Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization

Italic textWe 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, it is not 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 is pointless to separate, what we need is unity. Under the same systemic values, all political elements should be freely shared. The Way of Truth And What Is Right

He believes righteousness is fundamental to a functioning system of rights, let alone a robust one. He believes that philosophy is God-given, inalienable within reason and that governments which are instituted agree to concede systems of rights to their citizens to protect their society’s institutional knowledge. Fugitives from alien justice are generally unwanted within the nation and their residence is generally illegal even if they have their legitimate documentation in order as they are a fundamental threat to National knowledge. All parties which are legal to stand in legislative elections to the House of Democrats and the House of Dictators must approve one truth from the enumeration of the proposed truths, preferably in common. The following is his list of truths of which one should be guaranteed by all legal parties in the form of a Bill of Truths (viz. US Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”). Outside of the capacity of representing people for a party in the legislature, a citizen shall not have to guarantee any of these truths. This Bill of Truths shall not be subject to repeal of its founding provisions. Voting and Governance
 * 1) As philosophy is God-given, no governing body shall make law repealing any freedom of religion in favor of one sect over another or of irreligion.
 * 2) Autists are no less intelligent than the general population
 * 3) Nudity is naturally asexual.
 * 4) The sexual act is intercourse of the genitals of one person and the mouth or genitals of another.
 * 5) The Bible and the Quran are only “homophobic” based on fraudulent interpretations of the relevant verses.
 * 6) No synagouge, church or mosque shall demote the use of the Tarot/Trionfo della Morte cards as a game.
 * 7) The trump preference hierarchy at Bridge is astatistical.
 * 8) As a Rummy game, Mahjong naturally has a system of regular hands. NB This is not anti-Semitic or sexist even though it is condemning a “Jewish ladies’” game.
 * 9) As Chess is fundamentally a Constitutional Monarchist game, the rightness of its royal piece’s limited moves shall not be abridged.
 * 10) The rightness of a diatonic scale structure shall not be abridged on account of interval of repetition.

He favors universal suffrage, albeit favouring restrictions on voting inside the legislature that limit it to people who support one of the provisions listed in the Bill of Truths given above. His ideal system is semi-republican, based off of the system, with a Congress that normally has a left house and right house rather than an upper house and a lower house, that is the Houses of   and. In exceptional circumstances, however, the House of  prevails as the truth sets people free. He also supports making superlocal executives into directories. In his home country of the United States, this means fusing the Presidency into the Electoral College. This has the added benefit of making the US Electoral College system more than just a fury-provoking ritual.

Political System

This section has been added due to the fact that the question of monarchism is one that divides many in the general area of the political spectrum that he inhabits. He does not hate the existence of a monarch as the head of state, but they should not be a foreigner to the nation where they are the head of state. That said, his ideal system would not apply to hereditary constitutional monarchies, primarily due to the fact that such would not be shy from incest on any principle. Instead, it would apply to “divine right” or semi-hereditary ones where the royalty does not sit unalterably in any one family, but is like business administration in that anyone in the general public may ascend to it if they wish.

If a monarch exists as the executive head of state, they shall be chosen from among the general public by the generally elected Executive and the Legislature and jointly subject to judicial review for the purpose of impeachment. Under a federal system, impeachment of a national monarch would also need direct approval from the regional governments so that the Federal Judiciary might not unilaterally remove a national monarch they generally dislike.

The generally elected National and State Executives would be directories, like a local council with its authority scaled up to extend over a region of a country or an entire country. They would elect, normally from among their own members, “directors-president” to be their supreme heads. These “directors-president” would be subject to re-election at the beginning of every Executive session. A directory would need Legislative approval to fully expel a director, but may unilaterally censure one. Any expelled director may be barred from holding a senior government office if a majority of the Legislature approves the expulsion. They would be disabled for life unless they undergo a sincere conversion or a majority of legislators who have participated in the disabling have left the Legislature in disgrace.

This section has been added due to the fact that the question of multicameralism is one that divides many in the general area of the political spectrum that he inhabits. While he does not hate the existence of subdivisions within the Legislature, he would not split the legislative responsibilities into an upper and a lower bucket as this is antidemocratic. This is why his Legislature is described as having a left house and right house rather than an upper house and a lower house.

The National and State Legislatures would consist of two houses. The Left House would be known as the House of Dictators and the Right House would be known as the House of Democrats. This structure represents that people wish for individual power in two senses: (self-)control and self-sufficiency for the House of Dictators and mutually beneficial relationships for the House of Democrats. Election rules would be made separately for each house, although a House of Dictators would be forbidden to be appointed entirely by a special council. However, Houses of Dictators would still not have to be as representative as Houses of Democrats, like how the US Senate represents that there are 50 states in the Union while the US House represents real people. Although analogous, this structure is radically different from the US Congress or any known bicameral legislature in that both chambers have all legislative powers in common and the “filibuster”, such as it is, exists for generally constructive purposes.

The National Judiciary especially is to consist of a group of judges including one from each intermediate judicial division of the nation, these being appointed by the regional governments. The National Directory and Legislature are to confirm any other candidates to be generally approved by anyone of voting age who has sung or played a pitched musical instrument but has no conviction of a legal offense. States are thus required to have elected judges as well, national judges may face impeachment if the impeachment is supported by the Directory, the Legislature and the state where the impeached judge resides. Impeachments of judges must be led out of the state where the impeached judge resides and should only be done based on reasonable evidence of wrongdoing. The same standard applies to Directors and Democrats. However, a coup to take over a Dictatorship shall not trigger a legitimate constitutional crisis.

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 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 too 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 or depressing, 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 clothing and houses because our skin isn't isolated enough from cold and we would get bored of going around naked all the time anyway. We created agriculture because our body feels hungry. We created musical instruments because our singing voice falls as we age. We created circular temperaments because our instruments would have “wolf” fifths with few fixed pitches. 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. Sexual Degeneracy Sexual “liberation” has only victimized homosexuals even more deeply. It is a little known fact that gay men looked down on having anal sex and promiscuity while homosexuality was officially illegal. On its face, this would seem nonsensical; why should an outlaw still bother with behaving otherwise “good”? Plato has already discussed this same paradox in The Republic. From his belief in the perfectibility of human reason, he deduces that ideally just people will do what they think is virtuous even in the face of popular disapproval. Modern psychology shows that he has gotten the point of reasoning wrong and that people can find justification for ideas they think self-evidently false. However, the opposite argument from the same book, given to his brother Glaucon, provides the caveat that finding justification for these ideas must guard their reputation or convince others that they are in the right in disputes. So why would gay men look down on having anal sex and promiscuity while homosexuality was officially illegal? They knew the bad reputation of the prostitution of women to men, and if well-read, might have known about anal sex being an important plot device in the French “Farce of the Fart”, probably written to mock the absurdities heard in court cases in Renaissance France. And the latter is about a case of anal sex by accident between a married couple. And this is all apart from the can of worms of what scripture is supposed to mean about homosexuality and the whole HIV epidemic that only exists because anal sex is mainstream in modern gay male culture. 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 music 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/spiritual advancement, worldwide, and become a major actor in international research programs. Because interculturalism/ethnopluralism is the state of human nature; 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. Constitutional Nationalism'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 VIIIm8 on Reddit. You can then also add Central Maryland Thought on Constitutional Nationalization to yours, using. Shares enough common points to be worth support. Some parts good, some parts bad. Directly opposing Constitutional Nationalism's ideas. Caveat this is very difficult by design.