Social politics

My political affiliation is firmly with US progressivism. I support equal civil rights and protections for all people, including but not limited to immigrants, people of color, women, trans people, nonbinary people, disabled and differently-abled people, anyone economically underprivileged, elders, minors (insofar as such rights don't put their lives in present nor future danger due to their underdeveloped sense of judgement, obviously [for which purpose I do NOT consider medical gender transition, nor vaccination, nor change of beliefs, nor consuming media that doesn't revolve around white nuclear families who go to church every day, to pose any meaningful present or future danger to one's life]), people of all religions (though this should not include any right to religious violence, such as the hate crimes regularly committed by some but not all evangelical Christians against many other demographics in this list), and, well, not the rightfully incarcerated, but I do think they should have certain rights they don't right now, such as unconditional rights to life, rehabilitation efforts, humane treatment, and unionization against prison slavery.

Economic politics

I believe, as a matter of pursuing these equal rights and protections, the US could stand to be more socialist and much less capitalist than it is right now. I would say I'm nearly a communist. I'm so nearly a communist that I'm inclined to believe we may be at a point where a revolution might be the only viable way to fairly redistribute the wealth. That being said, I can't call myself actually a communist, for three reasons:

  1. I'm a physical coward. If there is to be a revolution, I want no part in it, except maybe to support it.

  2. I'm not hateful. I don't crave the blood of the enemy. If there is a revolution, I don't want to maximize bourgeois death. I want the conflict resolved as bloodlessly as possible, on both sides.

  3. I'm too bourgeois to be a communist. Regardless of where I stand on the issue ideologically, the real hardline extremists would reject me because I apparently don't suffer enough to have the right to not want anyone else to suffer either, or some stupid thing like that.

International politics

Russia v. Ukraine

I stand with Ukraine and against Putin. I stand for the civil rights of all people. Independence is a human right. Moreover, as a conscientious objector, I am inclined to view acts of war as evil, and as having a perpetrator and a victim, and so, in general, I have a tendency to side with the victim (aggressed) and against the perpetrator (aggressor).

I have nothing against innocents in Russia and don't relish having to support measures to cut off their access to certain online resources, but I do believe those measures are necessary. I would, however, like everyone to keep in mind they are necessary because of Putin, not because of Russians.

Israel v. Palestine

I am very disgusted both with the cabinet of Israel and with Hamas. There are three sides, not two, in the Israeli-Palestinian war: oppressive genocidal warlords, antisemitic genocidal terrorists, and, far outnumbering either, vast, vast swathes of entrapped, terrified, suffering, powerless innocents, in Palestine and Israel alike, but mostly Palestine. I believe I've made it clear which of these three I stand with.

That said, between only the states at a broad scope—that is, regarding coarse demographics, not blanket statements about every single individual in either state—Israel is the oppressor. Palestine cannot in this instance be called the initial victim of aggression, because it is the aggressor in this particular iteration of the conflict; however, though it may be the present instigator, Palestine is the clear victim in a sense of historic oppression. But again, this is only at a state level. I stand with neither state, but with all the victimized civilians. The conflict causes more suffering in Palestine than in Israel, but that means nothing about the relief deserved by any individual. They all deserve relief from this conflict: the innocents that the cabinet of Israel displaces, starves, and massacres, and, alike, the innocents that Hamas rapes and massacres, and the Jews their publicity causes to be targeted by attacks even in nations otherwise beyond the reach of the conflict.

Listen, if a big hungry monster who has a huge treasure hoard is trying to devour a small poor city, and a smaller big hungry monster who doesn't have a huge treasure hoard is trying to devour a big rich city that got that way by letting the big hungry monster loose on the small poor city, you don't cheer on the smaller big hungry monster and celebrate every time innocent people from the big city get eaten, because what their leaders and ancestors did was not their fault. And you sure as hell don't cheer on the bigger big hungry monster and celebrate every time innocent people from the small city get eaten. What you do is you evacuate the cities. Both of them. And then you slay both of the monsters so everyone you evacuated from both cities can safely go back home. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the UN necessarily has a responsibility to barge in and depose both Hamas and the cabinet of Israel. The same end result needs to happen, but I don't know whether it's right or not for anyone outside either state to take it upon themselves. I'm just saying this is the mindset I feel we should approach the conflict with.

Moving on:

Anthropogenic climate change

I acknowledge the reality of anthropogenic climate change, and while I think it's noble for all of us to do all we can in our personal lives to try to slow it down, there are certain people I blame above anyone else, who really, really need to change how they do things, or else nothing the rest of us do will mean a thing:

Governmental politics

I don't know how to label what I believe about what role the government should play. My initial impulse was to call it "democratic authoritarianism," but upon research, that's apparently something else entirely: it's what authoritarian regimes are called when they pretend to be democratic. Furthermore, authoritarianism is apparently defined in part by rejection of democracy. I know damn well what libertarianism is, at least here in the US, so at this point, I'm beginning to think the authoritarian/libertarian dichotomy is libertarian propaganda.

Anyway, I'm a "democratic antilibertarian," I guess. Mostly, anyway. I have some libertarian ideas, but certainly none of them concern the so-called "free" market, nor the freedom to hurl abuse at others, nor incite violence, nor damage nor exploit one's own children as if they were property, nor withhold pay from laborers.

Basically, I believe if, and only if, a government is truly and completely democratic, then thereby is assured its legitimacy to rule with absolute power. This does not mean an elected official should hold the power of a dictator—not unless they would use it exactly in accordance with the will of the majority, without any personally motivated overreach, ever, no matter what. That is, I believe the will of the majority—the will itself, not anyone in particular elected thereby—should be considered the true head of state, and its word should be law. Direct democracy, in other words (as opposed to representative).

In this belief I of course reject the idea that there can ever be a "tyranny of the majority." I am confident so long as the people have complete information and are not deceived, the majority is always right. The dissenting minority needs to sit down, shut up, and take the L.

In case, however, the people are deceived, there are some respects in which I suppose I'd call myself libertarian. There are some freedoms I hold should be inalienable, even by popular vote, and I warn you they do not entirely align with those promised by the US Constitution:

I very much wish guns had never been invented, and would not recognize (as inalienable, anyway) the right to own them in my ideal state as described. It wouldn't be necessary. The people are the rightful bearers of absolute power, so if indeed they possess it, then any possible revolution against them is inherently illegitimate.

That being said, the US is far from that ideal state. I don't even consider it perfectly democratic—only pretty democratic—let alone do I delude myself it guarantees the inalienable rights I describe. I think conservatives greatly overstate and overexercise their right to bear arms, but in this country, I do concede such a right is necessary. In fact, if Trump is re-"elected," I believe its necessity is about to become much more apparent, and it worries me that my fellow progressives seem so reluctant to act on that.

Listen. He's said he's going to bring down democracy. He's said he's going to incarcerate us and execute us for not supporting him. I'm inclined to believe him. We need to be prepared to fucking kill him. Literally we need to be ready to blow his brains out. Why is no one else with me on this? Do you not value your lives, or are you all just stupid? Go out and get a gun. Do it. If we're unwilling to kill him when he comes to kill us, we are going to die. Your moral objections to violence and terrorism are irrelevant here. Or, what, don't tell me you don't even believe in self defense. I hope that's not the case, because that would be pretty pathetic. Don't get me wrong, we don't need to actually kill him right now—probably—I hope. My point is we need to be prepared for the eventuality. I mean, I don't think he's redeemable, but it's not for me to say. It's not for me to say, until he shows up at my doorstep. Then it's fucking go time.

You reading this, FBI? CIA? You best not come after me, because you know damn well I'm not out of line here. Nowhere herein have I incited proactive violence. So I'm suggesting people proactively buy guns. So what? Notice how I'm also going out of my way to make it clear we don't strike first. I'm inciting self defense. Self defense is legal.


Religiously, I'm what you might call "spiritual but not religious." I believe in God, but not a specific one. I just believe in the feeling in my heart. I don't believe in learning about that feeling from a book. The feeling itself is all I need. I'm kind of like a Quaker, except I take it a step farther. Quakers believe in the light within, and a direct relationship with Christ, right? I'm like that, except I trust my light within so completely that I don't even need to know its name. For all I know, it's the light of Vishnu, or Odin, or grandma, or Bob the Builder. Or maybe there is no God and it's just my conscience. Or maybe it's just my conscience, but there is also a God, and maybe that God's teachings oppose my conscience; if that's the case, then I so trust my conscience that I would assert God to be evil. Regardless, I don't consider such details relevant to my pursuit of what my light tells me.

I oppose, categorically, religious violence, religious indoctrination, and obstruction of social or scientific progress on religious grounds (except in cases where such scientific progress is to be used for violence or hate crimes). Aside from these aspects, I take no issue with any aspect of any religion.

Digital rights

I have a complicated but mostly positive relationship with open source. I believe in source availability, the user's right to modify and redistribute, and users having full control over their own hardware, but I also believe in intellectual property and worker compensation. The best compromise I've found thus far is the mission of the Organization for Ethical Source.

In any case, I oppose a lot of what big tech gets up to these days. I utterly reject surveillance capitalism and big data, to the point that I refuse to knowingly run software with telemetry, and I exclusively use open-source software on all devices to try to ensure this. I have nothing to hide, but, as I said before, I support civil rights for all people. Privacy is a human right. I won't stand for its erasure, and to that end, I make a point of exercising mine despite having nothing to hide. Hiding is not the point, you see: the point is refusing to show. A subtle but important distinction: the purpose is not to protect myself, but to refuse to capitulate, and to defy. I feel similarly about advertising, though in that case, the human right I won't stand to see erased is the right to be unmolested by public nuisance.