist governments support criminals, defund the police and care nothing for those same “citizens” upon whom Newsom calls for support of his dangerous policies. California’s Assembly passed Newsom’s proposal via a 51-14 tally with several Democrats declining to vote, according to the Los Angeles Times. Actually, many of the amendment’s provisions already are law in California and it is interesting to note that that state experienced the most mass shootings in the nation between 1982 and August of this year, according to the publication Statista. On the other hand, the nation’s most populous state had the eighth-lowest gun-death rate among the 50 states in 2021, according to Giffords Law Center. But, of course, in an increasingly lawless culture, it would be madness to remove those protections guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment to the average American in order to make it easier for that culture along with our increasingly lawless government to come in and enslave us all. As was noted by the Founders themselves, the 2nd Amendment was designed to protect Americans against their own government, an entity that has proven throughout history to be infinitely more dangerous than the worst criminal elements. Again, we must look to America’s Indispensable Man to see the truth in this matter: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Experience has taught us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession, and when the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.” ~ George Washington Under our present circumstances, we must expect the government – whether Federal or State – to continue this war against an armed citizenry. DC is arming its bureaucratic minions to the hilt. As no one in the Deep State expects them to take on the cartels on the Southern border, they must have another “enemy” in mind. As that is the case, Americans better stay armed or we will suffer the fate General Washington has described above.
Did you know we can turn carbon dioxide into butane a fuel source. we literally can have a renewable fuel source and control co2 at the same time. just thinking out loud well you first use electrolysis from solar panels to split water into oxygen and hydrogen, then you add the hydrogen into a chemical reaction with co2 which creates methane and water, you have to just use the hydrogen so you dont make water. then you use the wurtz reaction to combine methane into ethane than again to make ethane into butane. thats just one of the chemical ways. wiki wurtz reaction. hope this helps. spread the word. thank you for commenting on my post and thought. I studied a little organic chemistry in university. The science is sound.