Someone on reddit asked if “market socialists” are more socially conservative than non-market socialists. Although strictly speaking this is off topic, because this page is about economics and the State (poverty and war), it might not be a bad thing to diverge for once, and oppose the crazy modern western culture, which is doing so much harm to people in so many ways. Reply …
Hello. To be honest I have no idea either, because there never seem to be any ‘market socialists’ (I used the term to describe my program, in the vacuum of not knowing any other(s) who use(d) the term). I also use the term Distributism to describe my ‘market socialist’ program. Hence I can only give you my personal view, but I guess that is what we are here for to a degree.
First of all I would like to note that this whole ‘social-political’ agenda seems to be alien to politics and the class struggle, and I wonder if this is an engineered form of attack on the class struggle. In the 1980s the Dutch labor union started to campaign *for* homos*xuals. That is way late in the game. I think it means that this whole homos*xual / trancegender thing does not even belong in our struggle against poverty and war, but someone put it there. I wonder why, but I see the division it creates, as well as the diversion (distraction from what matters). You could draw the conclusion: everyone was what a modern American calls ‘socially conservative,’ by which I assume you mean: abortion is bad, marriage is good and needs to be enforced, homos*xual behavior is bad, trancegenderism is also bad.
My personal opinion is: marriage is very important for children. Children do better with their own mother and father, or at least a mother and father. I oppose the trancegender and homos*xual agenda (and already left one reddit group because a moderater threatened to ban me for opposing the trancegender agenda, and this group could be the second I will leave; we’ll see.) I classify homos*xuality right now as an addiction, similar to alcohol. I classify trancegenderism as dangerous and destructive crazyness of these people, who run a high risk of suicide (the record shows); this is a severe mental problem. Changing physical bodies with operations should be an illegal act, and these surgeons should loose their license and face criminal prosecution on the level of severe battery or something like that. I strongly oppose allowing either suicide in whatever way, it should be criminal to do it or to assist with it.
I also strongly oppose idolatry, which includes the Jesus fraud religion. I have written the plans to cause idolatry (for example worshiping Jesus) to become illegal, punishable by a fine. Since Nations should be small, and people need time to adjust, I propose to outlaw idolatry after one hundred years after ‘market socialism’ has been ratified, and this can help people to adjust where they live or migrate to a nearby Nation where the idolators will live together. I think idolatry is incompatible with democracy / a Republic, because in such a State the people together need to solve their problems by being (pro)active. Sitting on your knees waiting for super-man or wonder-woman is antithetical to the needs of a democratic State. Secondly there is a minimum level of truth necessary among the people living in a democratic State. The Jesus fraud system is of a high level of insanity (and its history is atrocious), which therefore is also incompatible with a democratic State. I would however propose that we allow worshiping ‘the Creator.’
Although I strongly oppose using drugs, I see that it is impossible to outlaw it, and therefore I want all drug laws to be stopped and all drugs to be freely traded. Since this may not work with nearby Nations, and we don’t need this kind of drug tourism or severe anger from the nearby Nations, we can try to sell drugs only to our own population, and/or to have a Government monopoly (for the time being). The goal becomes: get those profits out of the hands of criminals, and people who want to ruin their lives using drugs have themselves to blame. Parents need to raise their own children, you cannot ask the Police to make your children not use drugs, they are not there for that kind of nanny work – which doesn’t even function as we have seen in spades now.
Hence you could say that this pairs social-conservatism, with free drugs, and the end of the Jesus fraud system, with ‘market socialism’ (whatever that means to whomever.) I think the Catholics stole the ‘Distributism’ word, by the way. Giving people their land is the Torah, the law of the Jewish people. Let’s get that straight. That law is good and impressive indeed (the Torah that is).
First published: reddit.
P.S. I could go on to say that I also am against things like pop music, obviously against using drugs, smoking, more than a rare wine. I never buy alcohol for drinking anyway for myself, and don’t even drink coffee and only rarely tea because it seems to adhere to teeth over time. I am of course against using plastic as packaging material, against using cars (biking/walking and public transport is best) and all things that pollute the environment (excessively and unnecessarily). It is sad to see that the recuperation of package materials (such as glass) is still not what it should be. It seems that most glass pots can easily be washed and used again, and they could be standardized generally to be useful for all kinds of products. How can it be energy efficient that they have to be molted down and made into new pots, when they are merely a little dirty from nothing more serious than some food.
Basically i am against anything that is not sustainable, and think the Injuns said a wise thing when they said that every decision needs to be thoughtful to the 7th generation of people. Obviously I am against unfair trade, especially where child labor and raping the natural world are involved, but also where adults are pushed into poverty and landlessness (as is clear from the program on this website, buying and producing fair trade being among of the methods needed to do). It seems to me it is unnecessary to argue these points. It is clear that humanity needs to tone down its greed and raping the planet to death, and with that humanity will ruin itself.
In terms of fashion: I personally would prefer something like an English gentleman’s clothing, and find it sad when people choose to look like street gangsters, or the new fad where people like to dress up like they are garbage. Anything that looks peaceful is good, anything that goes into the direction of violence or an attempt to look dominating or rowdy is bad. I think it is more beautiful for women to wear dresses and not pants, and find it somewhat humorous almost that some women seem to think they are now “free” to wear pants, when in fact the fashion control over the herd is quite repressive one way or the other, so that soon – if not already – women who wear nice dresses will be laughed at and socially forced to wear clothing that men usually are wearing. I also don’t like short hair on women, because its not that pretty and man like. Some women here wear a scarf on their head, which I associate with them being strong and courageously, to oppose western and American domination over their minds. That western domination pretends to stand for freedom, but in fact it is repression because of the social anger that is produced against people who dress like people always used to dress or tried to dress merely 50 or 100 years ago. It is a good thing for the Netherlands that we have some Muslims here, who are free and strong enough to oppose western fake freedom, which is actually repression.
That’s probably all I have to say about it. The reason for such norms are pretty simple: peace and not war (hence to dress in a way that shows civility, friendliness, order; avoiding everything that street thugs like, including tattoos of course), tight married families with protected children rather than chaos and broken lives. Incidentally, it was a banking industry program to try to get woman to work rather than be mothers, so that they could tax the women too and get richer. It has little or nothing to do with what it is pretended to be about in “women’s magazines.” Women magazines are merely a propaganda tool for the criminals in the banking industry, just as bad as men’s magazines and the media in general.
The man did not have fun at work in the old days, at all. The man was basically a slave to the soil owner / master, and then the factory master. He had to do as told, or faced death from poverty. Now this may have changed to a degree for the better, but in many ways the relations remain the same, and the pressure of the bosses upon the people may only have lessened because they feared successful uprisings. People think something was achieved, but that is not true because the power is still with the few and not with the many, and people are still following orders all day, and moreover: much of the production shifted out of view to China (for as long as that will last). This whole idea that men had fun at work making careers, while women where slaves at home, is some sort of lie in women’s magazines to get women warmed up to the idea to also becoming slaves to the factory and land bosses, more than they already where (because of course, women also worked an enormous amount of work in the past as well in all kinds of capacities).
This does not mean that I would argue that women *must* stay home and keep the house tidy and children happy, or that they should/could not be owners of companies and run them successfully. What am against is this fable that career making outside the house is what life should be all about and that anything else is trash. The whole idea that a women who does take care of the house and the man is working that this is bad: I do not understand why it is bad. At the house there is more than enough work, and outside the house there is also more than enough work. Typically the man is more technical and strong, the women is more sensitive, social and caring. Who denies that: bye we have nothing to talk about, go live in your fantasy world. Naturally there are always exceptions, but this is how it generally is. Hence it is perfectly natural for the man to dig the dirt and carry on the heavy work, while the woman is carrying on the literally lighter work. That does not mean that hauling wood beams is more important than making socks, or the other way around. Both are needed, and that is not even a discussion except with people who lost their minds.
Hence you probably could say that this is a social view on things that modern people could call “conservative.” However, what the radicals of broken families, gay parades and “trancegender” madness think is new and a great advance: it is not new, all that is ancient behavior, and it was eventually repressed for a reason (in my opinion).
One last point about how these people operate the “trance gender” scam / absurdity. They first radicalized and thereby destabilized what a man and a woman should be, by their stereotypes, but in excess. To overstate it a little for clarity: The man was made out to be like a mean and strong thug, going out being rough and uncivilized. The man should be a domineering baboon of sorts. The women where put in the opposing category of being frail, not understanding anything technical or almost anything at all, being overly sensitive to weather and anything needing around the clock protection from a “baboon hero man thug” to make it through the day. Once those stereotypes where worked out enough in novels and movies, there would obviously be some push back against that where people just don’t see themselves reflected in such gender roles, as it where. Then if a man though of himself as more peaceful than a thug and not into violence, they would start feeling – under this constant cultural barrage of excessive stereo typing – that they are not men somehow. If they are not men, then maybe they are women “inside.”
From there this whole madness can be generated, which in turn stimulates the excessive stereotypes further, by pushing men into becoming more rowdy and baboon like in order to avoid being associated with trancegender madness people. I think that this is more or less how this madness is being operated by those with the money to make books and movies and have a major influence over all this that way. It seems to me these thugs in the top may either really think this way – because they are themselves rowdy thugs who love war and evil – and/or they want to stimulate these social chaos ideas because it breaks up families, atomizes people and – as others have suggested – it causes social-political cohesion to go down, which in turn means more power for the super-rich because there is less push back against them if people are more atomized.
P.P.S. Naturally since this all is not my topic, my topic of choice is democracy (but real democracy), and a free economy (but a real free economy, not the western deceptive freedom that is really soft slavery while worsening over time without end), it is more unsure to write about it. Hopefully many children in the future will have stable, warm and safe houses with their mommy and daddy to live in; and that as many people as possible can have such a good life.
Because these people have pushed this gay/trance-gender program so much, it forced me to create an opinion on it. I knew that if I was proposing an economic-political system, they would sooner or later bring this issue up. If they hadn’t been so aggressive, I would probably never have cared about it at all (though that doesn’t mean I like what they are doing). My opinion is that it is not healthy and it cuts people off from what should be the best in life. It also causes confusion and separation between people of the same gender who could otherwise be friends, because of clouds of suspicion that this decaying society can create in such cases. So all in all, I guess it comes more and more down to the fact that this is a rejection of western society on many levels, because it is a society that is increasingly sick and never was healthy to begin with.
With the system proposed in place: there should never be any unemployment, every family can work at least on something, because natural resources are the great power to start working and living; there should never be a tyrannical / criminal infested regime, and hopefully no wars that should not be, if people behave civilized enough by keeping the proposed Council system in operation to handle the commons fairly and reasonably. With these wider things set in society at large like a protective wall, hopefully families can live peacefully, forever and ever. It should be possible. The system does not have to degenerate itself like other systems of economics and the State tend to do. It is a self-renewing dynamic balancing system. In the end though, it can only be as good as the people living in it. If you can manage this, you and your people seem to have made it.