A Nation of Orphans

Motherhood is an honor, but there is no justification for permitting the exploitation of your own child to pay for your exploits.

And THAT is the major problem with “retirement.” Hollywood may have made the assassin seductive, but there are also consequences for murder. That is why for years the task of execution was assigned or ascribed in connection with important rites of passage that did NOT prioritize monetary gain over all other definitions of honor and wealth. Handling weapons was as important as learning how to articulate oneself. These are important processes that a child is necessarily exposed to, but how, in what manner, and by whom?

When did motherhood become an identity? Was it around the time it became a market? And now…should the mother aspire to be the corporation? Does she market her own child?

It would seem to be the case. And the processes for creating that “product” are increasingly automated and left to others to perform. The mother subcontracts with teachers and doctors and therapists and lawyers. What are the fixed assets upon which she bases the financiability of her enterprise? Does she use “public financing” by renting her child to the municipality to invest in schools, police departments and sewers? Those “technology centers” become an important point of intersection for her product development.

But that is only if we see the child as a commodity. What about a “service-oriented” economy? What talents, skills or crafts does the child have? Those test scores and grade cards as well as all those projects that require investment in poster board and markers and then I-pads and laptops can be very lucrative in someone else’s portfolio accounting for the intangible products created by your child. But, before there is a major fixed asset, either acquired individually (like, say, via a home mortgage or title to a car) then there are all sorts of OTHER “service-connected” engagements with the economy. SOME children are determined to be more serviceable as students in the university; some children are determined to be more serviceable in the jail. Which child are YOU creating, Mother?

The traditional role of the father figure providing protection – either through money or arms – has been redefined. As well it should. But we did not permit for women to be able to protect themselves in the course of this redefinition. We were assigned to provide our “service-connected” “selective service” through “comfort” and “support.” Now, as literally the military and armed services are turned over for “merchant” service, women – including mothers – can get their due. Correct?

Until we get to “retirement.”

“Social security” is not the same as “national security.” Even if for you nationalism is nothing more than a branding technique or tariff schedule, you still need to protect your assets. Insofar as YOUR child is YOUR primary asset, how do you intend to protect him/her/zhim? Are you okay with swapping your child – who would be considered a citizen – with an “alien” because “alienation” provides less risk of exposure in the event that your leveraging strategy does not prevail? Is THAT why we have not eliminated DACA but have gotten rid of DAPA?

My mother was murdered by drug dealers and their lawyers. Some of those lawyers are in the legislature. I do not produce THOSE kinds of products. I’m old-fashioned. But certainly you would prefer to create a lawyer rather than a me, correct. What do YOU think this portends for YOUR “mother?” If you do NOT get a lawyer in the end…I mean. Pro se does not make the cut and what are MY options?

I was supposed to pay for the “retirement” benefits of other people’s fathers. That was supposed to be MY “service-connected” “selective service” for not only MY country, but OTHER people’s countries. A lot of them used THEIR children to connect those services. MY retirement was supposed to involve “transportation” for the public. That is because YOU wanted my father’s inheritance for YOUR child. Am I supposed to drive YOUR child to pay for the “public finance” that pays for YOUR “obligation?”

A cell phone is a weapon. When you give your child a cell phone instead of being a parent you arm them but YOU DO NOT TEACH THEM HOW TO USE THE WEAPON SAFELY. Who do you think is going to teach them how to use it?

Would you rather that a cell phone be a bank account? How do you intend for them to “transact” with or through that account?

Does THEIR cell phone have YOUR name on the account?

I am cancelling your retirement scheme. Stop renting your children out for “pension obligation.”

6:39 pm CST

June 25, 2020

No. You do NOT have to pay for what your parents did. Because even if you do, they will still try to get you to pay for what THEY did and they REFUSE to stop doing it.