Utopic Civilization Systems 

Click here to read/print my main education message

The problems of democracy shall be fixed by this new version of democracy

It is disconnection from nature to consider it an “ideology” that the self-sacrificing male is to protect the self-preserving female. Nature is that we are life, and life is reproduction. Life comes of it, and so defines it. If you value life, you value what produces life, and what produces life is women.

If all humans are cooperating to maximise life, but the environment is hostile, then that's fine because males are designed to struggle with the environment, dying as needed, such that the cooperative female and her young are provided for.

Only when you understand survival conditions can you understand the ideology needed to prevent us from falling back to survival conditions. We want thriving conditions, so we need to satisfy the “ideology” of survival conditions.

We do live in a hostile environment, given that we have a hostile education system. It is a boot stamping on a human face. It is so unnatural. Under survival conditions, there would be no such education system. So, to funnel people through such a system is wrong. A society cannot thrive if it doesn't even allow people to just survive, without intervention trying to force them to "thrive". I believe that if a society cannot thrive, then it cannot survive the long term.

Wanna put an end to violent insanity around the world?

That would be peace through power.

How do you deliver peace through power?

First you must deliver peace to the power you wish to raise.

How do you do that?

Not with the an education system which delivers not peace to children, but slavery to the state.

Want to maximise love, health and the safety of the human species?

You do?

Then why herd children around like cattle with no concern for their personality, desires, talents, passions, intelligence level, consent or ability to educate themselves?

You like consent?

You want to teach consent?

The real way to teach children about consent is to not be hypocritical while doing it.

You cannot seriously claim to be a good person if you think that the current education system is "good" or "great".

People will generally treat people with as much warmth as they have been treated with.

You'd think that each political party, with their unique names, would have unique takes on how the state should relate to the people.

You'd expect them to have unique ideologies that would result in them empowering people very differently inside their parties.

That's not the case. All political parties have this in common: they are power-seeking people. Power-seeking people are worse than average at giving power back once they have it — so I've invented a new system of democracy. 

The people who seek power are the least likely to take it seriously and with a level of concern worthy of that power.

That's why no political party has a plan for a different kind of education system — despite plenty of indications over the decades that the state could be treating people a lot better.

It's why the progressives are conservative and the conservatives are progressive (to put it nicely) and politicians switch parties. They don't think about serving people. They think about saying things to be popular, including "fight" and "tackle" and "champion" and other buzzwords to convince the public that they're actually thinking about their wellbeing and success.

It's easier to slap a few ideas onto an existing system, and call that an education policy, and let buzzwords, lies and advertising do the rest, than actually make an effort. As long as they've got votes and jobs, that's good enough for them.

If you paid Google or Microsoft to figure out how to make a utopia, they'd provide a much better response than any political party, because Google and Microsoft must by their very nature have smart people, because they have to in order to be competitive in the free market.

Political parties, on the other hand, have no such pressure upon their survival or incentive to have smart people, so they can be packed with stupid people.

Another thing: the smartest people typically don't have the time or the care for politics. They are too invested in their objectively intelligence-demanding passions to have the idea to get into politics.

This means that politics has to find them and quiz them.

The state needs to prompt people to think for themselves what the state should do. The state does not do that, because why would power-seeking people do that? 

A lot of politicians joined a political party in their youth.

Actually, like all politicians joined political parties.

Who does that? Who joins political parties, especially when they're young?

Only weird nerds do. And they're not nerdy in the productive way.

That's the problem with politicians.

The people most suited to be politicians, are, paradoxically, the least likely to join political parties or stand for election.

This is why we have total system failure.

I'm looking forward to getting past this era of political stupidity, where you've got:

• A disgusting, worthless cult of an education system which is highly centralised and authoritarian

• Women in the military and the military not fighting anyone that needs fighting, because it's highly centralised and authoritarian in its operation, and also money-wasting with pointless fashion and the government's adverts for the military, which is an inhumane and money-wasting thing too

• A democracy that represents whoever is willing to lie and whoever seeks power, and not those who deserve power who would not seek it

These are basically my three main ideas regarding the British state. I've designed new state systems of education, military and democracy.

Education summary: The point of education should be to give opportunities — not to make kids do things they don't want to. Only yearly check-ups should be compulsory, so that kids know their rights and options. Schools will have freedom to design their services but will compete (money incentive) for points from a feedback system based on surveys and life data like former students' crime rate and other rates. Reinforcement learning will be applied, replacing worse designs and worse school management with better systems and better management. 

Military summary: To spread the best ideology through force, all the government needs to decide is what operations to greenlight, like so: Step 1: someone makes a petition for a particular military action Step 2: people give money to the idea Step 3: the state decides if it's morally and strategically sound or not. If it is.. Step 4: the state uses the money to equip, train and transport volunteers to do the action. || All combatants must wear a camera, to deter bad behaviour and teach others. Volunteers may be paid, and they'll be a website, kinda like a social media, where people can choose what military action and individuals or groups they want to fund.  There should be "veterans' centres", kinda like army barracks, where returning combatants are allowed to live for a period of time, especially the injured.

Democracy summary: It should be possible that someone is given political power without ever seeking it, having been given it because of a system by which people decide who they trust to give power to. This will eliminate the existence of a political class that is based on the first step of seeking power. The system should be based on random voting groups that go through whittling-down points-allocation phases, thus avoiding nepotism and avoiding celebrities getting all the power — a "voting group" being a group of, say, 10 random people (like jury duty) who give points to each other based on who they like the most. The winners of each group are then put into groups of 10 again, and, so, you see, that's how the elimination process goes. The weight of your say in government will be based on your given points.

Other issues for the state to address include:

Recreation: The world needs play parks but epic and challenging for adults.

Abortion: New life is a natural and healthy product of special love. To kill a new human life outside of exceptional circumstances is wrong.

Taxation: Taxation should, in principle, be minimised, for it is an act of domination by the state. Voluntary funding is ideal and channels should be made for voluntary funding of broad and specific state operations. Individuals should be able to influence what their tax money is spent on.

Homelessness: We don't need rough sleepers. The state should set up warehouses with bunk beds to cheaply shelter any rough sleepers.

Immigration: If someone breaks the border, they should go to jail. Before letting someone in, check that they'll benefit the taxpayer.

Personal freedom: People shouldn't fear going to jail just for being offensive or carrying "offensive weapons". Sharp object and weapon bans should be loosened gradually over many years as social conditions improve. Social conditions, including big deals like drug deaths, suicide, mental health and the birth rate, will improve mainly as a result of the new education system.

Single-sex communities: As a long-term ambition, from the male perspective, single-sex communities could help men to cultivate testosterone, particularly useful for war. The Knights Templar, who were successful and brave, were only allowed to be in contact with their mums and sisters. Imagine that, but scaled up to entire communities. Now you have a serious invasion force, useful for capturing more women — I mean giving them rights, including the right to feminine communities, where men are only allowed in on a case-by-case basis for female-centred purposes granted by the women, kind of like how you can get access to a theme park for a limited time and aren't necessarily allowed on all the rides. "Single-sex community" doesn't properly describe what I'm getting at, because a community can only really function with both sexes. Plus, these communities would be more opt-in and opt-out than your average neighbourhood. Call em' "hard parks" and "soft parks" — the hard parks being where there is almost never a female in sight, and the soft parks being where there is almost never a male over the age of seven in sight.

Seeing a woman immediately increases testosterone, but seeing women generally makes your baseline testosterone lower. 

This can help explain the success of Islam in which some or many will say that "a woman's existence is veiling".

Whoever is higher T will eventually take over from whoever is lower T.

If society collapses before political power is transferred to the more high T, then that is what will happen.

The state's role is to provide security and welfare — security meaning freedom from violence and threat, and welfare meaning health and happiness through public projects and regulation as needed.

The most important thing is security for the taxpayer.

Something less important is welfare to people living under a state which runs a different ideology.

With the police and military, every state is a masculine agent of domination by force. That's what makes a state.

The state's acts of domination are the state, you could say, but it's not that simple.

A 100% internally successful state would use no acts of domination on those living within its territory, because they are all assimilated in its culture, including intimidation with criminal sentencing. This means that a 100% successful state would have laws, but not use prisons or punishments because everybody would follow the law.

A failing state would fail to enforce its laws, let alone raise and convince people to follow its laws so that they don't have to be enforced in the first place.

A 0% successful state, in other words a non-existent state, does not use acts of domination. A 100% successful state also does not use acts of domination, yet has law and order, and growth and health stemming from that law and order.

A 100%+ successful state, let's say, dominates all known beings without using any coercive behaviour or other acts of domination.

There are no "masculine republics" or "feminine democracies". The most masculine state is also the most feminine. There is no separation of male and female. There is only bonding, and the stronger the bond, the stronger the state.

Passive domination is real domination and it's not masculine or feminine, because it's about the subject of the state being one with the state. Then, everybody is the state, making the state a very distributed, resilient thing — like a religion.

The underpinning goal of the Utopic Civilization Systems state should be female-centered, thus making it male-centered. This makes up for violent domination being masculine, and actually makes it masculine because it's about the feminine, and the masculine can only exist because of the feminine. So, by providing for, protecting and propagating the feminine, the masculine does so for itself.

Therefore, when invading another state, the primary concern of the male invaders should be the short-term health, and long-term happiness, of the peaceful female inhabitants of the land being taken. The point of taking control of the women is to help them, in balance.

This is the most natural and noble kind of military "service" — for men to take control of women from other men, because they think their state can take better care of them.

There is no political left and there is no right (or up or down), really. There's just people with their heads up their asses, because that's what at least 99% of power-seeking people are.

There's just differently coloured parasites.

They have no ideologies. I guess making an ideology would be too hard for these people, so here I've written how to make your own ideology:

To build an ideology, you must first imagine a stateless society — a blank slate in which nobody knows each other and nobody has roles to play or mechanisms by which they govern or underlying shared goals or rules.

Imagine a world without humans, and humans have just spawned in like a videogame, and they've asked you to design social and decision-making systems that they will keep running well after you are gone.

A result of your system should be that new systems are likely created, which the serve fundamental goal of your system.

Whatever you invent is then an ideology.

If you cannot invent an ideology, you cannot be a meaningful political leader, because you could never invent the world anew.

Assume that without your enlightened ideology, a worse ideology will instead take hold. Assume that people will always organise themselves, and it's your job to determine the supreme organisation that should overrule other organisations.

This ideology has nothing to do with you in terms of how it functions.

Imagine that you will not live in the imagined world with brand new people which you will provide an ideology, and you will have no communication with them after providing your ideology document. This makes it clear the difference between you and your ideology which is unique to you. Anybody can have their own unique and concrete ideology. Anybody can take your written ideology and edit it.

An ideology is not when you take existing systems and change them.

An ideology is when you invent your own system or set of systems which are designed to interact and shape the non-mechanical society underneath them, "mechanical society" meaning when there are rules and schedules and sequences and so on, and non-mechanical meaning spontaneous and unplanned behaviour and so on.

YOU have to invent YOUR rules, schedules, sequences for people to use and implement and be a part of. YOUR PROGRAM.

If you do not do that, you are not a real political leader.

You can compare an ideology to an organism's genetics. It has to be code which is self-replicating. Of course, there is a difference between an organism's code and their bodily presence. Because the code is self-sustaining, so is the society which is built from that code. Someone could take your code and edit it, and you can't know for sure how society would develop differently under the remix.

Politics is a cancer on this Earth. For all that politics stirs division, and for all that politicians "fight" (codeword for being extremely lazy) for us, they do nothing in the way of inventing social systems — imagining how things would be in a utopia, and what systems would produce utopia.

Wherever there is not utopia, this can and should be blamed on the state's social and leadership systems not being intelligently designed.

You could make a utopia if you found the right people to politically empower, learned from smart and good people past and present, brought together scientists of various kinds and questioned everything about your state, to redesign it to make it better — like a process of continual improvement. But the politicians, they don’t do that. Why don’t they build civilisation? That would be fun. Instead, they just fool around.

If you want to have social systems, such as an education system, that is up-to-date with the technological systems that surround us, you should probably seriously involve people at the forefront of the creation of that tech. You need intelligent design all-around - be dynamic. Be innovative! Be enterprising! "More teachers" or "more soldiers" is not that. You are not two years old! Learn from the free market!

Just as the market keeps finding new ways to get customers, the state should keep finding new ways to serve the people. They don't bother. 

The only thing that has any serious political substance is social systems. A leader is just a person. A leader's vague notions are just personality, although you could make systems out of them. A leader's orders are just one-off. What really makes things happen is systems that order and empower many, many people, and keep running indefinitely.

I've invented a personal system which you can consider religion 2 - key techniques of which are on this page, with key ideas on this page.

On the state

...if only the government was as smart as the free market...

There's nothing more boring than politics, which is why everyone who pursues it is a useless fuck.

A politician should serve the people, but if they were going to serve the people, why would they become a politician?

Naturally, most politicians are merely self-interested, and it doesn't help that the self-interest is enshrined in party procedures.

The free market makes miracles and the state makes fuck all progress because there's no serious incentive to actually serve people. The result is that political parties can scam the public for decades into thinking that they're actual leaders with something to offer.

The problem with politicians is that they went into politics because they're interested in politics — or worse. They didn't go into politics because they think they personally have all the answers or because they're really smart or deserving of political power.

Therefore, in reality we have a power vacuum, and the only reason it continues is because we trust that the politicians who fill that vacuum actually do have brainpower and are not just filler fluff that will inevitably be replaced by something serious.