What is Domesticity?

    Domesticity, as an central subject of the Christianna, poses the figure for contemplation that Anna was called the domestic messiah in the first Gay Letter I wrote in 2014.  Domesticity, I conclude, has something to do with the break down and eventual entropy and decay of all systems one possesses as an human person.  Domesticity is what is done at home about the fact of one's life, its need for cleanliness and nutrition.   Who could have serious mental or physical illnesses further aided by their natural death.  Domesticity had something to do with how people were taken care of or take care of themselves at home.  And since there were so many mental illness cases in the midst of the mental health crisis as well as people with varying diseases and disabilities which eventually lead to further and further suffering before their drawn-out deaths.  Domesticity was everything like this in this span of lifetime, which includes the previous, as well as everything which happens after their deaths, presumably in an environment where their corpse is alone for so long wildlife begin to break into its previous home in order to interact with the empty body like tunnel rats.  Domesticity was yucky.  It was life and all of its consequences.  Everything one does in one's home.  Like an known domesticized Canadian citizen.  (Some Aboriginal Canadian people say, that these are their abusers).  It is an extremely political subject in Canada.  Domesticity is considered something the Victorians did to everybody which repressed and abused them; and that was why they (Aboriginal Canadians) had substance to support their case; in the 21st Century of Canada after the feminist and de-feminization movement, what was domesticity nowadays?  And why did it matter, maybe fictionally, that some of it is because I say so.  In the order of an demand.  It's only, what do you call it?  The New Reciprocity.  Another one of this blog creator's genius inventions.  The actual political event of sharing orders and demands with one another.  Whatever our status may be.  In the form of an new reciprocal command, you even you could order entire group of people to do something.  This was the goal and order of political reciprocal command, was it not?  In order to sort out politics we had to make politics.  And that meant doing something political sometimes, like taking an position of authority over another organization in order to give them political commands, orders that they do something.  What on Earth could be more political than that‽  Of course, everyone could support all of their orders and demands of one another with reasons.  And they were all particularly expert at articulating them.  And yet I need to hate this idea, the idea of something being domestic about the human species; and I have to say, if I was an better feminist, I would have to stand against this idea entirely and altogether; this idea of anything that could be possibly identified as human could also be identified as domestic.  Is it such an bad thing to have said so, as an Canadian‽  Why would we consider anything an Aboriginal Canadian could do in the course of their everyday life throughout their day domestic or domesticity?  Wasn't that an imperialist imposition to have said so‽

    And then I start to feel maybe everything is an little more complicated than I had ever figured that it ever could be.  As if I had been thinking on it already.

    And maybe this is what it had to do with Anna and the first Gay Letter.  Anyone we could consider domestic who had been forcibly put there into domesticity was like Anna because they had suffered the fate worse than death.  What I considered the domestic, internal messiah.  Someone who was suffering and battling an internal form of suffering which could not be communicated or remedied in their lifetime.  And the Christianna could maybe speak to that category of fate to be talked about on the subject of Aboriginal Canadian politics if the Canadian Aboriginal population deemed it necessary or precise or sensitive enough to start another good conversation which could lead to better politics.  And I felt, very maturely, that  I could relate to the sense in which someone could say you could not domesticate me.  It was an romantic category of decision.  I wanted to feel like I could go out of and come inside my house without needing to transform my behavior in any way so that the inside didn't match the outside.  And I had always to fear people knowing the real me.  And I always hid as soon as I got home.  I was home.  I didn't want the fears outside to penetrate here.  And they would never find me anyway.  I had already thought about my exit strategy.  It was ludicrous enough an thing to try to do to defend myself frantically.  But you would never meet me here.  And I had already locked the door.  And I would be up watching movies all night because it was the weekend.  And I had obsessed about the subject of my front door for days, knowing the exact time at which I would have to exit it again.  And I knew, as soon as I stepped outside my door.  My body would instantly assume that character which I had to assume in order to survive in that type of environment.  You know the one you see everywhere you go.  Aggressive immoral people with overgrown egos rampaging everywhere; and who knows?  you might be part of an hold up at the bank because it is being robbed.  You could never really be sure.  No matter where you went.  That an marauding despot could not descend upon the scene in some way instantly, so that you would be trapped up and have to hide beside the liquor cabinet with the good bottles of liqueurs.  And they the bottles would rattle as the vehicle heavy machinery was deployed, and they entered the store with laser guns which they started firing at the clerk sloppily.  Wanting only to scare him, I heard him lose all of his breath in an panicked uff-aw, and began to empty the cash register.  And it could even happen to you at the grocery store and at schools and stuff.  So maybe what domesticity has become in this day and age is an type of anxiety one has about having to act an certain way in public, just because of what you look like and how difficult it is to struggle with that kind of problem.  I mean, let's jettison the whole idea of domesticity altogether, only keeping it an type of religious metaphor for what it is like to have an fate like Anna's.  And it was an serious subject; and so it should only be dealt with within those types of parameters.  Domesticity wasn't an real thing anymore; it was just an crappy subject of the Christiannan religion because of how it was an Imperial kind of domination of our neighbourly type individuals who are Aboriginal in Canada to say someone was an domestic messiah.  It was so obtrusively political one could even say it applied to an whole group of people—you know which one—because of what kind of terrible fate it was to have one's whole culture stripped or emasculated from someone's person.  In the form of nuns and in-advanced Christian replicas who didn't even know the deeper meanings of their own religion.

    Domesticity was just what immature parents did to their Christian children to punish them for being bad little gay boys and girls.  It didn't necessarily have anything to do with Aboriginal culture.  And since I was not Christian either it didn't necessarily have anything to do with my own also.

    And I imagined myself in an world, that had never been domestic, and I imagined it was some sort of romantic world where my wife was pulling my tie and leading me outdoors into the patio with the little white lights overhead on strings and the flowers and it didn't matter if I was inside or outside anymore because I could be anywhere.  And I was good enough to take care of myself in that system.  I didn't need to go home and hide just to relax enough that I could work an entire next week.  I could be me.  I could be me anywhere I go.  And that was my true known value, being able to do so.

    I thought it might be dangerous to be such an loudmouth; but did I really think it was dangerous for me to speak in public if that was my real moral opinion‽

    I wanted to be lead by Equality and I believed everyone was equal under the republic.  

    

    And could choose which republics they would part of be.

    I believed in Feminist standards, and to some extent I had refined them in my thinking in order to include more specific categories of feminism I considered dramatically and historically joyous or exemplary.  I also believed in the Global Peace agenda as has been carried on by my, the Millennials, generation.  The racial improvisation subject has been carried underground, to some extent, by the Napster generation who suddenly had access to music shared for free by all races of people in an global network server known as the Internet.  We had been part of the economic prosperity and growth of racial ties for several generations.  An rapidly growing underground micro-network of hosts implied in the Internet, by which everything you search for and everything you do on the Internet is connected to every type of intersectionality in feasibility.  Everyone everywhere was suddenly on the Internet together, and we all knew it because we had downloaded their latest album.

    What did domesticity even mean, nowadays; wasn't it normal for everybody these days to make themselves perfectly comfortable both at home and in public?  I didn't want to be standing around all day worrying about that wayward marauder, who would end my day and possibly the lives of my children.  Why couldn't I just be an Christian and adopt an certain behavior of not being ready to put up with any fight or fight anybody.  Whimsically.  So that it became normal to do so?

    I was smarter by adopting the practice of an real, objective Christian.  How would I fight with an outside world I couldn't fight against?  I would just not be ready for any of it until other people starting mimicking me and we all started doing this.  And then there wouldn't be an reason anymore to be able to do it.  And wasn't that my real un-domesticated status as an white Canadian?

    I just thought it was tougher and more egotistical to want to claim you will win domination (in mimicry, who mimics who) over them without ever dominating them physically.  And this was the real smarter way to go about this whimsical existence.  We were what we said we were politically.  And our thoughts were made of willpower and stuff; the part that decides what to command itself to do; is part of the same mechanistic ignition-type system which commands others to do the same thing by the same turn.  When we put our willpower toward being whatever we wanted to be we could be anybody.  And this, in part, was what made us human.  As Hegel might have said, we had stopped identifying ourself only according to our environments and had written an secret contract with the self in this day and age: there was indeed part of what makes us human which could decide for itself what it thought of itself and didn't depend in any way on the exterior environment for doing so.

    Whichever descent or lineage or expectation of sophistication one comes from, can't we decide all together THAT is where we are in history?  We're both the interiorization of our environments (including our central geographic region) and the internal self-reflection (willpower) of what we are in our own interiorization.  The part that decides, subjectively and willfully, who the character of the person who I am is.  Without needing an external source to tell me otherwise.  (An internal locus of power).  I am responsible for my own interiorization of the fact of whom and what I think I am; and I don't need another person to criticize with the expectation of the result that I am going to change one of them because I'm not.  And they are exactly the ones that I like to choose.  Roleplaying characters gone real; at an third level of complexity.  These were the Mercenaries, Wizards, Druids, Rogues, who had gone hybrid and begun to accumulate their skills in triads.  People who were more believable and realistic than ever.

    Domesticity is how we refer to animals, not human beings.

    And yet it has an rich cultural tradition in human society.

    Is this some kind of mistake on their part, or is it fair to say they just use an different definition of the word and it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with their political or most serious beliefs?  Domesticity was just personal manners and interaction that have to do with being at home.  It didn't necessarily imply anyone was an stay-at-home mother or father of an particular imposition of gender and sexism.  And women had worked hard on what the end and final meaning of domesticity would be because, not in the least, it was important to Canadian Politics.  Can we reclaim the word domesticity, then, into sensitive and generous politics where it is okay to say this without summoning up the wrong kind of attention and authority?