My politco views on politics

I support political leaders who don't force their will upon people

The views on our political system, political parties and ideologies ,bi/partisanship and similar polemic things are written in the book Mediations of a Militant Moderate https://books.google.com/books?id=VMZHuyK5NTsC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false   are an outline for at least some of my polemic views  

We must make it easier for Congress to legislate. That means we must find what to do with the filibuster (maybe like Jacobin said but maybe like this, or this but I think we should at least try to find an adjacent or just abolish the Senate as a whole) to the filibuster to replace it and for the reason Krysten Sinema said she wanted to keep our filibuster or the pro filibuster reasons here and reform the Supreme Court.

This article provides a unique take on Progressivism vs Conservatism 

Since the state is a political expression of organized society , it should not be a neutral agent but instead through a variety of creative and common sense, bipartisan methods not just economic but the distribution and the democratization of political, productive, gender, informational along with cultural territorial power and other spheres with inequalities exist . 

The state must manage and regulate (within reason) of the economical system , being the owner and protector of strategic resources and the enviornmentand being able bodied to participate in economic production 

I support political management with higher levels of transparency, participation, closeness (to the citizens), along with digital activism, citizen campaigns, public accounts done periodically etc

In addition, its management was characterized by raising the levels of transparency, participation, closeness to citizens and digital activism, reporting in different parts of the District with different platforms the details of his parliamentary work, through citizen campaigns, periodic public accounts

We all form and build the state which is for all of us. I support the creation of an inclusive and citizen state as the main guarantor of the common good and assurance of universality and decommodification of social rights at both a cultural level and institutional level (like an Inclusive Democracy)

The link between the state and citizenship is a powerful tool for the conflict between our current neoliberal model and a society that guarantees effective social rights

The combo of a strengthened state and expanded social and political citizenship must work with feedback between the two . 

The more democratic and inclusive the state is, the better the state will collect the citizens will and the more effective it will be in its role (or maybe even paternalistic role) as guarantor. This is MUCH better than State liberalism and big brotherism by far

I support a state where power is distributed equally for the promotion and development of territorial and or national identities ,structuring itself in a way to generate real local governments thus being able toreaffirm territorial autonomy as a fundamental part of democracy 

I am against denigrated democracies, I am wary of Liberal 2.0 adjacent causes due to that and the due to fact I frankly don’t care about that stuff due to our bourgeois system within that causing political nihilness in me

I am a supporter of Democracy I guess 

Though I am very wary of and or pessimistically appraise democracy and the quantitative illusion. I feel that democracy restricts accountability and freedom

I am ok with a Constitutional Republic which is has more upsides than a Liberal Democracy

I sympathize with Oswald Spangler’s Anti Democrat stance even though I am not really Anti Democrat

I don’t see the many advances that have been made

The political spectrum generally is extremely damaging since it shoves groups together based on personal bias. To a right-winger, radlibs (Liberal 2.0 sect) promoting promoting woke segregation are "far-left" when I would label them liberal 2.0 pawns. 

At the same time, people I would consider "far-right" ultimately claim "nope I'm a groyper-adjacent peepeepoopooist". So it's all useless because nobody really knows where they sit because you obviously cannot simplify a hundred different issues onto a two-sided graph. There are people that put A.H as a "leftist" because the naughtzies called themselves "socialist" to gain cheap votes from workers. At that point, why the heck even bother.

The political compass meme is even worse because it pushes "authority bad :((" which is freaking insane.

“ Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience” CS Lewis

Another way to put his sentiment is this: It's better to have an enemy who is acts bad and admits it (robber barons) rather than an enemy who acts bad but makes it look good (moral busybodies). It's easier to fight against injustice when it's clearly injustice and not hidden underneath a veneer of morality.

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have" Thomas Jefferson

The vast majority of politicians in the US, Europe etc are whites and that is an injustice

So with so many white politicians , it is a hard truth that naturally whites to have control of the political system. Whites have been major players behind relevant decisions .

Even in countries made up of mostly BIPOC politicians, whites are then promoted into power positions as advisers and ministers by these officials.

This injustice is why I support more political diversity as seen throughout this blog

I am against politicians being corrupt. 

"If we lie to the government it’s a felony. But if they lie to us its politics"   a quote from an unknown source

There is no left, there is no liberal 2.0,  there is no right. There is only liberty, tyranny and the sliding scale between all three of them.

It is not so much about left versus liberal 2.0 versus right, but really the future versus the past

Not left , not liberal 2.0, not right but Forward. 

Beyond/transcend the left, liberal 2.0 and right but against the center. 

Reject the left , liberal 2.0 and right. 

I don't see politics along a Left/Liberal 2.0/Right divide, I see politics along a Top/Bottom divide.

I support developing and improving directly with autonomous citizen councils and municipal spaces

Our political parties should attend to the conciliation needs of each person who participates in our political parties that is based on the commitment of the political parties’ regulations and protocols to attend to those needs and also when appropriate in the exercise of his public function.

We should ensure free, voluntary and open participation in our political parties to all people of all backgrounds, share the defense of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the democratic method of citizen participation and direct. We should also honestly discuss and respect all opinions, an objective for which we’ll always attempt to promote dialogue and the search for consensus

Our political ideologies should be rooted in protocols of loyalty, respect, and understanding. This should management should have a necessary and fundamental that had a clear feminist focus

Political parties should be structured like Podemos. Our current political parties are part of a political caste and we must end this political caste system 

Politicians should not be into careerism and ambition 

Ordinary people should have control of our political organizations

Politicians need to have a presence in social organizations and be among the people

I am fine with political parties not having trade union power within them

I am part Austromarxist because Austromarxism is relevant today due to the growing complexity of the new contexts of global society and the multiplication of migrations and refugees. Austromarxism is also relevant today due to the need to respond to minorities through accommodation via mechanisms of territorial and non territorial autonomy.

I support the creation of a caucus thats values include providing Tripartisan, Triangulation and paricpatory ideas on illegal immigration , ending wars or finding better alternatives to wars and and warmongering by the US, and promoting fair trade that benefit American workers

Congress should adopt a series of measurements and goals that can be modified and reexamined over time.

Representatives should select from these measures based on what they believe their constituents would care about then suggest how the laws they are passing will improve them.

I feel these measurements such as, but not limited to should be used to measure our GDP: Poverty rates, Life expectancy, Rates of Business formation, Clean Water, Crime Rates, Overdose deaths, Government Efficiency, Mental Health, Income Growth & Average Incomes, Affordability, Environmental Sustainability, Recidivism, Labor-force participation Rate, Military Readiness, Marriage Rates, Quality of Infrastructure, Rehabilitation Rates, Civic Engagement, Education Rates

Plato, in his Republic, wrote that tyranny arises, as a rule, from democracy.

Western "democracies" are just the perfect obfuscation of power. The politicians are basically frontmen/frontwomen and punch bags who cover for the legitimate power centres (corporations, NGOs, billionaires etc).

I believe in a fair society but we can’t get it through liberal democracy. Liberal democracy is built against us. Hence why I am hostile to liberal democracy because I don’t necessarily like the idea of Liberal Democracy. See here for more

This article lists the positives of Liberal democracy but moving leftward on Democracy and I agree with that sentiment. 

"But the greatest service of politics isn’t to enable the mobilization of people who have the same views; it’s to enable people to live together when their views differ. Politics is a way of getting our ideas to brawl in place of our persons. 

Though democracy is practiced when people march on Washington and assemble in parks—when they feel that they have found a common voice—politics is practiced when the shouting turns to swapping. Politics was Disraeli getting one over on the nineteenth-century   But Jedidah Purdy's alternative to a liberal democracy which that article touches on also shows how the alternative to Liberal democracy can salvage those elements from Liberal Democracy and still create a better fix to Liberal democracy 

Liberal Party by leaping to electoral reform for the working classes, thereby trying to gain their confidence; politics was Mandela making a deal with de Klerk to respect the white minority in exchange for a peaceful transition to majority rule. Politics is Biden courting and coaxing Manchin (whose replacement would be incomparably farther to the right) to make a green deal so long as it was no longer colored green"

Liberal Democracy is wrong because it is a bourgeois concept and could be seen as a bourgeois dictatorship . Liberal Democracy is pseudo-democratic and pseudo-humanitarian and that is wrong

Liberalism does not and is not meant to apply to all people of a nation, but only the (potentially colonial) bourgeoisie. when the US is discussed as the land of the free and possesses democracy as a value, it is not that these are absent: they are present, but that it is only for the ruling class. just, none for anyone else.

Liberal Democracy is inevitably taken over by elites who mislead the people about what is best for them, which prevents the people from actually getting their fair share of things even in a "democracy".

Liberal democracy is really just a facade for the class dictatorship of the capitalists. They will not hesitate to seize authoritarian power when they deem it as necessary, as we can see with the fascist movements and states of emergency. 

Liberal democracy is an key part of imperialist capitalism, and it cannot be used to build socialism. The bourgeoisie holds the actual power, and must have it seized. Any gains that are made for the people using liberal democracy are temporary and will eventually be undone, as we have seen in welfare states from the 1980s and inward  

At MINIMUM we should argue with standard Liberal 2.0ers about the nature and scope of specially-protected rights and liberties that are within the settled context of the liberal-democratic nation-state

I am against Liberal Democracy furthermore since Liberal Democracy is the same as or has become intertwined with Oligarchyism making the two inseparable, or that at best Liberal Democracy is open to abuse by Oligarchs. (and I am against Oligarchys) . 

So I would, at least theoretically be open to throwing my support behind any Liberal Democracy that has no traces of Oligarchyism if such Liberal Democracies exist (though even if they did exist, don't hold your H20)

I believe quite firmly that the likes of Larry Fink (Goldman Sachs CEO) is considerably more influential than Emanuel Macron, Boris Johnson, Justin Trudeau etc. It's far preferable for someone to wrongly use Joe Biden as a scapegoat than to question what it means for Vanguard to own a slice of basically every company.

This is why non-Western countries and leaders kinda hate us. Vladimir Putin runs Russia. Xi Jinping runs China. Who runs the US? The UK? France? It's just a nexus of institutes, corporations, pseudo-private corporations etc such that nobody can get a straight answer from us, ever. The elections just change the very most outer shell of governance.

Then we pretend that there is proper "separation of powers" and whatnot. It's horse shit, they all collude heavily and are interwoven with every successive government.  

Thats why they need more authorative methods in other countries, because they don't have this complex web of corrupt power that acts as a legitimation in the form of pseudo liberty of choice. You're not more free in democracies, you are maybe allowed to say a bit more, but only so much until you become politically relevant. That's part of the illusion. 

You're likely not even critical of the system to begin with because the propaganda is so effective and you can live comfortably due to historic imperialist structures. You're no closer to changing the status quo than in the much hated autocrat regimes, in fact probably farer away. 

How do you achieve change? At this point I'd rather have a nationalist authocrat than Klaus Schwab & Co ruling my country. At least they don't sacrifice their people to the NWO of a bunch of transhumanists with a god complex.

So we have to do a 360 and abolish this corrupted denigrated form of western 'democracy' to liberate us in the west and in places like Russia, China etc

Liberal Democracy today also doesn't seem like a 'democracy',at least in the US. 

Liberal Democracy today is all about the deification of the state as some manifestation of some mystical “general will’,imperialism, colonialism and warmongering, corporatism , using three letter agencies like the FBI, CIA etc to violate human rights, bullying shaming and intimidation, cults of the experts and elitism, managerialism, educationalism, anti religious, assaults on freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free inquiry , tolerance, and due process.   So that is another reason I oppose Liberal Democracy

If ostracism is part of democracy and not voting for either party, 1984 by George Orwell, the works of C.S Lewis, JK Tolkien and Adam Smith allowing people to pray privately on a football field after a game (see radlib Sports Illustrated hit piece on Coach Kennedy) are considered a threat to democracy then democracy is a bad thing that should be abolished

I do believe that force should be used if the US way of life was disappearing, which is proof that I am not some threat to Liberal Democracy .

This post expands on my views on democracy and also disproves the myth that socialism is anti democratic. 

I believe the system that organizes our society and government, is truly bizarre and insane 

This is hard for Western people to realize, especially after all the anti-USSR propaganda

Our country is basically a regime

So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Marxism expanding on Liberalism 1.0 (instead of Liberalism 2.0 expanding on Liberalism 1.0), Agnostic Radical Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, Anarchism, forcing change (heaven is taken by storm), Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, Left Libertarianism, Marxism Leninism etc

I feel that a society's political life where political powers, authorities and decisions are decided and controlled by a diverse American nation for the purpose of reaching material welfare, freedom and fairness by all citizens, social groups and nationalities, and by the people that formed it

I feel that women, immigrants, BIPOC people (including Indigenous communities), LGTBQ+ people, and other diverse groups should not only recognized, but be championed as key protagonists in the growing calls for social, economic, and political reform.  

To build on that, I support agonistic radical democracy  where social movements attempt to create social and political change by challenging neoliberal and neoconservative concepts of democracy. This strategy is to expand the liberal definition of democracy, based on freedom and equality, to include difference

This agonistic radical democracy means the root of democracy and it rejects deliberative and liberal democracies oppressing differing opinions, races, classes, genders, and worldviews in attempts to build consensus.  An agonistic radical democracy builds off of the fact that in a country, and in a social movement there are many (a plurality of) differences which resist consensus. 

Agonistic radical democracy is not only accepting of difference, dissent and antagonisms, but it is dependent on it. This is based on the fact that there are oppressive power relations that exist in our society and that those oppressive relations should be made visible, re-negotiated and altered.

By building democracy around difference and dissent, oppressive power relations that exist in societies are able to come to the forefront so that they can be challenged.  

So elements of this can be found throughout my blog, including on Participatory Democracy-Direct Democracy, Defensive Democracy, Dominant minority, Marxism expanding on Liberalism 1.0 (instead of Liberalism 2.0 expanding on Liberalism 1.0), Liberal Democracy, Inclusive Democracy, Progressive Utilization theory, change from within, Libertarian Paternalism , Anarchism, forcing change (heaven is taken by storm), Autonomous Radical Democracy (as a DotP), Austromarxism, etc

I agree with BHL's critique of Democratic Authority here and BHL's arguments against having a state. In short the article correctly says that good people who never act wrongly would not need a state. This is because that article rightfully says that if everyone were willing to contribute voluntarily to public goods, no one ever wanted to violate anyone else’s rights, no one ever wanted to do anything unjust, etc., why would we need a state?

I support Defensive Democracy in some cases when I deem it justified (and I would never support Defensive Democracy in situations where it  excessively repressed of civil rights). 

Defensive democracy is a collections of laws, legislation that is delegates and court rulings which limit specific rights and freedoms in a Constitutional Republic Democracy in order to protect the existence of the state and its character, human rights and institutions. 

Defensive Democracy refers to major conflict that could come about in a Democratic Constitutional Republic country between adherence with such country’s values,  (like freedom of association, the right to be elected, and between preventing parties, groups and peoples who are anti democratic from abusing these principles.

I support Defensive Democracy in some cases when I deem it justified (and I would never support Defensive Democracy in situations where it  excessively repressed of civil rights). 

Defensive democracy is a collections of laws, legislation that is delegates and court rulings which limit specific rights and freedoms in a Constitutional Republic Democracy in order to protect the existence of the state and its character, human rights and institutions. 

Defensive Democracy refers to major conflict that could come about in a Democratic Constitutional Republic country between adherence with such country’s values,  (like freedom of association, the right to be elected, and between preventing parties, groups and peoples who are anti democratic from abusing these principles.

Our government,  media etc seeks to divide us and pit us against each other to distract us from their uniparty corruption , power and self interests. We need to unite in a Big Tent or coalition and bring government back to the people. I support real direct democracy. See this post and this post for more

The whole left vs liberal 2.0 vs right thing is a total sham the elite use to keep the masses pitted against itself,

We should advance detailed arguments for workplace democracy rooted in such natural law principles as subsidiarity, which we defend as morally desirable and as a probable outcome of the elimination of injustice rather than as something that is mandated by the state.

Natural law approaches to land reform and factory occupation by workers. Rejecting natural law that grounds to intellectual property protections, while building on property rights more general and developing a general natural law account of boycotts.

Rudolf Rocker echoes my views on the relation between Anarchism and Liberal Socialism : “Modern anarchism is the confluence of the two great currents which during and since the French revolution have found such characteristic expression in the intellectual life of Europe: Socialism and Liberalism. The classical liberal ideals were wrecked on the realities of capitalist economic forms.

Anarchism is necessarily anti-p capitalist in that it opposes the exploitation of man by man. But anarchism also opposes the dominion of man over man. It insists that socialism will be free or it will not be at all. In its recognition of this lies the genuine and profound justification for the existence of anarchism. From this point of view, anarchism may be regarded as the libertarian wing of socialism. 

It is in this spirit that Daniel Guérin has approached the study of anarchism in Anarchism and other works.” This is also touched upon by Noam Chomsky here

Ideologies 

See here