Owfism

=Figures=
 * [[File:Athdem.png]] Solon (638 BCE-558 BCE)
 * [[File:Hellenistheoicon.png]] Thales of Miletus (623 BCE-545 BCE)
 * [[File:MathTheo.png]] Pythagoras (570 BCE-495 BCE)
 * [[File:Res_Publica.png]] Lucius Junius Brutus (545 BCE-509 BCE)
 * [[File:Tao.png]] Sun Tzu (544 BCE-496 BCE)
 * [[File:Hellenistheoicon.png]] Democritus (460 BCE-370 BCE)
 * [[File:Aristotle.png]] Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE)
 * [[File:Rousseau.png]] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
 * [[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]] G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831)
 * [[File:Karl_Marx.png]] Karl Marx (1818-1883)
 * [[File:NatProg.png]] Theodore Roosevelt Jr. (1858-1919)
 * [[File:Anat.png]] Eugène Lanti (1879-1947)
 * [[File:Einstein.png]] Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
 * [[File:Ataturk.png]] Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (1881-1938)
 * [[File:FDRismF.png]] Franklin Delano Roosevelt (1882-1945)
 * [[File:Scientocracy_Small.png]] Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961)
 * [[File:Chess.png]] Richard Réti (1889-1929)
 * [[File:Sartre.png]] Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)
 * [[File:Allende.png]] Salvador Allende (1908-1973)
 * [[File:Camus.png]] Albert Camus (1913-1960)
 * [[File:Dubcekball.png]] Alexander Dubček (1921-1992)
 * [[File:Prout.png]] Prahbat Ranjan Sarkar (1921-1990)
 * [[File:Trekism.png]] Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991)
 * [[File:Kardashev.png]] Nikolai Kardashev (1932-2019)
 * [[File:Hawking.png]] Stephen Hawking (1942-2018)
 * [[File:Chess.png]] Robert James Fischer (1943-2008)
 * [[File:Partip.png]] Michael Albert (1947-)
 * [[File:Soc21.png]] Evo Morales (1959-)
 * [[File:Boric.png]] Gabriel Boric (1986-)
 * [[File:Volt.png]] Damian Boeselager (1988-)

=Organizations = (WIP)
 * [[File:JapCom.png]] Japanese Communist Party (1922-)
 * [[File:NDP_icon.png]] New Democratic Party (1961-)
 * [[File:Pan-Amerindianism.png]] American Indian Movement (1968-)
 * [[File:EvoMorales.png]] Movement for Socialism (1987-)
 * [[File:Gsocdem.png]] GroenLinks (1989-)
 * [[File:AusGreensIcon.png]] Australian Greens (1992-)
 * [[File:Sanders.png]] Vermont Progressive Party (1993-)
 * [[File:Green_Party_(US).png]] Green Party (United States) (2001-)
 * [[File:FDF-Pirate.png]] Pirate Party of Sweden (2006-)
 * [[File:USA_PirateParty.png]] US Pirate Party (2006-)
 * [[File:LIVREism.png]] LIVRE (2014-)
 * [[File:Volt.png]] Volt Europa (2017-)
 * [[File:Boric.png]] Social Convergence (2018-)
 * [[File:EconProg.png]] The Party for Democracy and Solidarity (Romania) (2018-)
 * [[File:World_Federalism2.png]] Young World Federalists (2019-)
 * [[File:PactoHistorico.png]] Historic Pact for Colombia (2021-)

=Youtubers= (WIP)
 * [[File:BrtiMonkey.png]] BritMonkey (?)
 * [[File:Adam_Something.png]] Adam Something (?)
 * [[File:MathTheo.png]] BriTheMathGuy (?)
 * [[File:Envi.png]] vlogbrothers (?)'''
 * [[File:SecondThought.png]] Second Thought (?) 
 * [[File:Neotechnocracy.png]] Vsauce (1986-)
 * [[File:Andrew.png]] Saint Andrewism (?)
 * [[File:Mercury.png]] Moon (?)

=Beliefs=

Overview
I am in favor of democracy and democratic systems of voting. I advocate for the implementation of a  semi-direct democracy (that includes things like referendums, citizens initiatives but there will still be some power given to a parliament) through things like  liquid democracy. Notions of  e-democracy will also be implemented, initially only at a local level, to prevent major hackings until security systems are improved. Out of all systems, democracy has proven to be the least worst system compared to the others we tried. (as said by Churchill.)

With this, I come to favor major reforms to the world's current democratic system in order to expand it and make it more representative of the will of the people than it does now. I believe we need to have an electoral system that is more racially and sexually inclusive, not leaving any races or people of other sexes behind just because they were born different. I also believe we need to hold a tougher position against corruption and it shall not be treated as an advantage, but rather as a disadvantage to them that has consequences. Supporting a strong anti-corruption agency and open/strong accountability.

As my form of government, I support a constitutional federal parliamentary  republic. I also support things like  laicism, in order to fairly and to properly end the scar that is religion on innovation and progress and instead fully embrace the brakes on  scientific innovation. I reject current  identity politics  when it comes to immigration, instead, I support  polyculturalism, keeping the acceptance of multiculturalism while also making it easier for immigrants to integrate within our society. Finally, I support ending the mass surveillance state.


 * -| Governance =

[[File:Dem.png]] Democracy [[File:Dem.png]]
Democracy is my main system of voting that I seek to use, the people need to have a voice and I seek to uphold it. It is true, democracy does not uphold the best results, but it represents (or tries to represent) the opinions of every person. Other systems that are non-democratic only manage to represent the opinions of one or a couple of people, leaving most people to suffer at their mistakes, with there being no accountability of officials. In democracy, that exists.

When it comes to democracy itself, I seek to reform our current  liberal democracy into a system that is thus more democratic and more representative of the people's voice. As such, I want add, on the top of the parliamentary nature of liberal democracy the ideals of direct democracy, where people can vote on referendums and citizens initiatives and thus can make it easier for governments to be held to account along with that, I seek to also implement  liquid democracy a system based on delegative democracy, where you vote for a proposal you want and they delegate their vote to someone who votes for them, however, the user is free to override the delegate's vote if they don't like it.

So yea, through this, representatives are in control of governance, however, the citizens are to have more autonomy based on the systems of direct and liquid democracy, which are additions to our current system so that it becomes stronger and more rigid. Also, I recognize the need of a science renaissance in politics, as we seemingly dwindle down to a politics based on culture wars and just feelings. As such, the government shall massively help science in making sure it can get its point across and finally bring back rationality while science can help governments implement better policy.

I support republican governments over monarchy, as it is a government of the people, by the people and for the people and I don't really tolerate things like  ceremonial monarchies, as they can take up a lot of taxpayer money with them not even being paying back in taxes, an example being  King Charles III not paying any inheritance tax from the Queen's wealth and estates he inherited. Oh and, Ceremonial monarchs not only just sit around and do nothing, they also, as I said earlier hoard up taxpayer money to maintain their lavish lifestyles. This cannot go on. By abolishing useless monarchies (both absolute and ceremonial) we can have more of our tax payer money go to things that actually help us and isn't, like how the Fiel:Ancapf.png Anarcho-capitalists say it: theft, so to speak.

Although, I do believe that in a very poor and very uneducated country, where the populace aren't really expected to make a good choice, I would support the creation of a technocratic government in order to guide the nation towards true economic prosperity and high literacy, through this, a democracy will be given rise to. This is sort of similar to what happened in Singapore. And look at where they are now.

[[File:Parl.png]] Parliamentarianism [[File:Parl.png]]
Owfism does not support presidential systems or even  semi-presidential systems as in my opinion the president just seems like a democratic monarch or whatever, as he has all the power. Personally, I would support a parliamentary system, with the prime minister being, as head of government the one with more power while the president merely being ceremonial. This will allow for the people and their opinions to be more represented.

[[File:Civlibert.png]] Civil Libertarianism [[File:Civlibert.png]]
Owfism is very pro-privacy, with his government operating under the governmental ideas of  classical liberalism. He's against the surveillance state that is very much present and engrained within our modern society, as I believe that the  expansion of the surveillance state in the world has definitely not been for the interest of the people. As such, reforms need to be enacted to weaken the surveillance state so that it doesn't invade our day-to-day lives. This would include engraining privacy as a true human right and make sure that companies engrain privacy as a core value. I also support getting rid of unnecessary spying programs that do not serve the people and only just track their data and information. The government should respect the privacy of the people in their daily lives. Things like CCTV cameras in public places are not really that bad, they can actually be useful in catching  criminals and all, but that's what they should be used for like, yo, we don't need wire tapping, this is too much. It infringes on our liberties and expands authoritarianism. With this, I am very much civically libertarian and obviously not authoritarian. So this makes me a libertarian. Although, I am still sort of critical of anarchist societies though, as while their intentions are good their track record ain't good to say the least. So yea, I still believe there should be a state.

[[File:Laicism.png]] Laicism [[File:Laicism.png]]
Owfism is vehemently against any religious organization playing a role in the government, or the government exempting these organizations from taxation, which is why I support a high church tax to be levied on them. As such, I support complete separation of church and state, and there will be a heavy wall between those two but I also support the more laicist notion of  separation between church and life which implies the abolishment of churches itself, however, there really won't be any  authoritarian methods to do so, as a church tax could do its job on that. Look, I believe that anyone has a right to express their religious beliefs but  I don't see the point in having churches or whatever for that, you can believe it in private and you do not need a specific place to do so.

I oppose forced secularism or  religious governance as they can be pretty authoritarian and harsh but I also think people who are willingly denying  basic science on the notion of their own religious beliefs are genuinely cringe and are holding societies back. With this, I hold distrust of Islam as most Islamic countries are filled with  reactionaries who use religion as a sentiment and doctrine for their rule and in some places, even  moderate Islam has sort of been used in the same vain as well, for example, in Turkey. However, this clearly does not apply to just Islam, as we see with other religions, especially evangelicals in the USA, who follow  Trumpism. Although, I am not against people practicing Islam and Evangelical Christianity in general and I do not want to convolute them with reactionaries in their ranks.

I side with the secular left, as my beliefs are clearly aligned with this group out of all other groups of secularists, and as such I heavily support them against the  religious right. The waning of their influence is a good thing, as they have been a great barrier to  progress.
 * -| Power=

[[File:ConstLib.png]] Constitutionalism [[File:ConstLib.png]]
Owfism supports the creation of a constitution that establishes separation of powers within government and protects our civil liberties. The constitution, unlike the American one, will be interpreted more like a  living document and as such can be changed to fit the times and current period in time we are in, so that it isn't an outdated relic that does not address the issues of today. A constitution like this allows there to be words and ideas that fit more of the topics of our period and not from a time that has long since passed, as previously said. This will fit more in the modern politics of a country.

[[File:Fed.png]] Federalism [[File:Fed.png]]
In terms of the administration of bureaucracy, I prefer more local governance instead of a  unitary government, especially in bigger countries. While yes, I would sort of prefer a unitary government in small countries, since my ideology seeks to have a world federation, I am thus more willing to implement federalism than unitarism. However, state governments will have to abide by national laws and the constitution.

[[File:E-Democracy.png]] E-Democracy [[File:E-Democracy.png]]
I believe that we need a push towards technology that allow us to vote on our own phone, computer, tablet etc. and as such I support electronic voting and the decentralization of Information & Technology. However, in our current world, these methods can be more vulnerable to outside influence and as such it is reasonable in my opinion to not implement these at a larger scale nationally but at most keep it in experiments or just in local elections. Voting done with other methods will not be untapped, national elections will still be voted on in-person or by mail.
 * -| Civil =

[[File:Merit.png]] Civil Service Reform [[File:Merit.png]]
In the United States I would support the abolishment of the electoral college, as it is an old relic that is not functioning in the modern day and is putting third parties behind the 2 big parties, making it very hard for them to compete and when they do good they're accused of being a spoiler. This expands elitism within the two parties and as such I would replace them with a popular vote. Although, I am not American, so let's ignore that. But, a thing that doesn't just affect America are things like corporate lobbying which are allowing for heavy amounts of  cronyism in our own government. As such, I would support a heavy ban on them and allow the people to have a larger say in their own government, thus allowing it to serve the people's interests. The government shouldn't be puppetereed by mega-corporations it should be of the people, by the people and for the people  and as such I want the system to be more  meritocratic.

[[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]] Corruption [[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]]
Before I begin with the real stuff, I believe that people who expose government corruption should not be persecuted, sent to prison or even extradited (like in the case of Assange). So yea, I believe that governments should have a right to be inclusive and transparent with the population that it governs. Now let's get to the real stuff. Any functioning democracy should strive to get rid of corruption and corrupt officials. With this, there will be an anti-corruption agency that will be greatly funded in order to perform its duties. If I take office, every official will be investigated for corruption by the agency, thus initiating an anti-corruption campaign. However, this won't be some machiavellian ploy. It will be done through a tripartite investigation from whistle blowers, the police and regular people, in order to make sure the investigations are impartial and aren't just a political purge of political dissidents or whatever.
 * -| Immigration ==

[[File:Polycult.png]] Polyculturalism [[File:Polycult.png]]
When it comes to immigration, I support polyculturalism as an alternative to  multiculturalism but also to  monoculturalism. Multiculturalism will make it harder for social cohesion to truly happen as there will be sort of isolated cultures within one country and that does not really have positive results as seen throughout history while monoculturalism is too exclusionary to foreigners and it causes people to hold a nationalistic pride about their nation's people over people, because those others are different. This allows diversity overall, but it also ensures a shared sense of national identity. Different cultures in society should stress the similarities between each group and ensure societal stability and not war. This allows each culture to share a set of common values that overall helps society prosper and thrive while still maintaining diversity.

[[File:Civnat.png]] Immigration [[File:Civnat.png]]
Owfism has a mostly pro-immigration stance when it comes to the topic of immigration, as such I favor liberalization of immigration, I acknowledge the role immigrants can have in replacing a retiring labor force because people continue to age at increasing rates while birth rates decline. The wave of mass immigration should be used to benefit the world and make sure fertility rates go back up in the developed world to at least temporarily alleviate the problem. Illegal immigrants should also have a fair pathway to citizenship. There will be a waitlist to make sure the immigrants are basically assimilated and thus the polycultural model can work, allowing cultures to have shared common values. This can also allow the welfare state to not be so clogged up when immigrants come in, giving it breathing room and allowing the maintaining of it without resorting to major  austerity. This is also less destructive to the progressive movement and does not cause such a massive rise in right-wing populism, something that is a major problem in this day and age, because of the fact that cultures that aren't willing to tolerate common values won't be allowed to co-exist within a progressive culture, as even if we do allow them they won't be able to.

In terms of refugees, I do support raising the cap of how many can come or even abolish it all together, as while they do it under the guise of allowing more talented people in the country instead of just regular poor immigrants, how can we know that this won't still result in 80% say being poor immigrants and 20% actually being talented, while the flow of them still follow a said cap? Although, there may be more of a cap in places that are more reactionary or in brink of civil war/climate catastrophe as that will result (especially with the latter) of a massive amount of them coming in all at once, we would still need to have cap to you not know, not cause the rise in right-wing populists, as has happened since 2014. Although, people who aren't willing to cause trouble will be allowed in.

Overview
Owf's economic model combines the models of participism,  cooperativism,  council socialism and finally  cybersocialism. He primarily believes in worker ownership of the means of production, thus rendering him as socialist. On top of this, he also wishes for workplace democracy based on a participatory economic framework. As such, there will be workplace democracy along with worker ownership of the MOP that will be done using a mixture of co-operative federations,  worker councils and also  computer planning when a decisive answer hasn't been put to a said problem, production or distribution and other problems. This in my view will help enshrine worker rights. This makes my economy be a sort of mixed-market economy while still socialist. I also support a universal welfare state to redistribute wealth but it will apply to people who work (until  automation kicks in, when the people who used to work and are still eligible to the conditions of it will still receive it.) For the people who did not work and are now dealing with automation (and are poor) will benefit from a  negative income tax. I also support a  high land value tax to heavily reduce land prices and to also stop wealthy people from just hoarding up all the land and selling it at a higher price. Land prices are also a major contributor to higher housing prices, so it will lower those too. Oh and those landlords who have lost a job? They can become uh, land value tax collectors, a more useful job, at least. When it comes to trade, Owfism is not necessarily against internationalism, but when it comes to trade deals, they must enshrine environmental rights and worker rights, increase subsidies to local manufacturing and also wants a  15% global corporation tax in order to make trade more fair for regular people and to let people truly reap the benefits of it. This will also take aim at the problem of outsourcing jobs and can lead to reshoring, as seen with Biden's policies. Although, I still come to reject  protectionism and the notion of tariffs, because of the fact that they can potentially harm an economy and can cause it to lose out on the benefits of trade. I also have some inspirations from classical progressive period of the United States, especially when it comes to monopolies.

With this, he is very much skeptical of our current capitalist system, which has devolved into probably its worst form, that being  corporatocracy. As such, I believe that  socialism combined with  participism can truly work for the people.
 * -| Taxation & Spending=

[[File:Univhealth.png]] Healthcare [[File:Univhealth.png]]
Owfism heavily supports a universal healthcare system and Medicare for all, come on guys, healthcare is a human right. This cannot be doubted. Oh and dear Americans, European countries have an easy time with that, it is not too costly. Oh and isn't that 800 billion $ military too much? Like come on, just on the military for that money? Everyone regardless of societal status or wealth will be entitled to my Medicare for All program.

When it comes to diseases, I want a completely international response. As such, I believe the World Health Organization should create a Healthcare Moonshot, that being a global co-operation and great task meant in eradicating diseases that hurt us. As such, it shall be dedicated 0.25% of global GDP and the money for it will be given ONLY by national governments, not private companies. This would mean subsidies of up to 240 billion $. With this, we can create cures for cancer, alzheimer's, malaria, HIV and many others. We can also eradicate diseases like polio, guinea worm, measles, COVID-19 etc. and to also know more about things like autism. While we may not succeed, we are to at least understand them better than we do and reduce the amount of deaths and cases from them, if not, we are at least more ready for other pandemics/epidemics.

[[File:Cooperative_Socialism.png]] Mode of Production [[File:Cooperative_Socialism.png]]
When it comes to the means (or mode) of production, I combine the elements of Lange-Lerner Model,  Socialist computer planning and  worker councils. The market would be mostly dominated by these 3 models, with there being worker co-operatives and worker councils and also just computers doing economic distribution and production in most cases. However, the government will have its share in markets that are just better to be monopolies through  state-owned enterprises, like railways, electric grids, water etc. There will be no typical capitalist business we see today, instead the economy will be dominated by  Small-Medium Businesses that are mostly owned by worker co-ops.

[[File:Third_Way_Liberalism.png]] Welfare State [[File:Third_Way_Liberalism.png]]
I am pretty supportive of the idea of a welfare state, but I believe it should apply to only working people (with the exception of welfare that applies to people still going through education). As such, I support the idea of workfare as to not unnecessarily clog up the welfare state and cause welfare leeches to develop. However, people with disabilities and those who genuinely cannot work will be still eligible for workfare (if they're poor, obviously.) I also support the creation of a federal jobs guarantee in order to give people jobs so that they can become eligible for workfare. When it comes to people in college there will be a decent amount of spending dedicated to pell grants that will be given to poorer college students so that they can maintain themselves in a college. Tuition fees will be replaced with a graduate tax. However, stuff like  private charities will not be phased out, they can continue to exist, however, they must be proven legitimate and not a fraud. Charities can sometimes be more helpful than the government so they can stay, however, when they're illegitimate they are obviously not helpful.

When automation inevitably comes, those that had a job will still be eligible to workfare. Keep in mind, workfare always would apply to poor people who work so that they can still continue working and be able to build up their own wealth, which is better than income (and not as taxed). Income tax is society's killer, like seriously, tax a person's own income they earned through "blood, sweat and tears"?

[[File:Regulationism.png]] Taxation [[File:Regulationism.png]]
I favor high amounts of taxation in order to fund my policies that may require a lot of spending. These taxes will also equalize opportunity and reduce inequality in our world. The taxes I would want to implement are as follows:
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Land Value Tax - I believe a [[File:Georgist.png]] land value tax must be implemented in order to decommidify land and to massively reduce land prices (which inevitably results in lower house prices) and to also prevent land hoarding by wealthy people. The more land you own, the more you're taxed so for it (so watch out Bill Gates and others). Being a landlord can no longer be considered a job, just be a land value tax collector or be part of a [[File:Syngeo.png]] tenant union, as all land will be publicly-owned. The rates at which this will be levied ranges from 50% to 100%, as this will do its intended purpose better and won't harm the economy that much.
 * [[File:EconProg.png]] Wealth Tax - I support the implementation of awealth tax on wealth over 10 million $, it will be levied at rates ranging from 2-8% (obviously, from less to more wealth). So, people like Bezos, Musk etc. will have to pay 8% in wealth tax. So, if Gates is worth 120 billion $ now, he would most likely be worth 70 billion $ now if only a [[File:EconProg.png]] Wealth Tax was implemented out of these, his wealth would be that amount, approximately. It clearly lowers inequality.
 * [[File:Long.png]] Corporate Tax - I support a [[File:EconProg.png]] progressive corporate tax rate on national corporations, ranging from 5% - 45%. Companies which are in the 45% bracket and also have operations abroad (or internationally) and engage in job outsourcing will also have to deal with a [[File:Long.png]] 15% global corporation tax. This will allow for there to be more job reshoring, make globalization fairer and allow for corporations to invest more in infrastructure and improving the country and not on their own shares of stock.
 * [[File:Envi.png]] Carbon Tax - I believe a [[File:Envi.png]] carbon tax is necessary to be implemented, more specifically, to be levied at a rate of 60$/ton of CO2. So, for example, China emitted 14 billion tons of CO2. As such, the revenues from this would be 840 billion $, in the first year obviously, as this tax will naturally see carbon emissions go down so that people and companies respectively pay less in tax overall. The revenues from this tax will go towards investments in renewable energy and green energy and if there is room left helping poorer nations fight the climate crisis through climate subsidies and maybe even a little bit of welfare (or workfare) I guess. Oh, there would also be an uniform global carbon price of 60$ ton/CO2. This is to further encourage a reduction in CO2 emissions, at a quicker rate. Both of these should be implemented internationally.
 * [[File:Health_and_Safetyf.png]] Consumption Tax - A Consumption Tax seeks to combine the concepts of a Value-Added Tax and a Sales Tax, and is also another solution in my opinion to solve our current problems. It will basically be based on 2 metrics: [[File:Ectrans.png]] Eco-friendliness and [[File:Univhealth.png]] Health. There will be indexes to measure how products follow these rules. There will be a grading system as follows: F (0-25) D (25-50) C (50-75 B (75-90) A (>90). If the grade is higher, there will be less consumption tax paid for when you buy that product. If the grade is lower, there will be more consumption tax paid when buying a product. The goal of this is to encourage people to buy more eco-friendly and healthy products.
 * [[File:Merit.png]] Inheritance Tax - Personally, I support a [[File:Merit.png]] inheritance tax, it will only be levied on inheritances that come from estates that are worth more than 10 million and will all be levied at a rate of 50%. Now, why do I support implementing this? It will prevent us from descending into an aristocracy and can prevent the accumulation of massive family fortunes, as it happened across history. I also support the abolition of [[File:MeritCap.png]] Passive Wealth Accumulation, that includes abolishing interest, inheritance (mostly inheritance between rich families) and also includes lowering down debt, as debt cannot really be practically abolished.

[[File:Corp.png]] Corporate Welfare [[File:Corp.png]]
Corporate Welfare in my opinion is essentially socialism for the rich, while the rest of us, the poor, experience capitalism. The rich essentially are handed a blank cheque for a bailout when they begin to fail, so that the statement "too big too fail" fits. Wake up, if you're too big to fail, you may as well not be big in the first place. Corporate welfare must end. It is driving up inequality and is costing the people. Small businesses will still be subsidized, those are fine, but big business does not deserve this. We need to end corporate welfare for them.
 * -| Business Models =

[[File:Syngeo.png]] Tenant Unions [[File:Syngeo.png]]
Owfism supports the idea of tenant unions and public land ownership, seeing it as a more pro-worker, pro-people alternative to the flawed and terrible thing we have known as  landlords who are sucking out the economic gains of the workers, like a parasite. Right now, we are headed towards a rent economy, that is our future. An unacceptable one to be exact. They will be strongly unionized and protected in order to protect the interests of the people and not bleed out their economic gains they worked so hard for.

Obviously, I am completely against union busting, it is unconstitutional and is mostly illegitimate, however, if a union is being corrupt then I guess it is fine to bust them however it should not come as a sacrifice of weakening worker power and only just bleeding out corruption.

[[File:Statesoc.png]] Nationalization [[File:Statesoc.png]]
For most things, I wouldn't really be in favor of nationalization, instead putting them up to the workers or computers. However, there are some cases where there must be a monopoly otherwise things would be worse off overall. As such, I would nationalize the following things: rail, energy/electricity, healthcare, public transportation and also education. (I don't like private schools) Monopolies in these sectors have proven to be better overall than them being left up to competition, however, a state-owned monopoly ain't as bad as a corporate-owned monopoly.

[[File:Councom.png]] Worker Councils [[File:Councom.png]]
I believe that there should be a network of worker councils that will be key in deciding  participatory decisions that are to come as a result of the extension of democracy into the work place. This will allow workers to engage in decisions based on council democracy, being one component of decision-making in the work place and things relating to work, such as higher wages and many things. With this, I believe workers should democratically control the workplace.

[[File:Nordsoc.png]] Co-Operative Federations [[File:Nordsoc.png]]
Another main asset that I would use to do worker democracy are co-operative federations. What are these? Well, they are an alliance of worker co-operatives and are designed to make co-operatives more effective on the federal level. These are essential in creating workplace democracy and ensuring the means of production actually belong to the workers themselves, not a few private owners. It just does not make sense in our modern society to not have the means of production belonging to a group of wealthy people, like how it does today.

[[File:Cybercom.png]] Socialist Computer Planning [[File:Cybercom.png]]
I completely understand the reason as to why humans may not be completely enough to run an economy, especially one like this, as such I support the employment of computer planning. This is sort of similar to  Allende's Cybersyn program. Voting on a plan will be done  democratically, in an e-democratic manner. Computers are way better than humans, and as such may do economic production and distribution better than we do and can solve fundamental problems like poverty and hunger. I believe this must be a program that we must implement in order to improve ourselves and fix the colossal problems we deal with. Colossal problems require colossal solutions.
 * -| Regulations=

[[File:Plutocrat.png]] Wealth [[File:Plutocrat.png]]
Look, I do accept the fact that some people may be richer than others when it comes to wealth, they worked harder than others and all but the thing that is not acceptable is that we have people who did not even work as hard compared to their level of wealth. As such, I seek to counteract the effects of wealth inequality with the creation of high wealth and inheritance taxes for wealthy families along with a maximum wage for CEOs, this shall weaken the influence of  elitist billionaires while redistributing wealth to the poor. I may not oppose people being billionaires, but we must realize that they hold too much influence over our governments and our economy and that they may not be the most compassionate of people. However, they should be more contributing to the economy and people by helping in private charities (although charity fraud will be heavily punished), by actually paying their taxes, respecting environmental regulations, not offshore their wealth to other countries (capital flight) and not outsource our jobs. If they don't respect this, they may as well have their assets nationalized by the government, if that is what it takes.

[[File:Trustbust.png]] Anti-Trust Laws [[File:Trustbust.png]]
I am heavily in favor of breaking up the mega-corporations (or monopolies/trusts) that are currently dominating our economic and political system. Through them billionaires hold massive influence over world politics but also our own global economy. The policies that I propose to trust bust them would be similar to the classical progressive period of the United States but also  German policy. I would support the creation of an economic constitution that would prevent the creation of any monopolies and the immediate busting of any existing ones. We must do everything to get our economy back into being a competitive one and not a monopolized one. A company will be trust-busted if it exceeds a 25% market share in its said economic sector, this is to truly ensure economic competition is respected in our economic system. If there is economic competition, there will be more innovations that will come about, more specifically, x15 more innovation then in our monopolized economy.

[[File:Socdem.png]] Maximum Wage [[File:Socdem.png]]
Now, I previously mentioned a little bit about the idea of a Maximum Wage. Well, this is just what you think it is. I support a maximum wage where the CEO (chief executive officer) of a company shall only earn x10 more than the average worker. This in my opinion is the only acceptable amount as in my opinion the CEO deserves more than an average worker, as he has a higher position, obviously, however the current amount of CEO pay in the US, which is more than x300 an average worker is an unacceptable amount which must be brought down and is a massive factor to rising income and wealth inequality.

[[File:Urbanism.png]] Housing [[File:Urbanism.png]]
When it comes to housing, I tend to view it as a human right, something which isn't, as a view, not the one we have today. Instead, housing is more like an investment and it used to be a commodity. The market proves to fail the most when it comes to housing, as people are dealing with high rents but also high housing prices to buy that house. This can contribute to rising homelessness as people wouldn't have enough to afford a house or to afford to pay rent, which right now takes more and more of people's economic pie even if wages grow slow and right now are decreasing because of inflation.

With this, I wish to establish a land value tax to replace  property taxes. I also support the idea of  municipal ownership. As I said in taxation, land value tax isn't the only form of taxation, because it cannot fund the welf- I mean  workfare but its revenues will contribute to it, so technically, I am a  social georgist.

When it comes to zoning laws, I wish to abolish single-family zoning, like come on, it pollutes more and is also less safe for an individual as a whole and replace them with  income housing, which is a more mixed version of housing for home buyers with different types of income. The housing crisis causes more social instability and also more political polarization, and also, why regulate land use? It just doesn't make sense. The liberalization of zoning laws is necessary, as it will fight against land speculation and help strengthening tenant unions.

[[File:Social-ism.png]] Employment [[File:Social-ism.png]]
Owfism believes that unemployment can be combatted with active labor market policies, as such, I would support things (or policies) like  welfare to work and I also support the notion of a  jobs guarantee and I also support  as I said many times before. These policies will allow more people to be employed and have a stronger job force, achieving the notion of full employment, especially among poorer members of society, who are less likely to work because of their conditions. The unemployment rate through this would hover at around 1-2% (I guess).
 * -| Currency =

[[File:Soccap.png]] Currency [[File:Soccap.png]]
The currency in an Owfist society, which would be a world federation. As such, I would prefer a  new global currency, what would be it's name? Personally, I would call it the Aeternus (Eternal). On inflation, the level of 2% (or the Central Bank target in most countries) is the optimal level of inflation.

[[File:EconProg.png]] Wages [[File:EconProg.png]]
Personally, I support the labour theory of value, believing that employees should be paid based on their labour, and that labour is the source of all value. Although, this does not mean that there won't be a wage. It won't be a minimum one though, it would be a maximum one, as said previously and would only apply to CEOs, with them earning x10 more than a worker. So if they earned 80$ a hour, they would earn 800$ a hour. In our current model, the worker would earn 10$ a hour and they would earn 3500$ a hour. So yea, it equalizes things and makes things fairer. This shall also fix the problem of racial and gender pay gaps that is plaguing the world by allowing everyone to reap the sows of their labour.
 * -| Trade=

[[File:FairTradeProtectionism.png]] Trade [[File:FairTradeProtectionism.png]]
Personally, I support globalization, it has had positive effects however it has also had quite profoundly negative effects, which must be amended in order to make trade have a more positive record than it does now. Some of these negatives are rising inequality but also job outsourcing. economic globalization as said previously has not had completely positive effects. To solve this, I seek to incorporate environmental rights and  worker rights into trade agreements and also fight against currency manipulation but also heavily subsidize local manufacturing in order to prevent outsourcing and also implement a  15% global corporation tax in order to fight further against outsourcing of jobs. This shall reduce inequality and also prevent job outsourcing, finally creating space for reshoring and restoring old manufacturing jobs.

[[File:Ectrans.png]] Manufacturing [[File:Ectrans.png]]
To be fair, the Romanian industrial capacity that is today is shameful. Today, because of globalization, most products in Romania are not even made in Romania, despite the fact that we are not really that bad when it comes to our own internal resources. My policies on trade will seek to reshore many jobs back home and bring back what was once Romania's manufacturing. We need to subsidize our manufacturing. The base of manufacturing (not just in Romania) will be based on renewable energy, eco-friendly public transportation (but also automobiles) and semiconductors as the main leaders of manufacturing, not just rejuvenating manufacturing but also making it green.

Overview
Owfism is a socially progressive ideology, supporting many  progressive societal reforms that make society more equal overall. I sort of support things like intersectionality, that is, identifying multiple factors of advantage and disadvantage and focus on all factors and not selectively, on each one. Although, I am not quite sure on how good the methods social justice warriors use, as they have not produced the greatest results of the left and they are mostly just culture war stuff. While this would be a 2nd importance, with the 1st being economics, it is still important outside of just culture wars. I seek to uphold social justice because of my  egalitarian elements.

The modern left and  modern right are equally dogmatic, as they both prefer either political correctness or political "incorrectness", seeking to make each one of their political beliefs completely on top over the other, despite it going against democracy and liberty. While as I said I hate how they focus on just petty cultural issues and not on helping the people and all I still do believe in things like LGBTQ+ acceptance and rights,  societal secularization,  abortion rights,  criminal justice reform,  gender equality,  drug legalization,  rehabilitative justice,  environmental justice,  racial equality etc.

These ideas generally reflect individualism, stemming from the  libertarian rationale on freedom and  my  anti-authoritarian stances, people should be allowed to do what they want but there should still technically be a limit of sorts, as such, I am more  culturally liberal. I believe in extensive  civil liberties, like  sexual freedom,  right to privacy,  freedom of movement,  freedom of speech and assembly and the  right to die.

These cultural views can be described as culturally left, which makes me similar to typical culturally left-wing ideologies, however, I still hold a slightly skeptical view of  woke leftists but also heavily opposed to  socially conservative ideologies as they're mostly anti-individualist overall.
 * -| Sex & Gender=

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBTQ+ [[File:Gay.png]]
My stances on LGBTQ+ rights largely stem from my  individualistic stances on culture in general. Their rights are to be protected when it comes to marriage, abortion and are to have the same rights as heterosexuals. As people, we must end the stigma that comes towards LGBTQ+ people and we need to treat them like normal people just like we do with heterosexuals, and also, it does not make sense for them to be given fewer rights based on the fact that they were born different. Although, the pride movement seems to mostly be influenced by wealthy capitalists who seek to expand their profits and if it isn't for corporations, the movement would had probably already died down. We need to end it, but not in an authoritarian manner. Same goes for straight pride and other forms of identity politics. There may have to be some restrictions on pride events however if they do exist, that including there being no nudity and that kind of thing, like come on, keep that in private. Although, other events should be a thing that don't emphasize the corporate-created identity politics that much. This topic should be depoliticized in my opinion, as it only causes toxicity among both sides of the aisle.

On transgender people? Yea, basically the same stance as I have on LGBTQ+'s in general. Like I do not care and I believe there should no longer be a social stigma that currently exists today. It is their own choice, from their own body and own will that they want to change and I believe that gender conversion therapy should simply not exist and they like other LGBT people can serve in the army. Oh and gender is actually just a social construct, it is not real so to speak. So, things like gender fluidness and  xenogenders would be recognized, because it is merely a product of society. However, I personally do not like neopronouns, although language should be more gender neutral overall. However, when it comes to sexualities, there will be just Male and  Female oh and also non-binary. That's all. Genders are basically limited only by imagination. (Yes random 13 year old right-winger boy, your gender is an attack helicopter, but you're still a male.)

[[File:Fem.png]] Feminism [[File:Fem.png]]
Yes, I am a feminist ideology, how did you tell that? Ok, let's cut to the chase. I heavily support women's rights and seek to end for example the gender pay gap that is hurting women across the world. traditional gender roles are something to be opposed as they're a social construct and not actual human nature. Women should be free from them, like, if a woman can do something better than a man then she should be accepted to do it and vice versa, so that things can become more fairer and not just based on roles. This is in line with my meritocratic views. There are really no fundamental differences between these two sexes, both should be treated the same. My main criticism of modern day feminism is its seemingly corporate nature, that naturally comes as corporations have basically created most of modern identity politics, although women taking  intersectionality taking too far is something I personally dislike, thus I subscribe to a mild form of it, believing that society is to blame however this shall encouragement to improve, to resist the seemingly natural outcome and stop victim blaming and inserting a twisted belief onto others. My preferred form of feminism would combine elements from first and second wave feminism,  men's liberation and  socialist feminism that focuses on equality of both sexes (Women hold up half of the sky) without men hating  femcels. or women hating  incels. Also, I would technically be a  sex positive feminist, rejecting that "p" is sexist, with feminism being a central component of  sexual freedom. Age of consent however is 18, with no exceptions and things like child "p" is a crime regardless of where you draw the line and that stays.

Finally, I am against affirmative action and instead support hiring based on  merit. Like come on, you're gonna accept a woman just because she is one regardless if she is worse at the job and not a man despite the fact he is more capable of doing the job? I would only hire the said woman if she was better at said job. This is obviously based on merit.

[[File:3WF2.png]] Sex Education [[File:3WF2.png]]
I am personally in favor of sex education as it has served as a vital way in reducing cases of teenage pregnancies, STDs, HIV etc. Many lives, not just the lives of the teenagers but also the lives of their own baby are ruined because of doing something they didn't know the consequences of. Despite how socially conservative a society is taught to be, cases of teenage pregnancies still happen, and commonly. (ex. 1950s) These habits and ideas are still greatly influential in adulthood, which harms more lives. We need to teach people about not just basic biology but also anything regarding the topic, like LGBTQ+ matters but also things like  fetishes. This can help greatly reduce cases of teenage pregnancy + STDs. Also, I believe the age of consent should be 18, not lower.
 * -| Technology=

[[File:Demtrans.png]] Technology [[File:Demtrans.png]]
I heavily support the development of green technology to not just solve the climate crisis but also build a new society that allows humans to balance the interests of the environment and our own interests. I also support the notion of democratic transhumanism when it comes to the idea of job automation, believing that it is an inevitable thing we have to do, in order to boost production and to allow for a more relaxed, mentally healthy population, people who used to work in a job will still be eligible for  workfare and people who never worked however won't just be left off to die, and they will receive some benefits in the form of a  negative income tax, which would basically be a tax credit for them so that they can live in society. I can sort of consider myself transhumanist, because of the fact that I believe that people, if they want to, can make themselves more artificial, but this is only a voluntary decision and is not to be made mandatory. As such, I come to be a technologically progressive person, believing that we should further enhance our technologies in almost every aspect. Technology has proven to help us in many ways, so why quit it?

[[File:Space.png]] Space Colonization [[File:Space.png]]
Categorical yes to space colonization. Personally, I support this as a long term goal that genuinely needs to happen. There are many reasons for this, such as overpopulation on our own planet (and just because its cool), to name a few. We should genuinely begin to have proper investments into creating moon colonies or even  Martian/ Venusian colonies or even colonies on Saturn's moon, Titan. This will allow us to become an interplanetary civilization that can harness more energy, especially through a Dyson Sphere from our own Sun. Personally, I believe we may not be able to be more than an interplanetary civilization as it is hard to make faster-than-light travel and the speed of light itself just isn't as fast as we may think it is. As such, at most we can do outside of our own Solar System is to just explore to star systems that are at least 10 light years away from us, without actually settling on them. This is also an important stepping ground in human evolution, so why not step it?

[[File:POSTHUMANISMICON.png]] Artificial Intelligence [[File:POSTHUMANISMICON.png]]
Personally, I tend to hold some pretty mixed stances when it comes to artificial intelligence. First off, they can be pretty good in the automation of work and thus increase productivity overall (which results in better economic conditions) and also allows for more a mentally healthy population and can also be useful in creating a secure  decentralized voting system through technology. Finally on the good uses, it can also be vital in creating a  cybersocialist economy that allows for fairer production and fairer distribution in the economy. On the other hand, it has also been used by mega-corporations to create an online mass surveillance state and have created behavioral patterns through them. And there is also the whole AI go rogue thing.

[[File:FDF-Pirate.png]] Copyright [[File:FDF-Pirate.png]]
Owfism is supportive of pirate politics, the current copyright system benefits corporations too much and must be scaled down so that it doesn't just become a corporate profit scheme. Multinational companies can infinitely extend copyright so that things can't go into the public domain. I believe a maximum cap on copyright should be implemented which varies from 1 to 10 years. Tech companies farm people's privacy for money, and as such, I support abolishing behavioral patterns and to also remove trackers on computers, telephones etc. They do this for their own profit, and we must stop it and its clearly not ethical.

[[File:MegaCorp.png]] Big Tech [[File:MegaCorp.png]]
I believe that is vital (very important) for us to tackle the power the power of big tech companies. It just does not make sense in my opinion to have the internet be a monopolized place. The internet must be a free place and where competition is dominant, ranging from Operating Systems to Web Browsers. These companies are also currently propagating both sides of the culture war that has been distracting us from their many problems (these are things overlords to their subject, have them bicker with each other so that the problems they do are ignored.) We are headed (or are currently) towards a techno-dystopia. Their corporate welfare benefits need to be taken away and when they're on the verge of failure? No bailouts. The internet and technology sector must be a sector of competition if we are gonna innovations any time in the future. Most innovations today come from technology, so why not make it more competitive? When there's competition, there's more innovation because of the drive that comes from it (competition). Tech companies need to follow the model of worker co-operatives as that is more pro-worker and is also in general more pro-people.
 * -| Civil Liberties=

[[File:Virus_total.png]] Mandates & Lockdowns [[File:Virus_total.png]]
Personally, I support vaccine mandates, like come on guys its just a vaccine that takes a minute at most, no big deal. It isn't literally 1984 and you aren't getting a chip put in your body. Vaccine mandates shall make it easier to eradicate diseases (that we have a vaccine for) and it has been proven to work. Some countries where there was mandatory vaccinations have vaccination rates of over 60-70% also had lower cases of Coronavirus. Although, when it comes to lockdowns, I reject them, as they can be pretty isolating, instead however, I support social distancing measures and mask wearing to be massively recommended, although, they would be made mandatory once there are a lot of COVID-19 cases and the recommendations didn't work. These have also expanded state power so that is why I am slightly skeptical on them. For example, China's Zero Covid Policy. They can also have terrible economic effects, that is a logical conclusion.

[[File:OOTS.png]] Euthanasia [[File:OOTS.png]]
Look, I am completely fine with euthanasia being legalized. With it being legalized based on nonvoluntary and voluntary means, like, if a patient does not want to be euthanazied then, that's his choice, not my problem. As such, I support the idea of the right to die, believing that a person is to exercise the right to die at will, if he wants to, with this being essential to bodily autonomy. It doesn't cause human suffering and it also saves money.

[[File:Abort.png]] Abortion [[File:Abort.png]]
Owfism is a pro-choice ideology, stemming from my stances on  bodily autonomy and  personal freedom. The ultimate choice of whether the abortion should be done or not ultimately lies down to the mother itself, and she shouldn't be forced to abort or to give birth to the child. Most abortions are basically in cases of rape, incest and other problems. The fetus isn't really a person it is still a bundle of cells, so it can't really be murder. Abortion should be completely legal as a choice for the mother. I support the liberalization of reproductive rights, as this won't have as much of a strain on the  welfare state as it typically would have. The overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States sees not just that the Supreme Court is undemocratic but also something that has wasted decades of progress let's wait until the Supreme Court says the Constitution is unconstitutional. Pro-abortion measures have also proven to make it less likely to be born with terrible diseases like Down syndrome, as seen in Iceland, overall resulting in a more genetically healthy populace. As such, I also support things like pre-natal screenings of fetuses based on the mother's choice.

[[File:Liberty.png]] Privacy [[File:Liberty.png]]
When it comes to the issue of privacy, I personally am a staunch defender of the right to privacy and self-responsibility. Governments around the world are becoming  increasingly in violation of these rights along with big tech companies, with there being a massive surveillance state both online and offline. The government (and corporations) know your every move. We should completely challenge anything that opposes this right and be together in fighting for it and bringing it back to what it should be, a true human right and a core value of governments and companies, not just a simple word. I believe in extensive civil liberties and see them as necessary in our society in order to give the person as much freedom from the government as is possible so that they can live life how they want to, using their own will and as such I support policies that enhance those liberties, as such, I am against  paternalism.

[[File:FreeSpeak.png]] Freedom of Speech [[File:FreeSpeak.png]]
I support of freedom of speech, assembly and press, seeing it as necessary for a country, as there can be a steady flow of ideas, with some of them naturally being implemented, in a country where there isn't any flow of new, challenging ideas to the status quo (no freedom of speech) it can often result in stagnation as the people at the top naturally don't realize that their system is not currently being good. There will be some limits to freedom of speech however, thus he cannot be rendered as a free speech absolutist. However, I don't support restrictions on hate speech, instead, I would prefer social ostracism to counter some rather undesirable movements  instead of restricting them through brute force. I am against anti-hate speech laws as they further infringe on freedom of speech and enable government censorship and they do not really protect the people they seek to protect. In Germany, it is a crime to deny the holocaust, with people who do that are sentenced to prison. Although, personally, I believe in a more relaxed version of this, with people who do that getting a hefty fine and are also subject to ostracism, just like with the alt-right. However, these laws won't be eliminated.

[[File:Egirl.png]] Porn and Prostitution [[File:Egirl.png]]
As I said previously, I am for sexual liberation. I believe it is one of our many  fundamental freedoms that we must have, the freedom to do what we want with our own body and is a form of  free speech and expression that doesn't harm anyone. As such, I oppose media/government censorship of "P", believing that it does not really do anything to stop it, same with banning it, it only just makes it a black market, something worse than it already is. As such, I oppose the Anti-Porn Movement. Yes, "p" is actually terrible and bad for your own health technically speaking but banning it really won't fix anything. Although, something like ostracism could maybe work on it without resorting to too much authoritarianism. However, the age of consent is 18, child "p" is a crime and is illegal. However laws on soft "p" are more relaxed, and it should be legally viewable for those 18 and over, while hard "p" is only legally viewable for those 21 and over.

Finally, I would legalize prostitution, "s" work is real work and it would make it easier for unionization to happen within the industry in order to fight for better conditions for workers thus making it safer overall, with the environment being safer. This has also proven to lift some people out of poverty and to allow them to pursue a normal life, so another positive.

[[File:GRights.png]] Gun Rights [[File:GRights.png]]
Owfism is a pro-gun ideology, I believe that people should be allowed to own guns and believe in the  liberalization of gun laws, with the only regulations (or gun control) is that only people above 18 can buy guns and a 2 month waiting period in order to train the gun buyer and to make sure he isn't mentally ill/insane. This shall also be well-funded, in order to prevent bad actors from causing things like school shootings, which constantly kill victims. As such, my ideology seeks to make gun ownership not be such a frowned upon aspect of society, and instead sees it as a tool of liberty and against tyranny. When it comes to assault rifles, I do not want to ban them, however, a regular person will have to deal with a longer waiting period (4 instead of 2 months) seeing as how they are well, assault weapons and thus I believe requires more training and more testing to make sure the owner is actually fit for it.
 * -| Cultural=

[[File:MathTheo.png]] Education [[File:MathTheo.png]]
Owfism believes that the modern education system is in a desperate need for reform. First off, the amount of free (+mandatory) education will be extended from 12 years to 20 years (now including Pre-K, Kindergarten and College) college should also be free, with tuition fees replaced with a graduate tax instead. When it comes to learning, it should be done in an impartial way. History should stop covering topics in a nationalistic lens but rather in an internationalist lens. Public schools will be  secular and will be based on  neo-humanist principles. On topics like sex & gender, I believe that sex education should be taught to people over 6th grade, in order to reduce the number of teen pregnancies and to have a more informed population when it comes to this topic. I hate the don't say gay bill, instead, I support more neutral/objective education.

In terms of school administration, most schools would be public, with private schools still being a thing and all but only for rich families, so yea, vouchers should not be a thing anymore. They can afford it. Revenue from such schools should go to improving and maintaining public schools and making sure education is up to date and objective.

[[File:Urbanism.png]] Housing [[File:Urbanism.png]]
First off, we need to dramatically scale up mass social housing. This is a model that has proven to work in countries like Finland and it can save on taxes and it can also completely eradicate homelessness. I believe that we need to house people in apartments, with each apartment having decent amount of space so that families can actually raise 2 kids, the amount required to sustain regular population growth. There will be social housing for poorer people however regular housing will be unionized, with the implementation of tenant unions. This will make sure housing prices are lower and that housing quality is higher. These tenant unions aren't as bad as typical unions and are not as corrupt, so they're better. I also believe that house owners should not be subordinated to their landlords, instead being completely in control of their own property/apartment. An apartment will be typically 5 floors, as apartments don't take up that much space and it can also mean a reduced carbon footprint. I also believe we need to integrate these apartments into nature, thus embedding them to have more greenery overall and to run on green energy and be electrified, meeting green architecture laws.

[[File:Secular.png]] Cultural Secularism [[File:Secular.png]]
Owfism, being a secular ideology, is skeptical of the influence of  organized religion and  cultural religion. These influences have seen weakened individual liberties because of homophobia and other things regarding civil liberties. Organized religion has become corrupt and self-serving, especially with the rise of mega churches, straying away from the morals that the Bible sought to create, which were against greed and for moderation. Personally, I support abolishing churches and other places of worship entirely, however, a person is free to believe in a god, but that should be kept in private. In my ideal society, over 50-70% of people would be irreligious (atheist), however, I do believe that with this religious beliefs have to modernize themselves and to make sure that church does not have that much of a cultural influence. I believe a movement is necessary to fight against the christian right, a movement which seeks to downgrade us a society from the progresses we have made and back to the 1800s and 1900s overall. Although, I don't really like Atheists who hate religion because it is religion and I believe we shouldn't let atheist fanatics rise just like we did with religious fanatics.

[[File:Mediastocracy_flair.png]] Media [[File:Mediastocracy_flair.png]]
The media these days or rather, mainstream media, has become way too concentrated and also way too corporatocratic overall, serving the interest of corporate profits rather than delivering unbiased information and news. Now, what is my solution? My solution is to trust bust corporate media in order to make the Fairness Doctrine enforceble again, like it once was, in a period where media was genuinely unbiased, if not almost unbiased. I believe that media should not take political sides and instead report the news like it is.

[[File:AuthSJW.png]] Culture War [[File:AuthSJW.png]]
The Culture War is probably the best example of a corporate-created war and how threatening corporate power truly is. As such, when it comes to it, I don't really focus on it too much, as this is, as I said previously, a literal corporate-created war. The two sides of this, new right and  new left are (intentionally) busy victim blaming each other instead of doing actual change, following the orders of their corporate masters.

On specific issues, I am mostly critical of postmodernism as it abandons  enlightenment values of rationality and the  scientific method, instead preferring more  obscurantist views. However, it does make some good points, such as moral relativism, however I reject its suspicion of reason. As such, I come to view myself as a metamodernist. Another thing the post-modern left believes in is  gender fluidness. This isn't really a bad thing, as in my opinion gender is a social construct. Go ahead, say your gender is a couch. Your sex is still either male/female/non-binary. I also criticize the left for saying they stand for free speech but only when its to suit their political correctness by using  cancel culture. This is a tactic that actually silences freedom of speech from those who don't align with this politically correct narrative.

Although, buckle up conservatives, you are not spared. Conservatives attack the civil rights of actual gay people who want to live normal lives. Meanwhile,  LGBT conservatives essentially drop the T (transgender) from their name since gay marriage has already become legal. They also attack abortion rights, another symbol of civil rights. And finally, right-wing populists who are filled with contradiction, by saying both  Blue Lives Matter! and  Don't Tread on Me! Meanwhile, finally, the  new right, which is basically anti-woke wokeness (gosh, I hate this word.) By essentially doing an anti-version of what the SJWs are doing.

Like bruh, both groups are terrible as they are both propagated by corporate interests who seek to distract the populace in petty disputes and blaming like this, this was irrelevant 30 years ago. Now, suddenly, it is. The corporations have put us in this, and they have won the battle. But we cannot let them win the war.

[[File:Native.png]] Indigenous Rights [[File:Native.png]]
In my society, I support strengthening indigenous rights in order to achieve  autonomy and prosperity for colonized peoples.  Imperialism and  modern-day Neoliberalism has further increased gaps in wealth/income between indigenous people and non-indigenous people. This is not a good thing. We cannot leave them behind. As such, I support giving indigenous more autonomy over their lands, so that they can actually prosper like us and relax zoning laws so that they don't exclude indigenous people. Indigenous people also tend to treat land better than we do, making them a good tool in protecting the environment. This shall also improve their quality of life. I reject multiculturalism however, believing that instead a more  polycultural approach is to be implemented, with them only adopting  common values.

[[File:NarcLib.png]] Drugs [[File:NarcLib.png]]
I believe that the war on drugs was a complete disaster that did more bad than it did good and even the goal it had set in mind (reducing drug consumption) also failed. It resulted in making it dirty, unsafe and also more common. Completely the opposite. It is consensus that this was a failure. This put innocent lives in jail, further allowing the prison industrial complex to rake in massive profits from incarceration. Since I have a strong stance when it comes to individual autonomy, I personally support a  complete legalization of all drugs, believing that if alcohol and tobacco, which combined kill more than drugs are legal, why not drugs too? However, there will be some regulation. First off, soft drugs are only to be taken after 18 but hard drugs only after 25. And drugs, along with alcohol and tobacco will be subject to harsh consumption taxes to sort of ostracize them in a not-so authoritarian way and to prevent a big black market from developing again. This is because of the fact that I believe drugs are a healthcare problem and not a security problem. However, I would sort of use libertarian paternalistic ideas in order to promote better practices that do not resort to drugs, alcohol or tobacco. This can also solve things like the opioid crisis, which takes the lives of many.

[[File:Klep.png]] Criminal Justice Reform [[File:Klep.png]]
Without a doubt does systemic racism exist in probably not just the American justice system but also other justice systems across the world too. As such, I support the need for criminal justice reform. When it comes to the police, I believe that it needs to become more open and accountable to the people. For example, when the police do a crime, it shouldn't be investigated by them, as that can lead to biased results but by the people/witnesses.

On prisoners/prisons, I believe in the nationalization of all prisons as it doesn't make sense to to have private prisons in the first place. Capital punishment and the death penalty should be abolished internationally in my opinion. The justice system shall follow the principles of rehabilitative justice. Prisoners must be allowed to vote, work for a job, have a house etc. after their sentence and have payed the price for their crimes. I also believe they should be given government assistance in order to help them truly re-integrate into society. The model I follow is the Norwegian model. With prison basically looking like as if you live in a decent house, thus easing rehabilitation as it feels more like, well, home. The maximum life sentence should only be of 15 years. Also, victimless crimes should no longer be crimes, this includes things like pirating, yes it shall be legal, however, the creator would be compensated for it if it is a small game. If the pirating is done on EA? Yea, that guy made a good decision.
 * -| Environmental=

[[File:Ecocent.png]] Green Environmentalism [[File:Ecocent.png]]
Personally, I heavily support environmental justice. The protection of the environment is very important as climate change is not only something real, it is something that is affecting the lives of people right now and is also a very colossal problem that requires utmost cooperation. It is a necessary step in transitioning out of fossil fuels, while also implementing environmental rights into trade deals, in order to respect environmental standards.  neoliberal capitalism has further destroyed our environment and has further worsened climate change, this is because of the  race to the bottom effect in things like corporation taxation/capital gains taxation in order to gain more foreign investment. We need immediate and massive subsidies to go towards green energy and technology alongside, temporarily, nuclear power if we want to make the transition towards it less costly for us, people and not as big of a burden on electricity grid. I also support the nationalization of energy industries and natural resource extraction industries as a vital step in making sure our transition to green energy is simpler. This would allow the state to actually control and make sure that natural resource extraction industries do not cause much environmental harm and to also make sure energy companies transition to green energy.

Through this, I seek to create what is known as a solarpunk society. Through it, we can balance human needs along with environmental needs and we can also make sure that we do not ecologically harm the environment. We can sort of input our own architecture and needs into the environment, basically allowing us to integrate into the environment and nature. We shall become a part of nature, not a concrete contrast. We can not only liberate nature (and the environment) but we can also liberate people not just economically but also socially, through my policies. As such, I reject climate proposals that focus on harm reduction that is advocated by things like the  Great Reset and other things. Look, Capital may have been a revolutionary, but there is an even revolutionary idea: Labor. Capital cannot thrive without Labor. Labor is what allows for there to be capital.

[[File:Blue_Environmentalism.png]] Blue Environmentalism [[File:Blue_Environmentalism.png]]
Along with green environmentalism, I also support the idea of  blue environmentalism. I believe it is of utmost importance to protect our rivers, lakes, seas and oceans. I believe we need to have strong laws when it comes to coral reef protection and also the protection of bodies of water in general. We need laws that heavily regulate the use of plastics, petrochemicals and other things that get spilt into the ocean, take very long to de-compose and cause a great deal of harm and heavily invest in alternatives that do not harm the ocean as much and we should also invest in cleaning up the trash in the ocean that will be there and stop any new one from forming.

[[File:Ecosoc.png]] Sustainable Socialism [[File:Ecosoc.png]]
With this, I seek to establish a model of sustainable socialism, also known as red-green environmentalism. This means that I support policies of sustainability that help preserve the environment while also advocating for socialist economics and worker ownership of the means of production. With this, I obviously reject sustainable capitalism, as while it seems like a simple alternative, the nature of capitalism will inevitably result in climate change being harder and more difficult to solve while also causing harm in the long-term. I believe that through this we can achieve not just human liberation but also environmental justice.

[[File:Deepe.png]] Animal Rights [[File:Deepe.png]]
I am supportive of animal rights and all, I support things like animal welfare and tougher protection to prevent animal extinction. I do support the banning of some animal testing, although not to the same level as deep ecology. I would also want to improve the living standards that are being farmed, in accordance with animal welfare. Come on, the way they're being treated is just horrific. I want to replace animal farming for meat with synthetic meat. While I am not going vegan/vegetarian, I do support the dwindling down of subsidies that go towards the massive and harmful meat industry (McDonalds, KFC etc.) as they not only cause massive increases in obesity but they have also pumped out massive tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, making things even worse.
 * -| Race =

[[File:MLK.png]] Colorblind Society [[File:MLK.png]]
No, this isn't what you think it is, I am not here to make every person in the world see black and white or whatever, no. Anyway, I support a colorblind society in the same light that Martin Luther King Jr. advocated for, a society which judged people by the content of their character not the color of their skin. As such, I am against the idea of racialism and thus advocate for  racial equality. While  critical race theory (CRT) is said to be different from the concept of a colorblind society, it isn't that different. It affirms that race is merely a social construct. Meanwhile, the notion of a colorblind society affirms that race should not be considered a factor in society. This sounds quite different but they both sort of affirm that it is merely a social construct. So yea, I support both concepts and they can be complementary in my opinion. While yes I am typically in support of intersectionality, in the case of race I am not as it basically goes back towards white nationalist talking points but in reverse.

While initially, Black Lives Matter Movement seemed like a movement that would fight for equal racial rights, in recent years, it has been taken over by more racial nationalists from the black side. Instead of that, I now advocate for a All Lives Matter Movement in order to pave way for a  colorblind society and to stop making a race a determining factor in one's personal life and work. ALM shall be a contributor to the end of (most) prejudice when it comes to ethnicity and race, as to allow people to hold themselves as equal, the only difference being the content of their character not skin or ethnicity.

I also oppose movements like the modern day Antifa, as it eerily seems like just like a left-wing progressive "fascist" movement, as they use the same tactics as fascists when claiming they stand for free speech and whatever, thus being contradictory to their own cause. I completely oppose reactionary and totalitarian ways of thinking, so I don't oppose them on the grounds that I am a Nazi or anything. Instead, I believe that anti-fascism should go back to how it was with the Iron Front, that truly resisted, at least for a bit of time, the  Nazis and  Bolsheviks. Why? Because the group socially ostracized these movements at least for a while, until came the 1923 Hyperinflation and 1929 Great Depression. This kept these movements at bay from being the threat to democracy while still not really curtailing freedom of speech. This social ostracization also applies to the alt-right and very extreme forms of  progressivism, those that completely go towards identity politics and what not in basically everything  and the alt-right which is basically their complete, but horseshoe, opposite.

[[File:Blacknat.png]] Slavery Reparations [[File:Blacknat.png]]
I am kind of mixed when it comes to this topic, the topic of slavery reparations. Right now, it just isn't practical but we should still try to help black people re-integrate into society and reject the notion of race as a determining factor in a person's social upbringing and condition and instead it should be judged by the content of their character.

Overview
First off, I am opposed to imperialism however I also support some  intervention in cases  diplomatic means don't work. thus, I reject isolationism, because of the fact that I personally actually want to strengthen international co-operation and I seek to make international organizations have more leverage, in order to solve our problems much easier. I support scaling back the military, as a way to get world peace and instead support developing and modernizing programs in relation to  humanitarian aid and climate aid to poorer countries and I support organizations like the  United Nations and seek to further integrate it, removing the veto power of the Big 5 and giving more powers to the General Secretary, creating a democratically elected General Assembly, this is to create a  world federation. As such, I am a  peaceful internationalist and I subscribe to  universalist views, which comes from my notion of  political liberalism. I believe it is important to uphold the values of  human rights and  democracy in other countries. However, I oppose economic globalization as previously stated it has caused job outsourcing, union busting and has caused massive rises in inequality. As such, I support alter-globalism instead, with this, I respect economic sovereignty, however, I still support some  extreme forms of globalization, like  world federalism and  anationalism, as I believe schools should teach Esperanto as a global lingua franca.

I am very critical of the East and when it comes to foreign policy I mostly side with the  the West, seeing it as more redeemable and can be reformed way easier than the East, and I do acknowledge the bad things the West has done like imperialism, and it shouldn't be left called out, however, a  world federation will follow Western not Eastern values. His foreign policy would make to sure spread democracy through mostly peaceful means, like multilateral trade and maintaining good relations however  interventionism will be resorted to as a last option when its needed. As I said, I believe in  trust-busting mega corporations that basically own everything, but along with that, they also fund authoritarian regimes, so their abolishment can dwindle their funds. I also believe democratic governments should support democratic movements in authoritarian countries, like the Milk Tea Alliance,  Russian Opposition,  Hong Kong Democratic Movement and  Belarussian opposition. Also, I believe that we need to continue sending a steady flow of weapons, humanitarian/financial aid to  Ukraine, believing that if we do it means we are dedicated to defending democracy and that we will not let it fall on a whim.
 * -| Foreign Policy=

[[File:World_Federalism2.png]] World Federation [[File:World_Federalism2.png]]
An essential part of my geopolitical stances are the notions related to a world federation. Now, why do I support this? Well, the scope of our problems that we deal with (demographic crisis, housing crisis, climate crisis etc.) are just way too colossal and complicated to believe that a nation state can just do it. The actions we have done when it came to these crises have been in the form of international co-operation between countries, and they have done some progress. So, why not do more of it? Why not more internationalism? If it has done good steps towards fixing our problems? That's what I wonder.

The solution I propose to these problems is the creation of a world federation. This federation will follow more  enlightenment values, like life, liberty and progress. These are the values that my federation will be guided by. Now, what would be the government structure of this? Well, it would be a parliamentary republic. The head of this republic will be the General Secretary, and he will be elected by the General Assembly, which would be elected by the people, with the people electing the GA based on a model of  liquid democracy, with there also being referendums, citizens initiatives etc. in order to make the people have more political power and leverage. The electoral system would be of Proportional Representation (33% of vote = 33% of seats). There would also be a Earth Supreme Court along with a more upper chamber called the Senate. Thus, respecting the principles of democratic checks and balances along with bicameralism.

Now, the way I would achieve is through peaceful means, that is reforming the United Nations. I would first off get rid of the veto power that the big 5 can have so that all countries can have an equal 1 vote. And every bill will have to be passed on a majority of 1 seat in the General Assembly that will be created. Then I would begin to integrate it based on a process similar to the EU. This shall also prevent this federation from being a Western/Eastern hegemony state.

This would allow us to have greater international co-operation so that we can solve problems like climate change, demographic crisis etc. We would automatically have world peace obviously, as we wouldn't want to attack ourselves right? Well, still, there will be a global army (that will get a funding 1% of global GDP) in order to make sure there is peace and there aren't any conflicts. We can also make it easier for us to internationally solve climate change as there won't be any bickering nation states with different political ideologies, which in the end get nothing done. We need this to happen. Oh and also, when it comes to things like language, I believe in creating a global lingua franca, called Esperanto. Why do I support this? Well, it can create a more unified culture in the world and as such prevent the world federation from dealing with problems like separation movements, as sadly, most people do not have this internationalist outlook that I happen to have. It is easy to learn and so most people can be able to speak it, at least as a secondary language outside of their own native language, however, it is preferable if they speak it as a first language.

[[File:Globnat.png]] Alter-Globalization [[File:Globnat.png]]
Personally, I am not opposed to the concept of globalization as a whole and believe it has done some good things, but at the same time I believe it has also caused  neo-imperialism and also suffering for not just places which had to deal with job outsourcing but also through rising inequality and even rising poverty, yes, this is contrary to the graph capitalists like to promote where it went down by 30% (percentage points). These are harmful effects of economic globalization however and not just globalization in general. Globalization must become more pro-people. As such, trade deals are to incorporate environmental and worker rights, there will be a 15% global corporation tax to prevent things like "the race to the bottom" when it comes to corporation tax, especially after the 1980s. I believe that globalization can be re-made to serve the interests of the middle/working class. My form of globalization shall also emphasize the rights of  colonized and indigenous people in order to allow for more economic equality. I also wish to utilize the positive effects of globalization, like bringing forth environmental co-operation between countries along with  technological co-operation. These things have been a net positive and have brought forth innovations in these two fields more than ever and in my opinion without them we would probably be in a much worse state in technology and on the climate crisis.

[[File:Thar.png]] Civil Unrest Groups [[File:Thar.png]]
Personally, I back civil unrest groups in countries where  political rights are not respected. While I usually support  reform in democratic countries, in the West when it comes to authoritarian countries, I am more supportive of  revolution and other forms of  civil disobedience. With this, I come to support things like the  Belarussian Opposition and  Russian Opposition along with many other  anti-authoritarian organizations in these countries and I believe  the west should do a better job at helping them.

[[File:Universalism.png]] Intergovernmental Organizations [[File:Universalism.png]]
I don't really have a problem with the concept of intergovernmental organizations in of it themselves, as they can be actually quite helpful in international co-operation and we, as a species, can get things done easier if we do things together. However, they need to be more bottom-up and democratic and also (the people who own them) should pay taxes the same way regular citizens do. They also be accountable to people internationally, and I believe they need to be more open overall. This is relevant, as IGOs like the World Economic Forum are not really bottom-up or democratic, nor are they really that accountable nor do they (the owners) pay that much in taxes. As such, it is currently influencing governments around the world while we cannot really put them into account for their bad actions. But yea, overall, IGOs are not that bad and are mostly more positive than negative.

[[File:Techglobe.png]] Technological Globalization [[File:Techglobe.png]]
The fact that we were able to technologically globalize, aka begin working together on technologies on a global scale has been a very great thing as it has resulted in many innovations in many scientific fields. This can be used to further invest in new environmental technologies that can help solve climate change and other environmental problems, along with helping developing countries solve climate problems easier as well. Along with this, we can also make sure to diversify the stream of microchips/semiconductors from 90% of the time to Taiwan to also Europe, USA and other places, this will require massive investments in R&D to be made, and I believe they're necessary. However, there will still be some regulations, to prevent technological inequality between rich and poor, ensuring they both have equal and at the same time access to the newest and latest technologies, this is to follow alter-globalization. Examples of such globalization are for example the International Space Station and in my opinion that has been a great example of this, so why not more of it?

[[File:Ecoglob.png]] Environmental Globalization [[File:Ecoglob.png]]
I personally support climate treaties like the Paris Climate Agreement and other ones that  coordinate countries to do environmental efforts against climate change. We need to work as an united front against this catastrophic and colossal problem we know as climate change. In my opinion, if we dealt with this problem nation on their own then we would be worse, and I mean way worse off. First off, we wouldn't have the Montreal Protocol/Kigali Amendment. Without it, that would mean more CFCs/HFCs in the air, which would mean more greenhouse gas emissions and further warming, we would already see those imagined 2100 levels of warming, not then, but now. So, environmental globalization has actually done quite a lot in making sure that our actions against climate change don't amount to nothing, however, while it is now something, that something isn't enough. We should also try to repair imperialistic damage we did on developing countries, that hindered their transition towards green energy through green climate subsidies and to also allow for prosperity of their own people through   modernized humanitarian aid and to make sure that aid does not go to the hands of corrupt autocrats. We don't have time to just wait for the developing countries to develop to the same level as us as with our society of capitalism, they never will. So, the wealthy west need to decarbonize and we need to help the global poor in decarbonizing as well.

[[File:Angryposadist.png]] Nuclear Weapons [[File:Angryposadist.png]]
Look, once I am able to get my world federation through, I will make sure to put  nuclear weapons on the chopping bloc. There will be immediate nuclear disarmament, like, nuclear weapons can genuinely, ok maybe not kill us all, but literally send us back to feudal ages I guess. That's not a good thing. That's thousands of years of progress just wiped out. Nuclear plants are fine I guess but not nuclear weapons. They must be gone and any lost ones (around 100 or so) shall be found and immediately re-stabilized so that they don't you know... explode. Although, if aliens are gonna invade us or whatever, we may need to use them I guess, but we got to make sure we don't kill ourselves because of that in the process, so, we got to keep them hidden.

[[File:Pac.png]] World Peace [[File:Pac.png]]
When it comes to the issue of world peace, heck yea we need it, like, why would you refuse it? That's what does not make sense. And also, my policies of world federalism and nuclear disarmament can allow for this. Now, the question is, if this is such a good idea why isn't this a thing? Why isn't there world peace? Well, there are some threatening nations (or things) which stand as barriers in the way of peace. In my opinion, they are the following: China, Russia, the United States and corporate power. The first three are basically classics as they're the top 3 military superpowers of the world (Russia is disputed but still). But, what's with corporate power? Well, corporations, especially mega-corporations, like BlackRock, Microsoft and Apple have allowed China (+Russia) to thrive and prosper over the decades of globalization since the 90s and China's opening up the world. And still, they're currently propping up the CCP and China, with this, China can have enough economic leverage to compete with the US, as seen in the Belt and Road Initiative. I believe that right now, in order to get more democratic countries, we need a united trade plan between the United States,  European Union and other democratic countries that rivals it in order to unite democracies against the threat of autocracy and to basically get us one step closer to world peace. Not only that, these corporations have also, through the military industrial complex have entangled USA in wars. So, even in democracies their power must be reduced immediately. So yea, there are 4 barriers to world peace, and if we get over them, we may just as well be having world peace.

[[File:Strato.png]] Military [[File:Strato.png]]
I believe that it is paramount that we reduce the role of the military industrial complex over the US military as that has resulted in violations of  world peace and as such has been a more negative than positive effect. As such, I support defunding the global military budget from 2% to just 1% in order to pave the way for world peace, so instead of 2 trillion $ going towards it, only 1 trillion $ will go towards it. Like, I believe we can use that 1 trillion $ left over for you know, more useful stuff that actually help us as a society and bring forth innovation like I don't know, space exploration? This shall also be a good step in making sure that a world federation isn't just the hegemony of the East or West manifested as one country. This shall also give in room for more humanitarian means and aid, in order to help developing countries and their people, and not just their  cronies.

[[File:Libhawk.png]] The West [[File:Libhawk.png]]
Heck yea I firmly side with the West. Yes, I do admit that the west has its flaws, like for example it conducts  literal neo-imperialism in the 3rd world/developing countries, yes I understand that. But the west at the same time has heavily reduced deaths that come from wars and the dominance of the military industrial complex over their decisions cannot be ignored. So yea, we need to change the west's foreign policy and that means getting rid of corporate power, possibly the biggest threat to world peace that currently exists right now. My political values also happen to align more with the West than the East. I also heavily support  Ukraine over Russia as while they're both oligarchies that are anti-worker union Ukraine at least is democratic, unlike the autocratic Russia and is also the defender in the war. Western hegemony has proven itself to be better than Eastern hegemony as the latter has proven to have a history where wars are much more deadlier, compared to the former where because of it wars are the least deadly in history (oh well, the Ukraine War is sort of exceptional, but it was done by an Eastern power!)

[[File:Internat.png]] Humanitarian Aid [[File:Internat.png]]
Personally, I view humanitarian aid with a double-edged sword. While yes, I certainly admit that it has helped many people come out of poverty and has prevented deaths, there's also the problem, especially in Africa, of humanitarian aid money being funneled right into the personal wealth of dictators, without them helping their own people, thus essentially doing nothing. However, I believe we need to modernize distribution technologies to make sure that the aid does not go to the dictators and instead goes to the people themselves. I also believe that humanitarian aid should be scaled up and I believe that developed countries  have an obligation to fulfill to help their less developed partners to economically prosper and to also make it more likely for democracy to flourish there, as a more educated and prosperous population typically means more democracy (yes, China/Russia is an exception but that's because Western companies basically ignored that China wasn't democratizing and just kept allowing it to grow.)  humanitarian aid can be a positive tool that we must enhance and scale up so that we can equalize the 3rd world and the 1st world. Along with humanitarian aid, I also support giving developing countries [[File:Ecocent.png] climate aid, this is to help them decarbonize along with us the West and to make it easier for the world to solve climate change, as we are all in this together, and to finally pave way for a [[File:Ecosoc.png]] sustainable socialist society.

[[File:Euras.png]] The East [[File:Euras.png]]
The East is very terrible in my opinion, keep in mind, this includes countries like  Russia and  China, or at least, the 2 most powerful countries that come from this bloc. Now, what characterizes this bloc? It characterizes the values opposite to those of the West, with them being more autocratic, totalitarian and more nationalist. Now, why do I oppose them? First off, like the West they also promote  neo-imperialism, as in the case of China, they have done the debt-trapping  Belt and Road Initiative meanwhile Russia has done the infamous  Russian Invasion of Ukraine (they still call it special military operation btw, which is wrong but still). Along with that, as I said, they're promoting their autocracies, with their sort of style gaining traction even in the West, under the form of right-wing populists. These guys seek to isolate the West, which will only help them become the new world hegemons and make them build the new world order, which probably will be a very terrible one, if you think the Western one isn't good either. In this, I tend to take a lesser evil vs evil, with the West being the former and the East being the latter. (So, the East is evil and the West is a lesser evil.) To be fair, that's basically what it was in basically all of history, it was lesser evils vs evils, almost never have we had good vs evil.
 * -| Organizations =

[[File:Cball-UN.png]] United Nations [[File:Cball-UN.png]]
I believe that the United Nations today isn't all that powerful and has stopped doing many things, why? It's because of the flawed de-integrated model. The Big 5 basically have all the power to veto something they don't like, even if basically anyone else supports it. This has allowed essential things like making food a right to not get passed or to lift the American embargo on Cuba. It has also made UN Peacekeeping operations much harder and much more limited in scope to happen, and this has turned out to be a negative thing, as things like the Rwandan Genocide (which was ignored) and also South Sudan Genocide, Rohingya Genocide and many other human rights violations are going ignored, with the UN not stepping in when it should. This is because of its unfair political model.

As such, I believe that the United Nations should be more democratic, removing the powers of the Big 5 members (China, Russia, USA, Britain and France). I would seek to replace the model of nations voting on legislation with instead there being a General Assembly, with it representing all of the UN members and political blocs, people will be allowed to vote in UN elections every 6 years, like in the European Union, however, they will vote on the parties directly and not indirectly through their own national parties. This can allow there to be more United Nations peacekeeping, in order to allow for more internationally fair elections and also maintaining peace and order across the entire world. I also advocate for a United Nations military, that is more like regular militaries, however, its role would be peacekeeping, being almost no different from them, other than being more legitimate and making the UN have more power in respecting  human rights.

Through a more integrated UN, we can actually set out to do the targets that it itself has proposed by 2030, also known as the sustainable development goals: No Poverty, Zero Hunger, Good health and well being, quality education, gender equality, clean water and sanitation, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth etc. Through more  internationalism, we can come together and actually work towards these goals and even if they still don't happen, we will most likely be more successful than we would be today.

Finally, we need to end the corporate influence that corporations have on the United Nations, an example being the  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donating more to the UN than the US government itself. As such, I seek to ban corporate lobbying to the United Nations, only allowing individual charity of sorts, that come from regular people and not wealthy people, with that being the only source of donations outside of national governments. I also believe national governments should donate more to the United Nations in order to make international causes more successful.

[[File:WEF-Icon.png]] World Economic Forum [[File:WEF-Icon.png]]
I hate the World Economic Forum (repeated infinitely). First off, it is basically a group of wealthy billionaires/millionaires and world leaders, like, it needs to be more open. Also, it is not really democratic, as Klaus Schwab has chaired it for basically its entirely existence, with there being no term limits and no chance for somebody new to chair the organization. I believe the organization needs to open itself up to not just wealthy people but also economists from all sides of the political spectrum and to also follow a more democratic, bottom-up structure. This is to make sure the organization does not seem outdated. My goal is to make the WEF a general forum on the economic future of the world, not just the ideas and opinions of the ultra-wealthy and some world leaders.

Personally, I do not hate Intergovernmental organizations, like, they can sometimes be pretty good tools for political change, however, I do not like organizations that are not open to a wider group of people and blatantly reject the classic bottom-up structure that allows for democracy. The World Economic Forum being a clear example of such organization. Oh and, Schwab, I won't eat the bugs. Thank you.

The World Economic Forum is also heading us down to the path to a  rent economy, and I, a  georgist, is very obviously against that as a I advocate instead for  public land ownership and tenant unions.

[[File:Univhealth.png]] World Health Organization [[File:Univhealth.png]]
The World Health Organization basically has the same problem as the United Nations does today, that being the massive corporate influence that it has, yet again, from  Bill Gates. I believe that national governments and individual charities should be the bulk of money that is given to the  WHO.

A main point that I would like to add for the WHO is the idea of a healthcare moonshot, that being dedicating 240 billion $ in order to eradicate, create vaccines for, create cures for and to know more about many diseases out there. Funds for eradication will go towards eradicating diseases like Polio, guinea worm, measles, COVID-19, Ebola etc., funds for curing diseases/creating vaccines will go towards Cancer, HIV, Alzheimer's and this healthcare moonshot will also seek to know more about genetic diseases like Autism, ADHD and Down's Syndrome. This will allow us to have an international scope of co-operation that we have never seen before on healthcare and can make us prepared for the next epidemic/pandemic that is to come. It shall also gather more data on the consequences of polar ice cap melting/climate change on the creation of new diseases.

I also believe that the chair of the organization should have a 2 term limit and should be elected democratically by the United Nations General Assembly (which by the way would have 784 members, to represent all nations, also the United Nations would be the largest democracy, housing approx. 8 billion people.) My goal is to give these international organizations actual purpose and to help us  innovate.

[[File:Cball-NATO.png]] North Atlantic Treaty Organization [[File:Cball-NATO.png]]
I hold a favorable of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as while I believe it should carry out a mostly defensive basis, it can in some minor and last-option cases can engage in offensive bases, this is to uphold  democracy and  human rights. This applies to places like Kosovo and Afghanistan (or at least, the initial response and the assassination of Bin Laden, in rest it was terrible and inefficient.) Although, I understand that this alliance needs to be reformed so that it isn't as  imperialistic and stops upholding  capitalism. As such, I seek to make NATO a sort of organization to assert principles of a  liberal socialist democracy and as such make socialism the international world order.

Oh and, NATO has proven itself to be a useful way to defend European nations against the growing threat of Russia. Which is why, immediately after the war in Ukraine began, Sweden and Finland wanted to join NATO. In my opinion, I think Russia would have invaded/planned to invade more countries in Eastern Europe and in general would have a stronger hand when it comes to Eastern Europe, its politics and its economics.

Overview

 * -| Metaphysics =

[[File:Non-Essence.png]] Metaphysical Nominalism [[File:Non-Essence.png]]
Personally, when it comes to the matter of universals and particulars, I come to reject realism, as proposed by both Plato and Aristotle. With this, I come to support nominalism, the idea that universals just don't have any corresponding reality, they're merely names. Particular objects are the objects that have a corresponding reality and in my opinion, numbers, properties and sets are merely features of the way things exist. It is Ockham who affirms that immaterial objects like God and Angels exist, however, I reject that, instead I believe that everything is energy and its randomized, manifestations following the ideas of  Erwin Schrodinger and of quantum mechanics. As such, I come to be more of an empiricist, as I believe that knowledge only really comes from our own experience, through our own will. As quantum mechanics says, particles (or particulars) are just appearances, or just shapes and variations in the structure of space, that act completely independently and random. As such, this brings us to:

[[File:Anin.png]] Metaphysical Libertarianism [[File:Anin.png]]
I believe that free will as an idea has been and can be proven to be correct, and as such, we as humans and the universe itself is an universe of free will. I believe that everything is random, made through our own free will and any signs of determinism in actions is merely because of the fact that there is so much matter and energy acting completely at random that somethings just coincidentally feel determined. The 3 main arguments that I use to justify my support for free will is the argument that, regardless of how much we try, we cannot know how three colliding bodies may react, regardless of how many simulations we do. And also, the mind is just matter and energy in my opinion that acts completely random, thus we do have free will over our actions. Everything do is a product of the mind. Another argument of our own free will is that it takes a bit of time before our conscious decision is shown into the body, proving that we control our actions, if it is determined, then it would have been immediately shown, however, this didn't happen, as said by Libet experiments (which while they were meant to prove determinism in my opinion they may have proven free will.)

[[File:Sartre.png]] Existentialism [[File:Sartre.png]]
Personally, when it comes to the question of the meaning of life, I believe that in the end it is all relative. What does it mean for it to be relative? It means for it for there to not be an universal meaning that comes from it, but rather, it is up to us, the individual, to try and find meaning to our own lives. We have free will, there is nothing limiting us from trying to find meaning. There cannot be anything that bounds us to have an essence, we do not have an essence. Essence is merely created through existence, through this statement, we come to Jean-Paul Sartre's quote: "Existence precedes essence." This is contrary to the Ancient Greek idea mentioned by Aristotle/Plato, that essence precedes existence. We can conclude that there is no concrete and uniform meaning of life, and that has to do with our own free will. With this, I follow Existentialism. Through this relativity in the meaning of life, it can be a way to find free will within the universe but most especially ourselves.

[[File:Absurd.png]] Sisyphean Absurdism [[File:Absurd.png]]
In my opinion, I think life is absurd. There is no actual meaning to it, our existence is also very unlikely, basically a fluke. But, arriving at this conclusion may be easy, accepting the notion that it is true is something that most just can't comprehend. As such, Albert Camus created 3 possible choices for people to have: First off,  Suicide (the easy way out, and according to Camus, the bigger absurdity, as giving up on the absurd is even more absurd than the absurd.) Second off, Leap of Faith - aka trying to find meaning in life through things like God or other things. And the third one is embracing the absurd. This involves being completely fine with the absurd cycle of life, doing the same thing over and over again, as Sisyphus eventually adapted to pushing a rock up a hill, forever and ever, without ever succeeding. This is how you become free, embracing the absurd allows you to. While the notion of an absurd life may seem determinist, the fact that you can embrace it and thus resist it also shows that we can have free will, even in an absurd world.
 * -| Epistemology =
 * -| Ethics =

[[File:Existentialist_Anarchism.png]] Moral Relativism [[File:Existentialist_Anarchism.png]]
I believe that morals overall are relative, and are merely dependent on the societal conditions you grew up in, this is not to say I reject free will, it is in fact not contradictory to free will, as a person can himself adapt, with his own will to the society he grew up in. As such, it is natural to believe that morals are indeed relative, as they're based on socio-economic conditions. With this, I come to believe in moral relativism as my main moral code: "I must accept different moral values, as not all societies are the same." Although, this creates a blurred line between what morals are good and what morals are bad, and that can cause chaos and confusion. A  world federation in my opinion is a useful tool in order to fix the blurred line that morals inherently create and thus my belief in moral relativism creates.

Ideological Critiques

 * -|Pre-Enlightenment=


 * -|Leftist=


 * -|Rightist=

=Relations=
 * -| Self-Inserts=

Friends
Yoda8soup Thought (//) - You're not that bad! You want worker ownership of the means of production like I do. To be honest, economically we are basically alike. Although, your control on free trade basically goes too far, I hate tariffs. Based! (//) - Yo! You become a world federalist, now that's based! We are pretty much in agreement on economic issues, although you may some stances I am in disagreement with, you are actually more based than before.

Mattism (//) - Not a bad ideology, we are pretty similar, the only difference we have is that you're too protectionist for me and are also in favor of defensive democracy, you are also more economically moderate but other than that, you are a good ideology.

Celfloskyism (//) - Pretty nice ideology, and it clearly seems you want not just equality but also freedom for the Chinese people, although I don't really like the ideas of Irredentism, your cycle democracy is not really something I like. You support virtue ethics and existentialism, although I am not that utilitarian though. Otherwise, pretty good!

AshleyHereism (//) - Yo, this is actually based for an anarchist, existentialism and absurdism are very based! Oscar Wilde is also based! I don't agree with Diogenes, but he was savage and independent, and I like that. It's nice how you support some Stoicism. Overall, you're mostly an anarchist version of me, which is pretty interesting.

Uzarashvilism (//) - Economics wise, you are pretty similar to me, as we both believe in a socialist market economy, and the fact that we both believe that the Nordics are just (for now) the countries with the best economic model (or rather, least evil) in the world. Not bad, however, our difference comes in social and international issues, first off, you are too conservative, you can at least be more progressive by supporting SJW-Lite. Also on international issues, you can still be a globalist and oppose "economic globalization" (like me). So yea, too isolationist. But yea, pretty good overall.

Glencoeism (//) - Wow, you are pretty based! I agree with you on PWA, we both stride for a sort of Co-operative, meritocratic society, if only you were more global... BE MORE GLOBAL!

Inexistent Ideology (//) - Not bad, just be less nationalist, more progressive and also more pro-market. Oh and more democratic. In rest pretty good.

Rocksism (//) - Not bad, and yes, Camus is based. You may be too communalist and marxist for my liking, but overall, pretty good!

BrainRustism (//) - Some of your stances on education are pretty admirable, yes, you should be able to sell candy at school, it improves competition and prevents a school monopoly engaging in unfair price gouging. You're actually not that bad, even if I disagree with you on some things.

Neo-Kiraism (//) - Your philosophy of absurdism is based, you're agreeable in some areas like eco-socialism,  but I am not that Marxist overall, preferring mutualist socialism instead. Internationalism is based, but come on, you got to support a world federation. Overall, not too bad.

Pantheonism (//) - Pretty interesting ideology and not that bad at all, pretty based when it comes to diplomacy, but still, why monarchism and why can't you be more progressive?

Atronism (//) - Marxist-leninist, I know, you seem to be slightly authoritarian and not libertarian, but hey at least you're progressive (even if way too progressive) are Laicist, like me. Which is absolutely based. A more leftist and slightly more authoritarian version of me. Not bad.

Braun Spencer Thought (//) - You are basically reincarnated LBJ, your economic policies are not that bad but you should be Socialist and while you support a world federation I despise your support of tariffs and also your support of interventionism. Interventionism should typically be the last call not the first call. Pretty close onto being in frenemies.

Frenemies
Post-Councilism (//) - I hate vanguard centralism, and I am just generally not really into Communism in general, nor do I agree with Zizek, although you're quite literate in political/philosophical theory, which I admire. I wish to have said more but sadly I am not that literate in the beliefs you have so...

HelloThere314ism (//) - Your beliefs are not really beliefs that I tend to agree with, and also, on some parts, your page is unfinished so I don't really know how to rate you, but it is clear you know theory, so that's nice.

Ultroneism (//) - You are the most literate user on here on basically anything, now that's something, however, my opinions on your ideolo- I mean philosophy. In rest, my ideology disagrees with your ideologies on many things or I am just too illiterate on some things to give a proper opinion. BasedManism (//) - I am just gonna beyond the ideas of based and cringe and just put you in frenemies tier definitely not because of the fact I am too lazy to read your page right now although I don't know, your page doesn't seem to mention ethics for example, only seems like it mentions metaphysics and logic. So, I can't completely judge your philosophical beliefs, so yea, you go here. Also come on at least I have some influence from Kant in epistemology

FinalFantasy24ism (//) - Your ideology is literally just Hu Jintao as a self-insert. No really, that's what it is. So you belong here.

Quarkism (//) - Your page is obviously not finished, but so far, Georgism, meritocracy, metamodernism and such are not terrible, they're pretty good, I do not know about Neo-Faustianism and while space colonization is good you're way too progressive (also stop loving Klaus Schwab) Yes, religion sucks and NATO is based but come on man really Social Darwinism and Eugenics? My opinions on your ideology are pretty mixed overall.

Enemies
Implianium (//) - Its nice how you hate religion, but bruh why state atheism? And come on, why do you support genocide, ultranationalism and anti-urbanism!?! And god dang it you want psychopaths to be their own class, what is this? I really hope this is LARP.

New Model Of Cheesenism (//) - Unironic islamo-fascist. You are no good.

Lanceism (//) - Eh, the only tolerable thing of you is your move to more moderate economics, but your forced christianization and support of theocracy is very cringe. Also stop being so traditionalist like, why oppose gays and abortion? Oh and why the hell do you want cigarettes to be legal, which cause 480,000 deaths/year, x48 more than heroin and crack which literally kills nobody, illegal? Your ideology is still terrible, even if slightly improved.

Reginald thought (idk) - What? Climate change will only be eventful in 500 years? Bro, what? It's already eventful and is changing stuff NOW. Let alone 500 years from now. I don't reject soup kitchens and charity, but it isn't useful to just almost replace government welfare with it. Also why illegalize drugs and trans people? This is cringe.

Southern Integralism (//) - Why are you so religious man? Your economics are decent I guess but the rest of your ideology is something I do not like. Also, why must you be so pro-life? Why are you so authoritarian? Yea, I do not like your ideology.


 * -| Quadrants

Friends
Libertarian Left - This is probably the best quadrant out there and the one my ideology belongs to as you know, I am economically left-wing but also civically libertarian. Tbh, it better than the other quadrants even if it has some people that I may not personally like.

Libertarian Unity - You're not perfect, as you just are moderate and all but hey at least you want the people to be free and aren't as bad as Libertarian Right.

Frenemies
Libertarian Right - Your economics are awful and most of the things about you are also awful, but uh... you at least want people to be free?

Center - Stop being so moderate! PROGRESS! PROGRESS!

Left Unity - It's nice that you advocate for left-wing economics but can you pls be less statist?

Enemies
Authoritarian Left - Oh come on, examples of you in practice have never turned out to be good (the Soviet Union, Maoist China etc.) they all became authoritarian states that didn't really manage to achieve Socialism.

Authoritarian Right - You not only are authoritarian (and even totalitarian) you also combine it with the exploitative capitalist system, bruh.

Authoritarian Unity - You combine the worst of both Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Unity. (Although, not all of you guys are completely terrible, still be less statist).

Test results
Closest match : Democratic Socialism

Closest match : INTJ

Closest match : Libertarian Socialism

Closest match : Liberal Socialism

Closest match : Left-Libertarianism

Announcement

 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I need an ideology image (you know, like this: [[File:OwfBall.png]]) but one which actually encompasses my ideological beliefs. The ideologies that would be part of it are to be Geolibertarianism and Libertarian Market Socialism. (Can include 2 other ideologies in the combination, of your personal preference, must be ideologies Owf adheres to)
 * - [[File:Owff.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Thank you!

Comment
Owfism - Deleted old comments

Rocksism - Add please (also is that the Limberwisk flag?).

Owfism - Yes it is, I thought it was cool since I couldn't think of another thing other than that (and I will add you soon, kinda busy rn)
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - It is cool (if it existed I'd move there too).

Implianium - Add me

- Add me? :)

- Hi, I re-added you. Would you mind adding my ideology again?

- Readd me please.

- Btw, the geolibertarian market socialism page was my very old self insert, idc about it anymore so you can revamp it if you want, kinda like what Aaron did with Bleeding Heart Geolibertarian Market Socialism.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Wow, I actually didn't know that, I just saw the page and just saw how accurate it was to my ideology, so I just adopted that. Yea, I could maybe revamp it.
 * - Also, could you please add me?


 * - Add me?


 * - Add Please.


 * [[File:BasedMan.png]]BasedManism - add me?


 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]]Uzarashvilism - Yo there, add me?


 * - Re-add me fellow Wilde enjoyer.


 * - Monism isn't the principle that mind and body are united in each "individual" human. It is the principle that all of reality is one thing, that there is no body or mind but rather these are modes or aspects of the one thing, as such you and I and every other human are actually one "object" or thing and thus we do not have bodies, but rather each seemingly individual body is actually just a "limb" or part of the whole.


 * - Could I use text of your ideology to my policies?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes you very much can.


 * - "Let's first begin with the definitions of both ideas, first off, rationalism is the practice of basing actions and opinions on reason and knowledge. Then, empiricism is the opposite, with it being the practice of basing actions and opinions on belief or emotional response." WHAT? - Rationalism is the principle that knowledge derives from reasoning, as such logical reasoning. While Empiricism is the epistemological belief that sensory experience such as scientific observation is the source of knowledge - it has nothing to do with belief, emotion, or opinions. What utter dribble, as if Descartes didn't also utilise empirical arguments and Locke didn't use rationalist principles.

- Yo! You're a cybersocialist now too that's based as hell! :D
 * - Gorbachev is based [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Indeed [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - add me lol

- Add me plz

Glencoe- add me Plz


 * - This is definitely me when I confuse conceptualism and nominalism.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I never heard of that term before, I had heard of nominalism and I thought that would fit, I will change that.
 * - "The main problem of metaphysics, which precedes the essence of objects is the problem of universals and particulars." - Essences are univerals so it doesn't precede, but is simultaneous - and if one was taking a purely historical look at the evolution of the problem, essence actually precedes.  "There is a view however, that asserts that universals don't exist, that being conceptualism" - Neither Conceptualism nor Nominalism assert that universals do not exist. let me go over the quadrants; Platonic or Strong Realism holds that universals are mind independent and transcendent, that is they are abstract and exist as neither material or immaterial objects. Then you have Aristotelian or Immanent realism that holds that the "form" or essence or universal of lets say a cat does not exist in and of itself, but is rather immanent and never seperate from the particular. Then you have a range of Nominalisms which can include conceptual nominalism or conceptualism. Conceptualism holds that the concepts within the mind are univerals, i.e. I imagine a cat as a universal cat that is neither a tabby or a simese or black or tall or etc. While the nominalist holds that the only universal is the actual word cat, and thus the imagined cat is always a particular cat that you have experienced or can mitch-match together.  "And even if there was a form, what would the perfect form of "cat" be?" Plato's 'Forms' may be perfect (even this is not strictly true, because Plato's Forms are just the absolute form i.e. a cat and nothing else, or the "Good" and nothing else, unlike say a small cat which is both a cat and small) - but universals are just shared properties that all the particulars have, i.e. a tall cat and a small cat are both cats, doesn't make "cat" perfect.  "In conclusion, I believe that the only thing that actually exists are merely material particulars" Nominalism nor Conceptualism leads to materialism, All nominalists historically have been empiricists, but not materialists. As such Ockham believes in immaterial objects such as God and the Angels, Berkeley was a subject Idealist, but someone like Hobbes thought everything was matter.

FinalFantasy24-Please Add me:https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/UserWiki:FinalFantasy24 BrainRustism - Add?
 * - Am I missing something? Where Neokira supports Juche?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - When I added Neokira, it said on their page that they are sympathetic to Juche, maybe they have removed that or something, I should probably look. Edit: Yea, they removed that, I will adjust that in my relations soon

- Do you have discord? BrainRustism - What is it that you disagree?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Sorry I don't.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I don't really agree with an armed insurrection against the school system, and also its not school that is causing us to fail its the un-meritocratic system that we live in, which sadly, school doesn't mention us. The problem with school can be solved through reforms not armed insurrection.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- Hydrogen Powered planes are green they should be used
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yea I kagree, I know, I said the thing I said because well even those are not that common compared to regular planes.

Pantheonism - Add me?

New Model Of Cheesenism - re added me

Atronism - Seems like you've shifted a little bit more to the left, which is based. Add me?

- I arrive with a question. Is your flag supposed to be a reference to this?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes

Braun Spencer Thought - Add me, maybe?

Lancebarnett - Trash economics and social ideas
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - My views are not perfect, neither are yours, we are equal.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]]O'Langism - Nice response.

Lancebarnett - add me

reginald thought - add me pls

- Ayo can you re-add me I re-added you and you are based as ever. :)


 * - Completely wrong about the egoist on the social contract. Please don't spread misinformation.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - What is the egoist stance on the social contract then?
 * - The state of nature has never existed and is merely a thought experiment, you are immediately born in a social relation of power, the family or community, you don't spring out of thr ground but rather have a mother. Secondly, Stirner is not a philosopher of "Negative Liberty", his critique of freedom and liberty is that it can only ever be negative, "freedom from". He doesn't want a state of nature, not absolute negative liberty. And his critique of human rights is not that they are constructed, but rather they are "human" rights and no his rights. They are alienating.

Lanceism - can you edit me for changing views

- Hey Owf, I became a world federalist. Could you update your opinion on my ideology, please?

- Hi, your ideology is annoyingly bad in ways i don't feel like describing right now, if you add me to your relations, i can detail them in mine.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I added you

Southern Integralism - Add me