Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization

We stand before You, Holy Spirit, as we gather together in Your name.

With You alone to guide us, make Yourself at home in our hearts; Teach us the way we must go and how we are to pursue it.

We are weak and sinful; do not let us promote disorder.

Do not let ignorance lead us down the wrong path nor partiality influence our actions.

Let us find in You our unity so that we may journey together to eternal life and not stray from the way of truth and what is right.

All this we ask of You, who are at work in every place and time, in the communion of the Father and the Son, forever and ever.

Amen.

St. Isidore of Seville (560-636)

+++++

Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization is a “perennial philosophy with third millennium characteristics”, therefore meant to be a set of beliefs and policies by governments worldwide, as applying them coerced would result in a moral competitive disadvantage against others, and is a mixed ideology between  and. It believes that using applied to politics, and decisions in general, is the best way to analyse situations.

It is the political ideology of Great-clarinet and is but nominally non-socialist,  (on the border of the auth/lib axis) but pro-community,  but anti-reactionary and also enlightened. It has a huge focus on and seeks to embrace a moderate form of Progressive Neoclassicism to stabilize the  that have been enacted since the turn of the 21st Century to the extent that they may be stabilized, for the rest of the century, if not longer, and aims to create a strong, broad system of liberties under a  . Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization will embrace any number of aspects of as long as the implementation is stable and does not threaten the security of people who praise the government, more or less because it believes that technology can fix and/or solve most of Humanity's problems, most of Humanity's problems being of Humanity's own making, and can also send Humanity into a golden age.

Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization is generally opposed to all, , , and  ideologies, considering them to be merely better or worse forms of ignorance. Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization is, however, not opposed to ideologies outside of contesting their monopoly on the left wing. Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization generally holds favorable opinions on ideologies that also value,  Religious pride, , , ,   and. It is also in favor of a freeing up of fixed traditionalism to promote cultural regrowth and through inclusive means. Here is a manifesto of ideas that are advantageous, and that are likely to be used by governments at some point to further their power. The more ideas are adopted, the more a state gets closer to a state of optimal progress, of which constitutional nationalization is the goal. Economic classes are a “lie to children”. Communists will make you believe that everything can be summarized to a conflict between owner and owned, but relationships to the capital are much more complex than what they propose. In fact, the "class struggle" they are talking about is nothing but a mere distraction from real issues, to justify their economic paternalism/conservatism. No, collectively planning what the neighbour will eat for dinner is not liberating unless the neighbour shall participate in the plan, nor is preventing businesses from forming causing any good for innovation for progress, let alone adaptive innovation for the sake of preservation. What Leninists seek is control and regression, not liberation, preservation and progress. Only actual material conditions matter in economic policy absolutely, not the abstraction of "the rule of one class over another" and the like. This means that union power must be furthered, by establishing collective bargaining in platforms where the state, unions and owners unite as partners in quinqipartite meetings with two parties each for unions and owners to negotiate wages, workplace safety regulations, social benefits, paid leave days, and the like. This helps promote healthy labor relations, as well as having business interest groups advise economic policy. Worker cooperatives are also encouraged on small scales to widen access to ownership, as well as self-employment. It is also important that some key sectors, such as infrastructure and natural resources, are kept in the hands of governments, as they are of the public domain. Same goes with all patents/copyrighted works. Real efficiency can only emerge if we get rid of the advantages of the silly, and of the drawbacks imposed on the useful. Landlords are a good example. Many do not contribute to production, and believe they deserve a plot of land solely because they were first to claim it. Introducing a land value tax, which taxes individuals on the market value of their terrain when unimproved, beside a universal basic land value, incentivises a good use of the land, as those who sabotage it will find it impossible to cheat the tax by crashing its value to zero or below, while those who make a profit out of it can easily fund it. It is also imperative to implement a system of pigovian taxation, under which products that generate negative externalities for the collectivity (Examples: Greenhouse gas, lake pollution, toxic vapors, etc.) get an additional tax to refund to the population the social costs of the production. The opposite also works, subsidies being given to companies that for example bring education to interns should be put in place. Also, income taxation should be flat, or else luxuries should not be exempt from it. At any rate, it should be a “required minimum redistribution” accounted only for incomes above 1 1/6 living wage. It happens. Some people are born less equal than others when it comes to their characteristics. Some are physically or mentally disabled, some have terrible genetic diseases, some have gender dysphoria, and some have horrors that most of us cannot even imagine in terms of suffering. It is obviously none of their fault, and should never be treated as such. Therefore, it is only fair to bring help to the unlucky. Welfare programs must exist to support those that nature gifted with disadvantages. This includes free treatment for diabetics and trans people, mental care for the mentally ill, and appropriate equiment for the handicapped. The same way, victims of accidents must be taken in charge freely by public healthcare, whereas voluntary harm is to be paid individually. Individualism is the awful part of stereotypical capitalism and socialism. An individual alone is easiest to corrupt, even to an extreme point, thus a market integrated under the control of one individual is probably corrupt to the point that this individual will try to convince people that none exists. This is fraudulent, a fully planned economy likely cannot exist at the scale of the State. The reason this individual is trying to convince people that no market exists is that they are probably the only one aware of how corrupt it is. Society is a network of pairwise relationships where there are inherent rights and duties which need no State to come from. These rights and duties make each member of a pairwise relationship more difficult to corrupt as a member of this pairwise relationship than they are as just themself. Democracy has rather awful stereotypes for the best realistic system of government. At best, you have non-optimally competent leaders who do barely nothing, and at worst, demagogues that your neighbors elected to force you to change the color of your house. It is nonsensical to believe such stereotypes represent the best we can do with legitimate popular opinion. Some will argue that autarchism is a better solution, but in the end, the majority still gets to exert its power in the same way. We need to be unafraid to trust experts within branches of decision that fit their competence, and to make sure decisions are well-advised. Governance, just like all other fields of decision, requires rigor to follow the scientific method. It is out of consideration to let policy pass if it contradicts data. A permanent, independent institution must exist to ensure every decision goes in accordance with science. Furthermore, citizen initiatives are encouraged, as just like with research, any contradicting data must be taken in account, no matter its source. This allows to avoid corruption as even if there is an effort to dissimulate results, anyone can prove otherwise. Libertarianism is only as good as the educational regime it exists under. Letting people take decisions for themselves isn't always the best thing to do. There are two kinds of personal choices: preferential choices, such as what clothes to wear, what to eat for dinner, etc., and factual choices, which require a certain degree of expertise, for example, about health. The former is fully legitimate to leave at the discretion of individuals, but the latter is too dangerous to mess with. If a badly educated person had the full power to decide, they could decide to buy poison, then unconsciously ingest it and poison themselves, since they “did not know” the substance was harmful, possibly under duress. In that case, is it truly consent? Freedom comes from education, and few people are truly competent in such fields. In the meantime, decisions that involve a high degree of technical knowledge, like vaccination, must be in the hands of true experts, for the safety of all citizens. There is no difference between totalitarianism and anarchism, except on who gets to beat you. In the former, it's an elite, in the latter, it's the mob. Neither can be trusted to hold the monopoly on violence, so it belongs to a responsible state instead. There must be a social contract between all inhabitants, where individuals agree to collectively give up on their power to hurt others, in exchange of guaranteed protection against harm. This way, safety is strongly incentivized, and prosperity can occur, as people don't invest in the future if they feel constant danger and instability. On the other hand, there must be a social contract between all inhabitants, where individuals agree to share the responsibility for drafting, debating, approving, rejecting and overturning regulations in the most efficient way possible. Some will argue that this representative democracy, as statistically likely as it is, is not a true democracy because the majority is nominally delegating its share of this responsibility, but in the end, no one individual still may dictate regulations alone. Also, tolerance of dissent seems to lead to segregation, and ultimately slows down innovation and interparty exchanges. Luckily, Distributism has this principle called “subsidiarity”. It allows distributists to make a multiparty democracy with a social contract between all parties, where they agree to collectively give up on their power to believe as they may, in exchange of guaranteed protection of knowledge.

It's enough. Humanity can no longer afford to be ruled by childish behaviors, also known as superstition, or childish modes of the behaviors known as conservatism and emotionality. We need a radical thawing of our mindsets, to stop simply thinking about what to keep, but also why and how to keep what we shall keep and what future to strive for. We are humans, and our brain is possibly the most advanced structure in this whole universe. It would be insane to let it be corrupted by stupidity by rejecting knowledge. Scientific facts have to be applied to our society for it to progress. And we shouldn't deny it. The reality is, there are no gods nor a "divine spark" when the gods are unlike reality, nor ghosts, nor no fairy tales' legendary creatures when we take these literally. And it would be foolish to lie to the people by letting them believe they might be real. It is pointless to pursue knowledge if we do not explicitly assert the facts. What next? Will we just assume there might be a chance that 2+2 does not equal 4, and that to not shock people who believe otherwise, we won't take a stance? Anglophone-style "secularism" allows to bring doubt to easily on things we can't afford to claim uncertain. No, not believing in a sky daddy judging and disapproving isn't equivalent to believing that a holy war is needed to bring back a prophet on Earth, or whatever bullshit, and it is not only inefficient, but also greatly dangerous to think that way. We must collectively agree that deities are not real when they are unlike reality, and fight back movements that pretend otherwise. Nature is nothing but the unimproved state of the universe, and doing nothing about it brings suffering on our species. After all, cancer, viruses, starvation, forgetfulness, are all part of the nature that so many people appear to worship. And we deserve more. Much more. Luckily, we have this tool called "technology". It allows us to distanciate ourselves from the imperfect world we were born in, to reach better living conditions. We created pickaxes because our arms are not made out of steel. We created medicine because bacteria makes us sick. We created houses because our skin isn't isolated enough from cold. We created agriculture because our body feels hungry. We created musical instruments because our singing voice falls as we age. And we created writing because our memory is finite and fallible. Cybernetic tools, transhumanist implants, designed ecosystems and genetical modification are just mere extensions of the former tools. Why oppose them but not the former? All reactionarism is to be eliminated from culture. Heavy reforms must happen to purge harmful traditions and movements. Sects and other violent cults, such as Qanon, Black Lives Matter and the last redoubts of artistic-architectural High Modernism, have to be supervised or else supressed with persuasion or force. Things like intersectionality and other forms of racial/ethnic nationalism are all discriminatory and anti-scientific/anti-spiritual, unless the race/ethnicity is humanity in general, and should be made strictly illegal. Hate speech involving people's unchosen characteristics in public is not to be compromised with. Due to freedom of association, however, that speech can exist within closed groups, as it contains opinions that would get otherwise public. Same goes with sexuality, suggestive/explicit content which is the most scientifically/spiritually correct being encouraged in public spaces in all cases. This is to avoid exposure to unwanted harmful media. Such things must remain a private affair. Additionally, gender is to be fully liberalised as a social construct, as well as the current worship of biological parenting, with a focus on communal raising of children instead. Diplomatic relations have to be pragmatic, not idealistic. There are rogue nations that will never accept diplomacy, and there are ideological enemies that have to be compromised with. The interests of the nation take precedence over those overseas, but never shall the spread of our ideas be countered for isolationist reasons. Ideally, the world would be united economically in continental units, called nooates, with local identities, and worldwide humanitarian values. We can, and must, engage in national innovation projects in order to bring pride to the citizens. Things like space conquest, achievements in medicine and the general development of the nation's infrastructure have to become tightly linked with patriotism. The same way, our national identity must be consolidated via technological means, such as free internet nation-wide. It is also equally as important to achieve technological autarky, to not have to rely on foreign patents/innovation. The nation must be seen as a beacon of scientific advancement, worldwide, and become a major actor in international research programs. Multiculturalism is a scam, and so is monoculturalism. Both lead to segregation, and ultimately slow down innovation and intercultural exchanges. It is pointless to separate, what we need is unity. Under the same national language, and sharing the same values, all cultural elements should be freely shared. Nationhood is not a matter of blood, but one of identity and allegiance. Tolerance is not enough, cross-cultural acceptance must be supported to challenge self-segregating tendencies from cultural groups. Being citizen of a good country and benefiting from comfortable conditions is sadly not a reality for everyone on this planet, far from that. It is not humane to do nothing to help those living under opressive governments. All theocracies must be toppled down, as well as other states that violate human rights to an extent considered requiring intervention. Obscurantism, in particular, has to be put #1 enemy. Any regime promoting widespread hiding of the truth to its citizens is to be considered as evil. Bringing civilization to all peoples is an humanitarian mission we must engage in.

Quarkism's opinions on other ideologies. Please note that this is strictly ideological, and has nothing of a personal level between 🇺🇳 and the founders of the ideologies. If you want to get added to this section, say it, on, or tell Quark#0741 on Discord. You can then also add Quarkism to yours, using.

Shares enough common points to be worth support.

Some parts good, some parts bad.

Directly opposing Quarkism's ideas.