What makes a Conservative (this is Outreach!)

Outreach: That's the thing that you do to reach people beyond your own "echo chamber". It's the thing that eventually leads people to the whole "I told you so" routine - or the thing you do to prevent people from doing the whole "why haven't we been told?" routine.

Political Correctness: So, I'm a leftie. Though my left leaning ideology is derived from the Bible and my own Life's experience, rather than Marx or whatever Character there be, my ideology still squarely falls into the general spectrum of left leaning politics. And by my own estimate, that makes me come accross as 'rude' ... to some people. Specifically: "Nazis" a.k.a. anything to the right of ... "most left leaning person". Well, you get the drift. It is this kind of attitude that "lefties" will exhibit that does, allegedly, turn people off.

But here's a thing: Why is it then, now, that these kinds of accusations make me feel like I'm "politically incorrect"? Like it's my fault - and need to then go and learn to be politically correct? Where it's then those exact people who'd consider me to be rude - simply going by online impressions - that wanna hear nothing about political correctness?

So, what makes us rude? So, I support ... let's call it "the gender revolution". To which extent gendering and pronoun usage and all that matters to the desired end ... is kind of not the point. I do however support it. I also support "the Green agenda", because ... yea, "I believe" that climate change is real. And sure. In a lot of ways I'm a hypocrite - but that is because I'm but a single person; And some more 'help' to realize the ambition behind "the green agenda" would be neat! Sure it'd have to be reasonable - but that, to me, is no excuse to refuse everything that might perhaps slightly inconvenience me, because ... I happen to think that it's quite a big deal to make things happen. But, let's for now just leave it at: "I support the green agenda". I also don't like Warmongering. As a child of the 80s I grew up thinking that we're kind of beyond that - that but a few savages still do the whole bloodshed and that soon enough that'll go away too. I also support socialism. Or so the idea that a society built on greed ... isn't in tune with my beliefs as a Christian. I happen to think that if we learn how to work together - rather than fighting each other over what scraps there may be - we can get a whole lot done. But that too is a somewhat complex topic, so, let's leave it at "I support socialism" for now. And in line with that, I'm also a bit of a globalist. Of course. As I don't like warmongering and think socialism is neat - I also believe that we don't really need all those nationalistic boundaries. We're all humans. Which also implies, that I have a sense of compassion for what suffering is caused accross the globe. Suffering that isn't going to get any less the more we neglect the consequences of the changing climate. Political or Ecological or what.

And I suppose that makes me rude. Because - well - I insist that people take people's gender identities more seriously - and all the rest of it too. And it's not even so much that I insist. Because, quite frankly, most of the time I don't. Sure does getting misgendered annoy me - but it's only when someone makes zero efforts to get it right that I'll get upset.

But, yet again, beside the point. What really happens there - with 'us' being 'rude' and all that - is this, well, we might call it: Unwillingness to consider reality. So, people will just act as if the whole gender revolution is nonsense - and that's that.
Let me put it this way: "Oh how nice would it be, if I were a conservative" ... "then I wouldn't have to support all the things that they find annoying" ... I could just ... ignore all the things that are apparently too hard to understand and gleefully join into the chants of telling everyone who doesn't agree with me to shut the fuck up - while making up fairy tales and skycastles to add some personal style and pazazz to my arrogance.

I mean ... as an anecdote: Winters have been really mild as of late. New Year was almost warm. Then, recently, it got a bit cold - and I was wondering if that would be enough for people to question that climate change is real. I mean, back when I was a child, it was effectively snow from december to march. There are little flowers called snowdrops. They're called that, so I learned, because they'd be the first plants to pop up from the snow, heralding the arrival of spring. We've had them in our garden - yet nowadays I'm not even sure if they still exist.

So, what I'm trying to say here is, that me being rude has nothing to do with my opinions or beliefs - because I'm not! Us being rude, I'd argue, is mostly a machination - a figment of imagination - produced by this fantasy that the things we believe in aren't true.

And the problem isn't that we're shoving things down your/their throat. It would be, that we aren't doing so hard enough. I mean, the thing is - one one side - that I suppose it's funny to make fun of trannies, especially those that don't pass very well. People might look at us - or hear our voice - and figure that they're not really turned on. Then the story goes on with behavior that yielded the term 'toxic masculinity' - or some aspect of it - where it were implied that we'd care for them to want to fuck us. So it's jokes about us being unattractive, like we're unfuckable and such - and these days that eventually leads on to the next thing; A.k.a. the whole "trans women in women sports" angle. Here TERFs join in where our womanhood is reduced to our inability to get pregnant (sorry trans boys, I speak from my position) - a weird twist for a feminist, to reduce womanhood to child rearing, but ... that's the world we live in.
Then it's like we invade woman's spaces, then we get a chuckle out of some attack helicopter joke, and then we're right back to peepee and vajuju again.

The problem isn't that we haven't heard you/them - it's that all of this ... it's just feelings, no substance.
It's that we aren't heard - or taken seriously. And why should you? Well ... good question! Let's ask it - together - about all the things that us lefties believe in that make us so rude.

Well, maybe not here or now. But, as a thing I've also already written about a bunch - let's start with homosexuality. A certain brand of believers would for instance insist, that being homosexual is against God. And they might happily pull out the Bible, quote a bunch of verses and move on to call it unnatural. Now, that's not the kind I would accuse of trying to be overly nuanced; Those come in once I'd label that attitude as homophobic. Because now I'm the one accusing people of bad things - and that's rude!
But what am I to do?
Here's the thing: Gay animals exist. Much like dogs and cats living together in peace. It seems wrong at first, but is actually really wholesome. And sure people could go down the whole "so, did God make a mistake there?" road, but instead I want to go down the whole "there is a non-homophobic interpretation of the Bible" road. But I think it starts with an approach to the Bible that is somewhat off-putting to some and may easily sound like a bunch of excuses. But, so, speaking of God and Mistakes - would you rather insist that God made a mistake, indirectly while actually just ignoring reality pretending that He didn't; Or wrap your mind around the concept that we - or so: Our ancestors, culture, "history" - made some mistakes interpreting the Bible?

It's like ... I can call myself a Muslim. Though I'm a Christian; And some might find that to be ... weird, or impossible. But the problem there once again is within one's limited horizon. And absence of the required concepts to see what I mean, or an inability to acknowledge them for some reason. But, I have a much better example for this point I'm trying to make here; Something I haven't yet written about because it just came to me recently:

Planned Economy
So, as yet another addition to the collection of topics on the matter of 'conditioning' - there's the idea of how socialists, or at least communists, want or need a planned economy; And that planned economies don't work. People may very well be capable of further producing an apparent proof - that a planned economy is inevitable for any socialist or communist; But I'd call that a category error similar to the argument that "men can't be women". I mean, just so we're on the same page here, it's kind of right. The thing is, that "men can't be women" is something us gender revolutionaries do very much agree with, but not as something that matters for trans women. It's something that matters for trans men. They are 'men'. And by that we don't mean whatever situation their physical body is in. We mean - well, as gnostics we may say it: Their 'soul' or 'spirit' (SHUT UP SHABIBO!) - is effectively repulsed by "the mannerisms of femininity". They learn eventually that their 'soul' or 'spirit' is male - and that acknowledgment eventually grows to some outward expression. And to define categories such as 'male' and 'female' within the realms of the 'soul' or 'spirit' is difficult - but it's simple enough given how we - well, I did - tend to grow up trying to embrace our biological sex. And that would make us of the gender that aligns with it. But what our body then offers in return ... well, difficult topic. But I think it's generally fair to say, that a trans person then starts to dissociate from what the body imposes - while embracing mannerisms that ... "work for them". In general that is too colorful to fit into a siple binary; And yet there are people that experience this within the binary.
Anyway - let's put it like this: Though I might just be fantasizing about it - I can see people looking at me, thinking that I'd be a really handsome and attractive man. And they might further find themselves attracted to "him" - but based on my experiences and impressions prior to transitioning, that person doesn't exist. I would say, that it is easy for people to construct an image of me as a man that'd act as a man - given that my presentation is female. Back when I was presenting as male, that wouldn't have been so easy because rather than imagining the man I'd be - they'd look at the "man" I was. And sure - if I was a man - that is: happy in my position as one - I might have been ... hot and interesting and all that - but I was barely even alive. And I guess it is nowadays, that I have a much greater peace with myself and life, that people would be tempted - especially since some of my biological features are still very apparently male - to create some masculine abstract of that ... peace and joy.

But, back to the topic.
I should probably start by saying: We might be getting bamboozled! Though around some very obvious markers it might be wrong - there are other, less obvious markers that yet do suggest, that: We already live in a planned economy.

Well, so, let's perhaps first go over what I mean by planned economy: It entails two things: 1) Dictatorship of what is being produced and 2) Dictatorship of cost.

And if we want to be smart, we can already look at point 2 and wonder: Don't socialists/communists NOT believe in money? From there we can talk about 'the international' market and realize that any isolated market that does dictatorship of pricing runs into issues based on the international standards. But ... that's just a by the way.

Dictatorship of what is produced ... also exists in Capitalism, except that the elites that decide over it, have an incentive to not be lazy about it: Profit. Though that incentive then becomes a negative, because ... as the motivator is profit - the actual good of a product can be ... well ... laced with dopamine triggers and then doesn't really have to be 'good' good.
Things like that.

But, when was the last time that you bought something, that isn't part of a very well established system? I mean, every branded item in any supermarket - everything you're 'used to' having - is effectively planned for. It has to be there. And you also expect it to have a certain price. And ... on that note: Complaining about inflation while also believing that a Planned Economy is bad - that's a contradiction. Well, sort of. On the other hand one could argue that the current inflation isn't due to anything BUT Dictatorship of pricing!

And yea, what do we want out of a Free Economy? I guess, the simplest thing about it, is to make sure that the ask on both sides is balanced. So, on the one side the one who sells things wants to set a price - and on the other side the one who buys things wants to set a price. And I'd say that the fundamental concept of a free economy is that the price is somewhat flexible, as to arrive at a fair middle ground.
However, here's something really insidious about it: I'd say, first of all, that there are three general factors that are to be considered: Need, Have and Want. And between Need and Have, we're exploitable. If something so got more expensive - and there isn't really one we can bargain with - like some shelf in some supermarket - and we need it - we'd check for whether we 'have' enough to get it. Eventually we agreed to the price, sort of, and things all of a sudden got more expensive. So, in terms of 'Dictatorship' of price; We eventually have a situation where us earning more is merely an excuse to raise prices; And sooner or later we're back at the same degree of effective poverty as before.

So, yes - that's how inflation works. We get more money, more is asked of us, we need more money - rinse and repeat. Well, usually the argumentation goes a bit further, implying that us getting more money is more expensive for the employer, who thus will have to ask for more; And to that you can also add Luxury - or let's call them: "Chase Items" - things that create a feeling of wealth that makes us want to have more so we can live a certain lifestyle.
And then eventually people be talking of supply and demand; Another equation that involves paying wages.

In short, planning an economy ... is difficult if you want to solve for utility. Given that profit motives and such exist. Which is why people say "tax the rich". Because obviously 'greed' is the big bad in this equation, it only seems reasonable. It's a fair enough start - which then yields money that can be invested into common wealth. Well, but ... I digress.
What I'm trying to say effectively boils down to: There are different ways an economy can be planned. We can try to fix prices and wages - that would be one way. But we can also try to think about what we want and need; And roll with whatever comes of it. I mean, if we said - collectively - that we bring Tupper boxes to buy groceries by weight; We could do without packaging. That might cripple an entire industry, but if we could just give a fuck about it - because we'd have ways to mitigate the human suffering that that would cause - we could, in deed, just give a fuck about it!

So, to come to the point ... what makes a conservative?

I've been wondering, since ... in a lot of ways the 'conservative' mindset doesn't happen to be very conservative - in as far as the word is concerned. And basically I wrote this whole piece so I don't come off as rude by once again shit-talking about them.
But what can you do? The thing is ... the answer to that question that made the most sense to me so far is, that the concept of conservatism yields a certain mindset that 'the forces of evil' are interested in. Think of it like that: Evil has a motive. Be it just a matter of greed, or more a matter of sadism - if not both - it doesn't matter all that much. Let's just say: Self-beneficial egoism irresponsive(?) of the cost (consequences). Then, there would be a list of mindests or politics or ideals - each more or less compatible with that motive. Fascism, National Socialism, all that ... it plays into that. Some might then try to argue that National Socialism is left-wing, but the truth is a lot simpler. It's egoistic, hateful and ignorant. Or so: Self-beneficial egoism irresponsive(?) of the cost. And that ... is also how I see conservatism. I mean, when was the last time I heard or read of someone identifying as a conservative, that ... didn't fit into that description? Was there ever?

And sure, I don't like it. So, I'm against it and might happily compare it to fascism. Because - and that, dear reader, is important to me: The evil of fascism starts in the human heart. The vile actions that might follow are merely the consequences of it rising into power. Whether you believe that it's harmless or not ... doesn't change what has been true. And if you want to stand up, ignorantly burning books you don't understand or banning things you don't understand - because somehow someone got you to believe that they are the cause of all your problems - well ... you're doing it! You're ... summoning Evil! Call it as you will!