My views
I am a Democrat (Blue Dog Democrats/Centrist New Democrats), Social Democrat (Third Way) and a State Liberal
I am a Christian (Quaker/Anglican/Greek Catholic)
fiscal
I am a Social Democrat (Third Way) , Libertarian Anarchist , and Peronist (De Francism variant)
I support the Labour Party UK (New Labour/Third Way/Third Way Social Democracy) and the UK government in general since the leadership of Tony Blair.
Besides me supporting Third Way Social Democracy, I also support '1990s Swedish Social Democratic Party ' like Social Democracy and modern Nordic Social Democracy, the latter of which runs tight budgets and are generally very concerned with keeping debt low and running budget surpluses.
I supported the Tea Party years back and would do so today if they came back.
I support our current economically lame society evolving into a Libertarian Communist (fiscally conservative), Triangulation variant of a Neoliberal 2.0/State Liberal and Third Way (Anthony Giddens true Third Way) version of J Bidenism (Psuedo ‘Systematic Socialism/Socialism with Chinese characteristics’) that uses Social commons as a safety net .
Then I want that society to evolve into a Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society with other voluntary autonomous societies or countries within the former US alongside of it like a Dirigisme voluntary society or country, a Degrowth voluntary society r country , a Social Market voluntary society or country, a National Communist voluntary society or country etc to give the former US various voluntary societies or countries
In this evolved economy, the Chicago school of economics and State Economic Liberalism-State Liberalism would generally be employed. The economy would grow like it it did in Chile decades ago
In this future system would be heavily based on the concept of rational expectations ,active trust and generative politics. It would use Center to Center left ways to solve our problems in more assertive, dialogic way .The government would value and aim for balanced budgets
Basically there would be Capitalism with less layers of rules, regulations (or more effective) ,laws, diff Affirm action (not none or less), taxes.
In this future system, there would be less involvement from the federal, state, and local level government (or at least when it leads to inefficient or long term unsustainable outcome), less special fees and more targeted (not less) registrations, lower cost of complying with these sets of restraints etc
Moreover, there would be regulation (or more regulation) of the money supply by central banks (in the form of monetarism). There could be increased taxes in this future system to avoid deficit spending, but in this future system, there would be a preferable preference to decrease spending to avoid deficit spending
This would cause widespread deregulation, privatization and other free market policies (see below) that would be closely controlled economies with reduced government intervention in the economy
Basically, indirect or less or government intervention and protectionism in the market economy when it would inhibit free trade and competition but more government intervention to protect property rights and resolve market failures.
I accept the economic efficiency of markets in many cases and thus I believe that in this future system they should and would be detached from capitalism to achieve the aims of socialism while at the same time, maintaining the ‘efficiency’ of capitalism
Through workers’ movements worldwide, a very lot of nations would join the same markets but they wouldn’t be as attached to these global markets in a way where a recession or depression in the the US would make them be effected by said recession or depression (due in part to Alter Globalization being used instead of Globalization and more non interventionalism in foreign markets by the US). too
These markets in this system would be free Market Authoritarian. The government would use modern technologies to suppress dissidence by counter revolutionaries, reactionaries,insurrectionists, people trying to undermine democracy, and similar dissidents (in a Mccarthyist of the proletarian sort of way i.e using Defensive Democracy but in a way where the government would still beloved by Americans)
With the markets in this system, citizens will be provided with enough material comforts to cause them to support the regime. Markets would be used for social aims, including being used to give power to consumers to make their own decisions and act responsibly while not being brainwashed by consumerism and materialism
So this would mean in some areas there would be less market fundamentalism so more market control by Democrats than we have today (like in the Energy sector which they would be eco social autocrats)
Eventually incrementally or moderately our markets would evolve.
Flexible financial markets (including way more voluntary interactions with much less involvement of the state or with charity donations to the state to treat the markets as if they really are free of the state etc) that would then exist which would permit private share ownership—eventually as we further become more socialistic, these markets will change their approach.
Eventually in these markets there will be a system of conditional (but more of a formality type of conditional/quasi) private /property rights or where enterprises would be in private hands wherever it is viable . The transfer to private recipients public services that were previously provided by government. (i.e the government would also privatize previous public services)
The service and companies transferred to private ownership would belong to diverse sects. Industries would be privatized en mass by the government (including banks, railways, shipping channels, social insurance etc). State ownership wouldn’t be common unless it is for emergency (like huge war) situations but for those rarer cases there would be optional clauses. This privatization would be within increased state control over the entire economy via interference and regulation. The government would regulate and control groups or syndicates of companies most of which would have previously regulated themselves.
There would be partnerships between the government and businesses .Companies would be encouraged to support the government’s economic goals but they wouldn’t really be punished if they didn’t do so state profits are retained by enterprises rather than being distributed among the population in a social dividend or similar scheme, which are central features in most models of market socialism
Common ownership in this future system eventually would including private sector groups with government officials in non government roles , citizen groups, GONGOs and Nationalized NGOs in the socialist market economy which would consist of state owned assets (with less direct state influence ,really government would be used in the state asset manner primarily to step in ever so slightly to make sure the assets part is functional), Collective people owned enterprises (people would be collectivized and then own enterprises) and the Municipally owned shares of mixed enterprises
Under the above future system, Social commons would be used as a safety net to people who are in need (but I don’t want it to be used in our current system or the below eventual Radical Classical Liberal system)
How exactly this social commons safety net will be in the above future system is difficult to say, since people would have to decide on it. There is no blueprint. Everything would depend on the local conditions and circumstances, including power relations.
Social commons offer a within which can be extended, universal protection and collective solidarity can be developed. It opens a new horizon with more decision-making power for people.
Below is a conceptual framework of this social commons safety net which would include the extension of social and economic rights, universal protection, and decision making power. It would become a new paradigm for linking together social change and climate justice. This Social commons safety net would can protect society in the above future system and take care of the immaterial and material needs of people.
This social commons safety net would be a solidaritic safety net and it would reject the old order and develop a new narrative for safety nets. There would be a sharing, P2P (peer-to-peer), financial aide to people who are poor or in need because of the above future system. It would be a socialistic safety net, free of capitalism.
These safety net Commons’, would be all the things that ‘we’ (at whatever level) decide have to become a ’common’.
This ‘we’ is part of the building of this social commons safety net that would be a political community that would cooperate in the definition of the word common (for people who in the above system are in need) and by establishing the rules by which it can be used.
Until recently, the concept was used primarily to design natural elements (like the seas, forests, mountains and the land). But it is also used in the above -mentioned small-scale cooperation initiatives to help people in need in the above future system
This social commons safety net would never be inherent its nature, but it would always be the result of a social co-activity.
These social Commons safety nets would be created by people who cooperate and decide how this common safety net can be made available to all who need it
It is a fundamental critique of private appropriation and ownership in terms of safety nets
Several social constructions we are used to, would be made into this social commons safety nets
One candidate for this would be social protection for people who are in need in the above future system since through taxes or via social contribution they would have earned it by them contributing to its funding.
These social common safety nets would include Welfare states and social protection after they are defined and regulated, they would contribute to collective and individual welfare, which would emerge from collective and participatory action. This social commons safety net would sustain our common being, our being together, our co-existence. They would beyond individual interests.
In this social commons safety net there would be reform starting at the local, national, continental and global level on what is wanted and needed in the existing social protection and also reform to preserve some of its valuable basic principles,
Through this social commons safety net people in need and their helpers would take the opportunity to enlarge their rights, like with the indispensable environmental rights to water and land for farmers.
All the fragmented sub-systems of social protection would be made part of a coherent whole, that would include social insurances, social assistance, public services, labour right and environmental rights to people in need in the above future system
Through this, competition between sectors would be avoided and the blurred dividing lines between those sectors would disappear.
It is hard to defend a decent wage for workers, if a lot of poor and unemployed people willing to work for any wage.It is also hard to help needy people if there are unacceptable working conditions on the labor market create more poverty than can be eliminated
This social commons safety net would be multi-level, because a good protection in one city or one country necessarily would promote social dumping from another city or country.
This social convergence, without making all systems equal, would be the inevitable consequence. This would mean that the objective of social commons safety net would not just be insurance, but also has to be a better redistribution in order to promote more equality.
Different political communities will have different priorities, will all social common safety nets being different. This would not be a problem, as long as they would be compatible with each other and strive to social convergence. Human rights could be the common reference social common safety nets to the above future system
Human rights are individual rights, ignoring social relationships. They would need to be made compatible with this social common safety net to avoid tension
Protecting peoples rights are not the same as protecting society itself. This becomes vital if a social commons safety net wants to tackle the above future neoliberalismistic system, a system that tries to improve a system (Neoliberalism) that at times destroys societies – remember Margaret Thatcher: ‘There is no such thing as society’.
A social commons safety net would be able to do this as its constitutive of society; it allows to focus on to be put on the collective and participatory aspect of the emergence of collective rights.
Human rights then, would have to be re-examined and be made compatible with a societal approach to this social commons safety net
The French philosopher François Flahault, contests the idea that society exists as a consequence of individuals making a ‘rugged and binding social contract’ in order to satisfy their material needs.
In this vision, individuals precede society.
However, in social life there is much more than a practical arrangement in order to satisfy material needs which is an end in itself.
The individual can’t exist without society. He or she emerges from society, out fron the bonds which links people to each other and which also link each of person to our entire society. So social relationships, are not purely contractual but are also constitutive of each person’s individuality.
The needy individual who is needy in the future system above would not be ruggedly or even overtly self-sufficient. The problem with the above future system would indeed its anthropology.
The threats against society, which would be caused by destroying relationships, communities and bonds, via promoted competitiveness, flexibility and the struggle for life would be real.
The welfare of the collectivity would not coincide with the welfare of individuals, and the above future system would not be as ideal for both as other economic systems do its nature. Without solidarity, we would not even exist.
This means that not only individuals would have to be protected in the above future system, but also that society as such too.
Which gives a further justification for social protection as a social common safety net in the above future system.
It would have to protect the material and the immaterial needs, by its recognition of the primordial role of social life as a condition for individual life.
Re-conceptualized human rights are very compatible with social commons safety nets.
They are in fact complementary. Furthermore, the commoning process, constitutive of the political community, would be a way to protect and preserve this community.
One of the reasons people on the left would often. e reluctant to discuss social protection in the above future system, is because of their likely conviction that nothing can be done within the future system above . It is a paralyzing reason that has hurt many social movements.
But the reasoning would also be turned around since with a social commons safety net, the promise of better and more protection would lead to other power relations that would make it possible to promote systemic change
This social commons safety net with its social protection would lead to the awareness that the economic system will have to change as well (as it will as my future system above will morph into Anarcho Capitalism)
For decades, there were and continue to be different proposals made that call for changing productive relationships. Nothing has come out of this
But because of climate change , societies can promote other ways of production and consumption other than the future system above
So to set up this social commons safety net in the above future system, consumerism will have to be abolished or heavily reduced, and we would need to implement P2P systems, create new cooperatives, etc.
If well developed, the social and solidarity economy of this social commons safety net would can harm the above future system. Low paid workers who are close to being needy or are needy would need to take over their company under this social common safety net to start to see the fruits of this social commons safety net. They would own, manage and use their companies and their products collectively by undertaking, which they would decide by themselves. This would be a way to embed the economy into society.
People want the economy to provide the products they truly need and they want the economy to care for them, instead of making and accumulating profits.
There is yet another way in which care in this social commons safety net would become a priority and make this social commons safety net transformative. Care and ecology are linked. At stake would be the survival of people in the above future system, something that neither markets in the above future system nor technology would be able to do.
In the social commons safety net there would be links to climate justice as the transformative character of this social commons safety net comes to light.
Social commons as such would not change the above future economic system , but it would re-define it which would go hand in hand with social and ecological protection as a social commons safety net, whereas climate justice would imply caring for nature. This would mean taking care of the sustainability of life, nature, of individuals and of the society.
If the economy in the above future system would work for peoples needs and if all of the socially necessary work be shared, the result may be full employment and a drastic reduction of working time.
What will have to be developed to make this social commons safety net work would be a legal system to protect the rights of the social commons safety net and the commoners, because ownership relations will be totally different.
Sociosphere
In this future system, the government would repair damaged solidarities through divisive policies like any slippery slopes that come from woke thought policing.
There would be moral commitment to negative liberty with principles for restricting liberty on the basis of a unanimous agreement in which everyone's particular interests receive a fair hearing (sort of like direct democracy). Which should be done in our current society too if you think about it but only if it can fit within our current society’s system
In this future system, the state would be strong and protect the rights of property, people , and enforce contracts . It would put a leash on any socialistic path we take if implementing such socialistic policies creates tax burdens or deficit burdens that will hurt future generations when those Socialistic US society finally comes about
In this future system, there would have less authoritarian/big government in wealth distribution , our government would try to do more with less spending .
These ‘more with less’ low economic spending policies would in an innovative way create pro working class policies and efficiently deliver services that would meet human needs including the need for a safe environment and that would find innovative ways to do more with less
There would be an all hands on deck approach and direct democracy
In this future system, the economy would benefit everyone by trickling down from the workers who empowered it, in order to help everyone rise and stay afloat equally
In this future system, the government would raise taxes to balance the budget in order to create a surplus to allow more spending on programs to create or expand social equality policies
This a way of organizing society would be based on the principle of 'from each according to ability, to each according to need'
Eventually through this there would be no division between employers and workers, and rich and poor, there would no longer be a need for a body of organized violence controlled by a small number of people, (like the police), to protect the rich’s property and enforce poverty, wage labour and even starvation on anyone else.
With no need to accumulate capital or make profit there would no longer be a need for armies to capture new markets and new resources.
In this future system, there would be tax cuts and less regulation (including less Equality of Opportunity) of business which would to increase liberty (like in the Declaration of Independence) and property rights. This would truly allow a free society
In this future system, the government would help workers from co-ops, collectives etc by promoting work efficiency (allowing for the best workers) that is not stymied by big governments
The government would provide individuals a defense against loss of social standing through the insistence on equality (if any inequality still lingered), essentially abolishing all hierarchy in favor of a centralized system where all but a very few are the same in power, wealth, and status.
But only if the government could do this with reduced spending (since every dollar that the government spends is a dollar taken from workers, regardless of whether it is from debt or taxes) and after tax cuts (since tax cuts would result in economic growth leading in turn to higher government revenues)
In this future system, there would be a socialistic version of a Nationalized Affordable Healthcare act and would offer free reeducation for far right or alt right people
There should be Triangulation/more Triangulation in the Multilateralism that the US has with China
Instead of Left Anarchy/Anarchy without Adjectives, we should have Anarcho Conservatism Anarchism which is more ‘early non socialistic New Deal’ than ‘real socialistic New Deal’ (which would be a rare form of Anarchism that unlike Left Anarchy/Anarchy without Adjectives, this form of Anarchism would call for either part of SSI to be privatized or call for the same thing to happen to SSI that Jo Jorgensen wants to do go SSI
Anarcho Conservatism Anarchism promotes prosperous lifestyles (as well as the best for the continual sustenance of a libertarian social order) which it be encourages, especially via positive influence (not ostracism), and calls for employing covenant communities which may exclude those who violate common values . Fact checkers prove this
Our government should ideally have no subsides (unrealistic to abolish subsides all together) but realistically have much less subsides. This would help retain order and balance in a paternalistic way
There would be some large (like 6,000,000,000,000) spending sprees by the government
I’d like this future system to eventually lead to the US becoming Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society with the privatization of everything which would include cities with all their infrastructures, public spaces, streets and urban management systems (which would ease my concerns of public holiday events, see my Lifestyle blog for more)
In this Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society there would be self ownership and original appropriation which would combine personal and private property in this system .
This is because I support freedoms on the basis of the agreement with private property rights. So the abolishment of public amenities as I write below etc would be definitely something I would more than get on board with. People would fully own themselves and have certain ‘moral’ powers to acquire property rights in external types of things
In this Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society, there would be private ownership of the means of production and the allocation of the product of labor that are created by workers within the context of wage labour and the free market .
Through decisions that property and capital owners would make regardless of the needs of the individual
The state would be abolished but a post state private agencies would have the functions that the state had
This Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society would be a contractual society that would be based purely on voluntary action, entirely unhampered by violence or threats of violence
This Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society will make the healthcare model with the most consumer support will be the main healthcare in that society. It would be like democracy, except people would vote with their money.
The US as a Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society would allow other voluntary societies to form and create their own economies or even governments, autonomous from the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society and its markets (as long as those societies don’t violate the No Harm Principle of those who don’t wish to join them)
In the US, besides the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society , I would want a Dirigisme voluntary society or country, a Degrowth voluntary society or country , a Social Market voluntary society or country, a National Communist voluntary society or country and other relatively distinct voluntary societies or countries all within the US. They would be private or public and have different rules, economic systems, laws or maybe even governments etc
But I would want them to complement and influence each other
Maybe in this US voluntary society or country , together or apart they would voluntarily form separate national states (like maybe the National Communism voluntary nation state would be a transitional stage to a classless and stateless society of the future) , or for tactical temporary alliances with each other or maybe dependencies in each other or maybe they would all be isolationist toward each other.
I would want in this US voluntary society, for each of the voluntary societies or countries to complement each other despite them being autonomous and having their own economies (if they aren’t moneyless), markets (if they have markets), laws, governments or no governments, political ideologies etc
I would want the Dirigisme voluntary society or country with their indicative economic planning to voluntarily and privately help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society by either using strong directive influence to supplement market forces in the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market for guiding its market economy or by privately advising the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society on how to do so without them using strong directive influence to supplement market forces in the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market
I would want the Social Market voluntary society or country to voluntarily and privately help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society by either voluntarily (with permission from the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society) merging their Social Market with the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market at times or more then the Social Market would be used for necessities while the Radical Classical Liberal market would be used for luxuries or without merging their market with the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society market but privately advising the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society on how to adda socialistic element to their market for necessities
I would want the Degrowth voluntary society or country to offer the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use of its degrowth welfare and degrowth healthcare as social safety nets or maybe even to help the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use degrowth methods within the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society . I would also want the National Communism voluntary society or country to offer the Radical Classical Liberal voluntary society use of its Mutual Aide as a social safety net
The Dirigisme voluntary society or country would use indicative economic planning (as opposed to regulatory interventionism) through a Commission for the Plan in their voluntary societies . They would use strong directive influence through to supplement market forces for guiding its market economy
The state in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country would play a positive role for state intervention in curbing the alleged productive inefficiencies and market failures through directed investment, subsides and taxes to incentivize market entities to fulfill state economic objectives (like rational, efficient economic development, with the long-term goals of matching better developed and more technologically advanced economies).
It would involve state control in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country of the transportation, energy and telecommunication industries infrastructures in addition to incentivizing private corporations to merge or engage in particular projects.
Indicative planning would use various incentives to induce public and private entities to behave in an optimal fashion. The plan would serve as a general guideline for optimal investment. It would be a Economically Liberal economy that would be directed by profit, income-maximizing enterprise and market based allocation of producer goods.
It would be a middle way between between the American policy of little state involvement in the mid 20th century and the Soviet policy of total state control.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country, the state would never own more than a minority of any industry and would not seek to replace private profit with central planning
The idea of this Dirigisme voluntary society or country would be to complement and improve the efficiency of the market through indirect planning which would be to provide better information to market participants.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country the state would have greater control in the infrastructure and the transportation system , including owning the railway, the electric utilities , the natural gas utilities, the airlines, telecommunications and the postal services.
In this Dirigisme voluntary society or country , the government would devolve the construction of most freeways to semi-private companies rather than to administer them itself. The state would encourage mergers and the formation of "national champions" which are large industry groups backed by the state.
Other areas where the government in this Dirigisme voluntary society or country directly would intervene would be in defense, nuclear and the aerospace industries
This Dirigisme voluntary society or country development would be marked by volontarisme, which is the belief that difficulties (like post disaster devastation, lack of natural resources) could and would be overcome through willpower and ingenuity (“we don't have oil, but we have ideas”)
Volontarisme would emphasize modernization, which would result in a variety of ambitious state plans.
The National Communism voluntary society or country would be pro nationalism and have relatively progressive policies as a means of building societal or national solidarity (using socialistic Nationalism to improve or create a path to Communism)
National Communism is inspired by the korenizatsiia policies of bolsjewist Russia in the late 1920s and early 1930s, where local and transnationalisms were permitted to gain popular support for the bolsjewist cause. To quote National Communist Ho Chi Minh “it was patriotism, not communism, that inspired me”
There would be more pure communism and less State Socialism. It would be based upon distinct national characteristics and circumstances instead of following policies set by other socialist nations like the USSR
When the Communist Manifesto says that the workers 'have no country', they mean the bourgeois national state, not to nationality in the ethnical sense.
In this National Communism voluntary society or country, there would be far less tolerance of perceived "deviant" behaviour (and less culturally progressive) than in a Marxist Leninist society.
This society or government would be sovereignty (it would not be Communist International) and promote self-determination. It would be Anti Globalist , Anti Global Capitalist, Anti Social Imperialist ,anti colonialist and generally anti-fascist
This National Communism voluntary society or country would be against Neoliberals since Neoliberals are degenerate, against Conservatives (since Conservatives would be seen in this society as reactionaries).
There would be cultural revolutions along with possibly some potochronism (National Communism or local heritage. would be part of this ideology and society) . One tenant of National Communism is the fighting throughout the years to achieve unity and independence. In this National Communism voluntary society or government there would be Patriotic Guards
This National Communism voluntary society or country would be pro Protectionist in protecting local industry from foreign corruption within the post US and outside the post US.
This National Communism voluntary society or country might have to ignore Class divisions at times when the national bourgeoisie would turn away from national liberation and ally with their imperial counterparts which would ensure the eventual collapse of any revolutionary struggle and national liberation.
This Nationalism Communism voluntary society or country is a must since National Communism helps oppressed minorities and because National Communism is noted for causing a rise in the standard of living in places like Romanian
Maybe in this Nationalism Communism voluntary society or country, they would use mutualism until they become moneyless.Mutualism would mean worker co-ops, contract and federation , dual power and gradualism, free association, mutual aide and mutual credit etc
The Degrowth voluntary society or country would promote self-sufficiency and material responsibility
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country there would be skepticism of decoupling because that absolute decoupling is only possible for short periods, specific locations or with small mitigation rates and is thus unlikely to happen in the future.
Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence that decoupling would happen fast enough and on a global scale
Moreover, reported cases of successful decoupling either depicted relative decoupling and/or are observed only temporarily and/or only on a local scale. Being reliant on decoupling as the main or only strategy to combine economic growth and the reduction of environmental pressures would equal taking a big risk to our future well being. So with degrowth we would find alternatives.
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, there would be decreasing demand to permanently close the demand gap
That would mean bringing down the demand and production of renewable resources to levels that prevent depletion and that are also environmentally healthy. In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, they would not be dependent on oil to avoid the societal collapse that would happen when non-renewable resources are depleted.
Under this Degrowth voluntary society or country, rich countries would have to reduce their standard of living to create world economic equality with the resources that would available in this future final system which would be one of the aims of this degrowth
This constraint on resources would eventually lead to a forced reduction in consumption. Controlled consumption reduction would reduce the trauma of this change.
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country, there would be opposition to all productivism forms due to the belief that economic productivity and growth are the purpose of human organization in this Degrowth voluntary society or country
This Degrowth voluntary society or country would oppose modern forms of sustainable development
This is because sustainable development is rooted in the mainstream development ideas that shoot to increase capitalist growth and consumption. So in this Degrowth voluntary society or country sustainable development would be seen as an oxymoron (since any development that is based on growth in a finite and environmentally stressed world is inherently unsustainable)
So in this Degrowth voluntary society or country , the government would advocate for the complete abandonment of the current (growth) economic model, and would suggest relocalizing and abandoning the Global South’s global economy which would allow people of the Global South to become more self-sufficient which in turn would end the overconsumption and exploitation of Southern resources by the Global North.
This would be a possible path to preserve our ecosystems from human pressures. In this Degrowth voluntary society or country the environment would communally be cared for, integrating humans and nature; This is due to ecosystems being inherently valuable, for more than just resources. Ideas such as a maximum wage and open borders were discussed
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country there would be a deontological shift so that lifestyles which involve a high level of resource consumption are no longer seen as attractive to people , the US would repair past injustices from their centuries of colonization and exploitation along with redistributing wealth, and a concept of the appropriate scale of action
Some researchers note that the world may have to pass through Great Transformation, "by design or by disaster", so ecological economics like the Degrowth voluntary society or country might have to incorporate Postdevelopment theories if we want to really change something in that Degrowth voluntary society or country
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country ,technologies that are designed to reduce resource use and improve efficiency i.e sustainable green solutions would be discouraged due to the rebound effect (the rebound effect are based off of observations that when a less resource exhaustive technology is introduced, the behavior that is surrounding the use of that technology may change and that consumption of that technology could increase or even offset any potential resource savings)
In this Degrowth voluntary society or country , the only effective "sustainable" solutions would involve a complete rejection of the growth paradigm and would move to a degrowth paradigm.
This Degrowth voluntary society or country would build on Feminist economics that have criticized measures of economic growth (like the GDP) as it excludes work that is mainly done by women such as unpaid care work, work performed to fulfill people's needs, reproductive work, work sustaining life etc. Further more it would draw on the critique of socialist feminists who claim that capitalist growth builds on the exploitation of women’s work.
Instead of devaluing womens work, this Degrowth voluntary society or country would center the economy around care, proposing that care work should be organized as a commons.
So this would include centering care with changing society’s time regimes including a working time reduction in line with this equally along with the redistribution of care work to lead to gender justice
One model within this Degrowth voluntary society or country would be a 4-in-1-perspective which proposes 4 hours of wage work a day, freeing time for 4 hours of care work, 4 hours of political activities in a direct democracy all within this Degrowth voluntary society or country in addition to 4 hours of personal development through learning.
This Degrowth voluntary society or country, would draw on materialist ecofeminisms which claim a parallel of the exploitation of women and nature in growth-based societies and would propose a subsistence perspective conceptualized by Maria Mies and Ariel Salleh.
This would further include identifying synergies and opportunities for cross-fertilization between degrowth and feminism as advanced in the future, with these two discoures being connected through networks that would include the Feminisms and Degrowth Alliance (FaDA).
A relevant concept within this Degrowth voluntary society or country would be decolonialism which refers to putting an end to the perpetuation of political, social, economic, religious, racial, gender, and epistemological relations of power, domination, and hierarchy of the global north over the global south.
Through colonial domination, capital depresses prices of the inputs and then colonial cheapening occurs to the detriment of the oppressed countries. This Degrowth voluntary society or country would criticize these appropriation mechanisms and enclosure of one territory over another and would propose a human needs provision through disaccumulation, de-enclosure, and decommodification. It would also reconcile with social movements and it would seek to recognize the ecological debt to achieve the catch-up, which is seen as impossible without decolonization.
In the Social Market voluntary society or country, it would be a free-market economically liberal economic system alongside social policies and enough regulation that it would establish both fair competition within the market and a general welfare state.
It would be inspired by distributism and ordoliberalism and in this Social Market voluntary society or country, it would refrain from planning and guiding production, work or sales but it would support planned efforts to influence the economy organically through a comprehensive economic policy that would be coupled with flexible adaptation to market studies. It would combine monetary, credit, trade, tax, customs, investment and social policies etc.
It would aim to create an economy that serves the welfare and needs of the entire voluntary society or country and allow for private property. It might be similar to the EU’s market which would mean it would establish an internal market. It might work for the sustainable development of the voluntary society based on a balanced economic growth and price stability, a very competitive social market economy, which would aim for full employment and social progress, along with a high protection level and improvement of the QoE. It would promote scientific and technological advance.
In our current static capitalistic society, if we aren’t going to move left economically and ditch Capitalism , we should create wide spread worker co-ops within our static capitalistic economy. The Capital Hill Babysitting Co-op and credit unions are two examples of how a worker co-op would work within our current static capitalistic society,
A cooperative is an autonomous association of persons that are united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democratically controlled enterprise. Cooperatives are controlled by their members democratically , with each member having one vote in electing the board of directors.
Big corp/business
We need to deal a hard blow to the old Capitalistic trade oligarchy. However, some elites should still hold some prominent position but we need to deal a hard blow.This would be to allow other social classes to thrive
I want Amazon and Big Tech to be broken up. We have to stop their monopolies. There is no reason so many people should wear the same brand of clothes, or be a member of the same social media site. Movie character Arthur Jensen's speech in his movie about how corporations are the real nations of the world today seems frighteningly prophetic after decades of increasing globalism and corporate 'synergy'.
I am ok with natural monopolies as long as they align with most of my political views otherwise I want natural monopolies to be broken up like I want non natural monopolies to be broken up.
Most small businesses are NOT tax cheats and Justin Trudeau was wrong to lie and say that
I believe that its better for corporations to voluntarily reform themselves than for them to be forced to do so
I would like to see white collar upper middle class owned means of production, upper middle class and middle America working class worker co-ops , democratic self management for the workers who power the economy by investing their wealth back into the economy by using democratic self management methods that major corporations like Prada would use for democratic self management , and workplace democracy in white collar , upper middle class and middle America working class workplaces
The US needs economic development without foreign financing
Monetary bank gov fiscal.
I support Krysten Sinema opposing Joe Biden’s 3.5 trillion dollar reconciliation bill.
I support the J Manchin-C Schumer spending and tax increase bill
I have a lot of issues with modern mainstream monetary policies, such as central banking and state-issued currency (and since it is too anti consumer and big gov for me)
This is why in an idealized absolute world I would be pitifully sympathetically non hostile to a combination of a Crypto Bitcoin Blockchain and a Gold Standard system being equal to modern currency to fight financial repression which sometimes happens due to the evils of Crony Capitalism and Capitalist Fascism
But I will settle for mutual credit since free banking should be taken back by the people in order to establish free credit systems (since banks have a monopoly on credit, just as capitalists have a monopoly on the means of production and landlords have a monopoly on land). This would be so that money could be created for the benefit of the participants rather than for the benefit of the bankers. mut
I support and encourage people to use war bonds, bonds and to save their money in savings accounts
I support people having off shore bank accounts
The government should not increase the tax of people who profit from the sale of stocks ,bonds or real estate.
I'm against President Biden's IRS bank snooping plan and his plan to unprivatize banks
My views on taxing the rich are based on two or more of the fiscal views I have above
Rich people should be encouraged to marry common people and taxed more than AOC wants them taxed if they don’t
Peoplism
I generally support private property rights and some aspects of privatization
I support right to privacy and right to be forgotten
Antis
I am majorly opposed to Monarchism
Until the average American realizes that capitalism damages their livelihood while augmenting the livelihoods of the wealthy, the American Dollar will continue to rule
I support Socialism in one country over International Socialism
I am against the Great Reset which I view as mid 1980s-mid 1990s Anti Heroish
I am against Free Masonry
I am against people having a sense of entitlement
I am against consumerism and materialism for Christian reasons, and because people are brainwashed to be consumerists and materialists by corporations and the media who intrude on their lives. It's also a shame that consumerism and materialism spread from the US to other countries which is cultural imperialism.
It is wrong that people are obsessed with products and not people. It is pathetic that people wear the same types of clothes, follow fashion trends, have big flat screen TVs, wear Nikes sneakers or even sneakers themselves, and similar unneeded nonsense. People are slaves to brand name products and use them as status symbols and that is sad. We have to break people free of this bondage to consumerism and materialism. This in part because of corporate monopolies. See my lifestyle blog post for more
Consumerism dehumanizes people and causes people to live immorally. Consumerism is shallow, hollow and makes people think they need things that they DON'T NEED. Consumerism is basically corporations making us their slaves and that needs to end
I am extremely against many to nearly most forms of Communism
I am non supportive of one word Marxism
I am against the World Bank
I am against the World Trade Organization
socioeconomic in our current system
I support reducing prescription drug prices
I was and still am against adding a 15 dollar an hour Minimum wage hike to the 2020 relief package.
Raising the minimum wage is not ideal because it would force full time workers into part time jobs and hurt their access to health care benefits. But as long as the minimum wage isn’t raised above 24 dollars an hour, I won’t resist
My views of Welfare are based on two or more of the fiscal views I have above. We do need to reallocate welfare spending into pro gay Straight Pride Events and our military industrial complex
I support the healthcare system (and upgrades to that system) that the UK government has had (and made) since the leadership of Tony Blair
My view on Universal Healthcare, Medicare for All, Obamacare are based on two or more of the fiscal views I have above
I have a triangulation position on Universal Basic Income
K-12 Education for students who don’t intend to go to college should be compulsory. I support a 19th Century Paraguay type ‘ universal’ (free) elementary educational system that would reach a majority of even hard to reach BIPOC populations
I would like less involvement of the government in higher education
I am neutral on some types of private schools
Build Back Better would be better if the politicians amended it to either reducing the number of years that are funded at the start or eventually forcing the ‘burden’ of paying for certain programs to the states.
I am against the federal government giving money to cities and states for Halloween events, Halloween merchandise, Valentine’s Day events and Valentine’s Day merchandise. That is evil communism and I won’t let those states and cities use that money for Halloween or Valentines Day .I won’t even allow those states and cities to get that money from the federal government for those purposes. Ronald Reagan and Freddie Hayek would fully agree with me on this
I want all money that states and cities have allocated for Halloween and Valentines Day to be reallocated to non holiday related things.
I am against student debt forgiveness ideas. It is anti progressive. Most people who support it only do so because they have student loans. I do support the Responsible Education Assistant through Reforms Act
I am ok with land redistribution. Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, they should really be either unowned or owned collectively
I am open to the idea of the government giving church and federal lands to homeless people in return for those homeless people being loyal ‘soldiers’ to the US including by being in high ranking political positions in a future participatory democracy . Half of the land would be nationalized half the land in four stages.
Values
I personally support low taxes
I personally value the social institutions that enforce conditions that mesh with my economic views in this blog and I reject institutions that function in opposition to these economic views of me on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom
I support a Socialistic economy because socialistic economies take egalitarianism to the next level and I support next level egalitarianism
I support class consolidation
I am ok with Ego Communism that is fused with the type of Individualism where a force of Individuals each bring their own unique reality to compliment each other in a moral relativist sort of way
I am a fan of Survivalism and I believe that its a good concept to live by
I support Individualism and individual liberty for all people on Earth equally.
I support self reliance
I am laid back in my own unique way
I support social freedom
I am brave, articulate and smart and I believe that those are valuable traits
Unfortunately there will always be at least some divide between the diversified elite and non elite
Social issues
LGBTQ+
I support Queer Nationalism
Personally I am between apolitical and mixed on gay marriage
Legality wise, I lean moral (as in moral victory) support for gay marriage being legal , but only if gay marriage is called gay marriage or same sex marriage and straight/heterosexual marriage is called marriage (to show they are different). This is only because straight/hetereosexual marriage has been around for 6000 years and got a head start. Maybe in a few centuries we can call all marriages, whether gay/same sex or straight/heterosexual 'marriage' but not until
If the above won't happen, I want Civil Marriage, Religious Marriage and Common Law marriages to be abolished and this very specific form of privatized marriage to be legalized and become the only form of legal marriage for both straight couples and gay couples :
This very specific form of conditional Privatized marriage for straight couples and gay couples would be within a structure of growing control of the marriage industry by the government through political intervention and regulation via a newly created Independent group of marriage companies board created by the government. Thus the government would have a role in regulating and controlling the marriages in the country despite them being privatized
This would also include the privatization of some public sectors of the US government that have connections (direct and indirect) of the marriage industry, by companies affiliated with NGOs or the government.
The government would give credits to private marriage companies with millions of earmarks to promote good relationships between them. The government would also make laws demanding that all marriage companies in the US join a newly created Independent group of companies or suffer penalties
Moreover, marriage companies in the US who were loyal to the government and their goals in running the privatized marriage industry the way they wanted would be rewarded with protection and more favorable, pro business laws create for said complying companies (which would increase the profits and investment for those marriage companies). However, due to the nature of this very specific form of conditional privatization, the government could manipulate this system to do what it wants despite it being privatized.
If I was in a reality where gays weren't born gay then I would no longer support Queer Nationalism
If I was in a reality where gays weren't born gay then I would only support (and believe in) Traditional Marriage (but I would in that reality lukewarmly support Common Law Marriage being legal for gay couples)
If I was in a reality where gays weren't born gay then I would legality wise be Mike Bloomberg 2001-2005 ambiguous on whether I support gay marriage being legal
However, if I was in the above reality where gays weren't born gay then I would say that I would support gay marriage being legal only if privatized marriage is the only legal form of marriage for both straight couples and gay couples (but regular privatized , not like the very specific privatized that I wrote above). I want the US and other countries to abolish civil marriage, common law marriage and religious marriage and make privitized marriage is only legal form of marriage for straight couples and gay couples. This way the government stays out of the marriage business
I support individual persons, whether heterosexual/homosexual/lesbian who are cohabiting/single to be able to adopt children. Ideally, in conjunction with a country wide layout of It Takes a Village type systems for children of parents of all sexual orientations, as mentioned here and by Hillary Clinton
I am passively against gay conversion therapy being legal
I am against Rick Perry's early 2010s anti gay laws he signed or tried to sign.
I am against criminalizing people being gay. It's the 21st century not the 19th century.
I am a LGBTQ Leninism (cultural) explorer
I believe that if there was like 5 or 10 more biological sexes of people on Earth, that all gay people from Earth would become either bisexual ,trisexual, or quadsexual (due to having more biological sexes to choose from instead of just male/female)
However, I would never tell gays they are wrong to be gay and that they should be straight. My reason is, I've had friends who were bullied in school and me seeing those challenges my friends faced made me want to break down barriers for others who were similarily oppressed including gays. If we tell gays they are wrong or that they should be straight, that would go against those objectives. If Christians want to criticize gays, they first need to get the beam out of their own eye before doing so.
I always hope that gay people live the life that is truly best for them and that makes them the happiest.
I believe that gays can become straight (Anne Heche did as did and do many others)
At times I temporarily oscillate to the belief that gays are happier straight and that it's more ideal for them to be straight than gay (ie in a 'being gay is great but being straight is excellent' sort of way) but each time I oscillate to those thoughts, I oscillate back to being pro lgbtq each time because our government shouldn't enforce morality. It's a settled issue anyway so its best to move on.
I don't believe all people who are against gay rights are doing so out of hate. They aren't going to overturn gay rights laws anyway so leave the few people against gay rights for non hate reasons alone. Live and let live
Personally, I would never be gay because of Paschal's Wager and the remote chance (no matter how remote ymmv) that being gay is a sin. If I took Paschal's Wager, then that would mean that I have to admit that there is a remote chance that being gay is a sin (ie from the Book of Romans -Man shall not lie with man like he lies with woman). For me to risk dying a sinner (by being gay), no matter how remote of a chance there is that being gay is a sin, are not odds that I would want to gamble my eternal future on. I am a very cautious person who rarely takes risks, so that plays into my thinking. If other people want to take that risk of being gay and not believe being gay is a sin or that God is real, more power to them. But if they had my way of thinking or if my way of thinking accidently rubbed off on them, they would think twice about being gay.
While gay marriage is just as official as straight marriage legally (ie in the eyes of the government), in God's eyes, gay marriage may not official (even if the marriage is a Religious Marriage, since the only marriage that God views as official is straight marriage). However, I have no issues with gay marriages maybe not being officially recognized in our God's eyes while straight marriage is officially recognized in God's eyes.
My reasons are, God created marriage, so he is extra extra extra picky about any changes made to his creation (marriage), just like any person who creates something huge will naturally be extra extra extra picky about at least some changes that were made to their creation after they lost control of it. It's only natural, so in light of that, gays shouldn't be upset that their marriages are not official in God's eyes. Their marriages are official to the people (government, friends, family etc) who are best equipped to help them in their gay lives be happy and get their rights.
Moreover, God is at a distance from us so him being far from gays, means they shouldn't care about his approval of their marriages.
I am glad that various major corporations (like American Airlines, Disney, MLB, NFL, Burger King etc) use LGBTQ diversity (in hiring and advertising) to hide the fact they have no (or effectively no) labor unions .
My reason is this: Discrimination of LGBGT people not only negatively effects LGBTQ but is bad to working class people of all stripes as any discrimination practices between demographic sections of the working class cause a very divisive practice hurting the development of working class consciousness , creating barriers to class unity to take away attention from class exploitation which bolsters the rich
So by ending LGBTQ discrimination via LGBTQ diversity practices at work and via advertising, those major corporations are helping all of their workers of all sexual orientations since without the distractions of anti LGBTQ bigotry which they prevent via those LGBTQ diversity practices, their workers attention is shifted to the evils of the rich corporate crony capitalists which would lead to the overthrow of those rich corporate crony capitalists, leading to the betterment of ALL people, not just LGBTQ in all aspects.
tldr. So these major corporations don’t need to prioritize giving labor unions to their workers because by those major corporations having LGBTQ diversity (at work and via advertising), it eliminates workplace anti LGBTQ bigotry, leading to a more harmonious and productive work environment for everyone, and an eventual socialistic revolution which will create a economically equal society for not just those workers of those major corporations but for all people in the US etc
I am against Lesbian Erasure. It is wrong for people to try to get Lesbians to transition to males or to become fluid. That is homophobia disguised as Liberalness. I want Lesbians to get more visibility within the LGBTQ movement, and be treated as equal to Homosexuals. There is nothing wrong with women being Lesbians.
I am against Heterophobia. There is nothing oppressive or wrong about Heterosexuality.
I am radically centrist on the Straight Pride movement.
I am a Laissez Faire Left Wing Heterosexist
I am not crazy about kids being indoctrinated with lgbtq things. A lot of Muslim parents get offended by that and Muslims have endured enough since 9/11 that we may have to bite the bullet for them on that.
I am against kids in preschool and k-6 school being taught these type of things. That type of teaching has no place in preschool and elementary schools.
I believe there are biological differences between males and females
Maybe the best way to deal with transphobes is to give those transphobes ‘free helicopter rides’ in Chile and Argentina
I between turn the other way with and begrudgingly live with the pro transgender laws that that the UK government has enacted since the leadership of Tony Blair and will continue to enact in my lifetime (grrr)
I have a half hearted triangulation lean support position on Postgenderism due to the , rightfully or wrongfully, irrerversible nature of postmodernism and extreme progressiveness.
If anyone is to blame for oppressing trans women or non abled POC etc, it is nature. Postgenderism wants to abolish or seriously alter the gender binary, as such a arbitrary binary causes bigots to be repress people.
Postgenderism would abolish gender roles, but also to blur the line to the extreme between biological sexes by using biotechnology and neurotechnology. This would force sexists, cissexists and transphobes not be bigoted since differences between genders sex wouldn’t exist. I have a half hearted triangulation lean support position on all of that
I see a silver lining with those Transphobic bills preventing trans males from competing in in men’s only sports and trans females from competing in woman’s only sports for acceleration reasons: such transphobic bills will force our society to go left in Transgender rights by eliciting sympathy for them .
I respect and empathize with Caitlyn Jenner’s view on Transgender people in sex specific sports even though I really don’t agree with her on that issue (since I am pro Trans). Jenner is an Olympic gold medalist Transgender woman, so her view on this offers a unique perspective that we simply cannot discount
Children networks should not be teaching kids about Draq Queens. Children should not be drag queens Shame on Nickelodeon for their indoctrination of our kids with that garbage
There is NOTHING wrong or transphobic about a woman saying they are proud to be a woman. I fully support Adele's 2022 Brit Awards speech. Her speech was 100 percent positive and great.
Males have penises , females have breasts and vaginas. SCIENCE SAYS SO. Anyone who says otherwise is a nuts. Science says so
I always defend transgender people from Terf feminists since I believe transgenderism can accelerate women’s rights in unique ways that Terfs don’t understand
I personally and legality wise I support transgender people marrying whoever they want to marry
I can name as many genders at the average student at Cal Berkely can
Teachers shouldn't encourage students to be transgender. Their job is to teach not to convert kids into being transgender.
With regret and a heavy heart, I cannot bring myself to support kids under 15 becoming transgender. They aren’t mature enough at that those young ages to make those decisions. If kids and young teens can’t be trusted to be mature enough for consent or to vote or to work full tine jobs or go fight in the military etc why the f*ck should they trusted to be mature enough to make such a life altering decision ? I am open to changing my view on this if revolutionary progressives can make a convincing arguement to me to change my view on it
I do not believe that its transphobic for straight non transgender people to not want to date transgender people. It's picky, petty, shallow, small minded but not bigoted. It's their right.
I am neutral to lean agree with the view that transgender women should not be allowed to get cervical cancer screenings since they don't have that organ and I believe that transgender men should be allowed to get cervical and breast cancer screenings (since not getting those tests can lead to them getting those diseases)
Since I am a Libertarian Anarchist, I am pragmatically and with my nose held against hate crime laws for hate crimes committed against gay and transgender/transsexual people. I trust that the judge and jury will always take into account whether the crime was bias or not and then act and sentence accordingly (it's called trust in our institutions). The government/state should have no role in that whatsoever
I am not against LGBTQQIP2SAAONPND+ people. I try to find stuff that unite me and LGBTQQIP2SAAONPND people up instead of divide us. If that makes I am not against LGBTQQIP2SAAONPND+ people. I try to find stuff that unite me and LGBTQQIP2SAAONPND pgobes think I am an ally of I am an ally of LGBTQQIP2SAAONPND+ people
Taboo
I am against Polygamy, Polyarmy and open marriages being legal. Monogamy is better than those systems. Children suffer when they have parents who are Polygamous or in open marriages. Polygamy et al cheapens love. If people in marriages want more they should get a divorce first.
Pedophilia is evil ,disgusting and wrong. Pedophiles are not born Pedophiles, they become Pedophiles . The USA Today and other far left outlets are wrong for trying to normalize Pedophilia (though at least the USA Today and Far left proved they have a heart so that is a silver lining).
Pedophiles should get the book thrown at them. Pedophilia is a very serious and terrible act and Pedophiles should not be coddled by the left . The left should not allow pedophiles under their tent as in doing so wrongly, unknowingly and homophobicly lumps Pedophiles in with Gays which degrades gays (due to them being associated with Pedophiles by being in a big tent with them).
Pedophiles are child predators that need to be stopped from doing that since by doing so less abused children will grow up to be pedophiles.
Children need to be protected from them as this is a youth rights issue. I empathize with people who sympathize with pedophiles. I also don't fight against convicted pedophiles who are free dating or marrying people with children. If those people are dumb enough to allow those pedophiles to date or marry them, they get what they deserve.
However, pedophiles should be symoblically given the chance to self register as sex offenders before they are officially registered (and if they don't then they are officially registerd). Basically like if a CEO of a company is accused or a felony and they are given a chance to resign on their own accord and if they don't resign they are fired (forced resignation thing). Morever encouraging pedophiles to go into group therapy and connect with other pedophiles would be a win for everyone.
However, I compassionately lean don't support for what happened between Liam's character and the young girl in the Good Mother movie even if and when that happens in real life (but at the same time I also don't condemn what happened between Liam's character and the young girl in the Good Mother movie even if and when that happens in real life either) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Mother_(1988_film)
I have no idea if Michael Jackson committed pedophilia or child abuse. He could done things better for sure. I've heard all sides of it. But I will always be a Michael Jackson fan regardless.
I am against Pornography and I believe that Pornography should be illegal. Most of my criticism of Pornography comes from the left.
I am against fetishography and I want it to be illegal forever
I am glad that Pornhub was forced to delete 10 million videos of pornography, rape, abuse, and private sex. I am also glad that credit card companies cut ties with Pornhub.
I am against legalizing public sex. People should never be allowed to have sex in public ever.
I am against legalizing public orgies
There is nothing wrong with someone having a foot fetish. It is a healthy thing to have a foot fetish and people with foot fetishes should be accepted for having their fetishes. Foot fetish people deserve more rights.
Women's reproduction issues
I am pretty much pro choice (privately and legality wise), but my view on abortion is that abortion should be rare, safe and legal.
Despite me being personally and legality wise Pro Choice, between deep down inside and subcounsciously I am probably personally and legality wise mixed to pro life but only because my mom almost lost me during her pregnancy and that forced me to be that way. There is nothing wrong with being Pro Life and people who attack Pro Lifers are misguided at best and evil at worst. I believe life begins at conception.
Many to most women who have abortions end up having children anyway after their abortion, and many of those women who have children after their abortion, end up having more children than they would have if they didn't have their abortion. This is a major reason that I am pro choice.
I do want a lot more adoption centers to be open nationwide
Personally I am begrudgingly pro choice on second trimester abortion
Legality wise, I support UK government since 1997’s laws (and changes) for second trimester abortion
Personally I am pro life on third trimester abortion (except for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother)
Legality wise I am apolitical lean pro life on third trimester abortion (except for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother and with an open mind for other rare and severe medical cases).
Personally, I am Pro choice for women who are pregnant via rape or incest (however only if they were really raped or really incestally empregnanted, if they weren't really raped or weren't pregnant via incest, then in those situations I am personally pretty much Pro Choice (with the rare safe legal standard).
Legality wise I am Pro Choice on women who were pregnant via rape or incest (since I trust them to get abortions in those situations)
I always pray to God that God has the pregnant women make the best decision for the pregnant woman and her family and I strongly encourage other people to do the same.
Personally, I fluidly oscillate between apolitical, neutral and strongly pro choice on whether I believe that late term abortion should be legal for rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. Legality wise I am always pro choice on late term abortion for babies conceived via rape and incest.
On the issue of parental consent for minors getting abortions, I am Triangulation lean mixed
I support parental notification laws (which notify the parent if their child is considering an abortion)
I am against federal laws that overrule state limits or prohibitions on abortions (ie I am against the Women’s Health Protection Act)
I am Apolitical on Texas's new abortion laws. I am somewhat against people criticizing Texas for those laws. While the Texas voter laws could be improved (obviously), I feel it is more constructive for our cause to go after the Texas voter laws instead of the abortion laws. More than half of the US could be categorized as non pro choice if you use specific polling questions.
I pragmatically lean support for the Hyde Amendment. I am libertarian and I believe that the government should stay out of peoples' sex lives. Instead the government should just keep trying to make our economy better and better so more and more women can afford to get abortions themselves and not need the government to step in.
I believe that it should be illegal for employers to require their workers to be pro choice
I am against Justin Trudeau going after pro life charities and pro life groups. Trudeau is a fascist dictator for doing that and proves he is a hypocrite on abortion since he doesn't trust women to make their own decision.
I support a lot more pregnancy crisis centers (ie pro life centers) being opened throughout the US and Canada even if most to all of them point the women toward keeping the baby.
I believe that kids should learn sex education before graduating elementary school and continue to learn it as preteens and teens. This would help kids, preteens and teens know not to become pregnant, to use common sense and have more anticonceptive access which should be easier for them to get.
I believe that women should have easier access to Misoprostol for up to the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.
I believe that babies who survive an abortion should be required by law to get medical care if there is more than a reasonable doubt that they could be saved and live a normal life.
In addition, along with sex education, I'd also want kids, preteens and teens to to be taught abstinence (I am Pro Abstinence)
I am against partial birth abortion and live birth abortion being legal even for babies conceived via rape and incest
As long as health care providers provide resources to help pregnant women who are pregnant with a baby with down syndrome raise their baby with down syndrome, I support laws making it illegal for pregnant women to abort babies with down syndrome if their reason for aborting that baby is because the baby has down syndrome.
I am neutral to lean conditionally support on whether I believe that health care providers should be required to offer free birth control
Personally I have a triangulation position on birth control
Legality wise I support birth control being legal
I support the rights of women to breastfeed publically
I support stem cell research but also support finding better alternatives so that does not need to be done anymore.
I am against population control. The government has no right to have any say in a womans sex life. How many kids a woman has or whether she has kids is her decision to make not the Governments decision. Population control is an assault on reproductive rights and it doesn't stop Climate Change. Moreover, overpopulation (the other rationale for it) is a myth. China should be condemned for their brutal 1-2-3 child policies. Population control is a human rights violation (right to procreate). Human life is sacred. Stopping people from being born is literally the worst way to fight Climate Change and is counterproductive too.
feminism
I support feminism. But there are a few feminist things that I am against (like that Lego complaint years ago by feminists, or the view by feminists that all men are rapists, or feminists saying that that video game designer from Puerto Rico was misogynist or should be fired for his gamer gate comments or feminists downplaying the evil extremism of Valerie Solanas, or the criticism of Jurassic World by some feminists, feminists complaining about urinals fringe things like that I disagree with feminists on)
I like some forms of Maternalistic Feminism : Creating a lot of new jobs and roles that women are uniquely qualified while being moderate in reigning in Marxist like Feminism at some point in the somewhat very distant future
I have a half hearted triangulation position on Postgenderism due to the , rightfully or wrongfully, irrerversible nature of postmodernism and extreme progressiveness.
If anyone is to blame for oppressing genders and sexes it is nature. Postgenderism wants to abolish or seriously alter the gender binary, as such a arbitrary binary causes bigots to be repress people.
Postgenderism would abolish gender roles, but also to blur the line to the extreme between biological sexes by using biotechnology and neurotechnology. This would liberate sexists, cissexists, transsexists, transphobes etc from their bigotry since differences between genders sex wouldn’t exist. I have a half hearted triangulation position on all of that
Margaret Thatcher said it best “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.
Women should get paid $10 for every dollar men get paid
I wouldn’t mind seeing pretty encouraged to semi mandatory Sixth Wave Feminism and Seventh Wave Feminism courses being at taught at colleges to offset those bigoted White Karen courses being taught at colleges and to help get our country ready one day to embrace Marxist Feminism (pretty encouraged to semi mandatory for students majoring or minoring in specific subjects)
I support women's suffrage
I have a triangulation position on the 1970s 1980s Equal Rights Amendment.
It is not feminism for stay at home women/moms to leech off their husbands or boyfriends while just getting paid
I am against Prostitution being legalized or decriminalized. Prostitution cheapens love and it is LUST. It also creates a negative environment for children who have a mother who does that. The buyer should only be arrested for prostitution not the sex worker. 1991 Oregon study of prostitution show alarming statistics for why sex work is a serious issue.
That Slate columnist did nothing wrong by sharing tips about Wikipedia controversies with another reporter or by mentioning the relationship status of Anita S.
I do not agree with things in the Wikipedia article about Gender Bias on Wikipedia. In my opinion, no one is stopping women from becoming Wikipedia editors and writing articles about women or other subjects. It is just as easy for women to jump in and become regular Wikipedia editors as it is for men to do so. For over a year I was a Women in Red and Gender Gap Task Force member and editor on Wikipedia so I should know. I created and expanded dozens of articles on female subjects and brought some up to better status than they were before. I helped improve Wikipedia's coverage of female BLPs and BDPs. I also helped all editors, including female editors become better editors.
I am an anti sexual abuse activist . I am also a Law and Order SVU fan. If I wasn’t a Christian, I would say that we should use Pinochetism type punishments on sexual abusers. But since I am a Christian, I will only say I ask that sexual abusers pay for there crimes to the fullest extent of our law
There is nothing wrong with a parent kissing their sleeping child on the head or a person kissing their significant other on the head when they are sleeping
There is nothing wrong with guys checking out chicks (or vice versa). As long as it does not become stalking
Men's issues
I believe that while individual women/women as a whole might have prejudicial biases towards specific men or toward men as a whole, it is likely done without the backing of a societal system of institutional power.
Chris Pratt's Instagram post about his wife was not sexist in any way shape or form. Anyone who thinks otherwise has mental issues.
I have no issues with Josh Hawley's speech 'Men and the Future of America'. I believe the speech isn't anywhere near close to perfect but it's not bad either.
I am half heartingly radically apolitical on whether I believe that male privilege is real.
I believe there is nothing wrong with men showing chivalry to women and I know that chivalry is not sexist.
I am conditionally fine with Masculinity in at least some cases (if not most cases). I am somewhat against Toxic Masculinity (but Toxic Masculinity is one of the issues I care about least)
I oscillate between being indifferent to and having virtual zero tolerance for Male Chauvinism. Though the very few things falsely labeled as Male Chavuinism that are in fact Toxic Masculinity I am lean against on even though those particular views aren't Male Chauvinism. I am ok with Male fraternal Civic Nationalism (even if it delves into Masculinity) as long as it doesn't delve into Misogny, Sexism, Chauvinism or Toxic Masculinity
I find the masculinity and man talk of Tim Taylor (from Home Improvement) and those manly Gillette commercials are too over the top to be taken seriously and should cause us to laugh AT them, not with them.
There is nothing wrong with Sandy from Grease changing herself into a biker chic to please Danny, just like there is nothing wrong with Danny trying to be an athlete to please Sandy. Anyone who says otherwise is a fool. There is generally and conditionally nothing wrong with girls changing something about themselves in order to please a guy ,just like there is generally and conditionally nothing wrong with guys changing something about themselves in order to please a girl.
Relational issues
Couples need to stop rushing into marriage. They need to take time to see if they are a match, so if they do get married they do not get a divorce. We need to find ways to get people to marry people they won't divorce, or won't divorce for many decades at worst.
I believe that we should find ways to make adopting children much easier than it is now and to strongly encourage more people to adopt children
Some of my friends from years back became members of Promise Keepers. I believe that Promise Keepers are not a sexist or chauvinistic organization. They are right about some things, and some things they are not right about. We can find middle ground on some of the things they are not right about.
I am fine with the Promise Keepers view that a husband has a responsibility to lead his household in a loving and gentle way, giving his life to his wife (like how Christ gave his life to the Church by dying) so she (the wife) can willingly submit to her husband's leadership. If that is God's desire, how can I argue with that?
Similar to the Apostle Paul, I believe that for singles it is good for them to remain single unless they cannot self control in which case they should get into a romantic relationship (its better to get into a romantic relationship than to burn with lust) I believe this because single people have more time and freedom to help make our world more progressive, and due to me believing that romantic relationships are more a forced social construct, even more so than marriages and I hate forced social constructs.
In light of that, I would be open to the government creating a romantic relationship tax which heavily taxes Americans (of all sexual orientations) who are in a romantic relationship. However, once they get married or they became single again, that tax would be eliminated unless they get into another romantic relationship again. Unlike Paul, I believe that marriages give people a lot more freedom today to make the world a better place than it was during Paul's time, almost as much freedom as singles in Paul's day had for themselves. If this tax had the negative side effect of causing less births (which I don't want since I am against Population control), then I would be against this tax unless I found some way to have this tax be legal while at the same time not causing less births.
Immigration (legal/illegal/etc)
I welcome political refugees from various countries like José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia did as head of Paraguay
I moral (moral as in moral victory) support the Neoliberal subreddit’s version open borders
If we can't have the the Neoliberal subreddit’s version open borders (which as of now seems like a mirage), I would then prefer a migration-refugee system that is between 'just short of a path to citizenship' (like the one in Build Back Better) a Self Deportation policy and a Guest Worker policy which itself includes a system where legal US citizens can sponsor illegal migrants. This migration refugee system would also fuse with Boris Johnson and the Conservative Party UK's Points Based Immigration System .
I support funding for more border infrastructure, port tech ,more customs and border control agents
I also support a triangulation Amnesty for tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands (and possilikely millions, especially if and when the overton window shifts a bit left on Amnesty) undocumented migrants in the US in conjunction with laws that encourage Americans to adopt more children and teens from Mexico and Central America.
The US must work in Central America to address the root causes of migration from Central America, to recognize that we don't need to sacrifice our humanity in the name of security. We also must work with Mexico to make sure that it takes its own border security seriously. Moreover, working with our neighbors to improve security across the region is an imporant component of any policy to promote prosperity and fairness in the hemisphere. A safe and secure region will lead to a safer, more secure United States.
Like Kamala Harris, I also believe that the US also must engage with countries like Mexico and in Central America to address the causes that cause them to migrate to the US illegally
I hope in the not so distant future that the Refugee Nation country will be created so all refugees around the world (who want to) can come and live there and have a place to call home and be accepted without having to worry about xenophoic bigots and racists harassing them.
I do not support ‘sanctuary cities’ but term distracts us from trying to get to the heart of the issue
I am very pro migrant but if we ever get to a point where there are almost as many migrants moving into the US each year as there are legal residents living in the US, at that point I would support drastic measures like restricting the border for years .While I love migration, too much of a good thing is bad, even that.
My other views on migration match the Bush Center's migration views.
Churches should not snitch on illegal immigrants since that would be against God
David stole bread when he was hungry and God didn't condemn him, so for some refugees, asylum seekers and even some illegal immigrants, that similarly holds true.
I think its cool that Joe Biden flys illegal migrants into the US in the the middle of the night covertly. It is like Cold War era covert US government military type of cool
Undocumented migrants shouldn't have more rights than legal citizens.
Undocumented migrants and refugees don't commit more or less crime/violent crime than legal citizens
I believe that migrants to the US should learn English
I am against illegal immigrants getting free health care
I support allowing the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to be notified when illegal immigrants attempt to purchase guns
Immigrants can move to Japan but they can't become Japanese, immigrants can move to Turkey but they can't become Turkish but immigrants can move to America and be American. Any viewpoint to the right of the above viewpoint is unacceptable
I am against NAFTA
I support Brexit in the same ways that Jeremy Corbyn did/does
I am a Eurosceptic like how Jeremy Corbyn is a Eurosceptic
Ethnicity/race issues
Object oriented ontology is nonsense. There is no such thing as Human Priveledge and if there was such a thing I would fully support Human Priveledge since Humans are superior to non human objects
I am between being pretty much tolerant of to being a fair weather apologist of the NAACP
Equality is better than Equity.
I am what Rev Al would call a 'Latte Liberal'
I support Affirmative Action
I am not woke and I don't like wokeness at all (but from a liberal perspective mostly)
I have never and I will never apologize for being white. There is nothing wrong or evil about being white or any race or ethnicity (it is ok to be white). When I hear whiteness wrongly and faslely being called evil or when I hear whiteness wrongly and falsely being called terrorism, I have no problem having my non woke views. WHITENESS IS NOT TERRORISM AND BEING WHITE IS NOT EVIL and only mental deranged, racists would say otherwise.
I respectfully ,with a heavy heart and from my perspective of what I know to be right and true (which has virtually never failed me in the past), I don't believe that white privilege is real. If people want to believe it is real, its their right to believe it is real. My reasons for this belief come vastly from the LEFT not the right.
I am a Toxic Anthroculine human (Toxic Anthroculine to the Human Species is what Toxic Masculinity is to males). I act as toxically human as Toxic Masculine guys act Toxic Masculine. I view the human species in comparison to a lot of non human intelligent life extra terrestrial species in other solar systems, galaxies and universes the same way that Toxic Masculine guys view males in comparison with females.
I am between being a Earth Races-Ethnicities Nationalist and me being a Left Wing Earth Races-Ethnicities Chauvinist toward some intelligent life extra terrestrial races in other solar systems, galaxies and universes who are of a race or ethnicty that is not found on Earth.
I view all races and ethnicities on Earth as equal to each other. Earth Races-Ethnicities Nationalism, unlike specific racial or ethnic nationalism (ie White Nationalism) applies to all races and ethnicites on Earth not just specific races or ethnicities and views some races and ethnicities of intelligent life extra terrestrial races in other solar systems, galaxies and universes the same way that White nationalists view other races and ethnicities on Earth. Left Wing Earth Races-Ethnicities Chauvinism is to Earth Races-Ethnicities Chauvinism what Left Wing Racism is to Racism
My western liberal progressive, SJW, views represent the views of the majority of oppressed people in the world who I fight for
I empathize with this Medium article and maybe there is some truth to what this person wrote here:: https://medium.com/@soumynona_/anonymous-letter-from-uc-berkeley-professor-in-response-to-black-lives-matter-protests-24a66a6f1ca7
I am indifferent to BLM. I am not a BLM member. I believe All Lives Matter equally. We are all equal in God's eyes and no life is more or less important than another life. BLM have every right to protest perceived injustices as long as they do so peacefully since freedom of speech and the right to assemble exists (though it would be cool to see BLM get their dream world through literally Jim Jones Jonestown like brainwashing literally the whole US, Canada etc to be literal cultists for BLM, that would be a method I could respect and get behind. I would then accept the US etc being woke and pro BLM if they used those methods to achieve it). I am a fan of Harriet Tubman and Booker T Washington and their views on race ethnicity
Secoriea Turner was an innocent victim of a murderer and that murderer who killed her should go to prison for at 20 years. Turner is in heaven now.
I personally don't believe that the CRT should be taught in k-8 schools (but a case can be made that it should in school libraries in at least some k-12 schools so curious students can read it themselves).
At the same time, I don't think that people should try to stop the CRT from being taught in k-8 schools (ONLY due to censorship, since I hate censorship). However they have a right to go to school board meetings and to protest the CRT being taught in schools since it is their 1st amendment rights to do so.
It's better for anti CRT parents to try to get jobs on school boards if they want to try to stop the CRT from being taught in schools (change from within) or to find a book that is critical of the CRT and try to get that book taught in k-8 schools alongside the CRT (as long as that book is vetted and approved by the NEA and NAACP) than it is for them to protest at school board meetings.
Personally, I believe that the CRT should only be taught in non mandatory Black studies classes and Alternative viewpoints and Debate classes in high school and, and also in Colleges and lawyer schools. I criticize the CRT from the LEFT not the right (the CRT is not rationally inquiring and goes for narrative, uses stories mostly fictional anecdotal etc which goes against reasoned argumentation and may reinforce stereotypes about BIPOC)
Parents who harass, argue or go after teachers at school board meetings are NOT domestic terrorists or terrorists.
Racist Right Wingers/Conservatives need to be privately confronted for their bigotry and if they don't change, they should be banished from the party or isolated forcing them to not be racist and change (sorry I don't make those rules, nature makes them and nature does not tolerate racism).
One creative idea to make Right Wingers/Conservative racists become non racist against BIPOC+ would be to reprogram Right Wing/Conservative racists to become woke and CRT type of antiracist and to embrace the CRT.
This way those Right Wing/Conservative racists can shift their hate target from BIPOC+ to whites (or at least shift their target from BIPOC+ to racist WHITES) and employ left wing, CRT anti white 'racism' (ie "BIPOC are equal to Whites but BIPOC+ are more equal than Whites", "whitey is bad whitey is bad"). This way those Right Wing/Conservative racists can channel their racism toward an acceptable target (whites and or racists) while holding on to their other Right Wing/Conservative views. .
I believe that BIPOC+ can be prejudiced against whites
I don't believe that the 1619 Project should be taught in schools except for colleges and maybe in high schools in specific elective classes. Many top historians criticized the 1619 project, as did a New York Times op ed piece along with similar complaints. If public k-8 schools had an alternate history class then I'd be fine with it being taught in those classes only. I can't say I am against parents trying to censor the 1619 Project even though censorship might be counterproductive in this case.
I support Advance Math being taught in schools from 1st to 12th grade. I also support advanced students being skipped ahead a grade.
Students should not be required to take ethnic studies classes in high school. It's their RIGHT to not take that course and the government has NO RIGHT to require students to take such courses.
I am against Equitable Math being taught in schools. Math is not racist and there is no systematic racism in teaching Math. Equitable Math is race norming disguised as a liberal teaching method. I do hope that parents try to stop it from being taught. I would be open to Equitable Math being taught in resource math classes or in summer school math classes only.
I will say that the only good thing about Equitable Math is it shows that there are other ways to solve problems, like in my video game there is a puzzle dungeon and there are multiple ways to beat it, so because of that I do emphasize with people who like Equitable Math but I'm still against it.
I suppport Standarized Testing and the SAT
Oral Roberts should not be penalized in any way shape or form for the views of their founder. Anyone who says otherwise is a racist pig.
I support some of Assata Shakur's views she had in 1970s.
I can empathize with this view (but not agree with it) It would be great if blacks suddenly outnumber whites in the US etc and somehow get the power and position in the US from here on out that whites traditionally had while at the same time having whites be demoted and have the historical positions etc that blacks have had in the US in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s 1990s (ie blacks and whites switch places). I don't agree with that view however. It's just I am a fan of Trading Places type of movies /tv and can empathize with the above view. If blacks were ever in position to really switch places with whites as noted above (even via Pinochetism methods), I would, beyond a reasonable doubt be an Honorary True Companion mercenary in helping them pull it off but since we are nowhere near that point, I will continue to only empathize with this view. However my motive would be more wanting to shake things up as opposed to being a SJW.
I enjoy coming to the rescue of marginalized BIPOC+. Helping them makes me feel positive since I am leaving the world a better place by helping marginalized BIPOC+. Helping people who need my help (like BIPOC+) is what a Christian is supposed to do . I am not an antiracist (I am non racist), but I am a Christian, so I help BIPOC+ when they are in need.
Somewhat deep down inside inside (bordering on only when I am in a trance), I feel that blacks should kick the **** out of all racists and white supremists (real racists and real white supremists) and only get a slap on the wrist for doing so. That is a lot more respectable than blacks relying on cancel culture, SJWism, and hate crime laws to help their cause. But even deep down inside and tongue in cheekingly I would never encourage them to do so
I believe that Transracial (identity) is a real concept and I support Transracial rights
This book makes a case that some racial and ethnic voluntarist acts might highlight the artificial and constructed nature of race and ethnicity (i.e challenging assumptions about the stability and categorical organization of race and ethnicity itself). and that such racial ethnic voluntarism may celebrate, not simply appropriate, “black culture”; and, may embody a self-conscious critique of the negatives of white culture
I like how equal and diverse Jonestown (Peoples Temple) was under Jim Jones. Obviously, the suicides and murders are indefensible as are the extreme and senseless abuse that kids endured there along with the other human rights violations committed at Jonestown. Instead of mass murder and suicide, Jim Jones should have moved himself and the commune to the Soviet Union (while giving a plane ticket back to the states to anyone who didn't want to make the move and all people who were there with him involuntarily). Once there I would have wanted Jones and his commune to stop their human rights abuses and to live like the early Christians in the early book of Acts lived (while adopting pragmatic Christian Democratic ideologies fused with 1990s and 21sts century day Nordic political ideologies)
I support Interracial marriage
If I had to choose between people righting perceived great wrongs through protesting and changing things from within or through cancel culture methods and keyboard warrior methods, I'd chose changing things from within and through protesting over using cancel culture and keyboard warrior methods. For example, it is better to forcibly remove Christopher Columbus statues than to get politicians to do so
I am against anti white hate speech and anti white jokes. We need to stop anti white hate speech and anti white jokes now so that they never become normalized ever.
Whites should not favor any race (not even their own race) over another race on Earth
White people don't make up the majority of mass shooters and statistics back this up
Blaming whites for everything is anti white hate and needs to stop. Anti white conspiracy theorists are deluded
I don't believe that the National Anthem or any anthem should be played at sporting events
I respecfully believe that the Black National Anthem is divisive and wrong. There is only ONE National Anthem, for ALL Americans regardless of race or ethnicity. But to each their own
Meena Harris made ignorant and potentially divisive comments. White Males are NOT the biggest 'terroristic' threat to this country. Those comments she made are WRONG. She knows better. Major agree to disagree with her on those points.
Don't let the ADL fool you: Among the ADL’s four categories of violence—Islamist, left-wing, right-wing, and white supremacist extremism—researchers found that the first two were more or less accurate; 85 of the 88 Islamist incidents checked out as properly labeled, as did 24 of the 26 leftist ones. Where the ADL was inflating things was almost entirely in the “white, right-wing” areas.
As the researchers noted, among the 300 incidents of right-wing extremism during this period, when reviewed, only 131 were found to truly fit the bill. White supremacist extremism was even more inflated: just 57 incidents of the 199 claimed by the ADL credibly had such a motivation.
That the ADL’s “hate inflation” fell only on whites and right-wingers; that the spirit of scrutiny apparently grips the SPLC when reviewing some racial agendas but not others; and that people like Neiwert pass over basic facts to pursue anti-white narratives can be summed up in one word: bigotry. It should be called out as such by conservatives and independents whenever they see it.
Colin Kaepernick's hate filled Tweet on July 4 2020 was 100 percent wrong. The US is not now or ever was a White Supremist country and its not a white supremist act to celebrate Independance Day.
Children/disabled
school/work
The government should not fund universal pre school.
I support charter schools and homeschooling
I support school choice (ie vouchers) since 1997 which is when I moved to a new town as a teen, I wanted to go to my hometown high school but I wasn't allowed to do so. School choice has a lot of liberal benefits
I believe that school truancy should be decriminalized
Homework is a good concept and I support homework always being part of going to school.
I believe that disrespectful students should be suspended. Suspending disrespectful students is the best thing for them and is a time honored method to correctify their behavior.
I believe that the Tuttle Twin books should be taught in schools and in school libraries throughout the US and Canada
I believe we might need to 'reimagine' Academia
I only support this type of home based enterprise child labor that is in the link below (as long as its voluntary) and only if the children are over 6 and get paid more than adults https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Child_Labor_in_United_States_1912a.jpg
Laws
I support school prayer for all religions and irreligions for students and teachers via prayer meetings after school in the parking lot (like what my former high school does)
I believe the national driving age in the US should be lowered to 15.
Values
I believe kids should be respectful to their parents, teachers and adults. People should ways be polite and not lie unless in very rare cases
I have a triangulation position on parents spanking children who misbehave
I am against the 'Everybody gets a trophy culture' It make it hard for kids who become adults to deal with adversity
I believe that all kids should read the Tuttle Twins books since those books teach great lessons for kids.
Disabled
I am apolitical on Terri's Law
IP
I toxically love diversity. I toxically love seeing LGBTQ+, BIPOC+, women etc get as much visibility as heteros, whites and men. That shakes things up, adds new elements (like a salad bowl), and makes things less boring and predictable.
We should break down all sexual and cultural differences ‘forcefully’ to make everyone feel more equal
I support equal liberty and I feel that equal liberty rests on political, social and economic equality of opportunity
In my opinion, Equality should not not come secondary to liberty. Equality should go beyond the formal equality of rights so as there is no tension between the two and no separation and conflict between individuals as passive recipients within society.
I feel that Liberty (and its realization) is collective as it should be shared instead of being diminished and thus being 'only imaginable in the contest of the liberty of all', It should be accompanied also by social and economic equality.
I support the principle of equal-liberty is an 'open-ended horizon that allows for endless permutations and elaborations.
I see a platinum lining with California Assembly bill 979 which requires corporations to hire at least one director from an unrepresented community (defined as BIPOC+, LGBTQ etc) .That law is good because it shows the state is human and not robots, in creating such laws (meaning it shows that even states can be victims of being discriminatory).
I would be fine with more states enacting California Assembly bill 979 type laws, as long as those states who enact such laws also reform Affirmative Action for those type of jobs to fuse this Affirmative Action solution: https://books.google.com/books?id=VMZHuyK5NTsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false with the original Affirmative Action which for the latter is instead of saying 'this job is open to any applicant' and then not making any efforts to find minority applicants, the bosses actively try to find minority applicants through definite actions)as opposed to modern day Affirmative Action
We need America to be a cultural smelting pot and to be more equal to promote unity and solidarity
I support Civic Nationalism
I support the US being the most egalitarian society in the Western Hemisphere like Paraguay was the most egalitarian society in the Western Hemisphere in the early 1850s
I support the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in our society in order to increase the distribution of skills, capacities and productive endowments . I generally reject income redistribution as the means to achieve this
I am against Identity politics, including Left Wing Identity politics, the latter of which I disagree with in an agree to disagree sort of way. I feel Identity Politics seeks to divide us and conquer us and separate us into these little categories. It's not for me
I am against Intersectionality but in a pragmatically compassionate way
I am a Nicodemus like ally of pro West Identarianism because pro West Identarianism is opposed to racialization of BIPOC+
Very deep down inside there is a significant Left Wing Populist inside of me
While I am not a Nationalist and I don't particularly care for Nationalism at all (and you can say I am against Nationalism), I do believe we need to have a serious debate about Nationalism. I also don't believe Nationalism is xenophobic or bigoted per say but I do agree its a problem.
Even though I am not a Nationalist (I do support Civic Nationalism), I am Patriotic
I am not a Western Chavuinist, but if people want to be Western Chauvinists, fine, I’m not going to convince them otherwise. I view Western Chauvinism as so over the top , it's like it is a bad parody or a joke and thus I can't get worked up over it. How can anyone take those ignorant, lunatic Western Chauvinists seriously?
I am open to a compassionate Left Wing Nationalism
I support Pan Nationalism that is fused with Degrowth
I only support the type of Multiculturalism that was done in Paraguay in the early mid 19th century under José Gaspar Rod ríguez de Francia and I diplomatically reject or roll my eyes at the other types of Multiculturalism
I support a pluriethnic, plurilingual, and society similar to Paraguay under José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia
I support a fusion of far center Nationalism and Left Wing Nationalism in Israel, Japan, China, India and Russia
There is a good chance I might be open hearted to sympathizing with a Radically Centrist and 5th political theory compassionate form of Ultra Nationalism
White Nationalism is too far right for me to support in any way shape or form
One reason I do not support White Nationalism, is I feel that White Nationalists are snowflakes and pussies. White Nationalists are snowflakes and pussies because they are not mentally strong enough to suck it up and live around BIPOC+ and because White Nationalists whine about needing their pathetic white safe spaces to avoid being triggered or offended which annoys the heck out of me hearing those snowflakes acting like babies. That is the exact type of behavior we see from Liberal beta snowflakes who whine about needing safe spaces and being offended, to see that type of behavior from people in our own political party (with White Nationalists) is horrible and disgusting.
I strongly empathize with the type of views that Laura Kelly expressed in The Hill. However I don't agree with those views because I feel that those views are counterproductive.
I prefer a literally blind hiring system over a Quota system
SJW/cancel culture/PC
I agree with a lot of things that the IDW members say, especially the less controversial things.
We must have the ability to protect all minorities and oppressed people (and those who don't identify as "people") from far left Social Justice Weirdo freaks twisting the Christian and conservative things we say to falsely make it sound like we are speaking like ‘hate’
I am Anti Reactionary (I am against reactionary behavior)
SJW/cancel culture
I am against the SJW to an extent but unlike IDW members, I prefer to use PC methods to combat it I also agree that some SJW complaints are correct.
If SJW and pc police want to force us to accept their extreme ideologies they should literally use Totalitarianism methods to do so. That way I can respect them for being bada** while also embracing new ideologies (their warped ideologies and against my will)
Good quote "While I’m in full belief that even SJWs have the capacity for rational and critical thought, the fact that they choose not to employ it, even in the face of brutal facts, earns them the label of NPC. If your entire identity revolves around the superficial, and your entire belief system revolves around instructions from someone else, then you’re about as good as a computer program. If you won’t engage in civil debate, and instead scream tired phrases at people when you run out of things to say, then there’s no person there, just a shell that somebody else is speaking through"
I am glad that us liberals use cancel culture because it proves we aren't snowflakes and can be tough and fight back. It's cool seeing us show that actions have consequences and to hold people responsible for their actions since it means the left values old school morals.
However, I do not support cancel culture in some to the majority (give or take) situations. I am even tempted to become an anti cancel culture activist if it gets much worse
PC
I am against Political correctness but I use PC methods to combat it. A lot of their complaints are correct and I respect them and their complaints even if I don't agree with a lot to most/a big chunk of their complaints
There is NOTHING offensive about the 1964 Rudolph Red Nosed Reindeer movie
There is nothing offensive about A Cat in the Hat Comes Back
I view the puking scene in Ace Ventura with a Blue and Orange Morality type of view. I don't think it should be censored but I am understanding and caring for the views of those offended by it.
There is nothing offensive about the movie Airplane (ie there was nothing offensive about that jive scene by Barbara Billingsley). But I respect people who openly and candidly share their thoughts on it while admitting the good aspects of that movie
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE INACCURATE WAYS THAT ANIMALS ARE PROTRAYED IN ENTERTAINMENT , ANYONE WHO SAYS OTHERWISE IS AN IDIOT
The song Baby It's Cold Outside is not a date rape song and it should be left alone and be as mainstream as it was in the mid 2010s and prior since it was first released. If that song is being used by Incel or similar groups to sexually abuse women then I will back off this viewpoint on that song.
There is NOTHING offensive about the term 'black ice'
THERE IS NOTHING OFFENSIVE ABOUT BUGS BUNNY EATING CARROTS
There is NOTHING offensive about Christmas Story (1983 movie)
There is NOTHING offensive about the name Clown Face Nebula. Not one person would possibly be offended by that name (who the fuck would be offended by that term? clowns? the nebula itself? GTFO with that junk)
There is NOTHING offensive about using these terms: blind alley, blind side, blindspot, grandfathered in, lame, long time no see, psyched. There is nothing wrong with the word crazy being used in pop culture to name things to name things (like Cameron Crazies, the rapper Krazy, the song Crazy in Love by Beyonce, Bugs Bunny's Crazy Castle etc). There is nothing wrong with using the word lunatic being used in pop culture to name things (like Lunatic's Pandora in FF VIII, or the name Looney Tunes etc)
There is NOTHING offensive about having a Christian Cross on water tank
There is NOTHING offensive or wrong about public schools teaching Deistic Evolution
There is NOTHING offensive about the Fighting Irish nickname for the Notre Dame sports teams
There is NOTHING offensive about Goonies (1985 movie)
There is NOTHING offensive about Horton Hears a Who
There is NOTHING offensive about calling some ice 'Italian Ice'
There is NOTHING offensive about the way people are portrayed on Disney's Jungle Cruise ride pre 2020s. They are fictional and don't apply to a real life location
There is NOTHING offensive about Mike Tyson's Punch Out
There is NOTHING offensive about Pepe le Pew (Pepe does not cause rape just like violent video games don't cause violence and Islam doesn't cause Islamic terrorism) There is nothing offensive about him being French, it's light hearted mocking of French people.
There is NOTHING offensive about Porky Pig stuttering
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH POLITICIANS OR CELEBS SAYING 'OUR THOUGHTS AND PRAYERS ARE WITH SO AND SO'
THERE IS NOTHING offensive about the Prince kissing Sleeping Beauty while she is sleeping to wake her up. That is not date rape. It is totally inoffensive
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with children sitting on the laps of Mall Santas
There is NOTHNING about the Splash Mountain Disney ride
There is NOTHING offensive about Super Mario Odyssey
There is NOTHING offensive about Tasmanian Devil. He is NOT ABELIST.
There is NOTHING offensive about the Minnesota Vikings nickname, mascot and logo
There is NOTHING offensive about the song 'Whistle while you work'
There is NOTHING offensive about snow being called white or the term 'white as snow'
There is NOTHING offensive about the term 'white christmas' or the song White Christmas , only cold hearted, Grinch Scrooge freaks would take offense with those terms
I call a few hypothetical races-ethnicities of intelligent life extraterrestrials who live in other solar systems, galaxies and universes, who are relatively primitive (compared to all races and ethnicities from Earth) , who eat raw meat and live in colder type environments 'edys'
I call some hypothetical intelligent life extra terrestrial species who live in other solar systems, galaxies and universes who are relatively primitive (compared to humans), eat raw meat and live in snowier environments 'elks'
I call more than a few hypothetical races-ethnicities of intelligent life extraterrestrials who live in other solar systems, galaxies and universes, who are relatively primitive (compared to all races and ethnicities from Earth) , and who are savage and warmongering 'commanders'
I call a few hypothetical intelligent life extra terrestrial species who live in other solar systems, galaxies and universes, who are relatively inferior to humans and who are warmongering, pillaging ruffians 'guardians' (after Guardians of the Galaxy).
I want professional sports teams in other solar systems, galaxies or universes using these names for their professional sports teams on their planets: Fighting Coons (named after a former student's pet raccoon in 1924, with raccoon mascot and logo), London Rippers (with the same logo that the London Ontario Rippers baseball team used in the 2000s)
I want to get intelligent life extraterrestrials in other solar systems, galaxies and universes to use the name Eskimo Pie to name some of their ice cream products on their planets. Maybe I'll get SETI to help me send out a message to intelligent life extraterrestrials in other solar systems, galaxies or universes requesting that they name some of their ice cream products Eskimo Pie on their planets
Kids should fight back against bullies by beating those bullies up. Nothing stops bullying better than kids and teens literally fighting back and turning the tables on those bullies.
There is nothing wrong with people dressing up for cosplay or in costumes for Harvest in ways that perputate gender norms or gender stereotypes. In fact I RECOMMEND that people dress up in cosplay and for Harvest in costumes (if they celebrate Harvest) in ways that perputate gender norms and gender stereotypes as a way to FU SJWs
I am indifferent yet open to being morally (morally as in moral support) somewhat agreeable to the view that it is ok (but still not ideal) for kids and adults to wear Native American costumes for Harvest and for Cosplay assuming they had advice about such costumes from SJW Native American activists on how to pull it off without offending people
Crime
I am against the three letter agencies like the FBI violating the civil liberties of Americans . From going after parents who protest the CRT, to their raids on former Trump officials, to the illegal spying it is clear our civil liberties are being threatened by these bullies
We deserve answers from the FBI and DOJ on their raid on Donald Trump’s Mara Lago estate because it appears to be very petty, partisan and it might backfire on us in galvanizing and firing up Trump supporters and in the midterms (and even in 2024) .The FBI and DOJ really could have handled it more tastefully. They went too far
I am somewhat against most aspects of criminal justice reform
While whites do commit the majority of hate crimes in America (53% of hate crimes); far more than blacks do (23 percent). Whites are 60% of the population and blacks are 12% of the population.
I don't think most conservatives who talk about black on black violence and Black on Asian violence are racist for doing so they are just ignorant and I don't know if they are correct on those stats (though because Conservatives are the ones claiming that blacks commit more violence against Asians than non whites do it probably means that non whites commit do commit more violence against Asians than blacks do due to the Conservatives track record on social issues). I will let the facts speak for themselves whatever those facts are
Oscar Lee Stewart should get the same punishment that any other person would get for killing someone via arson. There are no excuses for what he did.
Crimes committed by blacks should be reported just as much and in the same exact way as crimes committed by whites are reported.
I am against defunding or abolishing the police. I believe police departments should hire BLM activists and anti police brutality activists as police officers since they are the last people to use police brutality on suspects. With police departments defunded, violence and injury to civilians increase leading to taxation by citation which is very counterproductive.
I am open to the idea of having police departments run by the county and for those county run police departments to implement deescalation training, get rid of chokeholds, ask police officers to step in for other police officers if they used too much force, have police officers patrol on foot more, have police officers introduce themselves to the residents and even host BBQs for their community which may lead to violent crime drops. Also have some common sense adherence to International Human Rights laws for the police officers.
If the police are abolished, we'll have vigilantism which would crazy.
Maybe if athletes didn't abuse their wives and girlfriends via domestic violence they wouldn't have so many confrontations with police and thus hate police because of those confrontations. I acknowledge that many athletes in physical sports abuse their wives and girlfriends do to brain injuries caused by things like CTE and concussions, but that is no excuse (just something that gives background to it). Maybe creating the changes above will lead to less hostility between police and athletes when those situations arise leading to less anti police activism by athletes (knowing that the police were compassionate toward them for their abuse)
I am against people disrespecting the police (like throwing things at them, spitting on them, harassing them, calling for violence against them). Of course in legit self defenses instances where there is beyond a reasonable doubt the police officers are acting against the rules then you have to use self defense on the police officers.
I am against Rashida Tlaib's senseless, illogical proposal to empty prisons. Prisons (all prisons) should be a fixture of society and getting rid of prisons is one the worst ideas I have ever heard. I will fight to make sure she never gets her way with that
It would be good to see more Guardian Angel type groups around the US etc and have them be used in place of the police in some instances around the US etc.
I am neutral on ban the box
I am against the death penalty in nearly every case
Drugs/Alchohol/Stealing
I am against non synthetic Marijuana being legalized except for medical use. It should only be decriminalized for rec use. Though I am open minded to non synthetic Marijuana being legalized for rec use but with less amount legal than is legal now in places and with overregulation of it.
I am against Cocaine,
When I was a toddler-young child in the early to mid late 1980s, I was around powder Cocaine (in a brown package) that I found in my parents room every now and again. If I did do a little Cocaine in the 1980s as a toddler-young child (by accident), I am glad that I did Cocaine back then because (if I did Cocaine back then) Cocaine helped me mentally and socially. But that does not mean I am pro Cocaine. I am against people doing all drugs, including Cocaine for rec use. Just Say NO. What was right for me back then (if I did it then) is not right for others
I am somewhat morally (as in moral victory) ok with decriminalizing powder Cocaine (non Crack) and synthetic Marijuana for small amounts (anything more than that is intensive supervision probation along with heavy and long term day fines)
I believe steroids should be legal and that MLB players, etc should be allowed to use steroids without getting suspended. If everyone has access to them, there is no unfair advantages (plus this regulates steroids)
People should go to prison for hard drugs but ideally they should go to 'Country club' type prisons that CEOs go to instead of the prisons they go to now for hard drug crimes.
However, I am fine with hard drug convicts going to the prisons they go to now for hard drug crimes, as long as they are transferred to halfway houses more commonly and with less time served than they are now to finish out their sentence (assuming they haven't caused trouble in prison and are at least showing signs of kicking their drug use desires)
I also conditionally support mandatory minimum sentencing for hard drug convicts only if it would allow hard drug convicts who show good behavior and reform in prison to be transferred from prison to house arrest to finish their sentence
I support more freedom in prison for inmate like they had in prison shows like Oz (with similar liberal prison rehabilitation focus for them)
Repeat hard drug offenders who refuse treatment should get harsher prison sentences than they do now.
All workers in the US should be tested for Cocaine, Heroin, LSD and
I don't want Alcohol and Liquor to be sold at theme parks, or at outdoor restaurants.
I am apolitical/indifferent on Prohibition making a comeback
I support blue laws being implemented in all 50 states
However it's fun to say that I am fine with people getting wasted WHILE at the same time me supporting blue laws, restricting where alcohol and Liquor can be sold and me being anti drug (since it's fun to be unique)
Stealing is wrong and people should go to prison for stealing.
Gun Rights
I support the right to bear arms as a civil liberty
I am pro gun (CB++ grade from the current NRA, CB is between a C and a B). I am against gun confiscation.
The US has such a long, deep gun loving culture that is unique to the world, I believe that banning the bad types of guns (or any guns for that manner) would be impractical because the bad people will still get guns illegally. Having those bad types of guns be legal, helps to regulate them (because if those bad types of guns were illegal, they would be worse than they are now since they would be unregulated).
I support teachers having guns to protect their classrooms.
I have a triangulation position on stand your ground laws
I am neutral on bump stock bans but I am sure there was a good reason for creating bump stocks in the first place. But if bump stock bans allow ban able guns like semi assault rifles to stay legal I guess they are alright
94 percent of mass shootings were thwarted by a legal gun owner. People with guns are less likely to be victims of crimes. Some gun control laws are counterproductive.
Gun control is also wrong because it has a racist and sexist element to it. Moreover, gun rights benefit African Americans and women, since for example African Americans can use guns to defend themselves against police brutality.
I am against the 2018 March for your life protests and if I knew about the Parkland story at the time (I had no idea it happened until 2019) I would have personally shut down those anti gun sideshow one protest at a time. The March for your life protestors were disgusting, whiny snowflake brats who only marched against guns because their MSM anti gun slave masters told them to. There were no March for your life protests in other countries outside of American ex pat enclaves, but I will make those international March for your life protestors pay for their anti gun protests. They are anti gun terrorists who should suffer for their anti gun protesting abroad.
I am personally against guns, I'd prefer people use bows, yumis and crossbows instead of guns but I respect the 2nd Amendment . If we MUST ban some guns, I'd prefer incentives (and also allowing gun owners to trade their guns for bows, yumis and crossbows).
See the Liberal gun owners group on Reddit for more reasons why my fellow Liberals should support gun rights
Animal Rights
I am against Zoophilia and it should stay illegal forever. Science has proven that Zoophilia causes disease and death.
I believe animals should be in circuses but only a few circuses in their lives then retire them to wildlife conservations. I fully support the existence of Wildlife Conservations
There is nothing wrong with riding on Elephants or Camels as long as the person is light and the Elephant or Camel is in top shape and not on them for very long.
I fully support the Calgary Stampede using live animals.
I reject Critical Animal Studies and I believe that Critical Animal studies are nonsense and garbage
I pity Animal liberation activists. The reason why i don't outright hate them is because if they got their way it would backfire so badly and I love seeing liberal things backfire.
I am open to making animals LGBTQ to give them sone diversity
I'm against people hunting animals and only an act of god can change that view
I'm against people hunting animals and only an act of god can change that view
I am not against fishing, but I am not a fan of people fishing at all since I feel fishing is murder (though I am morally [moral as in moral victory] lean support with all of the fishing that was done by my father and his friends in the past and any potential fishing I would have done with them if I fished with them back then). The type of fishing outside of that that I am fine with is fishing that was done in the bible and in Israel during biblical times
I am apolitical to lean luke warm support for mercy killing fishes .I am somewhat ok with catch and release.
I am against people hitting pets to discipline them (and even if they do so lightly). People should never hit their pet under any circumstance unless it is in self defense and even then with a focus on de escalation and not hurting their pet.
I am against goose egg addling and I feel that should be illegal
voting/elections
I believe that limiting voting for people is pretty bad .I believe that both sides increasing voter turn out is the best way to make voting for more fair. I also believe that it would be cool if it became legal to have people vote as many times as they want for a candidate like how Wikipedians vote for Arbcom candidates as many times as they want in Arbcom elections each year.
I support Krysten Sinema opposing the Democrats plan to weaken/bypass the filibuster. Here is one way she can still help increase ‘voting rights’ if she feels a need to do so to please her Democrat overlords
I am against the abuse Krysten Sinema has gotten from other Democrats due to her vote.
I plead the fifth on my view of instant runoff voting
I am radically apolitical on first past the post voting
While I support the electoral college I am open to a system for our country where we have a direct democracy which allows people to directly vote on things as opposed to representive democracy that we currently have (the reason I am open to direct democracy is because representive democracy is open to abuse by special interests and political influence) and where the laws of short enough for people to know what they mean.
The Georgia voting id law by Republicans is not racist and not meant to hurt blacks. It's just an impulsive, not well thought out law that needs to be fixed to say the least. Any damage those type of laws do to black voters is due to carelessness, not intential disenfranchisement
I can live with voters not being required to show id to vote
I believe voters should be required to provide identification (which can be a written or verbal confirmation of name, address and date of birth) and sign a poll book in order to vote. The request for identification is suspended if lines are longer than 45 minutes
I support the strict reading of voter rolls by poll workers
People should be required by law show id when they register to vote
Stacy Abrams had some good views on voting rights that I agree with.
Prison inmates should only vote if they are imprisoned within their voting electorate
Convinced felons who are released from prison shouldn't be able to vote unless they prove that they are reformed
I am against the Electoral College being removed or replaced
I am against DC becoming a state.
Since I wasn't following the 2020 Presidential Election, I can't say with any degree of certainty that the election wasn't stolen by Democrats and Joe Biden. Even if it was, that doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong to do so, since Democrats have been accused of being passive and weak by many progressives in the Democrat party, stealing an election to try to save the country from (whether true, half true or not true) the perceived 'evil' Donald Trump presidency actually makes Democrats look heroic to those people. It's not like the Republicans never stole an election (ie Republicans possibly stole the 2016 Presidental election and possibly stole the 2000 Presidential election and maybe more in addition to Republicans harassing voters for decades) so at worst it would be payback from the Democrats to the Republicans. In fact, since the Republicans were probably trying to steal the 2020 election themselves, maybe the Democrats tried to counter that and in countering it, the Democrats went over the line and ‘accidently’ or accipurpsedtly stole the election themselves.
I know that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. I don't think birthers are racist for their birther conspiracy theory. Our Presidents are supposed to answer to us, no matter how nutty our questions to them are (within reason). Think of it like a parent who is called by their child to check for monsters under their bed, that's the same thing with Obama having to answer to nut birthers about where he was born.
I believe that people who are born and lived some or even more than some of their lives in countries outside of the US should still be allowed to be US President (but I don't think they'd be as good of a President as someone born and largely raised in the US). Boris Johnson, Benjamin Netanyahu, Toomas Hendrik Ives etc all lived in the US in their youth and later became leader of another country. It would have been cool if Barack Obama really was born in Kenya and became US President (of course he was born in Hawaii)
There are probably more migrants (legal and illegal) who vote Democrat than Republican. I am sure that at least some Democrats know this, I am not sure what to make of that. I think its good that our party values diversity as long as that is the real reason they are pro migrant (as opposed to the bad reason of using said migrants to vote Democrat). Diversity means that while most migrants may vote Democrat, they might bring different perspectives from different countries to politics than natives have and new ideas that could help both parties to unite and work together for the good of our country. A melting pot of political ideas from other countries (even if most are Democrat) might benefit Republicans too since Democrats are not the same in every country.
I typically oppose electoral voting and political reform and I instead stress the importance of alternative strategies outside political systems to achieve a free society
International issues (war/international relations/issues in other countries etc)
Military/Isolationism/Wars in general
I support American exceptionalism
I am anti war most of the time but I am anti war for the reasons that Mark Twain was anti war (Lockean love of liberty and anti government)
Since I am defacto anti war/not supportive of wars, I am by default against all countries on Earth going to war/me non supportive of all countries on Earth going to war . For example, after the outbreak of each war I check to see if an extremely rare and overwhelming case for me supporting that war being waged exists and if it doesn't I keep my default anti war/not supportive position on that war. It takes more for me to support a war then for me not to condemn a war. I haven't supported a war since I supported the Iraq War in early 2003 (before changing my mind in March 2003 and being against the Iraq War)
I am very pro military and pro veteran despite being anti war
I am passionately and zealously opposed to Imperialism
I am a Post Colonialism Anarchist. I support a Post Colonial world
I am an mostly Isolationist though I feel the US should make alliances with other countries to protect the US and our citizens.
I am ok with the US protecting Democracy in other countries and standing up to tyrants in other countries because that is how the US was created and what it was founded on (standing up to the British tyrants and fighting for the creation of our Democracy known as the US)
I am against the Open Skies Treaty
I do not support Globalism (just like many unions in the US) . I much rather prefer Radical Localism that id fused with Internationalist Leninism to Globalism. I am also tempted to say Right Wing Nationalism is less bad than Globalism (but still worse than Globalization). We need all of the liberals and liberal groups we have to fight against globalism
I was and still am against the Patriot Act
I do not agree with Sully's view that Donald Trump showed 'utter and vulgar disrespect and contempt' for US troops past and present. Trump treated the US military mostly decent to good as President. The Atlantic's report that Donald Trump had called WWI heroes 'suckers' and 'losers' is wrong and NOT TRUE AT ALL. Sully has to admit that Jesse Ventura was either the same, not much better or worse as a politician for our military than Donald Trump. Donald Trump never disrespected any military people in France in 2018. That story by the Atlantic that said he did those things is fake news.
Israel Palestine
I am Pro Israel (I am Jewish) and I do not support the BDS. I do wish us Pro Israel people can help address the concerns of BDS people and their allies but in a Pro Israel way (ie in a way that benefits Israel and the Israelites and also makes the BDS people and their allies along with the Palestinians feel their concerns were alleviated at the same time)
I am lean Pro Israel (center right) on the Israel-Palestinian conflict I have no problem with the Embassy of Israel being moved to Jerusalem.
I have no issues with Zionism and I am glad that the US is pro Israel but the US embracing Zionism is not ideal in my mind. We should support Israel like any of our allies like the UK, Australia, Argentina, but not more than we support those allies and certainly not put Israel above the US. There is no reason that American politicians should have an Israeli flag in his office. I am slightly to the right of Ayanna Pressley on the issue of Zionism.
I favor a two state solution in Israel/Palestine , but a more pro Palestinian one
Jewish people have wandered for thousands of years without nation or power and, until the creation of Israel (and even after it, though much less so than before) are a refutation of Zionist and Nationalist idealogy (or even the concept of a country to being with) since this eliminates the whole nation-power concept from politics. They should be admired for keeping their identity and culture together through those thousands of years of wanderings. Jewish dispora should be a model for a post nation world where nations are fluid and nomadic, more like the Jewish dispora Jews (mobile and fluid) and less like Israel Jews (Zionist/Nationalist) and static nation residents (ie US, Canada, Australia, China, UK, etc)
If I had it my way I'd go back in time millions of years and put a big chunk of land where the sea parts of the Mediterranean Sea are that stretches from Northern Lebanon, Haifa and the Gaza City to the west, Port Said to the North and Limsassol Cyprus to the South. Then thousands of years ago, I'd make that land be the country of Palestine and then I'd have the Palestinians live in Palestine from thousands of years ago through today and for thousands of years more. I would make sure that no Israelis or any other country or people occupied Palestine ever and that Palestine would never become a territory of Britain or any other country. This Palestine would be much bigger than Mandatory Palestine. This would have also prevented countless deaths on both sides that were lost in the Israel-Palestine conflict since Israel would have (since 1948) all of Israel including the Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and the West Bank in this ideal world.
Rashida Tlaib should not have given in to far left anti Israel bullies and she should have went to Israel/Palestine as she planned.
China/Russia
The 2022 Winter Olympics being played on schedule while the 2020 Summer Olympics weren't played on schedule seems hypocritical. I am against boycottting sporting events and I would never encourage anyone to boycott the 2022 Winter Olympics but I am fine with people boycotting the 2022 Winter Olympics.
China is very wrong for their 1 2 3 child policies, for employing Communism, and for being anti Christian. Moreover they are wrong for propping up Mao Zedong who was a fascist and a dictator (dictator of the proclyte at best) who committed senseless murders on innocent victims. He gets a dC---- grade at BEST and mostly because of what the decent things did at the start of his run as leader of China and because some people don't see him as the fascist dictator that he was. (grade system worst: F Ff f fD D Dd d dC C Cc c cB B Bb b bA A Aa best: a)
I am also against China's social credit system.
I am apolitical on China's pandemic laws etc.
I condemn China for getting involved in the US 2020 racial unrest situations. I also strongly condemn China for trying to make our children in this country woke through marxist propaganda
China did genocide to Uyghurs or not is moot, China still committed extreme human rights violations against them and thus they are very wrong to treat the Uyghurs the way they did. Personally I believe it was ethnic cleansing. But I have no issues with calling it a genocide
China should free the Uyghurs and reach out peacefully to the Uyghurs to assimilate (including following this advice by the ADL https://www.adl.org/the-anti-immigrant-movement-in-the-us#conclusion), if the Uyghurs won't agree to that, then China should deal with the Uyghurs the same exact way that European countries like France, Denmark, Netherlands, Germany etc deal with Muslims in the last decade
I believe just short of sanctions type sanctioning China for the Uyghur situation etc is the best course to take. China might be a diamond in the rough so we need to pressure China to be that good country we know it can be
China should not use forced labor ever (because people who are forced to do work do inferior work to people who voluntarily do work) They should pay all of their workers fairly
China should also enable their oppressed citizens to have self reliance and help themselves . Less government intrusion by China and the CCP the better. I believe that China should creatively and conditionally privatize their businesses and fairly pay all of their laborers.
Maybe a new work system, where no matter how much the workers in China contribute to their work, their work is valued by China and the CCP should be implemented as this would help new Chinese citizens become and feel valued in Chinese society.
I'd also want labor unions created in China by NGOs within China who with their input would help bridge the gap and build bonds between the Chinese employers and formerly forced labor (now paid) employees and help both sides work together to make those jobs and China better as a whole.
I have a triangulation position on high tariffs against China
I am apolitical to third political position on the China-Hong Kong dispute
I don't want Taiwan to become independant, I want it to stay as it is now. This means I want Taiwan to remain officially as the Republic of China and continued to be recognized as part of China by the UN and all countries that currently recognize it as part of China. I want Taiwan to remain fully self governing and to keep its unoffical ties (through representative offices and instutitions functioning as de facto embassies) with all of the countries it currently has these unofficial ties with. I want most international organizations that the PRC participates to continue to either refuse to grant membership to Taiwan or allow Taiwan to participate only as a non-state actor.
I was against the Nuclear Freeze in the 1980s and early 1990s only because I knew that the US having Nuclear weapons was to prevent the Soviet Union from using their Nuclear weapons. To this day I am still against a Nuclear Freeze due to countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea having Nuclear weapons. I want a world free of Nuclear Weapons but I will not support a Nuclear Freeze until countries like Russia, Iran and North Korea also agree to give up their Nuclear Weapons too. I do not want a Nuclear war. I am thus a Nuclear Abolitionist
I believe that the Soviet Union of the 1950s should have adopted Anarchism and Classical Liberalism to create a politically syncretic party of Communism-Socialism and Anarchism and Classical Liberalism. If the Soviet Union had done that and stuck with it, it would have been a great state. One good thing about the 1950s 1960s etc Soviet Union was that it held held Eastern Europe in check from becoming fascist. Moreover, the Soviet Union of that time was good to oppose the more extreme forms of Zionism (the types that even the ADL would criticize today) so that is another reason that the 1950s 1960s Soviet Union was good in some respects.
Arthur Rosenberg and Ethel Rosenberg were TRAITORS and they should have spent many decades in prison for their treason instead of being executed. They were traitors to the US and the world, their treason cost millions of Americans their lives fighting in Korea. They sold the US out and they are 2 of the biggest disgraces in the history of the US.
North Ossetia is part of Russia and I am glad that North Ossetia is part of Russia
While I don't support Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I don't feel the need to condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine either (which is NOT the same thing as me saying 'I don't condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine) It's none of our business
The US and Europe should try to de escalate the Russia-Ukraine crisis instead of inflaming it
I was and I am still against Ukraine joining NATO
The January 6 protestors did not cause the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Those 2 things have nothing to do with each other.
I want Crimea to be part of a binational solution (ie One Nation State) with Greece which could either be a twin regime federalist arrangement or a unitary state while Crimea along with the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk should join the Commonwealth of Independent States which already has Belarus and Russia as members
I am fully against companies (like Big Tech) suspending their products and services to Russia. Russian citizens are being wrongly and punitively penalized because of their government. I call for a full boycott of every company who engages in these acts They never did this to Muslims in countries where ISIS or Al Qaeda are from, yet they do it with Russia? Hypocrite much. History will condemn Google, Microsoft, Sony for their actions with Russia. It goes against human decency, will only make Russians hate those companies and won't do anything. Hurting innocent people through refusing them service to force them to have the view you want is fascist and evil
I am against the Maidan Coup which was an illegal act which removed a legit elected head of state
Ukraine deserves criticism for not developing Donbas and leaving it open to Russia and other forces
I oscillate between being apolitical on whether the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk should become (and be recognized as) an Independant nation , me wanting the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk to be to Ukraine what Taiwan is to China and for it to be as fully self governing and free from Ukraine as Taiwan is fully self governing and free from China (ie Me wanting the PRoB to be fully self governing but recognized internationally by Ukraine and nearly all countries on Earth as part of Ukraine. Along with me wanting the PRoB to have unofficial ties to the nearly all countries it wouldn't have official ties to through representative offices and institutions that function as de facto embassies and consulates. Furthermore me wanting the PRoB to only be allowed to particapate as part of Ukraine or in some situations as a non state actor within organizations that Ukraine belongs to) and me having a fourth political position on this issue. In any case, reguardless of what happens above, The People's Republic of Donetsk and Lugansk, along with Crimea should join the Commonwealth of Independant Nations which already has Russia and Belarus as members in addition to the People's Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk forming a relationship with Russia that is similar to the relationship that Australia and Canada currently has with the United Kingdom
I don't support US sanctions against Russia since I prefer a more isolationist approach. If there was indirect way for the US to sanction Russia over this, I'd be open to that but its none of our business
I hope the US and European sanctions and some penalties against Russia stay forever. Not because of the war in Ukraine but because it would be hypocritical to make such sanctions and some such penalties against them and then end those sanctions and some of those penalties at a later time and pretend everything is normal. I don't agree with the sanctions and penalties but since they are made most of them should stick.
I am 100 percent against the US sending troops to go to war with Russia under any circumstance barring a direct hit from Russia on our soil. I am 100 percent against the US setting up a no fly zone
I believe that the we should hack the bank accounts of Russian Olyriachs and force them to be bankrupt for the rest of their lives. Not because of Russia's war with Ukraine and not for any political reason but simply because they are too rich and nobody should have that much money. If we can force them into bankruptcy we can have a slow trickle effect which leads to less wealth hoarding by filthy rich trolls. No more yachts for them ,no more vacations for them, force them to live like the rest of us. They are easy and acceptable targets
It is hypocritical and wrong to ban innocent Russians from entering other countries .Liberals cried over a Muslim travel ban by Donald Trump during the reign of ISIS yet they applaud this? Hypocrite much. I believe banning innocent Russians from going to other countries because of Russia going to war with Ukraine is wrong, senseless and fascist and is just as bad as Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban in 2017. I am fully against the Russia flight ban by the US and Europe. It is draconian, fascist and evil. It's also a violation of freedom of movement. I hope all Russians permanelty boycott the US and all countries that banned flights to and from Russia.
Some Russians have been unfairly fired due to their place of origin by fascist Russophobes. Their firings are a violation of Employement Acts ,since they were singled out due to their place of origin. These Russians being unfairly fired is akin to McCarthysim or what the US did to Japanese Americans right after Pearl Harbor. Freedom of speech means telling people what they don't want to hear. We must end extreme cancel culture and modern day McCarthyism
I am against Anna Nebretko getting fired by the Metropolitian Opera House. There was no reason to fire her and Peter Gelb should be fired on the spot for what he did.
I am against the Bolshoi Ballet being fired. They did nothing wrong and they were unfairly fired for no reason.
the Steele Dosier is false
I am a fan of Nastya Rybka and her allies since they exposed Russia's relations with Donald Trump (via Oligalarch Oleg Deripaska). I rooted so hard for them to be released from prison in Thailand as they were set up by Russia (but not by Vladimir Putin but by rogue members of his cabinet)
I thought it was amusing and 1990s anti heroish how Nastya and her allies protested the criticisms of Harvey Weinstein a few years ago outside the US embassy, complete with their 'you can touch me anytime Harvey' signs (even though I hate Harvey Weinstein and want him to go to prison for life, I was realize she was only doing that for attention)
Middle East/North Africa/Central Asia
Muslim world in general
Islam is no better or worse than any other religion. It has good and bad like any other religion. Islam shares an Abrahamaniac link to Judeo Christianity. Not all criticism of Islam is Islamaphobic and some criticism of Islam is genuine and constructive. Some sects of Islam do treat women and LGBTQ people unfairly which is wrong. People should avoid criticizing things in Islam that they don't understand because if they don't avoid doing that, they'll look ignorant.
An-Nisa 34 :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An-Nisa,_34#Verse according to some Muslim scholars serves as a deterrent for husbands against anger based domestic violence. I believe if you look at it the way they do and from their perspective, they might be right. However, some Islamic feminists say that verse does the opposite. But like all things in Islam, people take something and twist it to justify evil. Domestic violence is 100 percent wrong, but so is trying to twist religious verses to justify evil. People need to learn about Islam before they even begin to criticize it
However, Muslims should convert to Christianity but I feel that people should only convert them through passive and non intrusive ways (ie in PC ways and ways that wouldn't offend liberal groups, I am sure that way exists ,anything is possible)
I believe people should criticize Islam and every religion since no religion should be off limits but they should do so in a constructive, genuine way that is free of Islamaphobia.
I am against France and other countries banning Muslim women from wearing Burkinis and Burqas. I am fine with Muslim women wearing Burkinis and Burqas. Freedom of expression and freedom of religion are key pillars of our societies. I believe that the anti Burkini and anti Burqa backlash is Islamaphobic while the anti Hijab backlash is ignorant. Even if we pretend that the Burqa is a symbol of ‘oppression’ (which it is not), banning the Burqa is as bad or even worse than that pretend oppressive symbolism that the Burqa gives off. Muslims should use an Anarcho Pacifist form Pinochetism to counter such such Islamaphobia as Burkini bans and Burqa bans
I am against the Netherlands being Islamaphobic and racist toward Muslims and Arabs. Shame on the Netherlands for being that way
I agree with some things from Quilliam about Muslims
This article echos my feelings about the Clock boy incident from 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20190205021737/https://dailycaller.com/2015/09/28/on-ahmeds-clock-president-obama-once-again-spoke-too-soon/
I was and still am against Donald Trump's Muslim travel ban
I am fine with countries like Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar etc requiring people to dress modestly or conservatively in certain religious places.
I have defended Muslims against defamation since 9/11. I am appalled that Muslims were and are stereotyped and labeled as terrorists since 9/11 (especially right after 9/11 and in the age of ISIS). The vast vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists and only a fringe part of some sects of Islam are terrorists. I do think that Muslims should try to counter Islamaphobia in a peaceful, educational and edifying sort of way instead of lowering themselves to the Islamaphobes level.
I don't believe the October 31 2018 truck attack in NYC or the Swedish truck attack in 2017 were terrorist attacks or Islamic extremism. I am not even that sure that the 2016 Nice lorre attacks were terrorism or Islamic extremism (or at least I am not that sure if terrorism/Islamic extremism was the primary motive of the attacks). Saying that every time a Muslim commits mass murder is terrorism or Islamic extremism is bigoted, ignorant, naive and offensive. However, on the flip side, a few attacks by Muslims that are not labele as terrorism/Islamic extremism are technically terrorism or Islamic extremism (the Fort Hood shooting for example). But there are far more times Muslims committing crimes are falsely accused of terrorism/Islamic extremism than there are times when Muslims do commit terrorist or Islamic extremist attacks and said attacks are not labeled as terrorism/Islamic extremism
A lot more ISIS and Al Qaeda members are really Atheists who use Islam as a cover to justify their actions than people think.
Christians who are killed in the Middle East by ISIS should always be labeled as Christians instead of worshippers by the media and politicians.
I believe that Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq should implement migration/refugee policies in the future that are similar to migration/refugee policies that are somewhat more liberal than Canada's current migration/refugee policy. I feel that these laxer migration/refugee policies would improve the economies in those countries so that they keep up with Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia in terms of economics. The countries above need to continue to modernize in terms of migration/refugees.
Iran/Syria/Libya/Iraq/Afghanistan
Donald Trump did nothing wrong to his apologists by his targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani. Way more than ideal,y it would have been better if he captured Soleimani and put him in prison for at least a few years or until Qasem agreed to be a double agent, but he is a terrorist. I am not enthused about the killing however and it is the reason why I hate war and countries being big brother to other countries but it was neccessary.
I am glad that the US left Syria in 2019 and I believe it was the right move. I fully support the 2019 troop withdrawal from Syria. We should not have bombed or went to war with Syria at all. It was none of our business. The white shirts may have been connected to Al Qaeda. While I am against the Syria war, I supported and prayed for the troops who went into Syria since I am pro Military
I was and still am against the Libya War (the one under Barack Obama),
I was and still am against the Iraq War (I was for it until late March 2003 then I became permanently against it)
Instead of going to war with Iraq, I pragmatically believe that the US should have given military aid to to the Kurds if and when the Kurds went to war against Iraq. However, I have compassion for anti war (anti military aid wing) people who wouldn't want us to have given military aid to the Kurds in their war against Iraq even though I pragmatically believe that the US should have given military aid to the Kurds if they went to war with Iraq.
I support the Iraq War troop surge by George W Bush in 2007. It was a smart strategy and helped turn the war around for us.
Chris Kyle was a war hero and his movie is not offensive (YMMV). At the very least, people offended by it should at the very least agree that it shouldn't be censored.
I supported the UN sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s and I don't regret supporting those sanctions at all. I am glad that the UN sanctioned Iraq in the 1990s since Iraq deserved those sanctions.
I think that the Gulf War was justifiable (doesn't mean I support it)
In the 2000s, I was so bummed about the islamphobic persecution that Muslims got after 9/11 and about the Iraq War, I would have sympathized with Krysten Sinema saying she doesn’t care if an American joined the Taliban. But now I condemn her for those remarks since I moved right since then
I am against the way that Joe Biden handled Afghanistan .Biden botched the withdrawal of our troops in Afghanistan
Asia conflicts
I do not condemn the 2021 coup de tat in Myanmar ,its none of my business
I support the way Donald Trump handled North Korea
I have no issues with the Swift Boat Veterans smearing of John McCain. It helped get Barack Obama into office
I would have been against the Vietnam War and I've been against it since I was born (though I am against some far left parts of the anti war movement and against the hate that the veterans got from anti war people) If I was alive then, I would have initially supported the Vietnam War until c 1967 with me then turning against it
I would have supported the Filipinos in the Philippine-American War if I was alive back then (I do retroactively support them) since the US was wrong to annex the Philippines (imperialism is wrong)
Europe
Sweden has the highest quality of life and I believe because of that they are a model to the rest of the world
Ireland is a model for freedom. It is a small nation where guerillas have fought for freedom for so long and many times defeated their oppressors to get that freedom despite the oppressor's superiority in manpower, materials resources etc.
I retroactively support the Red Army Faction (WG 1970s 1980s)
Americas conflicts
I support the Cuban 2021 protesters but I hope the Cuban government learns from that and that peace and common ground is found in Cuba.
I would have initially supported the US going to war with Spain in the Spanish-American War if I was alive back then but near the end I would have at least somewhat turned against it. In the present, I pragmatically lean being against the US going to war with Spain in the Spanish American War. I am glad that the US won that war, but they really shouldn't have went to war with Spain since imperialism is wrong.
If I was alive in the 19th century, and born and raised on a similar planet about 1010115, meters or more away from Earth, I would have been against that similar planet’s Union doppelgänger going to war with that identical planet’s South doppelgänger during that similar planet’s doppelgänger Civil War in the same way Anti war Americans were against other Americans going to war in WW II since I am anti war.
I do note however that I would have hoped, that in that hypothetical situation that despite no doppelgänger Civil War on that similar planet about 1010115 meters or more from Earth, that the anarchist abolishlist doppelgängers would have radically upped their helping the slave doppelgängers on that similar planet about 1010115 meters or more from Earth escape to effectively to offset no Union doppelgänger intervention in freeing them, with a hope that the better (or at worst the same) results than we have today on Earth in terms of emancipation and freedom would have still happened on that similar planet about 1010115 meters or more from Earth in this hypothetical situation .Nearly all wars are wrong.
I believe that the New England states should have seceded from the Union during the War of 1812 thus forming their own county and helped or took over for the British in that war against the US. Once that happened and New England won the War of 1812 vs the US (and Britain left the US), I'd want New England to force the South, Midwest, West and non New England Northeast US to be as liberal as New England. It's just that I feel that the US wasn't doing enough to help New England during that war and that New England could have had an opening in seceding and defeating the US to spread liberal New England puritan values throughout the US to make the US more liberal decades earlier and be ahead of the curve hence my support for a 1812 New England secession from the Union and them forming their own country..
Xtianity
I support religious freedom
The Catholic Church and other churches should be Nationalized instead of being treaded on by the government without being Nationalized by the government
The US and other countries are not Theocracies and thus the government should not enforce laws based on the beliefs of religious people. Theocracies only work in the afterlife or in the bible, not on Earth (give to Caesar what is Caesar etc).
It certainly wouldn't hurt for more people to at least try to live by the Two Commandments of Mark 12:28-31 of the KJV
Jesus was white, Mary was white and we should not get rid any images, statues, paintings, art etc of a white Jesus, a white Mary or white biblical people.
High ranking Jewish authorities (ie Sadducees and Pharisees) conspired with non Jewish leaders to put Jesus to death. They were jealous of Jesus, and saw him as a threat (Jesus constantly called out the Sadducees and Pharisees for their hypocrisy and evil ways during his ministry).
An unruly mob of people (the vast vast majority of whom were Jewish), in Jerusalem called out for the Romans to crucify and kill Jesus. In Matthew 27:25, Pontius Pilate washed his hands of Jesus's blood and those mob of people (the vast vast majority of whom were Jewish) who had called for Jesus to be crucified, told Pilate "His blood be on us and our children! In the Gospel of John (John 5:18, John 7:1, John 8:37) John shows that Jews wanting to kill Jesus throughout his ministry . Paul, who was himself a Jew, wrote similar things about Jews relationship with Jesus. Paul persuected Christians when he was still Jewish (1 Thess 2:14-15, Phil 3:5-6)
It doesn't matter because Jesus's death was predestined by God as a plan to save humanity. If Jesus wasn't crucified and killed, no Christians would be saved so the Jewish peoples' role in Jesus death saved humanity, because if he didn't get crucifed and killed, none of us would be able to have eternal life. Jesus gave his life willingly as a sacrifice for sin (Mark 10:45, John 18:11). It was Christians' sins that was the most directly responsible for the death of Jesus (Romans 5:8-9, 1 Timothy 1:15) Jesus rose from the dead 3 days later anyway and rose to heaven on his own free will.
I want the Tridentine Mass (1962 Roman Missal) to continue to be celebrated just like it has been celebrated for the last 15 years. I support Pope Benedict's Summorum Pontificum.
I used to go the Knights of Columbus as a child and teenager a few times a year. The Knights of Columbus is a great organization.
Christians sharing all the positive things from their lives with other people in a natural, non religious way can help those people be open to being Christian. Christians should also use their lives as a non verbal , living encouragement to non Christians to consider Christianity.
I sometimes do blame the Church for sometimes being an immoral inversion. For example, some sects of Christianity and Catholicism are an unhealed wound for the West due to their heretical anti liberal views. Some of these sects of Christianity and Catholicism forbid a liberal state which is a problem.
Minorities have been oppressed by the oppressive hiearchies of mother nature more so than by whites. When Christ comes back and establishes heaven on Earth , he will abolish hierarchies of state, capital and reaction. He will create a new type of existence with possibly different laws of nature for all people of all identities so nothing could separate people anymore. No longer will personal property exist, everyone will share what they have like the Christians in the Book of Acts . It will be true retirement for all Christians
The holy spirit will be the only drug we’ll use and need in that new kingdom
Science
Science and Pyschology are not infallibe and they are wrong some of the time (they are HUMANS not Gods). Scientists and shrinks are right most of the time, but on Reincarnation, whether or not to suspend disrespectful students, CRT, afterlife, whether to lightly spank your child, and similar things they are wrong
climate change/eco
I am against the government and social media companies censoring and blocking people who criticize green energy transition. Such actions by the government and social media companies is FASCIST authoritarian censorship and is against the values that our country was founded on. That is shutting down free speech by stifling legit criticism of the government and I will not allow the government to do that. I swear to god
The Green New Deal is a bold set of ideas meant combat climate change. But because the Green New Deal includes so much unrelated ideas which don’t identify specific solutions to climate change related issues, I overall do not support the Green New Deal
Enviromental Racism is a myth. There is no such thing as enviormental racism.
I believe in Climate Change but I don't believe that Colonial, racist or patriarchal systems created or fueled it. Climate Change is not a manner of human rights. I am against Greta Thunberg's radical views on Climate Change.
Climate Change will never cause temperatures to rise beyond 5.4F. I don't believe that the Tail End risks of Climate Change will ever happen.
I reject Deep Adaption and Jem Bernall's Deep Adaption. Their climate predictions are too pessimistic.
I lean pragmatically not believe to mixed on whether I believe Climate Apocalypse predictions.
I don't believe that people who don't believe in Climate Change should be labeled as Climate Change deniers or harassed or shamed for their beliefs (and certainly not labeled divisive names like 'Climate Change deniers'). I say, educate them on Climate Change and if they still don't believe it, let it go.
There are Twin Earths (according to type I/Quilted Multiverse theory) over zillions/shannon number of light years away away but with a few to countless changes. There might be some Twin Earths zillions /shannon number of light years away that will be exactly like our Earth except on those particular Twin Earths, Climate Change is a myth and won't happen
I also believe Climate Change has positive effects and may be a good thing: Warmer winters and thus fewer winter deaths, lower energy costs, better agricultural yields, fewer droughts, maybe richer biodiversity see this for more https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/are-there-positive-benefits-global-warming
I am glad that the LaRouche PAC got an actress to pose as a climate change activist to spoof radical climate change activists at the AOC townhall in 2019. In case you missed it, is was the AOC townhall where an actress posing as a climate change activist said to AOC "Since we only have a few months left We Got to Start Eating Babies" This stunt by the LaRouche PAC involving this actress posing as a climate change activist was to point out to people just how radical some climate change activists have become in recent times. I am glad that the LaRouche PAC exposed that climate change radicalness through this stunt.
I am not a climate change activist because the movement is too progressive and green for me
I am against plastic bag bans, paper straw bans. I am against the Nord Steam pipeline being built.
I support increased logging on federal lands
I support Nuclear energy
space
I support sending humans into space which is why I hope NASA brings the Space Shuttle program back. I hope one day space travel becomes as common as airline travel.
Biology/Chemistry/etc
I believe in Theistic evolution (but for our reality and possibly all type 1 universes in our reality)
I believe that in many alternate realities, God created humans (from scratch, without evolving), animals (without evolving) , plants etc on Earth and he created the whole universe and every universe in the same exact way that the Book of Genesis said that God created all of those things In those particular alternate realities, evolution never happened past present or future and creationism is 100 percent real. The Many Worlds Interpreation is proof I am right.
Chriopractery is not pseudo science. ASMR is psuedo science.
Except for issues below I am apolitical on pandemic related issues (since I dont' view the pandemic as a political issue):
I am apolitical lean support for the truckers on the Canadian trucker protest but I am against Justin Trudeau using the emergency act on protestors. I am also against his government going after bank accounts of protestors and supporters and similar underhanded things. The truckers weren't racist sexists because they were protesting mandates and Trudeau was wrong to label them as such. However, I don't believe he is a dictator, I just believe he went a little more than a bit overboard. If I was a still a extreme liberal like I use to be, I would have liked Trudeau using his emergency powers since I liked ‘strong’ leaders back then, but that is obviously not the case now
Russia had nothing to do with the Canadian trucker protest
I am mixed to pragmatically neutral on Bill Maher's late Oct 2021 view on natural immunity
I disagree with people who say that Gavin Newsom didn't go far enough in 2020-21 in terms of fighting the viruses
Sara Haines is wrong, I don't believe that face covering wearing or living like people lived during the pandemic should be a permanent thing in the US because of health reasons. I do want people living like they did during the pandemic permanently, but for reasons that have nothing to do with health.
Since February 2022 I want Nancy Pelosi's face covering mandates to be overturned and allow congress people to the freedom to choose if they want to cover their faces in the HoR.
I support Mike Braun's amendment to the Prevent Pandemics Act.
I condone (but don't necessarily agree with) Gene Simmons saying that non vaxxed are the enemy
I begrudingly am tolerant of Joe Rogan in the whole Spotify ordeal and I have no major issues with him having those particular doctors on his show in those 2 situations. Rogan also surprsingly had a plausible defense. My views on this align with Marianne Williamson's views on that issue. I also am ok with Ron Johnson's hearing on the pandemic in early 2022.
I actually like the covid mandates and restrictions because its good to see us Democrats get firm and tough on an issue (like the pandemic) instead of being pacifists (which we would be if we weren't firm and tough on people and in particular anti vaxxers during the pandemic) . A lot of Republicans falsely think we are weak and let people do anything they want on many political issues, so for us Democrats to be so firm and tough on people and in particular anti vaxxers in terms of mandates and restrictions during the pandemic shows the Republicans that they are wrong about us being weak and passive.
I know that Reincarnation is real and most scientists either believe its real, are neutral on that or are open to the idea
There is an afterlife after we die and no one can prove otherwise
There are zillions of intelligent life beings on other planets, in many of their alien civilizations, they fully cure viruses, plagues, cancer like diseases, etc on their planets using methods that 90+ percent of mainstream scientists ,mainstream doctors and mainstream Academics from Earth would WRONGLY call psuedoscience methods if they heard about those methods without showing them proof that they actually do work.
Psychology
Psycho Analysis is a real and legit science and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Misc
I am against the National Garden of American Heroes. It was a reactionary move by Donald Trump that also was wrong because the federal government (including our Presidents) should not tell us who our historical heroes should be and should not force these names upon us. Who decides who is great? What right does our government have to do such things? What right does our government have to dictate to us who was 'worthy' enough to get a statue? This is the US, not the USSR under Josef Stalin (though Trump loves Russia so he obviously loves the old USSR too). Those 'heroes', don't need to have statues or be honored in a Presidential garden, their heroism lives on in every American.
The LA Times was wrong to tell people to stop consuming so much to stop the supply chain problems Limiting consumption is the worst way to fix those problems.
This Washington Post opinion piece is wrong and they should apologize for it
I am between mixed and neutral on Oregon's right to die law
I am a Neo Luddite as I feel like Dr Malcolm felt in Jurassic Park, just because we could doesn't mean we should. Social Media in particular has destroyed our society in a way we can never get it back.
I want video games to be as hard now as they were in the 1980s and 1990s (ie cheap level design, not telling the player where to go, unfair gameplay etc, ie Nintendo Hard). This teaches players how to overcome obstacles ,rewards players who keep going and instills values.
I support secondary seat belt laws for all passengers. I also want less penalty for people who don't wear seat belts but at the same time, driving speeds reduced, roads made better to cause less accidents and better more safer automobiles to be made to balance that.
I support removing red light cameras. Less spying on citizens by the gov the better
I am against people gambling. Gambling is wrong and while it should be legal for regulation reasons, it should be regulated through the roof
I never hurt my stuffed animals, dolls, action figures and computers ever. I would never hurt them ever unless I was warped to a sci fi reality and they were attacking me, then it would be just to get them off of me or to de escalate. However, if they got destroyed in an accidental fire or explosion, I'd be fine with it
Media
The media is wrong to exploit pain and suffering through their news story explor
News story explotation is an issue and is something that needs to be fixed. There is no reason that non war related rescue stories, missing persons stories and kidnapppings and similar non stories should be anything more than local or regional stories. People should worry about their own lives and not think about the above stories.
The news also covers non hate crime mass shootings, some terrorist attacks (like the 2018 NYC road rage attack or the 2017 Sweden beer truck rage attack) way way way too much. By exploiting those stories, those stories traumaitize people (via repitition), makes people hate Muslims or gun owners and similar groups due to said explotiation, give the perps who commit those crimes the exposure they want which leads to copy cat crimes (see VT killer's motive for example). It's like news stations and agencies profit over the pain and suffering of other people, ecspecially by exploiting them and that is wrong. People who rubberneck off those stories are also wrong for taking part in their suffering by them further exploiting their pain and suffering all to make viewers feel good about themselves for virtue signaling about it.
24 hours news, their viewers (ie social media), internet etc fan the above pain and further political divide that come out of those tragedies.
see CNN effect for more
Missing persons stories, kidnapping stories, non war related rescue stories and similar non stories should stay local or regional and not be national. There is no reason people from outside those regions should know about those stories. By the national media covering those type of non stories, they are degrading the importance of real stories like terrorist attacks, wars, viruses etc.
Network is a great satire of the issues with our media today with its relevant point that it makes about corporate run, sensationalist media and their impact on society which still holds true.today, if not more so.
Words are like weapons, satellites of news stations etc are like the new artillery. News today like Fox News, MSNBC, CNN and TV political pundits increasingly polarize us with their news judgements (which includes fake news and disinformation) . This includes electronic warfare in the same vain. Our media who influences us in politics is owned by large congolomerates who seek to profit over dividing us. Tomorrow Never Dies makes a good point about this (along with China's wolf warrior diplomacy with Western companies)
Our issue is our whole celebrity culture and fandom culture (which includes the overreaction, rubber necking and explotation of every celebrities death via social media) .
This culture breeds obsessed people to seek out their 15 minutes of fame with their celebrity that they idolize. In particular, with social media and the internet many of the biggest fans are happily called 'Stans' for their favorite idols. Social media allows them to 'keep track' of their favorite idols 24/7/365 which includes easier interaction with them. Moreover, Youtube and Twitter fuels explotation of people who wouldn't be famous if not for Youtube and Twitter
I am conservative on a lot of issues above that I am conservative on, in big part because being conservative is counter cultural and its more fun to be counter cultural than be cultural (see Hippies in 1960s for more). Of course only on a few or some issues only
Comments
Post a Comment